Thanks for changing the rules, Harry

It looks like Senate majority leader Harry Reid brought a bazooka to a slap fight because the minority Republicans want to hold unpleasant votes on Obama's job bill.  From the Hill: "Reid's nuclear option changes rules, ends repeat filibusters"

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Well, it sucks to be the minority party:

Though it's been the standing practice of the Senate to allow such motions by the minority, tonight Reid broke with precedent and ruled McConnell's motion out of order, and was ultimately backed up by Democrats.
So, the end result is that by a simple majority vote, Reid was able to effectively rewrite Senate rules making it even harder than it already is for the minority party to force votes on any amendments. Should Republicans retake the Senate next year, it's something that could come back to haunt Democrats in a major way.

"Should" the GOP retake the Senate?  Ha-ha!  Remember Dems: no complaining in 2013.

Extra - Legal Insurrection: "Mark this day in the annals of Senate nuclear warfare."

That's not suspicious at all - Fox News: "Energy department official in charge of Solyndra loan program to step down."

Math is hard, Harry Reid version - Powerline crunches the numbers and finds that the Senate Democrats' new millionaires surtax will carve a whopping 3% off the annual deficit.

Steve Jobs passes at 56 - Geez, that's young.  If you want to catch a great documentary about the early days of Apple, check out the PBS show "Triumph of the Nerds."

Occupy Wall Street hates money in politics

Here's an excerpt of an interview on NPR with a member from the Boston branch of Occupy Wall Street explaining why he's protesting:

BLOCK: And Jason, give me some examples, if you could, of the ways that the economic imbalance that you're talking about, you think are dangerous to the country or undermining the country in some way.
POTTEGER: Well, I think a great example is the fact that, you know, a corporation doesn't really even have to give either candidate any money to start undermining the process these days. What's to stop a lobbyist from going up to a congressman or a senator and saying, if you don't vote the way we want you to, we're going to spend $10 million in your district running ads against you.

The Washington Post gives the same line in "What Occupy DC wants: Less corporate money in politics."  But here's the thing: I'm going to guess that these protesters have no problem with unions or left-leaning political interests spending as much as they please on political campaigns.  And which groups are pushing the boundaries of free speech in political campaigns?  Here's Open Secrets' list of "Heavy Hitters" which they characterize as: "In boxing, big punchers seek knockouts. In government, the same principle applies: The wealthiest corporations and special interest groups usually pepper politicians with overwhelming amounts of money in hope of influencing the political process."

Here are your Top 10 "Heavy Hitters":

Top 10 Heavy Hitters:

ActBlue $55,093,735
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $45,820,853
AT&T Inc $41,660,404
National Assn of Realtors $40,020,510
Service Employees International Union $37,151,289
National Education Assn $36,433,925
American Assn for Justice $34,328,421
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $33,824,355
Laborers Union $31,640,067
American Federation of Teachers $31,342,403

I'd be willing to give up AT&T and those people in the funny jackets for all the rest, except I believe in the First Amendment.

"Spinal Tap" reference alert! - From yesterday's Best of the Web: "Obama has lost Middle America. He just thinks his appeal is becoming more selective."

And don't even ask about Vallejo

Michael Lewis has a great article in Vanity Fair about the slow-motion meltdown in the Golden State: "California and Bust" (h/t Ace):

The relationship between the people and their money in California is such that you can pluck almost any city at random and enter a crisis. San Jose has the highest per capita income of any city in the United States, after New York. It has the highest credit rating of any city in California with a population over 250,000. It is one of the few cities in America with a triple-A rating from Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, but only because its bondholders have the power to compel the city to levy a tax on property owners to pay off the bonds. The city itself is not all that far from being bankrupt.

Lewis bikes around town with ex-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and gives a somewhat sympathetic account of his tenure.  Californians supported Arnold when he said he was going to get the state's finances under control but then turned down every one of his initiatives.

Man, you Americans are lazy - Byron York: "Soft America: what Obama really meant."  "Shape up and get to work.  For me."

In related laziness news: "Just a reminder: Obama's jobs bill still has no co-sponsors."

Napoleon Dynamite - I'm in Long Island this weekend and last night I saw Elvis Costello and his gigantic spinning wheel.  It's a fun concept where audience members spin a wheel of songs and then the band complies. Oooh....the wheel missed "New Lace Sleeves" by one slot - that would have been great.  Good show.

Goalie goal

It's a rarity, and here's Flyers goalie Ron Hextall putting the puck in the other net:

That super-important jobs bill we should have passed already

I recently noted that it was strange that Obama didn't even consult with Congressional Democrats before he took to his perpetual road show of demanding Congress pass his jobs bill.  In every speech, he whines: "What are they waiting for?"  Well, it looks like the Democrats aren't so ready to fall on their sword for this turkey.  Ace of Spades "Dick Durbin: We don't have the votes to pass this phony jobs bill"

This is the thing that confuses me about bull--- legislative proposals that have no meaning except to act like you're doing something because you're tanking in the polls: Don't you need your party, who still hold a majority in the Senate, to kinda act like they'll go along with this? Wouldn't that be kind of a big deal? I mean, to look serious and all.

That's Obama for you: he can't even fake sincerity well.

Extra - Commentary: "The Obama Meltdown"

Besmirching the name of Beacon Hill politicians?  Outrageous slander!

Here in Massachusetts, they're trying to pass legislation to allow that last resort of revenue generators: casinos.  But, perhaps taking a cue from the statehouse corruption in Pennsylvania, one representative tried to pass an amendment to the casino bill stating that former Massachusetts politicians couldn't benefit until a fixed period after leaving office.  This prompted howls of indignity on Beacon Hill:

Sen. James Eldridge, the original amendment's main sponsor, said it was important to make it absolutely clear that lawmakers voting to license casinos in Massachusetts were working in the best interest of the state, not their own pockets.
"It should not be an economic development bill for lawmakers," said Eldridge, D-Acton, adding that "we need to keep some space between lawmakers" and casinos.
Eldridge's comments outraged casino supporters in the Senate who accused him of stoking the public's perception of corruption at the Statehouse.
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, a casino supporter, said that to suggest that the only way for the Senate to maintain the public's trust is to block former senators from finding work fuels the perception that there's already a lack of integrity in the chamber.
"We are contributing to the cynicism," said Rosenberg, D-Amherst.

Golly, I can't imagine why anybody here in the Bay State would suspect our fine representatives of anything but working in the public's best interest.  Oh, yeah, well there was this recent unpleasantness:

Chief US District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf said today in federal court in Boston that he hoped his sentence of eight years in prison for former House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi will send a strong message to Beacon Hill that corruption will not be tolerated.
In comments that focused mostly on DiMasi -- and not DiMasi’s co-defendant Richard McDonough -- Wolf said the former speaker was not the first political figure in Massachusetts to tarnish the American dream by acting in a corrupt manner once he gained political power.
Wolf noted from the bench that DiMasi was the third successive speaker of the Massachusetts House to face federal prosecution for breaking the law.

Yeah, but this time will be different.

Aaron Sorkin is right

I always liked "A Few Good Men" too, but here's one episode of "The West Wing" with a familiar pre-2008 theme:



Key quotes: "Every time your boss got on the stump and said "It's time for the rich to pay their fair share" I hid under a couch and changed my name" and "The top 1% of wage earners in this country pay for 22% of this country.  Let's not call them names while they're doing it."

Defining a "fair share"

White House representative David Plouffe was on Fox News Sunday today and host Chris Wallace tried to pin down what level of taxation on the rich the Obama Administration would consider "fair":

I also want to get back to this issue of fair share, which you keep talking about. Put it up on the screen. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, the 1 percent of households with the highest incomes pay 38 percent of federal income taxes. The top 10 percent pay 70 percent of federal income taxes. Meanwhile, 46 percent of households pay no federal income tax at all.
And the president thinks that the wealthy aren't paying the fair share?

Plouffe dodged the question and focused on some 22,000 millionaires who pay a lower marginal rate because (I assume) they earn income from capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate or because they earn interest income on government bonds which are not taxed at all.  Of course tax laws are structured this way to encourage investment and provide an influx of funds to state and local governments.  But the capital gains tax, in particular, offends Obama's fetish for "fairness" where he'd rather have the government lose revenue than allow the "rich" to keep their investment income.

Over at National Review, Andrew McCarthy notes that the White House won't put a number an what's a fair share because it would suggest that the awful rich have a right to any of it (h/t Cold Fury):

In this instance, they are deathly afraid of that number. The “fair share” can never be quantified - not in theory, not in practice. Conceptually, it is a non sequitur, because it gets the Left’s premise exactly backwards. To peg the rich man’s “fair share” at anything greater than zero would be to admit that the wealth is his in the first place. Having intensely focus-grouped the matter, the strategists are quite sure you’re not ready to be told that all wealth belongs to the state, and that since it is theirs, not yours, “fair share” is whatever they decide under the exigencies of the moment.

And, brother, we got over 14 trillion in exigencies at the moment.  I've noted before that if Obama could be honest about shared sacrifice, he'd make the case for raising the income rate equally - say 2% - across all income groups.  The rich would pay the lion share in total taxes and the bottom 46% would have at least some stake in funding the government.  But Obama isn't really interested in "shared sacrifice" and "fair" taxation since everybody knows that his plans are just campaign markers.

Is anybody really fooled by Obama's transparent political machinations?  Even Plouffe seemed embarrassed to parrot them.

Morgan Freeman is disappointed in you, America - The Hill: "Poll finds Obama approval at historic low."

Maybe it's just me but whining about the previous President for two years followed up with whining about the Republicans in Congress for two more years doesn't paint a flattering picture of Obama's capability for leadership.  Such as it is.

Shutting down the government on a rounding error - Putting the politics aside, I can't believe that Congress is threatening a shutdown because some oppose to diverting $200 million from Solyndra-style green-loans program to pay for disaster relief.

The federal government is borrowing $4 billion every day.  The amount they're arguing over is a shade over what we borrow from China every hour.  If Washington can't shave off an hour of spending from a program that has shown to be a colossal waste, we're really doomed.

Why the U.S. of A got downgraded

Neat analysis via the Corner:

Why S&P Downgraded the US:
U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent [April] budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Budget cuts: $385

Of course, if we're making the household budget comparison then traditionally it's been reasonable to look at the national debt vs. GDP, or the household credit card balance vs. yearly income.  The CBO estimates that the total debt will reach 100% GDP in 2021 and could reach 190% GDP by 2035.  When you owe as much as you're making in one year it's time for the repo men, who are not going to be impressed by your recent pledge to slow spending by $385.

Pitching Stimulus Jr. - If you loved all the new jobs of Stimulus I, you'll love the latest Obama plan.  He's sworn to take his case to all corners of the country which - coincidentally, of course - start in every swing state.  Today he was in Ohio.  Hot Air: "Obama pitches jobs bill in front of bridge that won't benefit from jobs bill."

I saw R.E.M. in 1987 at Radio City Music Hall.  10,000 Maniacs opened for them.

That was a great show, supporting their last IRS label album "Document."  Anyway, they're calling it quits.  Rolling Stone: "R.E.M. breaks up after three decades."

Ponzi schemes everywhere! - The Justice Department says that Full Tilt Poker engaged in a classic scam while Paul Ryan says he agrees that Social Security provides a lower rate of return for later suckers recipients.