Bruce Bartlett thinks so. He is against the Simpson-Bowles plan:
[T]heir preoccupation with reducing statutory tax rates without regard to the overall impact on effective rates has caused them to endorse a tax reform that would on balance substantially raise the tax rate on capital, reduce saving and investment, and hence economic growth
Underwater wonders at the world's largest aquarium:
the world's largest aquarium // ATL.GA from stillmotion on Vimeo.
Adam Serwer tries to comprehend the GOP's strategy on DADT:
[B]y blocking repeal and allowing a judge to declare the policy unconstitutional, Republicans could sidestep the argument over an unpopular policy by turning it into one about unelected judges imposing their will on the electorate.
That strategy may seem cynical, but it ultimately fits the die-hard opposition strategy Republicans have deployed for the past two years. If DADT repeal is inevitable, they might as well make sure it occurs on terms most favorable to them — and that means being able to argue about the tyranny of activist judges, rather than the straightforward injustice of preventing patriots from serving openly simply because of who they are.
They disgust and sicken me. They should disgust and sicken every non-bigot or non-cynic in the country.
Joshua Tucker gives a basic lesson in tax rates:
I just want to point out again that the current Democratic proposal for extending tax cuts is a tax cut for everyone who pays taxes. The cut off rate is for income over $250,000 (or $1,000,000, or whatever). But people who earn over $250,000 will still get a tax cut on their first $250,000 of income.
… if you want to talk about the policy proposal in terms of what will happens to the amount of taxes people are paying right now, it is correct that people earning over $250,000 will pay more taxes come January 1 if the Democratic plan passes, but only on income beyond $250,000. So if you make $250,001 a year, your tax rate will only increase on that last $1. But again, if you want to talk about extending the Bush tax cuts, the Democratic proposal ensures that those tax cuts will be extended to everyone for their first $250,000 of earned income.
And has now reached a career pinnacle as the new head of ABC News. I mention this because my October 1988 Spy Magazine piece on him remains one of the more tenaciously passed-around pieces I have ever written. Here it is. Click to read it at a larger size:
Three Toed Sloth explains:
It was over by the close of 1918.
Exponential yet basically unpredictable growth of technology, rendering long-term extrapolation impossible (even when attempted by geniuses)? Check.
Massive, profoundly dis-orienting transformation in the life of humanity, extending to our ecology, mentality and social organization? Check.
Annihilation of the age-old constraints of space and time? Check.
Embrace of the fusion of humanity and machines? Check.
Creation of vast, inhuman distributed systems of information-processing, communication and control, “the coldest of all cold monsters”? Check; we call them “the self-regulating market system” and “modern bureaucracies” (public or private), and they treat men and women, even those whose minds and bodies instantiate them, like straw dogs.
Try to find the degrees of Kevin Bacon in this one:
Chait is on the same page as me:
Ryan, like many conservatives, prefers to reside in an alternate universe in which the Affordable Care Act is not a budget saver but a massive drain on the federal budget (like, say, the prescription drug entitlement he supported.) The Bowles-Simpson commission examined the issue and sensibly concluded that building up the cost-saving devices in the PPACA would save money, and tearing them down would cost money. Ryan can't accept that. You can negotiate with somebody who has different preferences than you do. But negotiating with somebody who inhabits a different reality is very difficult.
In testimony today Army Chief of Staff George Casey and U.S. Marine Corps Commandant James Amos stated their worries about repealing DADT during a time of war. Greg Sargent emphasizes that "the current repeal proposal gives Defense Secretary Robert Gates the leeway to implement repeal on a flexible timeline that would work for [the Service Chiefs]:"
These men are concerned about the timetable of implementation of repealing DADT. But they generally support the goal, and they generally trust Gates to take their concerns about timing into account if repeal does become a reality. It's an important distinction that shouldn't get lost.
Felix Salmon eyes the 9.8 percent unemployment rate:
Right now, the unemployment rate is rising and therefore news, which means that people are at least paying attention to it. If it just bogs down, over the long term, somewhere north of 8%, then at that point the policy debate loses all urgency, and unemployment gets added to the long-term fiscal outlook as something which really ought to be addressed but never is.
The Dish 