The Republican who will head the House committee that oversees domestic security is planning to open a Congressional inquiry into what he calls “the radicalization” of the Muslim community when his party takes over the House next year.
Representative Peter T. King of New York, who will become the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he is responding to what he has described as frequent concerns raised by law enforcement officials that Muslim leaders have been uncooperative in terror investigations.
I will bet you $20 Pam Geller gets to address the committee.
Please notice this is all part of their plan to unseat Obama. Emphasizing the foreign, swarthy Islamic threat in our midst binds naturally to the addled conservative belief that Obama is a foreign-born Muslim.
Happening right now on tv. Some kind of bill signing. He and Michelle are posing that it's about "healthy" school "meals" for kids. I haven't read the bill (and don't intend to - tldr) and don't know anything about this policy area, but I'm sure it's bad. Hillary would never have done this. Primary him!
It occurred to me this week that the biggest loser in the Wikileaks shitstorm would be Wikipedia. People are stupid and will think that anything with "wiki" in its name is associated with the encyclopedia.
I was just now trying to do some work, when I hear a noise that sounds like something I haven't heard since 9/11: Fighters flying CAP. Scary for a second. Then I remembered today is Army/Navy, and realized it's probably the halftime fly-over.
Update: The answer is "yes" per Mr. Williams at the Tax Policy Center via email:
Low-income workers will pay more tax in 2011 than in 2010, all else the same. Everyone else would see their taxes drop.
The tables we have posted on the TPC website do not include tax provisions from the 2009 stimulus bill in the baseline so the tax changes shown don't consider the fact that people are getting MWP this year. We will post a new table shortly that compares MWP and the payroll tax cut directly--that will show the winners and losers from the effective swap of one provision for the other.
In fact, the only groups likely to face a tax increase are those near the bottom of the income scale — individuals who make less than $20,000 and families with earnings below $40,000. ...
Although the $120 billion payroll tax reduction offers nearly twice the tax savings of the credit it replaces, it will nonetheless lead to higher tax bills for individuals with incomes below $20,000 and families that make less than $40,000. That is because their payroll tax savings are less than the $400 or $800 they will lose from the Making Work Pay credit.
“It will come to a few dollars a week,” said Roberton Williams, an analyst at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, “but it is an increase.”
The lead-up to that quote gives the impression that net overall taxes on lower-earning taxpayers will go up under the compromise. And some people have run with that interpretation:
No worries! Poor people don't create jobs, anyway, I hear.
But if you re-read the quote from Prof. Williams at the Tax Policy Center, you'll see it only addresses the change in payroll taxes, not all the elements of the compromise. I went to the Tax Policy Center's website and found this analysis of selected elements of the compromise, including the payroll tax changes:
On that table, everyone gets an overall tax cut. (Although look at the way those making over $500,000 and over $1,000,000 make out! Those are some very happy Republicans.)
I think this means that people making under $20/$40k might have a tax hike of "a few dollars a week" on employment taxes, but get a larger tax cut from all of the other elements of the deal. If that's right, then the New York Times overinterpreted Prof. Williams remark about one aspect of the compromise and reported that the working poor are getting screwed.
And people who are invested in the narrative that this deal is a sellout by Obama ran with it. Welcome to campaign 2012!
Now that attempts to limit the tax cut extension to incomes under $1 million, Dems in Congress have two options: Vote to extend them all, or let them all expire.
If they extend them all, then they look weak and "progressives" will heap scorn on them all, including the "AWOL Obamabush".
If they let them all expire, Republicans have vowed to filibuster everything else of substance through the end of the term. So nothing else gets done from now to Xmas. And then Republicans will claim that Democrats raised taxes on everyone, and make a big deal out of re-passing the "Republican tax cuts" next term. And so the threat to let them all expire is empty; not a threat at all, but an opportunity for the GOP.
John Cole, on congressional Republican tactics to stall until Xmas:
Insist on tax cuts first, running out the clock a good bit, then demand that amendments be allowed, and then let the others do the dirty work with thousands of amendments and procedural stalling. But David Broder will be impressed with how reasonable you are!
This should also manage to eat up enough of the legislative clock that we can dismiss START and unemployment benefits extension and anything else. But hey- rich folks will get a tax cut!
As Duncan says, people are losing confidence in Obama's competence.
Electoral competence is what led me to support him in 2008. Starting with Super Tuesday, Hillary increasingly looked to me like she was going to lose to McCain, and Obama looked like he was going to win. (Before that, I thought Hillary was a lock for the nomination.) There wasn't a whole lot of daylight between them policy-wise, and neither were especially liberal. I was tired of losing, so I went with the candidate who I thought would win.
I also thought that it didn't matter whether we had the first black President or the first woman President, what was more important to the world was having a competent President. I hoped Obama would be as adroit at governing as he was at campaigning. That's not working out so well. But where we'd be if we had gotten Hillary instead (assuming Hillary could have beaten McCain) is, as he says, unknowable.
But I do know I'm glad John McCain is not President. And that Sarah Palin is not Vice President. It's knowable that things would be worse if they were in the White House.
A similar choice is going to come up in 2012. I think primarying Obama would be a disaster. But it still might happen. Whether he wins the primary or not, in November there will be a Democrat and a Republican. And the Republican will be, relatively speaking, far worse for the country.
So I expect whoever the Dems put up, I am going to support and work for. I wish it can be with some enthusiasm and optimism, as in 2008. But I am going to do it regardless, because it's the only responsible thing to do.