It's a Dell Studio. A nice laptop, actually, but it's easy to hit the wrong key by accident.
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > what brand is it? > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry for multiple posts. > > I blame my damn laptop keyboard. > > It overreacts. > > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> This has been "walked back," as they say in Spin City. > >> Though I don't doubt it will happen. > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html > >>> > >>> White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts > >>> > >>> WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's top adviser suggested to > >>> The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration is > >>> ready to accept an across-the-board, temporary continuation of > >>> steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers. > >>> > >>> That appears to be the only way, said David Axelrod, that > >>> middle-class taxpayers can keep their tax cuts, given the > >>> legislative and political realities facing Obama in the aftermath > >>> of last week's electoral defeat. > >>> > >>> "We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod said > >>> during an unusually candid and reflective 90-minute interview in > >>> his office, steps away from the Oval Office. "The world of what it > >>> takes to get this done." > >>> > >>> "There are concerns," he added, that Congress will continue to > >>> kick the can down the road in the future by passing temporary > >>> extensions for the wealthy time and time again. "But I don't want > >>> to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that > >>> point." > >>> > >>> It has been widely assumed that the president would have to accept > >>> an across-the-board deal of some kind, but Axelrod's remarks were > >>> the first public confirmation of that fact -- and by a figure > >>> regarded as closer to Obama than any other White House staffer. > >>> > >>> Also dealing "with the world as we find it," Axelrod declined > >>> repeatedly to comment on any of the controversial debt-reduction > >>> measures suggested by the chairs of the president's own commission > >>> -- even those, such as raising the Social Security retirement age, > >>> that go against Obama campaign pledges and strike at the heart of > >>> Democratic constituencies. > >>> > >>> He said that the White House would wait until the commission made > >>> its final recommendations on Dec. 1 before adding, "the > >>> president's commitments haven't changed." > >>> > >>> By giving ground on taxes and remaining silent on budget > >>> suggestions that others, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) > >>> and AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka, quickly denounced, Axelrod showed > >>> the subdued caution of an adviser to a humbled boss. > >>> > >>> But the top Obama aide also erected some barriers against > >>> newly-emboldened Republicans and their Pentagon allies. > >>> > >>> Axelrod said that his boss would veto repeal of his cherished > >>> health care law, though he would "work with people" who "have > >>> constructive ideas about how to strengthen" it. The veto threat > >>> was not unexpected, but it was the first time that a top > >>> administration figure had issued such a threat on the record. And > >>> in doing so, Axelrod predicted that Republicans would be making a > >>> major misstep by challenging the White House's commitment on this > >>> front. > >>> > >>> "I'm not going to prejudge what they are going to do," Axelrod > >>> said of Republican opposition to the legislation. "But I will tell > >>> you this -- we are firm in our commitment, we are willing to work > >>> with people to improve this plan we are not going to stand for > >>> those who want to undermine it and destroy it." > >>> > >>> "The notion of spending the next two years fighting over this, I > >>> think, is a complete misreading of what the American people want," > >>> he added. "They want us to focus on the economy. They don't want > >>> us to fight the battles of the last two years. But we are not > >>> going to stand by and go back to allowing people with preexisting > >>> conditions to be discriminated against, go back to the situation > >>> where people can be thrown off their insurance simply because they > >>> become seriously ill or you can't get on your parents' insurance > >>> after the age of 20. There are so many things that are just central." > >>> > >>> Meanwhile, on the war in Afghanistan -- an expensive and > >>> increasingly unpopular conflict -- Axelrod pushed back hard > >>> against the notion, floated in some recent stories quoting "senior > >>> administration sources," that the deadline for beginning troop > >>> withdrawals had been pushed back from July 2011 to some time in 2014. > >>> > >>> "If it is being sourced to senior administration officials, then > >>> someone has bad administration sources," Axelrod said. "There is > >>> no change in the president's position. There is no change in that > >>> basic commitment." > >>> > >>> But there is just such a change on taxes. > >>> > >>> Although the president "took the position he felt was the right > >>> position" -- favoring a continuation of the cuts only for families > >>> earning up to $250,000 -- Axelrod portrayed this "optimal" stance > >>> as unrealistic in the lame-duck Congress that begins next week. > >>> > >>> For one, time is not on the administration's side. All of the tax > >>> cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, will expire at the end of this > >>> year unless Congress acts. The Republicans in effect "built in tax > >>> increases," Axelrod said. And separating out different categories > >>> of tax cuts now -- extending some without extending others -- is > >>> politically unrealistic and procedurally difficult, he added. > >>> > >>> "We don't want that tax increase to go forward for the middle > >>> class," he said, which means the administration will have to > >>> accept them all for some unspecified period of time. "But plainly, > >>> what we can't do is permanently extend these high income taxes." > >>> > >>> In other words, the White House won't risk being blamed for > >>> raising taxes on the middle class even though, arguably, it is the > >>> GOP's refusal to separate the categories that has put Obama in > >>> this bind. The only condition, at least initially, seems to be > >>> that the tax cuts for the wealthy not be extended "permanently." > >>> > >>> A student of history and a onetime political reporter, Axelrod > >>> expressed curiosity and even some optimism about the tea party, > >>> suggesting that Obama could work with them on matters such as a > >>> ban on spending earmarks and on winding down the war in Afghanistan. > >>> > >>> If so, Obama would turn the Clinton-era triangulation strategy on > >>> its head, reaching out not to the moderates in the other party but > >>> to the new breed of conservatives who could bring the ideological > >>> arc of Congress full circle. > >>> > >>> Can the White House work with them? "It is a fascinating time in > >>> our history," he said, "and I don't think anybody really knows. I > >>> mean I have watched carefully some of these folks on television. I > >>> don't think this is nearly as predictable as people think." > >>> > >>> President Obama, in fact, has called every new Republican > >>> senator-elect and many of the incoming GOP House members -- "well > >>> over 100 calls" in all, said Axelrod. > >>> > >>> That's how a shellacked president spends his plane time on a trip > >>> to Asia. > >>> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> NY Times November 10, 2010 > >>> Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts and Tax Increases > >>> By JACKIE CALMES > >>> > >>> WASHINGTON — The chairmen of President Obama’s bipartisan > >>> commission on reducing the national debt outlined a politically > >>> provocative and economically ambitious package of spending cuts > >>> and tax increases on Wednesday, igniting a debate that is likely > >>> to grip the country for years. > >>> > >>> The plan calls for deep cuts in domestic and military spending, a > >>> gradual 15-cents-a-gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax, > >>> limiting or eliminating popular tax breaks in return for lower > >>> rates, and benefit cuts and an increased retirement age for Social > >>> Security. > >>> > >>> Those changes and others, none of which would take effect before > >>> 2012 to avoid undermining the tepid economic recovery, would erase > >>> nearly $4 trillion from projected deficits through 2020, the > >>> proposal says, and stabilize the accumulated debt. > >>> > >>> “It’s time to lay it out on the table and let the American people > >>> start to chew on it,” said Alan K. Simpson, the former Republican > >>> Senate leader who is one of the co-chairmen, along with Erskine B. > >>> Bowles, who was White House chief of staff under President Bill > >>> Clinton. > >>> > >>> Their outline will be the basis for negotiation within the > >>> commission, which has a Dec. 1 deadline for submitting a final > >>> plan. It represents a challenge to both parties: to Mr. Obama and > >>> the Democrats, to show in the wake of the midterm election that > >>> they are serious about their pledges to address long-term > >>> deficits, and to Republicans, who for the most part have ruled out > >>> consideration of tax increases even as they have promised new > >>> adherence to fiscal responsibility. > >>> > >>> Liberal groups immediately condemned the plan when news of it > >>> broke, for its Social Security and Medicare changes and for the > >>> scope of the spending cuts. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, in a > >>> statement called it “simply unacceptable.” > >>> > >>> The furor on the left was not matched — yet — by a similar outcry > >>> from the right to the draft’s proposed revenue increases, cuts to > >>> the military or other options. > >>> > >>> The plan has many elements with the potential to draw intense > >>> political fire. It lays out options for overhauling the tax code > >>> that include limiting or eliminating the mortgage interest > >>> deduction, the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. > >>> It envisions cutting Pentagon weapons programs and paring back > >>> almost all domestic programs. > >>> > >>> The plan would reduce cost-of-living increases for all federal > >>> programs, including Social Security. It would reduce projected > >>> Social Security benefits to most retirees in later decades, though > >>> low-income people would get higher benefits. The retirement age > >>> for full benefits would be slowly raised to 69 from 67 by 2075, > >>> with a “hardship exemption” for people who physically cannot work > >>> past 62. And higher levels of income would be subject to payroll > >>> taxes. > >>> > >>> But the plan would not count Social Security savings toward the > >>> overall deficit-reduction goal that Mr. Obama set for fiscal year > >>> 2015, reflecting the chairmen’s sensitivity to liberal critics who > >>> have complained that Social Security should be fixed only for its > >>> own sake, not to help balance the nation’s books. > >>> > >>> Mr. Obama created the commission last February in the hope it > >>> would provide political cover for bold action against deficits in > >>> 2011. His stance now, in the wake of his party’s drubbing, will go > >>> a long way toward telling whether he tacks to the political center > >>> — by embracing such proposals — or shifts to the left and leaves > >>> them on a shelf. > >>> > >>> For Republicans, the chairmen’s proposals and a similar report > >>> coming next week from a private bipartisan group will challenge > >>> their contention that the budget can be balanced by spending cuts > >>> alone. That is a claim that many conservative economists and > >>> budget analysts reject, given the scale of projected debt as the > >>> baby boom generation retires and begins claiming costly federal > >>> benefits, after a severe recession. > >>> > >>> Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson said their plan was “a starting point” > >>> as members of the commission met behind closed doors to consider it. > >>> > >>> That was clear from the initial reactions of the members, nine of > >>> them Democrats, seven Republicans. None embraced the package and > >>> several made clear they would not support it without big changes. > >>> > >>> “I think every member of the commission would agree that this is > >>> not the plan,” said Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of > >>> Illinois, who is perhaps the panel’s most liberal member. > >>> > >>> The group had made no decisions before the midterm elections, to > >>> avoid politicizing the painful options. Even so, the election > >>> results — by emboldening victorious antitax conservatives and > >>> having led to the defeat of many fiscally conservative > >>> Congressional Democrats — are widely seen as having reduced the > >>> already slim chance that a supermajority of the commission could > >>> agree to a package of proposals by Dec. 1. > >>> > >>> Under Mr. Obama’s executive order creating the panel of 12 members > >>> of Congress and six private citizens, 14 of the 18 commissioners > >>> must agree in order to send any package to Congress for a vote in > >>> December. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and > >>> Ms. Pelosi, who will remain the speaker until January, have > >>> promised in writing that the Senate would vote first and, if it > >>> approves a plan, the House would vote. > >>> > >>> “I think it’s possible” that 14 members will agree, said Senator > >>> Tom Coburn, a conservative Oklahoma Republican who worked closely > >>> with the chairmen on proposed reductions from the military and in > >>> so-called tax expenditures, the myriad tax breaks for individuals > >>> and businesses that cost more than $1 trillion a year. “You don’t > >>> know until you see what the final plan is.” > >>> > >>> In five hours of deliberations on Wednesday, the commission did > >>> not discuss the plan’s particulars much but instead talked at > >>> length about whether a lame-duck Congress would have time to write > >>> specific legislation and then vote, members said in interviews. It > >>> was unclear, they said, whether that was a sign other members > >>> thought the commission actually could reach agreement, or whether > >>> they were hiding behind concerns about legislative procedures to > >>> avoid tough policy decisions. > >>> > >>> “At least people stayed in the room,” Andy Stern, the former > >>> president of the Service Employees International Union, said in an > >>> interview, recalling his concerns and others’ that Republicans > >>> would walk out if taxes were on the table and Democrats if Social > >>> Security and other spending programs were. > >>> > >>> Right now the biggest issue facing the lame-duck Congress is > >>> whether to extend the Bush-era income tax cuts, which expire Dec. > >>> 31, for all taxpayers, as Republicans want, or for income below > >>> $250,000, as Mr. Obama and Democrats want. The Bowles-Simpson plan > >>> includes one option that assumes only the lower-income rates are > >>> extended and another that ends all Bush tax rates and replaces the > >>> tax code with simpler, lower rates and many fewer tax breaks. > >>> > >>> Extending all the Bush tax cuts through 2020 would add more than > >>> $4 trillion to the debt — coincidentally, about the same amount > >>> that the chairmen’s painful options are designed to cut in the > >>> same time frame. > >>> > >>> Their proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or > >>> modify a number of popular tax breaks — including the > >>> deductibility of mortgage interest payments — so that income tax > >>> rates could be reduced across the board. Under one option, > >>> individual income tax rates would decline to as low as 8 percent > >>> for the lowest income bracket (it is now 10 percent) and to 23 > >>> percent for the highest bracket (now 35 percent). The corporate > >>> tax rate, now 35 percent, would be reduced to as low as 26 percent. > >>> > >>> But how low the rates are set would depend on how many tax breaks > >>> are reduced or eliminated. Some of them, including the mortgage > >>> interest deduction and the exemption from taxes for employees’ > >>> health benefits, are political sacred cows. > >>> > >>> The 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax would rise by 15 > >>> cents between 2013 and 2015 so that transportation spending no > >>> longer requires money from the general treasury. > >>> > >>> The plan would cut $2 from spending for every $1 in new revenues. > >>> Total spending would be about 22 percent of the nation’s gross > >>> domestic product, and revenues would be held to 21 percent. > >>> > >>> Cuts in annual discretionary spending, domestic and military, > >>> would be the largest in recent decades. Farm subsidies would be > >>> reduced. To further reduce growth in the fast-growing entitlement > >>> programs, the plan would expand on the hard-won Medicare cost > >>> savings in Mr. Obama’s health care law. And it would limit > >>> malpractice awards, long a Republican goal. > >>> > >>> David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> pen-l mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > > > > > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
