Hacked Off In The UK

The News Corp phone hacking scandal is now getting huge.  It was bad enough when the targets were tabloid subjects, but now we learn the victims included 9/11 victims' families and may have included even former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown himself.

The Sunday Times is alleged to have targeted the personal information of the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the time he was chancellor, a BBC investigation has found.

Documents and a phone recording suggest "blagging" was used to obtain private financial and property details.

The Browns also fear medical records relating to their son Fraser, whom the Sun revealed in 2006 had cystic fibrosis, may have been obtained.

News International is yet to respond.

The company, a subsidiary of News Corporation, owns the Sun and the Sunday Times, and also owned the News of the World which was shut last week amid allegations of phone-hacking and illegal payments to police officers.

Other alleged targets include British royalty, too.  When they weren't hacking phone mails, Murdoch's tabloid reporters were apparently pretending to be government officials or other folks in order to get information on their targets to print. Anything to get the story went for these guys, and now Murdoch has been exposed.  Hell, the guy went after Gordon Brown's infant son just to get a story.

The question now of course is what kind of criminal tricks went on over here in the States.  It's like someone should investigate or something.  Meanwhile, News Corp. shareholders are suing Murdoch for not responding to the scandal fast enough.

The lawsuit, filed by Amalgamated Bank and a group of pension funds, accuses News Corp's board of "failing to exercise proper oversight and take sufficient action since news of the hacking first surfaced at its subsidiary nearly six years ago."

The failure of News Corp's board has led to a "piling on of questionable deals, a waste of corporate resources, a starring role in a blockbuster scandal, and a gigantic public relations disaster," said Jay Eisenhofer of Grant & Eisenhofer, the law firm that filed the suit in Delaware.

The legal complaint is an updated version of action that Amalgamated first bought in March, when they accused Mr Murdoch of "rampant nepotism" for paying 415m pounds for Shine, a UK television production company founded by his daughter Elizabeth. News Corp could not immediately be reached for comment. 

News Corp's shares plunged more than 6.6pc on opening, as investors digested developments on both sides of the Atlantic. 

Things are getting bad for ol' Rupert here.  Very, very bad.

No Dealing On The Debt Ceiling, Part 32

Republican recalcitrance on the debt ceiling has gotten to the point where Steve M. is now saying he doesn't believe a deal will happen.

Sorry, I don't buy this for a second. It's McConnell's job to go on TV and do as convincing an imitation as he can of a reasonable man. More to the point, it's his job to spin any failure to reach an agreement as 100% the Democrats' fault. Elsewhere in the clip posted by Mediaite, he says:

Obviously, the other side, the other political side, controls most of the government. They have the Senate. They have the presidency. You can't get an accomplishment without some kind of bipartisan agreement, and that's part of what the meeting tonight is about, and we hope it'll be successful.

Translation: Who, us? Responsible for anything that goes wrong?

A month ago I would have completely disagreed with him, but he has a valid point.  If the plan was to make 90% of America eat an austerity crap sandwich, we would of had a deal by now.  Instead, I think the GOP has gotten to the point where any deal is unacceptable.  The reaction by the right to Boehner pulling out puts him in an untenable position.

The Powers That Be on Wall Street want a deal.  The Tea Party will eliminate him if there is one.  The Corporate Wing and the Tea Party Wing are at each other's throats, and the Tea Party Wing is winning.  Obama called their bluff again today and dared them to make a deal.

But if we really do get to the point where Treasury then has to take funding from the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, etc to pay SS and Medicare and hundreds of thousands of federal employees get furloughed, well that appears to be a battle the Republicans now seem willing to have.

A terrifying thought, but one that may define the GOP for a long, long time.  I've been convinced for months now that Wall Street would win this battle.  Now I'm thinking that it's very possible that Wall Street will simply bet on a complete economic collapse and let the Tea Party finish the job they started in 2007.  Matt Osborne notes the consequences of that:

Christine Lagarde, the first woman to head the lending institution, said in an interview broadcast Sunday that it would cause interest rates to rise and stock markets to fall. That would threaten an important IMF goal, which is preserving stability in the world economy, she said.

[...]

“If you draw out the entire scenario of default, yes, of course, you have all of that — interest hikes, stock markets taking a huge hit and real nasty consequences, not just for the United States, but for the entire global economy, because the U.S. is such a big player and matters so much for other countries,” she said.

This is what the Tea Party is risking, not just our economy but the world as well, in their quest for political power.  And it's looking more and more like they are willing to force it in order to try to destroy the country in order to "win".  Greg Sargent:

In another sign of the right’s total intransigence on revenues of any kind, the Club for Growth is going up with a new national ad putting Republicans on notice: Hold firm against any tax hikes, or else. 

As I've said before, the dealbreaker for the Democrats is no revenue increases and SS/Medicare cuts.  The dealbreaker for the GOP is a brokering a deal at all.   They don't want one.  They are confident they win without one, so they won't lift a finger to stop the economy from going under.  They'll merely blame Obama. Best part? If a deal doesn't happen?  Well, there's already well-known progressives willing to blame the Democrats too.

Time to start being concerned about this, I think.  George Zornick over at The Nation does have this to add:

Many of the large financial institutions that gave money to Cantor have specifically said the debt ceiling must be raised. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, said “[i]f anyone wants to push that button ... I think they're crazy.” JP Morgan Chase is among the top-20 contributors to Cantor’s campaign committee and leadership PAC, kicking in $27,800 in the last cycle alone between the company PAC and employee contributions.

An even bigger financial backer for Cantor is KKR & Co., a major private equity firm who's employees gave Cantor $52,600 during the last cycle, making them his fifth-largest contributor. In their first-quarter performance report, KKR & Co. described serious concerns over a failure to raise the debt ceiling.

“[Failure to raise the debt ceiling] could also limit our ability and the ability of our funds and portfolio companies to obtain financing, and it could have a material adverse effect on the valuation of our portfolio companies and other assets held by our funds,” their statement read. “Under such circumstances, the risks we face and any resulting adverse effects on our business, financial condition and results of operations would be significantly exacerbated.”

The money's on the GOP folding.  The crazy is on them letting a default destroy the country.  I don't honestly know which one will win.

School Of Hard Knocks: College Edition

Thanks to massive cuts in state education budgets, America will only continue to fall behind the rest of the world in number of college graduates.

Only one in five of those who enroll in community colleges — and, in some states, barely one in 10 — graduates in three years, while only about half of students who attend universities get their bachelor's degrees within six years, helping drag the United States from first to 10th in the world in the proportion of the population that has graduated from college.


It's a trend that Obama, in a speech on the Macomb campus, promised to reverse. Yet conversations with dozens of experts and reviews of available data show that obstacles on the road to graduation have gotten only greater in the two years since then. Few believe the 2020 target will be met.

"The outlook is not good," says Michael Lovenheim, an assistant professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University and co-author of a 2010 study that found students are taking more, not less, time to graduate thanks to such things as continued deep cuts in public higher education budgets and services, enrollment increases and steep hikes in tuition that are forcing more students to work.

The study by Lovenheim and his colleagues upended the common contention by universities that graduation rates are falling because students are arriving unprepared. American high school graduates are, in fact, better prepared than ever, it found, but most go to unselective community colleges and public universities where budgets and services have been deeply cut, classes are large, and per-student expenditures are low.

It's gotten to the point that even community colleges are now priced out of reach for Americans.  And Republicans, demanding smaller government and less spending, have only made the situation worse.  American high school students in 2011 simply can't afford college anymore without ending up in massive debt.

And as Republicans continue to demand that we cut spending instead of raise revenues, this problem will only get worse.  America will continue to fall further and further behind other countries, where jobs and companies will go.  Remember that next time someone tells you there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

A Pain Most Of Us Will Never Know

Things are so bad in eastern Kenya that mothers are forced to let weaker children die to prolong the lives of the other children, and the infant mortality rate has tripled in the refugee camps.  People are pouring in looking for help, and sometimes the help is too little too late.  Hundreds make it to the camps only to die from chronic starvation and dehydration.

Frequently, they do not want to go - they say they need to forage for food, water and firewood for their other children - often as many as seven or eight - and they cannot afford to be away from their families.

To some mothers, the weak, malnourished child has become a burden and they are prepared to let it die - a sacrifice in order to save their other children.

ontinue reading the main storyAid workers like Abubakar have to negotiate hard with mothers to convince them to change their minds.

 It's hard to fathom survival circumstances so dire.  It's also a reminder that the rest of the world is facing unprecedented losses and increasing hunger.

No Shoes, No Shirt, No Screaming Kids

A restaurant in Monroeville, PA is drawing fire for refusing to serve kids under six because they lack volume control.  The owner sent out a very polite email stating "Beginning July 16, 2011, McDain's Restaurant will no longer admit children under six years of age. We feel that McDain's is not a place for young children. Their volume can't be controlled and many, many times, they have disturbed other customers."


Some are offended.  Many have supported Mike Vuick's right to decide how to run his business, even if they have kids and won't be bringing them there any longer.  I can  understand.  At any rate, he has the ability to decide this for his own business.  I think that should apply to smoking laws as well, because people can choose whether they want to support the businesses and owners could cater to a crowd performing a legal activity.  But there I go again with all my crazy talk.

Justice Has To Work All The Time

Lost this weekend in the debt ceiling news, the final space shuttle launch and the death of Betty Ford comes this story from Mother Jones' Stephanie Mencimer on the case of Jaime Leigh Jones, the ex-KBR/Halliburton contract employee who sued the company over an alleged rape by KBR employees while she was in Iraq in 2005.

The allegations were explosive when they first hit in 2007: A 20-year-old woman named Jamie Leigh Jones alleged that four days after going to work in Iraq for contracting giant KBR in July 2005, she was drugged and gang-raped by fellow contractors. She accused the company, then a subsidiary of Halliburton, of imprisoning her in a shipping container after she reported the rape, and suggested KBR had tampered with some of the medical evidence that had been collected at an Army hospital. The harrowing story has made international headlines. It's been the subject of congressional hearings and has inspired legislation. Jones even plays a starring role in the new documentary Hot Coffee, about efforts to limit access to the justice system.

Jones' charges fell on fertile ground, compounding KBR's reputation as a corporate scofflaw—all the more so when it came out that the firm's contract had included a mandatory arbitration clause intended to block employees from suing it. Jones spent years fighting for a jury trial, and now, six years after the alleged attack, she is finally getting her day in court in a civil suit that accuses KBR of knowingly sending her into a hostile workplace. The verdict could come as early as Thursday. And—in a twist that's likely to shock her numerous supporters—there's a good chance she will lose.

Jones' trial, which started on June 13, is highlighting significant holes and discrepancies in her story. Not only has the federal trial judge already thrown out large portions of her case, evidence introduced in the trial raises the question of whether Jones has exaggerated and embellished key aspects of her story.

None of this means that Jones was not raped in Iraq. But the evidence does undermine her credibility and could create serious doubts in jurors' minds.

And indeed, the jury returned a not guilty verdict Friday in the case.  The evidence in the trial was shaky at best and the jurors deliberated for less than 48 hours before coming back with the verdict.  Mencimer does an excellent job of showing why jurors doubted Jones.  As she says, it's entirely possible she was raped.  But the evidence prevented simply didn't add up.

The funny thing about justice is it has to protect both the defendant and the plaintiff in cases like this.  When the evidence was laid out, there just wasn't enough to find in favor of Jones.

One thing Jones has working in her favor is that her story seems so incredible, her pursuit of justice so sincere, that it's almost unimaginable that she would make it up. After all, why would anyone put themselves through that kind of torture? But KBR and Bortz also have a ready answer to that question. It's The Jamie Leigh Story: How my Rape in Iraq and Cover-up Made Me a Crusader for Justice, the working title of her book.

For years, Jones has been in discussions with book agents, screenwriters, and production companies. In 2008, Paul Pompian, a film producer with dozens of docudrama credits to his name, bought the rights to her story. He says that his company is working on film version of Jones' story and that a book is also in the works. "Frankly, we're waiting for the outcome of the trial," he told me. "We're hoping for a verdict that will give us a third act. Hopefully it will be an outcome that's good for us and the movie and especially for Jamie Leigh." Both the screenwriter and Jones' coauthor were expected to be in Houston watching part of the trial, according to Pompian.

When KBR's lawyers first learned of the book deal, they went to court seeking access to the manuscript and other documents. Jones fought the disclosure, arguing that it would diminish the work's financial value. Jones' lawyers filed a motion with the court declaring that the manuscript was a work of fiction.

And so that third act is now going to be very interesting indeed.  There are such things as false rape allegations.  There are also many that are actual rape that aren't reported.  The whole truth still isn't apparent.  But KBR has successfully defended itself, that much we know.

Blacked Out

The financial crisis and recession of 2007 has all but eliminated the black middle class in America.

Economists say the Great Recession lasted from 2007 to 2009. In 2004, the median net worth of white households was $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by the Economic Policy Institute. By 2009, the median net worth for white households had fallen 24 percent to $97,860; the median black net worth had fallen 83 percent to $2,170, according to the EPI.

Algernon Austin, director of the EPI's Program on Race, Ethnicity and the Economy, described the current wealth gap this way: "In 2009, for every dollar of wealth the average white household had, black households only had two cents."

Since the end of the recession, the overall unemployment rate has fallen from 9.4 to 9.1 percent, while the black unemployment rate has risen from 14.7 to 16.2 percent, according to the Department of Labor.

"I would say the recession is not over for black folks," Austin says. He believes more black people than ever before could fall out of the middle class, because the unemployment rate for college-educated blacks recently peaked and blacks are overrepresented in state and local government jobs that are being eliminated due to massive budget shortfalls.

Do you want to know why the GOP's first target after Obama got elected was to eliminate middle-class government jobs at the state and local level?   Now you know.  Eliminate the road to the middle class for blacks and they lose sociopolitical power.  Breed resentment among everyone else.  Government workers are "lazy" and "spoiled".  Government jobs are equivalent to "welfare".  It's jobs where "they" work.  Republicans played the class and race cards perfectly and the results have been the virtual elimination of the black middle class in America in just four years.

Blacks in America have been crushed by the recession.  These numbers are horrifying to the point where I feel physically ill.  And the best part is conservatives now want us to finish the job by abandoning the Democrats or abandoning voting altogether while they in turn do everything they can to keep blacks out of the voting booth through Voter ID laws.

Two percent.  That's the percentage of median household wealth the average black household compared to the average white one.  This is what Wall Street did to black America, they leveled it with bulldozers, took the money, and then said "Sorry, we can't afford to help you anymore.  Go to hell."

This is what the last decade of greed and hatred has done.  It has literally put the middle-class on the block to be sacrificed to the rich, but especially the black middle class is seeing their world crumble.  Gone.  And the Republican Party is doing everything they can to make sure we are never heard from again.

Remember that.  Remember you have a voice.  Use it.

Priority One Alert

If you're wondering what happens to be the number one priority for the Republican Party at this point, Mitch McConnell explained it all to FOX News Sunday host Bret Baier.

Even with the country on the brink of default, the Senate's highest ranking Republican says his "single most important" goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told National Journal's Major Garrett in October.

Fox News' Bret Baier asked McConnell Sunday if that was still his major objective.

"Well, that is true," McConnell replied. "That's my single most important political goal, along with every active Republican in the country."

"But that is in 2012," he added. "Our biggest goal for this year is get this country straightened out and we can't get this country straightened out if we don't do something about spending, about deficit, about debt and get the economy moving again. So our goal is to have a robust vibrant economy to benefit all Americans."

So yeah, the economy kinda sort but getting rid of President Blackguard McDarkkenyan, that's the "single most important political goal" of every Republican in the country.  They hate Obama that much.  Getting rid of him is more important than the economy, politically.

If we pay attention to what Republicans say when they accidentally tell the truth, we shouldn't be surprised at the actions that follow.  We shouldn't be surprised that the GOP-led House has blocked every single job measure the Democrats have brought up this year and have put forth zero job bills of their own.

That's because they are now fully invested in wrecking the economy for political gain.  McConnell, my own Senator, just admitted that getting rid of Obama is more important than fixing the economy, and that goes for all active Republicans.  One would almost think that McConnell is threatening the American people with "Get rid of the President or we'll continue to make you miserable."

Priorities, people.  Priorities.

StupidiNews!

• With a week to go before the White House says a deal on the debt ceiling is needed, President Obama plans to address the nation ahead of more negotiations on Monday.
• In India, 35 have been killed and hundreds were injured as two separate passenger train derailments may have been caused by separatist militias.
• Pakistan remains defiant after a US decision to suspend some $800 million in aid to the country sparked by Pakistani cooperation with Al Qaeda.
• Food giant Nestle is buying a 60% stake in Chinese snack maker Hsu Fu Chi for $1.7 billion as the largest food company in the world bulks up its Asian presence.
• A new report shows texting while driving laws have reduced incidents of distracted driving somewhat, but cases of doing so are still rare.

Last Call

Oliver Willis has a point.

There is a story today about how the unemployed have been globally ignored by the people who set the agenda. This story appears in print on page “BU1″ of the New York Times.

In a completely unrelated bit of trivia, the New York Times happens to be the most influential news organization in the world. On the left or right, the Times sets the agenda for the rest of the press. Whether its circulation is up or down for the year, the Times sets the tone.

So, a story lamenting a missing story is below the front page of the Times.

News organization bemoans news organizations not paying attention to what the American people see as the number one issue right now, jobs, while simultaneously not paying attention to jobs.

We're about done here, I think.

Another Milepost On The Road To Oblivion

Don Surber, unintentionally funny guy.

From Rasmussen: “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters now think decreases in government spending help the economy. 24% believe decreased spending hurts the economy, while 11% say it has no impact.”

54% say raising taxes will hurt the economy.

Now who are the likely voters? They tend to be older, better educated, more stable and frankly more accomplished than the average adult. The non-voting public is not a bunch of losers. When she was CEO of eBay, Meg Whitman did not vote. I got that. But likely voters tend to be more engaged politically and in their community. They don’t see it so much as a right, but as a civic duty.

Dismissing what a majority of likely voters believe is arrogant and dangerous.

The unintentionally funny part:

Contrary to Republican dogma, polls show that the American people strongly support higher taxes to reduce the deficit and improve income inequality. Following are 19 different polls since the first of the year that say so.

I'll take that 19 to your one, Donny.   It would be arrogant and dangerous to ignore the voters, I agree.  And the voters overwhelmingly agree higher taxes on the wealthy needs to be a part of deficit reduction.

Something you and the GOP might want to keep in mind.

Light Bulb, Heavy Hitters

You'd think Texas Republicans would be worried about jobs, the economy, or even whining about the deficit, but it seems Gov. Rick Perry and the state GOP have chosen their new Alamo:  the federal phase-out of incandescent lightbulbs.

Texas hopes to get around the law with a measure recently signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry declaring that incandescent bulbs — if made and sold only in Texas — do not involve interstate commerce and therefore are not subject to federal regulation.

"I think that Texans as a whole are tired of the federal government trying to micromanage our lives," said George Lavender, a Republican state representative who sponsored the legislation.

Critics of the federal mandate hope the Texas action will spur Congress to repeal the light bulb rules or prompt other states to adopt similar laws. The Republican-controlled U.S. House on Monday is expected to take up a repeal measure sponsored by a Texas congressman. Efforts also are underway in Pennsylvania and South Carolina to follow Texas' lead.

The 2007 federal energy legislation phases out the old-style incandescent bulbs over three years, starting with 100-watt bulbs next Jan. 1. Supporters said that consumers will be able to buy a new kind of incandescent bulb that is more efficient and cost about $1 more. The latest model — shown off to lawmakers recently — surrounds the filament with a halogen capsule that uses fewer watts.

But that hasn't stopped attacks targeting an alternative to incandescents — the spiral-shaped compact fluorescent light.

"I just believe that we should be able to buy what we want," Lavender said of the Texas law. "I've had calls from people in every state, and even in foreign countries, saying how much they appreciate this bill."

"This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom,'' said Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas.), who's leading the repeal effort in the House. He recently cheered his state's action, declaring on Fox News: "I do thank the Lord that I live in Texas."

Yes, this is about FREEEEEEEEEEEDOM and fighting the evil government and micromanagement and has nothing to do with the fact that old-style light bulbs add $85 per household to the energy companies that dominate Texas politics, which would take something like two-thirds of a billion dollars out of the pockets of energy companies each year if the laws caused Texas's 8 million plus households to switch over to CFL bulbs.  Add 2 million Texas businesses to that, and well, yeah.  Let's ballpark it at a billion a year in additional energy costs that Texans wouldn't pay to power companies there.  Yearly!

Are you illuminated as to why Gov. Perry is trying to convince Texans that this is about "freedom and liberty" when it's really about bilking Texans out of hundreds of millions a year for Texas power companies?  Yeah Texas, Perry wants you to pay more to his energy company buddies.  And they think you're dense enough to believe him.

Nice guy, huh.

Camera Records Arrests And More

"First and foremost, it protects the officers, it protects the citizens and it can help with an investigation and it shows what happened," said Steve Tidwell, executive director of the FBI National Academy Associates in Quantico, Va. "It can level the playing field, instead of getting just one or two versions. It's all there in living color, so to speak."

In Oakland, where the department is still under federal supervision because of a case in which four officers were caught planting drugs on suspects a decade ago, the cameras are like another set of eyes, said Capt. Ed Tracey.

Last year the department began a pilot program with about a dozen patrol officers wearing the VIEVU (Vee-view) body camera, and now officials hope to equip at least 350 officers by the end of summer.

I'm against being filmed without permission, but the arguments that upheld car cams will uphold these so it's a moot point.  I think citizens will win in this instance, especially when this type of footage becomes required with any interaction.  Instead of allegations of abuse, the interaction can  be reviewed.  

The Future Of Facebook, And Why We Care

Facebook is something different to everyone, but for the bulk of users it isn't just a place to grow imaginary gardens.  Some people are invested in Facebook, and plan to stick around for the long haul.  It's a way to check on people that you don't want in your day to day life.  It's a way to keep a web presence, and a popular place that anyone truly looking for you will check.  That's a mighty big draw to people who miss people from their past.  For some it is a living memorial for people who have passed away.  Visitors can see videos and pictures of loved ones, and it's worth a few pesky game invites to have that layered access for millions of people.

But what does the future hold?  I'd like to think that with the data storage capability in the world, some universal place will become where we register to be found or to find.  Our likes, thoughts and major life events can be recorded.  For the first time in human history, we can including video, pictures and voice clips in our legacy.  We are so shortsighted when we consider social networking sites, not understanding what we can grow with a little planning.  I'm not implying Facebook is the eternal recording of our generation.  I'm saying we need one and I'm surprised more people haven't focused on that.  Imagine being able to go back and read John Lennon's teenage thoughts, or Helen Keller's reflections on what passed through her mind on any given day.  Our data isn't just good for marketing exploitation, it could be useful for hundreds of years to come.

The future of Facebook isn't clear yet.  It still has the potential to be really great, or really not.  It may take a few refining steps before we have a place that we can be recorded for all time.  Still, it's full of potential and I hope we see more than Farmville when millions of people come together and contribute to something this big.  But then, if that is what we show is of interest, I guess that's a statement in itself.

Planned Chaos

Over at Big Picture, John Mauldin has a depressingly sobering take on the jobs numbers, but his analysis is mostly incorrect.

Everything is very fluid, but the headlines in today’s Wall Street Journal suggest a deal on the order of $4 trillion in on the table. I assume it will be back-loaded, but it is a start. But assume that the first year sees real spending cuts of $200 billion. That is a reduction of 1.5% in GDP. It’s that pesky old equation I keep using:

GDP = C (total consumption) + I (Investments) + G (government Spending) + net exports

Now, the literature suggests that the effect on the economy from a reduction in G should be over within about 4 quarters, on average. But then we reduce “G” again the next year. Maybe not by as much overall, but at least by another $50-100 billion. This is going to put a real headwind in the face of economic growth for years, but we simply have to do it or we become Greece.

Here's his first problem.  Mauldin admits that we're facing a slowdown, which is true.  He admits that pulling out of the economy will make it worse, also true.  But then he says we have no choice other than to do this, and that is patently false.  The notion that if we raise the debt ceiling we "become Greece" is fantasy and an economist should know better.

We do have a choice, and that's the Senate Dems' plan:

Senate Democrats have drafted a sweeping debt-reduction plan that would slice $4 trillion from projected borrowing over the next decade without touching the expensive health and retirement programs targeted by President Obama.

Instead, Senate Democrats are proposing to stabilize borrowing through sharp cuts at the Pentagon and other government agencies, as well as $2 trillion in new taxes, primarily on families earning more than $1 million year, according to a copy of the plan obtained by The Washington Post.

A combination of tax increases on those who can afford it and spending cuts where we don't need it.  If we simply went back to Clinton-era taxation on the wealthy, our deficit problems would be slashed.  We had a balanced budget and years of surplus under Clinton...until Bush cuts taxes and spent trillions on wars and Big Pharma.


We do have a choice.  We can raise revenues. Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton did it.  Bush 43 refused to, and look what happened.