Fifty Percent Off Sale

Ahead of Tuesday night's de facto State of the Union address before Congress, Barack Obama announced his budget plans for his first term, saying he plans to slash the deficit roughly in half by 2013 in an announcement tomorrow.

President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy and by slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration officials said.

In addition to tackling a deficit swollen by the $787 billion stimulus package and other efforts to ease the nation's economic crisis, the budget blueprint will press aggressively for progress on the domestic agenda Obama outlined during the presidential campaign. This would include key changes to environmental policies and a major expansion of health coverage that he hopes to enact later this year.

A summary of Obama's budget request for the fiscal year that begins in October will be delivered to Congress on Thursday, with the complete, multi-hundred-page document to follow in April. But Obama plans to unveil his goals for scaling back record deficits and rebuilding the nation's costly and inefficient health care system tomorrow, when he addresses lawmakers and budget experts at a White House summit on restoring "fiscal responsibility" to Washington.

Obama's taking over the fiscal responsibility label from the Republicans, or trying to. After all, nobody can really argue that Bush did a real good job on that, adding $5 trillion to the national debt in 8 years. The problem is even if Obama manages to actually somehow do this, the national debt is still going to go up another $3-$4 trillion in four years if I'm reading this plan correctly. It's still going to be fugly for our economy. How's he going to do it?

To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes continued spending on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is lower than the nearly $190 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent.

Obama also proposes "a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement" that would target corporate loopholes, the official said. And Obama's budget seeks to tax the earnings of hedge fund managers as normal income rather than at the lower 15 percent capital gains rate.

Overall, tax collections under the plan would rise from about 16 percent of the economy this year to 19 percent in 2013, while federal spending would drop from about 26 percent of the economy, another post-World War II high, to 22 percent.

Republicans, who are already painting Obama as a profligate spender, are laying plans to attack him on taxes as well. Even some nonpartisan observers question the wisdom of announcing a plan to raise taxes in the midst of a recession. But senior White House adviser David Axelrod said in an interview that the proposals reflect the ideas that won the election.

Well, basically, everybody's going to hate this budget plan for one reason or another. Republicans are going to be screaming about taxes, but Axelrod's right: Obama did win the election and made it clear from the beginning he was going to let the Bush tax cuts expire. This isn't news to the people. We'll see how it works out.

Swiss Army Knife

Now, here's an interesting story. It seems after last week's debacle with Swiss bank UBS copping to $780 million in fines and turning over names of Americans who allegedly used the banks to defraud the United States out of paying billions in taxes, thus breaking the secrecy of the Swiss bank account, the Swiss right-wing party has called for an economic war against the US.

The right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP) called on Saturday for retaliation against the United States over a U.S. tax probe into the country's biggest bank UBS that threatens prized banking secrecy.

The populist SVP, the country's biggest party, said Switzerland should not take in any detainees from the U.S. prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, which the Swiss government said last month it could consider to help shut the camp down.

Switzerland should also reconsider its policy of representing the United States in countries where it has no diplomatic presence, the parliamentary SVP said in a statement.

The SVP said gold stored by the Swiss National Bank in the United States should be repatriated and Switzerland should ban the sale of U.S. funds in the country to protect Swiss investors after the failure of U.S. regulators.

The SVP has one minister in the seven-member Swiss government which is made up of the biggest four parties, but its populist policies have shaken up usually consensual Swiss politics.

As such, the Senate hearing on the UBS tax haven scam scheduled for Tuesday has been mysteriously postponed until March.

Not sure what to make of this. The Swiss could really throw a sabot in the gears for Obama and the US if they chose to, but the Swiss, well, are the Swiss. On the other hand, going after the privacy and secrecy of the Swiss bank system is a major blow to Switzerland in general. It's something they've been using for centuries, and in this world where the global banking system is falling apart, an attack of that magnitude on Swiss banks is going to provoke a response from those who wish to see it as an economic attack on the country.

This seems to be political posturing to me. But that's just something you don't see every day, Swiss political posturing.

Reid Was Right For Once

My views on Harry Reid are legend, but for once the old man was right: the Senate should never have seated Roland Burris, as Jesse Taylor reminds us over at Pandagon.

So, a month and a half ago, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and other Democratic leaders stood staunchly opposed to Roland Burris’ seating. The Chicago Tribune then said there was no good reason not to seat Burris, smirking at Democrats’ impotent rage and declaring that Burris would be a fine, competent Senator.

Now that Burris is pretty much confirmed as the asshole we all thought he was, the selfsame Chicago Tribune is asking why Democrats are silent on the issue, and why they have no moral compass to oppose the most terrible man who’s ever held any office...ever.

I’m not the biggest fan of Harry Reid, but the guy steadfastly opposed Burris taking the seat, as did Obama. It’ll be interesting to see how the media handles this, by which I mean it’ll be interesting to see how long it is until we get a special segment on how Harry Reid let the fox walk into the henhouse and even pointed the way to the tastiest hens.

I'm hoping both Obama and Reid will tell Burris to go to hell and resign next week...but he won't. And for once, something stupid the Democrats in the Senate did won't be Harry Reid's fault.

The Lie That Won't Die

Feeling ignored by the Republican Party? Not taken seriously by the GOP anymore? Viewed as a has been? No problem! Just go on a totally crazy rant about Obama's birth certificate! (h/t BooMan):

OBAMUSLIM SOCIALIST USURPERS ARE IN ALAN KEYES' BREAKFAST CEREAL! WE MUST FIGHT THEM! WOLVEREEEEEEEEEEEEENS!

Jindal's Last Stand

Man, this weekend keeps getting better. The "Begala Trap" has caught its first victim, folks. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is playing with fire by actually turning down Obama's stimulus money for unemployment benefits...and he's going to get burned by this. (h/t Think Progress)

When President Obama signed the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act last week, it included three different provisions to benefit unemployed workers. The first provided funding to states that allowed for a $25 per week increase in benefits. The second extended the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program which gives 20 weeks of federally-funded unemployment benefits to individuals “who had already collected all regular state benefits,” while the third provision widened the pool of people eligible to receive unemployment benefits.

Today, however, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal announced his intention to oppose changing state law to allow his Lousiana citizens to qualify for the second two unemployment provisions. Jindal said the state would only be accepting money to increase the unemployment insurance payments for those who currently qualify for unemployment insurance.

Now, let's stop and think about it. Jindal is taking the extra $25 a week for people who already get state unemployment benefits. He's not a complete idiot and turning down all three provisions would have been political suicide.

But he turned down 20 weeks of additional unemployment benefits from Washington for people who have already exhausted their benefits...and this is Louisiana, a state still reeling from Katrina and neglect. Ran out of unemployment money searching for a job? Counting on that additional 20 weeks of benefits to feed your family? Sorry, Bobby Jindal's trying to run for President, and he can't help you in 2009 if he's running in 2012.

Even better, he turned down expanding unemployment benefits to more Louisianans, for the same reasons: he's arguing that it will increase taxes on businesses. Jindal's saying the taxes on small business owners will exceed the unemployment benefits on the jobless, so he's bravely saying no.

So, bottom line, Bobby Jindal is putting his bid for 2012 ahead of unemployed people in his own state during an economic crisis. Unemployment bennies are for poor people! Screw THEM, they don't count.

I didn't honestly think they would do it, but now that Jindal has drawn the line, we're now going to see GOP governors like Rick Perry, Mark Sanford, and good old Sarah Palin now have to up the ante and reject even MORE stimulus cash, putting even more burden on their people in order to fuel their own Presidential ambitions.

In all, Jindal turned away nearly $100 million in federal aid for his state’s unemployed residents. Further, as the National Employment Law Project projected on Febuary 13, EUC extension alone would have benefited 24,981 Louisiana residents. Jindal justified his decision by claiming that expanding unemployment benefits would result in tax increases for businesses. In a press release, the governor’s office explained:

The Governor said the state will not use a portion of the stimulus package that requires the state to change its law to expand unemployment insurance (UI) coverage to qualify for up to $32.8 million of the federal stimulus funding because it ultimately would result in a tax increase on Louisiana businesses.

But it is not clear why participating in the expanded unemployment insurance program would result in tax increases for business. By Jindal’s own estimate, the recovery package would have funded his state’s unemployment expansion for three years, at which point the state could — if it chose to do so — phase out the program.

I love it. They're already lining up and killing themselves.

Big Idiot Is Watching You

As I mentioned below in today's StupidiNews, Republicans are looking to force another draconic surveillance measure down our throats. This one promises to be dead on arrival for a number of reasons, but I'm just shocked at how bad the bill is to begin with. It mandates not only that ISPs log every web site customers visit for two years and have them available to police, it also says that Wi-Fi access point owners must do the same thing...including small businesses and home wireless router users.

The legislation, which echoes a measure proposed by one of their Democratic colleagues three years ago, would impose unprecedented data retention requirements on a broad swath of Internet access providers and is certain to draw fire from businesses and privacy advocates.

"While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level."

Joining Cornyn was Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who said such a measure would let "law enforcement stay ahead of the criminals."

Two bills have been introduced so far - S.436 in the Senate and H.R.1076 in the House. Each of the companion bills is titled "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act," or Internet Safety Act.

Each contains the same language: "A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least two years all records or other information pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily assigned network address the service assigns to that user."

Translated, the Internet Safety Act applies not just to AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and so on, but also to the tens of millions of homes with Wi-Fi access points or wired routers that use the standard method of dynamically assigning temporary addresses. (That method is called Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, or DHCP.)

"Everyone has to keep such information," says Albert Gidari, a partner at the Perkins Coie law firm in Seattle who specializes in this area of electronic privacy law.

In other words, this law makes you responsible for keeping detailed records of every web site that not only you visit while surfing the net at home, but everyone who uses your broadband router. You also must make those records available for police to view and use. Even worse, this law also may cover VOIP (Voice Over IP) services like Vonage and Skype phones, meaning you would have to track every phone call you make on them and have those records available too...not just your IP, but you because you own a router.

Since you basically need a router to have a home network, wired or wireless, under this legislation you become responsible for all data retention of every website that is accessed through it. Not your ISP. You. If you don't have these records, under this law you are in violation of the law and can face Federal charges.

This is such a shockingly bad law that I cannot believe this would ever pass Congress, let alone be signed into law by Obama. But I have to wonder why the Republicans would even bother to write such a moronic bill to begin with, a bill that has zero chance to stand up in court.

But the sad fact is both side of the aisle keep writing stupid bills like this. They died even in the Bush administration, but then again, they just decided to secretly track all this stuff at the source and not tell us about it. This bill would not only legalize what Bush was doing behind our backs (and frankly, what Obama is continuing to do) but would make millions of us complicit in the record-keeping apparatus as deputized I-SAFETY Act cops.

And you know what? From that angle, I can certainly see Obama signing this bill into law covering his own ass for the illegal surveillance apparatus that he has inherited...and has yet to shut down.

However, I think common sense will win out...not to mention I can see every ISP, every tech company, every PC maker, and millions of Americans all going "Are you KIDDING me?" Look, fix the bill, protecting kids from porn is one thing. Punishing the 99.99% of us who aren't involved in that is another.

But let's look across the chessboard for a minute here. Perhaps the GOP is trying to force Obama's hand. The GOP knows Bush's surveillance program is now Obama's surveillance program. Obama can't publicly lambaste this bill without getting blowback on the fact the NSA's already collecting all internet traffic. Either Obama has to end the program...or he has to sign this bill into law.

If he vetoes it, the leaks we'll see on the surveillance program will rightfully make Obama look like a hypocrite. He'll be attacked by the GOP as being weak on protecting America from internet threats. If he passes the bill, his own base will rightfully turn on him.

There is a way out...and that's to renounce the surveillance program now. Get rid of it, then laugh this bill off the floor. Obama's got to see the trap coming, but it only works if he plays into the GOP's hands.

Once again the easy way to beat the Republicans here is to simply do the right thing.

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition

• Police say they have a break in the 7 year old Chandra Levy murder case.
• Obama and the Democrats lock horns on a "truth commission" on the Bush administration's actions.
• Republicans are calling for a sweeping new law to track every American's web use in order to fight child porn.
• The fight over Plan N is reaching open warfare on Capitol Hill.
• Another Oregon bank is closed by the FDIC, marking 14 this year.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

Fred Barnes is an ass.

Two And A Half Dubyas

So, Obama's approval rating is a good 2.5 times that of Bush's end of term numbers. Still has a 92% approval among Dems, and 61% among Independents...but that 31% among Republicans means of course that he's a total failure.

Epic Existentialism Fail

I submit the above EPIC FAILS through its own existence.

Loose Lips Sink CEOs

Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis is trying to keep the worst kept secret in Washington: Plan N. He's not doing too hot of a job.

Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis tried to assure his senior team that the bank would not be seized by the government, the WSJ says. As nationalization talk gains momentum in Washington, Lewis also reportedly asked the government to say publicly that it is not considering this option.

WSJ: Mr. Lewis addressed the nationalization speculation during a senior leadership meeting Thursday at the bank's headquarters, according to a person there. Policy officials in Washington have assured Mr. Lewis that such an option isn't on the table, the CEO said. He also said he has urged the government to say this publicly.

It's not clear which "policy officials" Lewis was referring to, exactly. Presumably some folks at the Treasury and Fed. Nationalization is now emphatically "on the table" in Washington, with Lindsey Graham, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and others publicly calling for it.

The other news about Lewis that we can infer from this article is that he's likely losing the support of his senior team. Unless Lewis himself ordered the leak--perhaps in an attempt to get the "nationalization not on the table" idea into the press again--Bank of America's senior team is now going around him to the press (and quickly, too).

This, combined with the crushed stock price, Merrill Lynch deal, and Cuomo subpoena, suggest that Ken Lewis's tenure is not long for this world.

And that's putting it mildly. I'm gonna say that Bank of America is not long for this world, and that includes a number of other banks, including Citigroup.

Some sort of government receivership of these banks will be required very, very soon. The calls for Plan N are growing louder every day. Ken's fighting for his job, understandably. But he's on the losing side of history here, and the tsunami is coming for him and a lot of other bank CEOs here in the next few months...maybe even weeks.

[UPDATE] Add Senate banking committee chair Chris Dodd to the list of folks saying "Plan N is go". Citigroup and BoA stocks taking a complete nosedive at this hour.

Benny Up To Bat

As widely expected, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu has been given a chance to form a coalition government with himself as Prime Minister.

The decision comes after Avigdor Lieberman, head of the right-wing Yisrael Beytenu party, said he would recommend Netanyahu for the post, but only if he promises to form a "broad-based" coalition government.

In last week's parliamentary elections, no single party won the minimum 61 seats needed to form a government. That means a government of two or more parties is virtually inevitable.

To become Israel's next prime minister, Netanyahu must form a coalition within six weeks, or the process will start all over.

The ruling moderate Kadima Party won the most seats in the Knesset, Israel's parliament. But Kadima, led by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, received one more seat than Netanyahu's conservative Likud Party.

The strong showing of other right-wing parties -- including Yisrael Beytenu and the Orthodox Shas movement -- could give Netanyahu a better chance of forming a coalition government.

With the other right-wing parties backing him up, Netanyahu does have the support to form a government. The question at this point is will it include the moderate Kadima party of Livni or not.

Netanyahu can't afford to freeze them out, or he seriously risks damaging relations with President Obama. I'm curious as to how he will balance what Lieberman and the ultra-nationalists want with what Livni and the moderates want. If you thought Obama had to walk a fine line, you don't want to be in Bibi's shoes.

Right now all sides are talking inclusion and power-sharing and uniting to help Israel. That'll change once Netanyahu gets settled. I predict serious friction between the US and Israel in 2009. From an objective point of view, Netanyahu's job is actually worse than Obama's predicament right now.

Oh Please Let This Happen

Over at National Review's blog The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez puts up possibly the funniest, most fever-bright insane-o-vision suggestion I've seen in quite some time, the notion of the GOP Populist Ticket Of Megastupid, where she slyly suggests that the cure to AFOP is a combination of Aurora Sarahalis and CNBC's Rick Santelli.

Who the hell is Rick Santelli? Much like Chase CEO Jamie Dimon yesterday, Rick has gone on a Jim Cramer style tirade against Obama's mortgage plan, saying that people need to revolt against it becuase "the government is promoting bad behavior."

Yep. Trillions in free money for banks, fine. But $75 billion to keep Americans in their homes? The government and Obama are "subsidizing the losers".

So yes. Let's see the GOP embrace this notion of Wall Street hotshots getting trillions in taxpayer loans and capital telling the American people to go screw themselves with a length of PVC pipe for wanting to keep a roof over their heads. Please. Let's go back to blaming Americans who bought a home over the last two years and made the same mistake that Wall Street did and didn't anticipate the housing bubble.

Let's throw these "losers" out on the street and give their homes to the banks, along with trillions of our tax dollars. Run with that notion, guys. Run with it.

[UPDATE] John Cole has more, and White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs tells Santelli to stick it.

StupidiNews!

• Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis faces Congress on what he knew about Merrill Lynch's billions in bonuses.
• Experts say recession-born crime statistics will be on the rise as America faces more unemployment.
• GM says it will soon have no choice but to phase out or shrink the Hummer, Saab, and Pontiac brands.
• Evidence that the corporate bond market is revving up might indicate the credit crunch is thawing.
• Wikileaks finds out the hard way that anything can be leaked, including its own donor list.

Last Call

Seems the AP's Larry Margasak has decided that Blago, Tom Daschle, and Roland Burris are equal to the entire eight-year run of BushCo. The Democrats are now the "culture of corruption" in Washington.

Senate Democrats now may be trapped in their own ethics system. Disciplinary action against a senator usually requires a long investigation by the Senate's ethics committee. While a preliminary inquiry on Burris is under way, that's only the first early step. And, with ongoing criminal investigations in Illinois, the committee probably would have to postpone any action — as it usually does — to avoid interference.

In 2006, Republicans lost control of the House after Democrats effectively used a "culture of corruption" theme against them.

The final scandal broke shortly before the election, when it was revealed that then-Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, sent sexually suggestive e-mails and explicit instant messages to teenage boys who had served as House pages.

Republicans were further harmed when it was disclosed that several of their members were aware of the problem and failed to take action.

Democrats, who've been in control of both Congress and the White House less than two months now, are lucky on one point. The next congressional election is nearly two years away.

But luckily, we have the Liberal Media to remind us every step of the way that AFOP is the worst Presidency ever, and that Barack Obama and the Democrats are Worse Than Bush!

How kind of them. Remember the Village is on the GOP's side and has been for decades. Remember, the plan is to make sure Democrats get every ounce of blame for the problems Bush handed over. Every second Obama fails to magically solve Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Israel, India, Zimbabwe, Sudan, the economy, the housing crisis, crime, inflation, deflation, race relations, immigration, drugs, and everything else is another sin marked against his tally to these fine folks.

Yes, someday Barack Obama will be responsible for what Bush left us. But not one month into his Presidency. Remember...the plan is Destroy. Obama.