THIS WEEK IN POLITICAL NEWS -- 12/22/11

PROGRAMMING NOTE: I am taking a few weeks off to celebrate the holidays and take law school finals. I’ll be back in late January -- which means you’ll be on your own for the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary results -- and possibly South Carolina. (Mark your calendars: Iowa is Jan 3, New Hampshire is Jan 10, and South Carolina is Jan 21.)

GOP IN A PICKLE OVER TAXES: I don’t want to discount Democrats’ incredible ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but it looks like we may be on the brink of actually winning a PR battle. As you know, Obama has been pushing for an extension of the cut in the payroll tax -- one of the most regressive taxes in our system -- that was passed temporarily earlier this year. The Republicans apparently found a tax cut they don’t like, and have spent the last month or so making up reasons why such an extension shouldn’t pass. But the Senate managed to cobble together an enormous bipartisan majority (89 votes) to pass a 2-month extension late last week (tied to a provision forcing the White House to make a final decision on the Keystone Pipeline in 60 days, rather than waiting another year). However, House Republicans, for an as-yet unexplained reason, have refused to pass the extension. Worse, Speaker Boehner realized that if the Senate bill came up for a vote in the House, there would be enough Republican votes to pass it along with the Democrats, so in order to ensure its defeat, he refused to bring up the bill at all. Instead, the House voted to send the bill to conference, where it would likely die. Obama went into the press room on Tuesday and issued a stern warning to the House Republicans, telling them to get in line. The DC chatter has turned on them too. Here’s Karl Rove on Fox News, urging the GOP to get it together because they’d “lost the optics on it.” Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page fretted that the GOP was losing this battle, big time. Conservatives are in full panic mode over this PR disaster.

The House Republicans claim that they just want a full-year extension, rather than a temporary fix. This is a lie. The Democrats had been working for a full-year extension from day one, but could not work out a deal with the GOP, who wanted to use the deal to overhaul the social safety net by means-testing Medicare and slashing unemployment insurance. The GOP also hands-down refused to agree to pay for the tax cut with a surtax on income over $1 million, as the Democrats had wanted, and so the Dems dropped that demand. In other words, the Dems compromised. The two-month package was a temporray fix intended to give both sides more time to negotiate. Of course, that wasn’t enough for the GOP.

And now they’re in quite the pickle, as the press gets worse and worse for them. One House GOPer floated a three month extension as being somehow vastly superior to the Senate’s two-month bill. This morning, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell publicly called on Speaker Boehner to get the House together and pass the Senate bill. But Boehner’s office refused, insisting on a conference committee. It’s important to note that of the eight GOP House members Boehner appointed to the conference committee, a full five of them have expressed opposition to any sort of payroll tax cut extension. It can’t get much clearer that Boehner aims to spike this entire deal, as he has with so many other deals this year. The difference is that, this time, he might actually get blamed for it. (I should note, though, that there could be real damage to the economy if this tax cut isn’t extended, and there’s a larger than zero chance that the Dems will blink and seek big compromise just to pass this thing. It’s not totally clear whether that would be terrible, either, since failure could be bad both for the economy and for the Democrats politically.)

I SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT: that the tax-cut extension also includes an extension of unemployment insurance, which is desperately needed in this time of massive unemployment. A failure to extend these benefits would be, as the Washington Post editorial page puts it, “cruel and unwarranted.”

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: This is the problem with trying to get ahead with these things (I wrote the above this afternoon). Late this afternoon, Boehner caved and agreed to a two-month extension. The deal says that the House will agree to the Senate-passed two-month extension, and the Senate will appoint members to the conference committee to iron out a year-long compromise. “It may not have been politically the smartest thing in the world,’’ Mr. Boehner said. “But let me tell you what: I think our members waged a good fight.’’ Um...sure.

MEA CULPA ON NDAA: Last week, as you may recall, I was pretty upset over the passage of the National Defense Authorization Bill (the NDAA), which I said would legalize indefinite detention, including military detention of Americans, and signaled a total capitulation by President Obama. I am still disappointed, but I need to walk back some of my larger claims. The bill was widely misreported in the press; it was really difficult to get a consistent take on what the bill would actually do. So Adam Serwer has helpfully cleared up some of my mistaken impressions. First, it does not allow the President to put an American citizen accused of terrorism who is captured on US soil in indefinite military detention without trial. “A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won't be based on the authority in this bill,” Serwer explains. The bill specifically leaves it to the courts to decide whether the President has power, under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), to detain American citizens indefinitely. Second, the bill does not necessarily make military rather than civilian detention mandatory (though it’s close enough). (Though, as Serwer points out, it’s symbolic importance is still very dangerous, as it codifies into the law for the first time an expanded role for the military in domestic terrorism cases.) This bill is still really bad. Really bad. It’s just not quite as terrible and terrifying as I had thought, and it’s important to let you know that. (Here’s another really helpful rundown of the history of the bill and its provisions regarding military detention.)

GOP ’12 ROUNDUP: The Iowa caucuses are less than 2 weeks away -- and yes, Drausin, I realize it should technically say “fewer” but less sounds better in this context. So the Iowa caucuses are less than 2 weeks away and the race is still in total flux! Let’s look through the candidates, shall we?

Newt: You may remember that Newt Gingrich was recently a frontrunner. No more. He’s dropped to third place in Iowa polls, and his national favorability ratings dropped thirty points in two weeks. As Chait reminds us, a mere three weeks ago, Gingrich declared that looking at the polls, it was clear he was going to be the nominee. “And by the way I don’t object if people want to attack me, that’s their right. All I’m suggesting that it’s not going to be very effective.” Yeah, he was really wrong on that. Negative ads work (and Gingrich is facing a whole slew of them). No wonder Newt has changed his tune on them: “The ads that [Romney’s] people have been running that are clearly false and misleading, that ought to be taken down. They're planning to spend $1.4 million in Iowa next week running attack ads against me,” he whined on Fox News last night.

Ron Paul: So Newt’s been knocked off his throne -- and by none other than Ron Paul (at least in Iowa). This is a bit strange, considering that Iowa Republicans tend to skew uber-conservative when it comes to social issues (they voted for Huckabee last go around). Then again, Paul has been blasting airways with soft fuzzy commercials trumpeting his anti-abortion bona fides. But Paul has some problems that extend beyond his libertarian positions on heroin (in favor) and the war on terrorism (opposed): He published a series of eye-poppingly racist articles (really, click that link) in his own newsletter throughout the 90s. It’s true that the author of these articles was likely not Ron Paul, but rather the libertarian activist Lew Rockwell. Still, as Ta-Nehsis Coates wonders, “How could we justify handing off the launch codes to a man so careless with his very name?” Paul may not have written them, but he published them under his own name. “If Larry Flynt were running for president, I’m pretty sure people wouldn’t care that much that he did not personally take the photographs that appeared in Hustler,” Chait pointed out. This is a legitimate issue, not a media-created kerfuffle, as Paul attests. And yet he’s refusing to answer questions about them.

Romney: The biggest story of the week, obviously, was the payroll tax cut. And wouldn’t you know it, but Romney has taken both sides of the issue -- and then refused to say where he stood on the particular wrangling happening in Congress this week. Romney originally derided the payroll tax cut as a “temporary little band-aid” that wasn’t worth passing. That was in October. Then this month he said he wanted to see the tax cut extended, “because I know that working families are really feeling the pinch right now.” By yesterday, he decided it was best to avoid taking a position altogether. “I’m not going to throw gasoline on what is already a fire,” he said, when asked what the House Republicans should do. Profiles in courage.

Perry: Nothing much to say about Perry. But he did put out a new ad featuring his wife explaining how much they love “Christian values.” Check out his cat-like pounce on her at the end! And is wearing a turtleneck?

GOOD NEWS -- EPA APPROVES NEW COAL PLANT RULES: The EPA makes history by finalizing rules regulating the emissions of mercury and other toxins from coal- and oil-power plants. David Roberts explains why this is a Big Deal.

Must Read of the Week: Be careful what you wish for, War on Christmas Warriors! (Side note: I tried to read this out loud to my roommate and started crying from laughing so hard.)
Fun Video of the Week: A sneak peek at HBO’s upcoming “Game Change” -- feauturing Julianne Moore as Palin.

THIS WEEK IN POLITICAL NEWS -- 12/15/11

THE MOST DISPIRITING OBAMA MOVE YET: Remember how the Democrats in the Senate ushered in a sweeping new bill that would authorize indefinite detention of American citizens (and everyone else) suspected of supporting terrorism and would require that all such detentions, interrogations, and investigations be conducted by the military rather than law enforcement? Remember how the Obama Administration threatened to veto that bill? Remember how hopeful you were that that strong veto threat would kill this monstrosity once and for all? Yeah, well, now the White House has changed its mind on the veto. In conference, the bill was changed to make the required military detention provision optional, though military detention remains the default presumption that the President would have to affirmatively reject. As Adam Serwer explains, “The changes allow members of Congress to claim they're not hampering counterterrorism operations while still leaving them room to slam the president should he decide to forgo military detention.” He also points out that the new bill keeps in place the ban on transferring Gitmo detainees to civilian courts that was passed along with DADT repeal last year. “It also retains the language of the Senate ‘compromise’ on indefinite detention without trial of American citizens apprehended on US soil, leaving the issue an open question for the courts to resolve. The way the compromise is worded, however, could be construed as authorizing military detention of American citizens who are captured abroad, even if they're not apprehended fighting on a hot battlefield such as Afghanistan.” (And of course, the indefinite detention provision applies to noncitizens as well.) This bill is a disgrace, an abomination, a spit in the face of civil liberties and our constitutional tradition. Where the hell is this guy? Or this one? I have been one of Obama’s staunchest defenders, constantly telling his critics on the left that they are massively discounting political realities, or the problem of the filibuster, or the intransigence of Republicans. But this is simply indefensible. It was Bush’s moves on exactly these issues that took America down an unprecedented and radically cynical path -- and that played an enormous role in our bowels-deep hunger for a change of direction. In this, Obama has now proved to be an unmitigated failure. (Watch ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer discuss the bill with Rachel Maddow.)

GOP UPDATE - NEWTMENTUM SLOWING?: The Republican candidates gather tonight for yet another debate, this one hosted by Fox News, so you’ll have to wait for next week for a recap of that one. In the meantime, let’s take a closer look at our frontrunner-of-the-moment. At last week’s debate, Gingrich appeared nasty, snarling, and unpleasant (read: ugly) -- but everyone loved it and declared him the winner. (No one remarked on the really intense scowl and totally gross winking that I was disturbed by, so maybe it’s just me.) But poll numbers out today suggest we may have reached “Peak Gingrich,” no doubt because of the focused, passionate hatred directed his way from GOP elites. Check out what Andrew Sullivan has identified as the GOP’s “full unconcealed panic” (Here’s a taste, from David Brooks: ‘“[Newt] has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with ’60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form.” And Joe Scarborough: “He will destroy the party. He will re-elect Barack Obama and we’ll be ruined.” And the National Review: “His character flaws — his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas — made him a poor Speaker of the House. … Again and again he put his own interests above those of the causes he championed in public.”) Along with the massive resistance from elites, Gingrich is rapidly running out of money; that’s why a cash infusion of $20 million from right-wing casino owner Sheldon Adelson to a group affiliated with Gingrich’s campaign came as a lifeline today. This week Newt also took the seemingly humiliating move of publicly promising not to cheat on his current wife. Have we really sunk so low? He followed that up by signing the National Organization for Marriage’s anti-gay marriage pledge today, promising to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and to appoint judges who will deny gay people their equal rights. Not that we should be surprised, but the crassness of Newt’s particular brand of bigotry -- infused as it is with such profound personal hypocrisy -- should truly raise our level of disgust to new heights.

In other GOP news, Mitt continues to showcase eye-popping levels of chutzpah, debuting his latest attack against Gingrich: that Newt is an “extremely unreliable” conservative. This comes the same week as a video from 2002 -- a mere 9 years ago -- emerges showing Mitt proudly proclaiming to be a “moderate” whose “views are progressive.”

IRAQ WAR ENDS, FOR REAL: This week, the Iraq War finally ended. People don’t seem to be paying much attention to this, for some reason, but 9 years and $1 trillion and 4,000 American lives later, this is a pretty big deal. The costs of this war were enormous. More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives, and 1.6 million people became refugees. Of the more than 2 million Americans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, over 32,000 Americans were wounded in Iraq; estimates put the cost of these veterans’ health care and disability payments between $420 and $750 billion. This was a war started under pretenses that were misleading at best, and became a quagmire from which the United States has struggled to extricate itself. But now that Obama is withdrawing all American troops (the last soldiers leave at the end of December), his Republican opponents are, unbelievably, arguing that the war should keep going. Romney called the withdrawal an “astonishing failure,” a claim that is itself astonishing. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was similarly disdainful of the president’s decision to end the war -- on the timeline negotiated by the Bush administration, mind you: “I fear this decision has set in motion events that will come back to haunt our country,” he said. It’s hard to know what to expect in Iraq as we leave, and what will happen to its people. NBC’s Richard Engel has said that the thousands of American contractors still there are going to pose an enormous problem in the future. He also is pessimistic about the increasingly Shiite character of the country, writing this week, “As I drove on from Dora, I kept thinking, sectarian violence is going to blow up in Iraq again. Many Sunnis feel they have no future in the country.”

NEW MEDICARE REPLACEMENT PLAN?: The Beltway was very excited today when news broke that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) had come up with a bipartisan plan to reform Medicare. Ryan is the GOP whiz-kid behind last year’s plan to replace Medicare with vouchers that would pay for only a tiny fraction of seniors’ health care costs. I admit, I find it difficult to judge the Ryan-Wyden (try saying that 10 times fast) plan, given the complexities of the policies. So I basically rely on TNR’s Jonathan Cohn to tell me (and, by extension, you) what I (we) should think about this. Cohn says this plan is “less radical” than Ryan’s 2010 plan, though it does include a voucher-type system while also purporting to leave traditional Medicare in place. His bottom line, though, is that the plan is still a bad one. “But if the Ryan-Wyden plan improves upon the original Ryan plan, does it also improve upon Medicare? Would seniors really be better off? Would the government save a lot money? I think the answer to all three questions is no.” Cohn has a detailed, clear rundown of the flaws with the plan that’s worth a read. He also explains what a true grand bargain would look like -- Dems agree to transform Medicare into a premium support system, Republicans agree to expand Obamacare into effectively Medicare-for-all -- and shows that the Ryan-Wyden plan isn’t close to such a compromise. (Can you guess which side is giving away more?)

GOOD NEWS -- HOLDER SIGNALS MOVE ON VOTING RIGHTS: For a year, we’ve been following the numerous state laws passed to intentionally make it harder for people -- usually people who tend to vote Democratic -- to vote. States have passed voter ID laws, constrained residency requirements targeting college students, and made it nearly impossible for civic groups to register voters. On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder made it clear that the DOJ is paying attention, and will be investigating. “Although I cannot go into detail about the ongoing review of these and other state-law changes, I can assure you that it will be thorough — and it will be fair,” he said at a speech. There are five lawsuits pending across the country aiming to strike down the Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case over Texas’ redistricting plan. Potentially, the Court could totally eviscerate the law’s protections. But in the meantime, it looks like the DOJ will be moving to use the Voting Rights Act to try to curb the worst abuses of these GOP-led state efforts. ThinkProgress has a three-part analysis of Holders speech here, here, and here, including a highlight of Holder’s idea to have automatic, national voter registration.

Promising Development of the Week: In just one month, Wisconsin Democrats have already collected 507,000 signatures to recall Gov. Walker, putting them well on their way to the 540,000 they need by the Jan. 15 deadline.
Great Chart(s) of the Week: CAP has put the 10 craziest components of Gingrich’s tax plan in visual graph form.
Fun Video of the Week: The Daily Show reports on Lowe’s insane bigotry regarding the TV show “All-American Muslim.” Part I here; Part II here.

THIS WEEK IN POLITICAL NEWS -- 12/8/11

GOP UPDATE: This week we saw the solidifying of Newt Gingrich as the frontrunner of the GOP, leading in almost every single poll, both statewide and nationally. (He’s up by 12 points in Iowa and by 20 points in South Carolina.) This. Is. Crazy. It’s sort of a gift to the Democrats, but before you get too gleeful, remember that there are some real dangers here. First, Obama could very well lose. We’re at 9% unemployment, the middle class is struggling, Wall Street cash is abandoning the Dems, people are losing their homes, and did I mention we’re at 9% unemployment? These are not things presidents usually overcome in a reelection bid. And if Obama loses, Newt Gingrich could be the President. Second, we shouldn’t underestimate Gingrich’s remarkable ability to sound like he knows what he’s talking about. His supreme, overwhelming self-confidence is, to many audiences, infectious. He won’t cower before Obama in debates. In fact, he’ll be a formidable debate opponent -- because, remember, to do well in debates you don’t actually have to know anything, or say things that even vaguely resemble reality, to sound competent. Obama would need to dedicate himself to actually countering the BS Newt spouts in order to expose him for the fraud he is.

Speaking of debates, the other amazing thing that happened this week is that Donald Trump announced he will moderate a GOP debate -- and Gingrich immediately accepted his invitation! (This was right about the same time that Gingrich teamed up with Trump to suggest that poor kids could be farmed out to work for Trump because, as Newt puts it, “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits for working and have nobody around them who works.” Yep, poor people are just sitting around all day, not working, basking in the milk and honey that is government welfare.) Romney, Paul, and Huntsman have all widely declined, and only Santorum has joined Gingrich in deciding to attend. Trump, Gingrich, and Santorum, unfiltered, in one room, for multiple hours. No wonder the staff of the Daily Show is succumbing to fits of ecstasy.

Somewhat balancing the Daily Show’s joy at the Trump debate, Herman Cain officially bowed out of the presidential race on Saturday. Luckily, he left with enough absurdity to give Jon Stewart & Co. a wonderful parting gift (see this week’s Fun Video of the Week!). Cain’s supporters are expected to drift to Gingrich, strengthening his lead. But Rick Perry is trying to fight for every one of those voters. He sank to new lows this week with the release of an ad he calls “Strong,” in which he declares himself an unashamed Christian, which somehow lets him pivot to attacking Obama for letting gays serve in the military, bemoaning the fact that kids can’t “openly celebrate Christmas” in school (whaaa??), and vowing to end “Obama’s war on religion.” (But wait, I thought Obama was a Muslim Marxist terrorist seeking to ensure Islam’s takeover of the world?) What an asshole.
TWO BIG, IMPORTANT, EXCITING SPEECHES: This week, Obama gave a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, where in 1910 Teddy Roosevelt laid out what Wikipedia tells me was his idea of a New Nationalism, calling for a dramatic expansion of social welfare and safety net programs. Obama used the speech to define what he calls our “make or break moment” -- a time when we can embrace a view “that says in America we are greater together—when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share.” He argued that our tax code “must reflect our values.” That means, in the short term, extending the payroll tax cut, and in the long term, raising taxes on those at the very top. “This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole,” Obama said. He explained the essential reforms that were passed in 2010’s Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, and called for higher penalties on banks found guilty of fraud. He called on Americans to make education “a national mission,” and repeated his exhortations for greater investment in science, technology, and infrastructure. You know I’m a sucker for the emotional uplift, so here’s how he ended it:

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we’ve changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time. The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex. But what hasn’t changed—what can never change—are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other’s success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others—is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.” And I believe America is on the way up.

It was a beautiful speech. (Or, in the words of GOP economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, it was “hypocritical, incoherent, and unpresidential.” You know, potato, potahto.)

Obama wasn’t the only one kicking ass at the speech-giving thing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the leaders of the world in Geneva, announcing the Obama administration's new policy to specifically promote and protect the human rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender people worldwide. “It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave,” Clinton said (minute 8:25 in the full video). I found it incredibly moving to hear the United States Secretary of State, speaking before the United Nations, say this:

To LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people. (Minute 23:30)

Here’s a 4-minute highlight reel. Full text and video here.

ON THE HILL: Tons of stuff happened on the Hill this week, as Republicans realized that blocking every measure to try to revive the economy was wrong and bad for the country, and joined their Democratic counterparts to pass sweeping reforms and confirm a host of desperately needed nominees. Ha! Just kidding. More gridlock, comme d’habitude. First up, we have the filibustering of Obama’s nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency created in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill -- the one to which Elizabeth Warren was originally nominated, but then decided to run for Senate after the GOP blocked her. So Obama nominated former Ohio AG Richard Cordray, an insanely well-respected and well-qualified guy whom everyone seems to like. But Cordray’s nomination “failed” today by a 53-45 vote, with every Republican except Scott Brown (R-MA) filibustering his nomination (Sen. Olympia Snowe voted “present”). Sen. Mike Lee was blunt about his caucus’ reasons for filibustering: “I have met Mr. Cordray, and my decision to oppose his confirmation by the Senate has nothing to do with his qualifications. Rather, I feel it is my duty to oppose his confirmation as part of my opposition to the creation of CFPB itself.” Sen. Minority Leader McConnell was just as blunt, saying that unless three specific changes he demands are put in place, "We won’t support a nominee for this bureau — regardless of who the president is.” (One of the changes would be to abolish the entire post and replace it with a board of directors, presumably to make it as inefficient as possible.) Let’s not forget, of course, that the agency was created by duly-enacted federal law -- a law that both houses approved and the President signed, the process outlined by the Constitution that these people are sworn to support and defend. As a reminder of just how radical this is, remember that routine filibusters of executive appointments is a brand new phenomenon. For example, in 2003 (Bush’s third year in office), there wasn’t a single cloture vote on an executive branch nominee.

Next, Republicans for the third time blocked an extension of the payroll tax cut today, which would have been funded by a temporary surtax on income over $1 million (expected to affect 0.2 percent of the population). The House GOP introduced its own version of the tax cut extension, which would pay for it by rolling back from Medicare and food-stamp and unemployment benefits and freezing federal worker pay. It also comes with a whole host of poison pills: a provision speeding the construction of the Keystone oils ands pipeline; ending the EPA’s rules limiting toxic air pollutants; and banning the EPA from proposing a replacement standard. Obama, who issued a veto threat regarding the Keystone pipe and said he won’t leave for Christmas vacation until the tax cut is passed, responded to the House plan this afternoon: “Rather than trying to figure out what can they extract politically from me in order to get this thing done, what they need to do is be focused on what’s good for the economy, what’s good for jobs and what’s good for the American people.”

One of the most amusing parts of this debate has been hearing the GOP claim that part of why it is dragging its feet is that it is suddenly concerned about the solvency of the Social Security fund, to which payroll taxes are paid. First, since the tax cut plan is fully paid for, there’s no threat posed to the Social Security fund. Second, it seems to me that if the GOP is genuinely concerned about the solvency of the fund given the payroll tax cut, now would be a perfect time to propose eliminating the cap on taxable income, or at least raising it above its current $106,800 limit.
WHITE HOUSE PUTTING POLITICS BEFORE SCIENCE: This week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius abruptly overruled a recommendation from the FDA and HHS medical experts to make Plan B emergency contraception available over the counter to those under 17. Currently, the incredibly safe and effective pill is available to all women over 17 years old over the counter, but younger women need to get a doctor’s prescription. Considering it must taken within 72 hours to be effective, the prescription requirement can make Plan B effectively unavailable for teenagers. Immediately following Sebelius’ decision, FDA commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg insisted the issue was not about health or even protecting young women who may not understand the drug: "There is adequate and reasonable, well-supported and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential." Apparently, this is the first time that HHS has overruled the FDA on a drug approval. This is a little much for those of us who remember Obama, in his first months in office, sounding a very different tune when he reversed Bush’s policies on stem cell research. "Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. “It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." Today, Obama said he supported Sebelius’ decision. At Salon, Rebecca Traister is particularly enraged at Obama’s invocation of his daughters as justification.

Must-Read of the Week: A list of all the people Newt think he’s like, and all the people he knows he’s smarter than. (Hint: The former includes Lincoln and Ho Chi Minh; the latter includes Michele Bachmann.) Bonus: Newt really, really thinks highly of himself. Really.
Another Must-Read: Here’s an account of one Occupier’s LA arrest. It’s pretty insane.
Fun Video of the Week: Jon Stewart recaps Herman Cain’s farewell speech, which included, I kid you not, a quote from the Pokemon movie.