FLAIT

As I showed in 2010 and earlier this year, there's been a monumental shift in power to the far right because Democrats have ceded ground and capitulated to the Republicans on every issue.

Regardless of how much electoral power the GOP has, they control the levers of actual power. They get what they want, they demand more each time, and will not allow anything they oppose to get through; at least not without a long, dragged out fight.

Last year's budget and this fiasco surrounding the debt ceiling have moved the "debate," and politics, so far to the right, that the Democratic Party is now to the right of Ronald Reagan's GOP of the 1980s.

It's not a bargaining chip

Putting a budget together and raising the debt ceiling have to be done. They're like tax returns and paying the mortgage. Who would mess with things like that? Well, Republicans.

Since it's in their partisan interests to run the country into the ground, the GOP has cleverly forced Democrats into turning the budget and debt ceiling into bargaining chips of their own. In other words, if Democrats want a budget and if Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, they're going to have to agree to trillion dollar domestic spending cuts and tax cuts for corporations and the super rich, while not increasing a single tax or closing a tax loophole. It would be like a husband who's looking to get into a fight with his wife, telling her that he won't pay the mortgage until she agrees to get a second job and stops going to the mall so he can play more golf. And he won't budge off those demands because what he really wants is a divorce.

So even though the debt ceiling has to be raised, or else risk global economic calamity, Republicans turned it into a hostage and demanded a ransom, that they won't accept. And Obama and the Democrats are poised to pay it anyway. As usual.

As long as Democrats hold some power, Republicans will always oppose budgets and a rise of the debt ceiling everything until Democrats capitulate to Republican demands. Since Democrats caved on the 2009 stimulus, caved on the public option, caved on financial "re-regulation," and caved last December on the budget, why would Republicans ever agree to anything Democrats want? They might as well hold it hostage and demand ransom because they know Democrats will pay it.

This just in: Republicans have taken another hostage. The F.A.A..

The wrong side of the wrong argument

In a recession, the government should be spending more, not less, especially when interest rates are so low. So contrary to what you've heard from Republicans, Democrats, President Obama and the so called "liberal media," the deficit and debt are not the problems right now. We have bigger, more immediate concerns: unemployment and the dismal economy. So deep spending cuts - now known as "austerity" - is the wrong response.

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos:

There is no fiscal crisis. Everyone should be clear on that.

The United States is not bankrupt. Social Security is not about to founder. Wall Street is not on a precipice, the IMF is not standing by demanding massive shifts in our government, and U.S. bonds are not trading 1:1 with Charmin. There is nothing wrong.

Nothing except that the Republican Party is prepared to slice the nation's throat to get its way.

Real crises do exist. There are moments in a nation's history where the government must take abrupt action, either military or fiscal, to prevent disaster...

That's not the case this time. Not only does solving the issue at hand not require the launching of a single ship, it doesn't require the expenditure of a single dime. Raising the debt limit does not commit the United States to any debt it has not already incurred. Refusing to raise that limit is no more an act of fiscal prudence than refusing to pay the restaurant for a meal already eaten.

Not only is the money already spent, the Republicans are the ones who spent it. It's not Social Security that drove up the debt over the last decade. Social Security is responsible for 0% of the deficit. Make that 0.00%, to be exact. The deficit that the Republicans are railing against is driven by the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by the cost of the recently extended Bush tax cuts. You know what (will) happen if we cut Social Security? We'll get less Social Security, not less deficit.

It's funny that politicians on both sides of the aisle keep demanding that "everything be on the table," when what they really mean is that "everything not responsible for the problem be on the table." Not that it matters. The truth is that Republicans aren't interested in solving the problem. They're making the problem. They invented it from thin, hot air and they're entirely invested in seeing that the problem gets worse...

If Republicans were actually concerned about the fiscal health of the nation, they would sign onto raising the debt ceiling without hesitation or condition. Because there's nothing wrong, and because raising the limit would cost nothing. Instead they've created a completely artificial problem as nothing more than an excuse to extend the damage they've already caused. It's really a wonderful little game they've created: drive the nation so far into debt that there's no choice but to raise the limit, then use raising the limit as an excuse to create more debt. (Bold mine. Underline his.)

Funny that the deficit and debt never mattered when a Republican was President. See how things work? And even though Republicans are mainly responsible for exploding the debt in the first place, and have zero credibility on deficits, spending and debt, historically, Obama and the Democrats joined the GOP - back in early 2009 - and shifted policy, from spending more to spending less.

Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz:

I was among those who hoped that, somehow, the financial crisis would teach Americans (and others) a lesson about the need for greater equality, stronger regulation, and a better balance between the market and government. Alas, that has not been the case. On the contrary, a resurgence of right-wing economics, driven by ideology and special interests, once again threatens the global economy—or at least the economies of Europe and North America, where these ideas continue to flourish...

As Greece and other countries face crises, the medicine du jour is simply timeworn austerity packages and privatization, which will merely leave the countries that embrace them poorer and more vulnerable. This medicine failed in East Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere, and it will fail in Europe, too. Indeed, it has already failed in Ireland, Latvia, and Greece.

There is an alternative: an economic-growth strategy supported by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. Growth would restore confidence that Greece could repay its debts, causing interest rates to fall and leaving more fiscal room for further growth-enhancing investments. Growth itself increases tax revenues and reduces the need for social expenditures, such as unemployment benefits. And the confidence that this engenders leads to still further growth.

Regrettably, the financial markets and right-wing economists have gotten the problem exactly backward: They believe that austerity produces confidence, and that confidence will produce growth. But austerity undermines growth, worsening the government's fiscal position, or at least yielding less improvement than austerity's advocates promise. On both counts, confidence is undermined, and a downward spiral is set in motion.

Do we really need another costly experiment with ideas that have repeatedly failed? We shouldn't, but increasingly it appears that we will have to endure another one nonetheless. A failure of either Europe or the United States to return to robust growth would be bad for the global economy. The failure of both would be disastrous—even if the major emerging-market countries have attained self-sustaining growth. Unfortunately, unless wiser heads prevail, that is the way the world is heading.

Nobel economist Paul Krugman:

...if all you did was listen to (Obama's) speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that’s not a false impression; maybe it’s the simple truth.

One striking example of this rightward shift came in last weekend’s presidential address, in which Mr. Obama had this to say about the economics of the budget: “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.”

That’s three of the right’s favorite economic fallacies in just two sentences. No, the government shouldn’t budget the way families do; on the contrary, trying to balance the budget in times of economic distress is a recipe for deepening the slump. Spending cuts right now wouldn’t “put the economy on sounder footing.” They would reduce growth and raise unemployment. And last but not least, businesses aren’t holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they’re holding back because they don’t have enough customers — a problem that would be made worse, not better, by short-term spending cuts.

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post:

Today’s jobs report is terrible...

The RNC immediately sent out a statement blaming “out of control spending” for the problem, which is a little like telling a starving person he or she needs to lose a little more weight. It’s even more perverse that at a time when the economy is backsliding,

Democrats in Washington are focused on reaching a “grand bargain” with Republicans on the debt ceiling that will result in even more spending cuts.

Republicans reiterating the same talking points day after day is one thing. What’s worse is that the White House has not only failed to rebut the GOP’s arguments on spending, it has practically endorsed them. As Paul Krugman writes today (above), rather than pointing out that cutting spending right now means shedding jobs and further slowing the recovery, the White House has embraced the idea that spending is the problem.

See how things work? We're "debating" how much taxes should be cut on multi-national corporations, not if they should be cut at all. We're "debating" how much spending should be cut on seniors, not if it should be cut at all. Forget the "debate" about the size of another, long overdue stimulus. That's not happening.

It's always about cutting the social safety net, cutting regulation, cutting spending, and most of all, cutting taxes on corporations and the super rich, even though Obama, that "Socialist/liberal," already cut taxes, twice, first in the stimulus and then again last December when he gave into GOP demands.

This goes to show just how hypocritical Republicans are. Even though one-third of the 2009 stimulus was tax cuts, just three Republican Senators, and none in the House, voted for it (that's worth repeating: Republicans voted against tax cuts!). And now, they're blasting the stimulus by saying "it didn't work." Then there was the $858 billion tax cut last December. Hmm, I thought tax cuts created jobs.

Anyway, you see how this works? Republicans demand tax cuts, get them, and when they don't work, blame Obama. And when the government takes in less money, it forces - gee, what do you know? - spending cuts. And then they demand more tax cuts, they get them, and the insane cycle repeats itself.

And what did Democrats get out of all those tax cuts? A stimulus that was too small and too boring, a three month budget "deal" that forced another round of "negotiations" (in which Republicans threatened a government shutdown) and a showdown over the debt ceiling.

So even though Democrats act like Republicans, they'll never be able to please Republicans. So why bother?

In exchange for raising the debt ceiling, Republicans were demanding $4 trillion in spending cuts that included cuts to Social Security and turning Medicare into a voucher program, a corporate tax holiday, and protecting tax loopholes for billion dollar hedge fund managers and corporate jets.

Paul Krugman:

Over the last two years profits have soared while unemployment has remained disastrously high. Why should anyone believe that handing even more money to corporations, no strings attached, would lead to faster job creation?

Nonetheless, trickle-down is clearly on the ascendant — and even some Democrats are buying into it. What am I talking about? Consider first the arguments Republicans are using to defend outrageous tax loopholes. How can people simultaneously demand savage cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and defend special tax breaks favoring hedge fund managers and owners of corporate jets?

Well, here’s what a spokesman for Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, told Greg Sargent of The Washington Post: “You can’t help the wage earner by taxing the wage payer offering a job.” He went on to imply, disingenuously, that the tax breaks at issue mainly help small businesses (they’re actually mainly for big corporations). But the basic argument was that anything that leaves more money in the hands of corporations will mean more jobs. That is, it’s pure trickle-down.

And then there’s the repatriation issue.

U.S. corporations are supposed to pay taxes on the profits of their overseas subsidiaries — but only when those profits are transferred back to the parent company. Now there’s a move afoot — driven, of course, by a major lobbying campaign — to offer an amnesty under which companies could move funds back while paying hardly any taxes. And even some Democrats are supporting this idea, claiming that it would create jobs.

As opponents of this plan point out, we’ve already seen this movie: A similar tax holiday was offered in 2004, with a similar sales pitch. And it was a total failure.

But that wasn't enough...for Obama. He also called for $4 trillion in spending cuts, put Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table and offered to extend the Bush tax cuts even further out.

In addition to his lunch money, that would be like the wimp handing the bully his watch and mother's jewelery too!

While Republicans are demanding more largess for the wealthy and corporate elite, and Obama forcing the poor, middle class and senior citizens to pay for it, Medicaid has already been cut in many states and they want to slash it even more. And we found $1 billion to bomb Libya. See how this works?

Columnist Robert Scheer :

How deceptive for politicians to stress “entitlements” when they talk about gutting Social Security and Medicare, two programs long paid for by their beneficiaries. The Republicans make it sound as if they’re doing us a favor, cutting government waste by seeking to strangle America’s two most successful domestic programs. And now Barack Obama seems poised to join their camp in undermining the essential lifeline for most of the nation’s seniors, many of whom lost their retirement savings in the banking meltdown.

These threatened programs are not government handouts to a privileged class, like defense contractors and bailed-out bankers, who do feel eminently entitled to pig out at the federal trough...

Social Security is a particularly weird whipping boy for what ails us, since the program has been solvent since its inception and will be so for the next quarter of a century. Is there any other public or corporate entity that we can guarantee will be in as good shape for the next 25 years, and even at that point be able to pay 75 percent of its obligations? Presidents both Republican and Democrat have routinely dipped into the Social Security trust fund to float the national debt, and yet critics from both parties have the effrontery now to treat as some sort of indulgence a program for which seniors, current and future, have paid. Seniors are as much “entitled” to the payback on their investment as the folks who buy Treasury notes, people who will be at the forefront of those protected by a rise in the debt ceiling.

Maybe if George Bush and members of his administration were prosecuted for war crimes; maybe if the Wall Street bankers were held accountable and thrown in jail for destroying the economy, the biggest theft of the American Treasury in history, and costing millions of Americans their jobs and homes; maybe if billion dollar subsidies for the oil companies were ended; maybe if tax loopholes were closed that curently allow billion dollar hedge fund managers and millionaire CEO's to pay a lower tax rate (or lower taxes, period) than their secretaries; maybe if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire; and maybe if we rebuilt America and the economy recovers, then we can talk about entitlements. But until then, why should those who had nothing to do with the the deficit, the debt, the economic collapse and the lousy economy have to pay for all this austerity...that we shouldn't even be doing in the first place?

And remember, Social Security is running a surplus, doesn't add a penny to the deficit, and is solvent for 25 years. And the Medicare "cuts" they're talking about only shifts costs and is really an "unfair form of taxation."

But the right cracks me up. They're always in this panic that "Obama's going to take my guns away," and "Obama's going to take my health care away." But when Obama and the Republicans are going to cut their Social Security and take away their Medicare, we don't hear a peep out of them that's what they want.

Republicans have been trying to cut Social Security and Medicare ever since they were enacted. Who could have ever predicted that they'd get the Democrats to do it for them? And watch, just like with tax cuts, the GOP will come back in the next hostage drama and demand even more cuts. Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson must be spinning in their graves.

So forget who will win and lose this battle. The Democrats lost it. They lost it in 2009 when they joined the Republicans and agreed to address the "deficit crisis" when the economy was on its knees. So Democrats are not only on the wrong side of the argument, it's the wrong argument!

The political consequences

When Republicans called to replace Medicare with a voucher system, then voted to implement it, and called for cuts to Social Security, it gave Democrats an enormous opportunity, politically. They couldn't have asked for a bigger bat to hit Republicans over the head with. In fact, it was already paying off. But with Obama going along with them, it's an opportunity lost.

It would be like the wimp telling the bully that "I'm going to tell the principal that I hit you and took your lunch money, watch and mother's jewelery"!

John Aravosis of Americablog:

First off, it's not entirely clear how the President is going to spin this deficit fiasco as a victory when even Democrats are now saying it's the President who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Second, it's not clear how Democrats are going to being able to use Social Security and Medicare in the next election now that the President has taken the lead as bad-guy-in-chief. Third, Republicans can now legitimately claim that it's Democrats who want to cut both programs, thus using the argument against us (and they already are). And fourth, it's not clear how the President is going to avoid blame for the economy next year when it's Democrats who are now blaming the President for not just refusing to focus on unemployment, but for embracing GOP policies that will actually increase unemployment and put a damper on already lackluster growth. (Italics his.)

In another post by John Aravosis:

That didn't take long. The President endorsed the Republicans' agenda to cut Social Security and Medicare, and he cut back on his promised health care reform and stimulus package to woo Republican support, and now the President is being blamed for cutting Social Security, rising health care costs, and increased joblessness.

Typically, the President does this, endorses the GOP talking point, thinking it's going to woo him friends on the GOP side of the aisle and, more generally, force Republicans to be nicer to him. Instead, Republicans attack him for doing what they told him to do.

Which is what most of us predicted would happen. But the President keeps doing the same thing over and over, with the same, and increasingly, disastrous consequences.

But that's what happens when Democrats A) try and act like Republicans, B) have been bullied and intimidated by the thugs on the right, and therefore, C) try and appease Republicans for the same reason a a child tries to appease an abusive father.

It's gotten so bad that Democrats, liberals especially, and what they used to stand for has been steamrolled into irrelevance, something snicker at. Want proof? The Democratic Progressive Caucus has the only budget plan that eliminates the deficit in 10 years. Sure, you can debate the details, but that's not the point. I bet you didn't even hear about it (Obama didn't. Either that or he didn't care and would rather keep pandering to Republicans.).

So the "liberal media" gives attention and credibility to the anarchists on the right who want to turn the country back to the 18th century, but give little no attention and no credibility to a pragmatic plan from liberals. See how this works?

The last time a liberal idea was considered was...? The last time liberal ideas - you know, the ones like "big government" regulations and tax increases that have proven to work - were considered was...?

If anything, we're doing the opposite by cutting taxes (that the government relies on), cutting domestic spending (that the economy relies on), cutting social programs (that the economy and most Americans rely on) and cutting regulation (that investors, depositors, home owners, consumers and Gulf Coast wildlife and fisherman rely on).

And it's actually become very easy, like taking candy away from a baby because Democrats are the baby!

So the Democrats had the obvious political advantage on Social Security and Medicare until Obama gave it right back because the left is irrelevant and worth nothing more then a cynical roll of the eyes.

See how this works?

Lawrence Lewis of Daily Kos:

Austerity fever swept through Washington. The economy continued to falter, but a second stimulus was now unthinkable. The only question was what would be cut. The president had said that he took John Boehner at his word not to hold the debt ceiling hostage, but that was exactly what Boehner ended up doing. And if the president really had taken Boehner at his word, he must have been the only one who was surprised when Boehner broke it. As if the man who had held middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits hostage for a ransom of tax cuts for the wealthy had any sense of honor and decency and could have in any way been trusted to do anything else. After the president had given the Republicans tax cuts in exchange for an inadequate stimulus, after he had negotiated himself down to a Republican health insurance plan that not a single Republican ended up supporting, after he had given Republicans the Bush tax cuts and put the Republican talking points of deficits and austerity at the center of the economic conversation, when it came to the debt ceiling there wasn't much mystery as to how the Republicans would play it.

The president could have stood tall and declared that he would not play games or negotiate over the extension of a debt ceiling that had won bipartisan support every time it had ever come up, but he didn't. He could have put responsibility for blowing up the economy squarely on the Republicans' shoulders, but he didn't. No one expected he would. Certainly the Republicans didn't expect that he would. Everyone knew that if the Republicans again fought dirty the president would give nice speeches, then give them much of what they wanted. How could he not? He was playing their game, on their field, on their terms, in their language. Deficits. Budget cuts. Everything on the table. Except for serious revenue enhancements. Except for a second stimulus. With unemployment and foreclosures still devastating the lives of tens of millions. (Bold mine.)

Hunter at Daily Kos:

So I don't know how much of a shock it should really be to anyone that unemployment is still at 9.2%, which, you may remember, was considered a near-apocalyptic worst case scenario not all that long ago, but is now considered the new normal. Even our "stimulus" package was only really designed to shore things up from getting catastrophically worse—a fine goal, mind you—but it didn't include much that might make the jobs situation markedly better. For that, we'd need to pump much more money into direct economic stimulus, like infrastructure programs, and those things are considered anathema by one of the two parties.

None of that's on the table. Instead, both parties have fallen firmly into the "austerity now" framework, in which the only acceptable discussions center around cutting the deficit right now, during massive unemployment, and only by using (1) tax cuts, for absolutely no logical reason, and/or (2) cutting government spending. The first is just the usual mumbo jumbo that blessed us with this deficit in the first place, discredited at this point as anything but voodoo class warfare for the sake of voodoo class warfare. The second is going to directly undo the stimulus measures above, forcing government to directly trim jobs as opposed to shoring them up...

Jobs, though? Not on the table. You know how Democrats and Republicans have been running around telling us what is and isn't "on the table" during these debt ceiling negotiations? Creating new jobs hasn't even rated a substantive mention. That table is apparently big enough to hold tax cuts, tax increases, tweaks to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, trade treaties, proposed constitutional amendments and what have you, but that damn table has at no point had any robust mechanism for additional jobs on it.

Short version: everything they're talking about is going to do nothing for our current unemployment situation, or will directly make it worse. Nothing they're talking about is going to boost demand, which is necessary to boost employment numbers—but a lot of what they're talking about may shrink demand under the banner of "austerity." (Italics his.)

Of course, because only the anarchists on the right who exploded the deficit are listened to and taken seriously.

Arguing with a hockey puck

Incredibly, the GOP leadership can't take yes for an answer because their insane base is in a frenzy and won't allow any deal that raises the debt ceiling, even one that gives them what they want!

This is what we're dealing with here. My God, just look at what Obama has given away. Then look at what he gave away when it wasn't enough. And that wasn't enough!

So while Republican leadership knows the debt ceiling has to be raised, House Republicans hockey pucks won't release the hostage (I must apologize for this insulting characterization...to hockey pucks. They're are a lot smarter then Republicans.)

Paul Krugman

A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask. Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades...

And may I say to those suddenly agonizing over the mental health of one of our two major parties: People like you bear some responsibility for that party’s current state.

Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting. President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal...

...the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.

As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. Mitt Romney’s health care plan became a tyrannical assault on American freedom when put in place by that man in the White House. And the same logic applies to the proposed debt deals.

This goes to show that these "negotiations" and partisan bickering have absolutely nothing to do with the deficit or debt at all. It's really about hurting the economy, hurting Obama and shrinking the size of government down to the point it can be drowned in the bathtub.

With Republicans backing themselves into a corner, it's possible there won't be "grand bargain," but a smaller deal, with Democrats still capitulating of course. Or the GOP could allow Obama to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. Or, Obama will force Republicans to accept what he and the GOP wanted all along: a deal that's farther to the right (I just checked. Obama ran for President as a Democrat. Amazing, isn't it?).

Hey, I have an idea. It's a little radical and I don't think it would go over too well because it's kinda drastic. But let me throw it out there anyway.

Why don't they just pass a debt ceiling increase (without political strings attached) like they always do, and put off these trillion dollar tax and spending talks for another day? They could do it in half an hour and it would put an end to this crazy, unnecessary game of chicken.

Oh wait, that is drastic. Makes way too much sense and the only winners would be America the whole world. Can't have any of that in Washington. What was I thinking? Never mind.

The consequences to America

At this point, it doesn't even matter what the final agreement will be because whatever it is, it'll be a horrible deal for the country. It'll not only weaken an economy that already stinks, but quite possibly, put us back into a recession.

Also, cutting trillions of dollars from the biggest government behemoths at the 11th hour, with a gun pointed at the head of the hostage, using back-of-the-envelope calculations, with or without the Congressional Budget Office running the numbers in this chaos to see exactly what this will mean in dollars and cents to the the average senior, is just asking for unintended consequences. When the cuts turn out to be too much or the wrong kind that hits the wrong income, who's going to fix it? The Republicans won't. And they won't let the Democrats do it.

And cutting billions from education, research, infrastructure, food inspection and various forms of regulation enforcement is impractical, short-sighted and just asking for trouble.

Yup, this is how Washington "solves" extremely complicated budget issues: arbitrary deadlines, last minute seat-of-the-pants "negotiations" with ignorant and unreasonable Republicans political terrorists who have to appease their "hockey pucks" who are itching to pull the trigger, and trying to avert self-inflicted economic catastrophe, all at the same time. Sure inspires confidence, doesn't it?

Failing to raise the debt ceiling has already put America's credit rating in jeopardy. It could raise everyone's interest rates (homes, cars, credit cards) and force the Treasury Department to pay higher rates to finance the debt, now and in the future. And that will just force the government to spend more, which increases the deficit. If that's not enough, it could also have the same effect on the financial markets that the collapse of Lehman Brothers had. Oh, and it's entirely self-inflicted. Great going, guys.

Paul Krugman:

For those who know their 1930s history, this is all too familiar. If (the European and our)...current debt negotiations fails, we could be about to replay 1931, the global banking collapse that made the Great Depression great. But, if the negotiations succeed, we will be set to replay the great mistake of 1937: the premature turn to fiscal contraction that derailed economic recovery and ensured that the Depression would last until World War II finally provided the boost the economy needed.

What a disaster - a man-made disaster. But by all means, let's keep listening to anarchists and political terrorists and ignoring progressives who've been right all along.

Progressive Democrat Barney Frank (at 11:40):

I voted against the war in Iraq, a trillion dollars. I voted against tax cuts for millionaires (the Bush tax cuts). I didn't vote for Bush's drug program (Medicare Part D) which was unfunded. So my debt limit, I got a couple of trillion left to go.

See how things work?

Sausage-making run amok

Americans should look back at this sickening display of American "governance" in disgrace.

They say the legislative process is like making sausage (who said it has to be that way?). But for the last couple of months, big chunks of debt ceiling sausage meat have been shooting out of the Capitol and White House like fireworks. And the stench can be detected all over the country. America should be embarrassed.

You think Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson would allow a this fiasco? You think they'd come close to default and putting American's credit rating in jeopardy? Heck, even the twit George Bush didn't. He raised the debt ceiling five times!

Granted, Obama's dealing with political suicide bombers who are more then willing to blow up the economy so they can become Tea Party martyrs. But he allowed these "negotiations." He allowed them to drag out. He allowed Republicans to turn health care, the budget and the debt ceiling into hostages. He paid the ransoms. And he failed to use his bully pulpit to make sure the debt ceiling was raised months ago, simply and without fanfare, like it always is. He's the President for Christ's sake and allowed the GOP to usurp his power! So he empowered them!

So while the GOP deserves the blame for putting us into this precarious position, much of this embarrassing legislative dysfunction and disarray the last few months two-and-a-half years is Obama's fault.

Hey, when there's a complete void of Presidential leadership, it gets filled by hostile Republican anarchists who are just looking for a fight. It's like a city abandoning a neighborhood and allowing it to deteriorate. Gangs fill the void by moving in and taking control with their guns and drugs.

Obama could have been the adult in the room months ago from the day he took office. The country needed him to stand up to the GOP, take them on, and call them out for what they are. But he didn't. Instead, he did the opposite. He's tried to work with these political terrorists by placating them, appeasing them and capitulating to them, while dumping on the left. How's that worked out so far?

His ineptitude, weakness and lack of leadership allowed the GOP to fill the void and take him on instead. So just like a neglected neighborhood, the gangs - Republicans, in this case - moved in and took control. From Capitol Hill to the White House, Pennsylvania Avenue is littered with disgusting sausage meat. And it shouldn't be.

While Republicans are playing politics with America's credit, Obama hasn't been entirely honest either. Along with the rest of the Democrats, Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling during the Bush years (but Democrats didn't hold it hostage and didn't filibuster).

And now as president, Obama's probably glad that the GOP did hold the debt ceiling hostage. This way he'd be "forced" to "cave" and "capitulate" and pay the ransom so he can implement the tax cuts and deep spending cuts to Social Security and Medicare that he wanted all along.

Also, if Obama and the Democrats really had a problem with billion dollar subsidies for oil companies, multi-national corporations paying little or no taxes and tax loopholes for corporate jets and hedge fund managers, why didn't they do something about it when they had enormous Congressional majorities in 2009 and 2010?

Oh, that would have angered Republicans, the deep minority Republicans, and Democrats aren't allowed to do that. Never mind. How convenient...for Obama.

The GOP always wins

Republicans not only get what they want in these contentious partisan battles, but they also win politically in a number of ways.

As this blog has pointed out, their priority is to keep their mindless and gullible base in a perpetual state of rage against Democrats, government, the media, or whoever the enemy of the hour happens to be. And they can do that by stringing out health care and the budget and debt ceiling "negotiations" because it creates that partisan confrontation with Democrats that the Republican base lives for.

What do Republicans care if there's no budget or the government defaults on its bills? In the bizzaro Republican world, those are good things, something to celebrate and be proud of because it's seen as Republicans sticking it to Democrats. In fact, if the government was shut down, Republicans would run political ads taking credit for it.

That's how much this "party"cult cares about responsibility, governing and the country.

But there's also an added benefit to these drawn out partisan battles: it wastes a lot of time.

If the debt ceiling was raised months ago - simply, without fanfare like it always is, even by that Socialist/liberal, Ronald Reagan who raised it 18 times - House Republicans would have been forced to tackle the country's complicated problems, such as the economy, jobs, education, energy, green technology, the environment, health care, our crumbling infrastructure, transportation etc. (Oh, did I say transportation? Republicans are trying to cut it. And did I say the environment? Republicans want to cut that too.)

But since all those complicated problems require mature, intelligent thought and ideas (remember them?), the GOP is unable to have those discussions.

Forget the fact that the conservative/Republican solution to everything is "less government" and "lower taxes." Forget the fact that they haven't just been wrong on everything, they couldn't have been more wrong on everything and therefore, can't argue the facts. And forget the fact that Republicans aren't intellects and unable to think maturely, creatively, imaginatively, intelligently and responsibly. Conservatives/Republicans are neanderthals who are part of a massive cult. So they don't have the desire, or ability, to think maturely, creatively, imaginatively, intelligently and responsibly.

So to avoid mature, honest, intelligent policy discussions, and most important, responsibility, they create enemies, diversions, disagreement, obstacles and gridlock. And because they're dealing with feeble, afraid-of-their-own shadow Democrats, they get away with it. Just look at all that sausage meat.

One-sided politics

Despite having enormous Congressional majorities in 2009 and 2010, Democrats allowed Senate Republicans to block everything and force "negotiations" through them. So whatever reached Obama's desk, was weak, watered down and Republican-leaning (didn't matter anyway, because with control of the House, the GOP is trying to rip apart health care reform and financial "re-regulation," including the Consumer Financial Protection Board. They won't even allow the CFPB director's position to be filled because A) in the bizzaro GOP world, consumer protection agencies that police the banks and protects consumers are very bad and must be stopped, B) we have a gutless president who is so frightened of the GOP, he yanked the nomination of the highly qualified Elizabeth Warren for the top job even though he could have made her director without Senate approval via a recess appointment, so he C) nominated Richard Cordray, who Republicans immediately declared D.O.A.. This is what we're dealing with here.).

There's many other examples of Democrats passing Republican-leaning legislation.

With the help of Democratic Congressional majorities, banking deregulation began under Ronald Regan and it led to a number of bank failures in the 1980s.

In 1998 the Democrats went along with the Wall Street ("let the free market decide") deregulation that the Republican majority was pushing and Bill Clinton signed the legislation. That led, in part, to the 2008 banking and economic collapse that we're still paying dearly for today.

In 2003 a good number of Democrats went along with Bush's Iraq war, and his extremely conservative Supreme Court nominees went right through, no questions asked. If there were, Republicans would have shouted them down, demanding an "up or down vote." Anyone see a pattern here?

Meanwhile, look at how much trouble it took to get Obama's judges through. Neither was extremely liberal, definitely not as liberal as John Roberts and Samuel Alito were conservative. And when Obama nominated Godwin Liu, a liberal, for a lower court bench seat, he had to be withdrawn because the GOP wouldn't allow an "up or down vote" (should one of the conservative judges on the Supreme Court retire while Obama is President, mark my words: there will be blood in the streets because the thugs on the right will not allow a moderate, let alone a liberal, to replace him. It'll be over the N.R.A's dead body. That's how things work in Washington today.).

So despite Republicans having a record that couldn't be more disastrous - 9/11, Iraq, terrorism, Wall Street deregulation, health care, the environment, taxes, budgets and deficits - Democrats are going along with Republicans and implementing their insane 18th century agenda.

Meanwhile, Republicans never go along with Democrats and make Obama's judicial and governmental nominee confirmations as difficult as possible. Or in Liu's case, Warren's case and Cordray's case, no, not, never. See how this works?

This massive right-wing Republican cult has put legislative politics into a vice that they control. Gridlock is the norm, except when the GOP wants something done. They hold the only key.

Notice that when Democrats control the Senate it takes 60 votes to pass legislation. But when Republicans control the chamber, or it's something they want, only 50 votes are needed.

Notice that "compromise" for Democrats means capitulation and giving more and more and more to Republicans. "Compromise" for Republicans means holding out until they get just about everything they want. See how things work?

Partisan battles have become the proverbial bull in a china shop. But this bull has been trained to only stampede Democratic glassware. And to ensure that Republicans always get their way, in or out of power, they bully, they attack, they intimidate and they incite rage. This couldn't encapsulate what the right is any better (and how they'll react if a conservative Supreme Court judge retires while Obama is President.)

This mob mentality has paralyzed the left, leaving Democrats whimpering in the corner, all curled up the fetal position. No wonder politics has become a one-sided fight.

Democrats are so frightened of Republicans that they don't want to fight (while Republicans instigate them). So they not only cede ground and wave the white flag at the beginning of "negotiations," but ignore and shy away from anything that would upset Republicans. Want proof? Besides Obama's wars (secret, legal or unconstitutional), his war on whistleblowers, continuation of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, and all this, when was the last time Republicans acquiesced and supported anything Democrats wanted the same way Democrats support Republican-leaning legislation? When was the last time Republicans didn't obstruct Democratic legislation? When was the last time Republicans were asked to "compromise" the same way Democrats compromise capitulate? When was the last time Republicans acquiesced and allowed a solid liberal piece of legislation to sail through on abortion rights or gun control? Oh wait, Democrats are too scared to even mention abortion rights or gun control. See what I mean?

Actually, with states repealing gun laws, and passing a record number of anti-abortion laws (for all intents and purposes, banning abortion), the country's going in the opposite direction.

See how things work? When Republicans have the power, they get their way. When Democrats have power, Republicans get their way.

To top it off, Obama's new Democratic Secretary of Defense was so frightened of the backlash he'd get from the right for telling our troops why they were sent to Iraq, he repeated the Bush lies.

Do you believe this? The last time a Republican recited Democratic lies, spin and talking points because he was afraid to upset the left was...?

Anyone see a pattern here? A one-sided pattern? Hello, Democrats? Anyone there? Hello...?

As this blog has proven, Republicans have no intention of governing responsibiliy. Ever. The economy, jobs, the debt, the deficit and responsible governance doesn't even crack their top 10 100 1000. Two years before the 2012 Presidential election, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said "the "single most important thing" for Republicans in the next Congress will be to make sure President Obama "is a one-term president." And that's exactly what the GOP has done from the day Obama took office. They don't care if the economy tanks. Heck, that's what they've been trying to do because a bad economy will be "Obama's fault" (in a way it is since he allowed the GOP to get away with their destructive politics).

So obviously Republicans have been deliberately trying to destroy Obama, the Democrats, the economy, the government's institutions and infrastructure, and in effect, the country (and Obama and the Democrats have allowed them to do it). So I don't know how a Democrat can possibly think that they can extend a hand and work with Republicans. But here's Obama earlier this month on Speaker John Boehner regarding the debt ceiling negotiations:

We haven’t gotten the kind of cooperation that I’d like to see on some of those ideas and initiatives.

No. Really?

But I’m just going to keep on trying and eventually I’m sure the Speaker will see the light.

See how this works?

Double standards

For the most part, when Democrats get into personal trouble, such as Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner, the scandal turns into a hysterical media circus (this is a benefit of "working the refs," which the right has done for decades. It forces the media to hype and exaggerate negative stories on Democrats, or else be branded "liberal," which the right would say anyway.). And with all the "distractions" caused by the so called "liberal media," they're forced to resign. But when Republicans are caught with prostitutes, in embarrassing situations in public restrooms, or having affairs that involves hush money, felonies and other Republicans, there's little media attention, there's no media circus and they're not forced to resign (Sen. Ensign only resigned when, years later, Congress was about to expel him).

See how this works? But wait, there's more. As I wrote on February 29:

Can you imagine if it was Bill Clinton that lied us into a disastrous war and was wiretapping Americans without a warrant (oh wait, I already did). Clarence Thomas is another example. He's taking heat (at least he was) for not reporting his wife's income (and then a possible conflict of interest emerged on the Citizens United case). Had he been a liberal judge we'd be talking about hearings and possible impeachment, the GOP, the right-wing propaganda machine and the conservative base would have made sure of it. But since Thomas is a conservative judge, an extremely conservative judge, it won't didn't get that far. And if it did, the barrage of attacks against "the left" who's "out to get Thomas" would have been quick, loud and angry, the GOP, the right-wing propaganda machine and the conservative base would make sure of it. (March 17 insert: John Aravosis at Americablog has more examples of these double standards.)

Since then, more cases involving a possible conflict of interest for Thomas have surfaced. And the "liberal media" is nowhere to be found (another benefit of "working the refs" and intimidating the media by the right).

Recently, I realized just how big this double standard is when Obama tactfully called out the Republicans for playing games with debt ceiling during one of his press conferences. The next day, MSNBC's Mark Halprin called Obama a "dick" for the way Obama "lectured" Republicans.

So as this blog has proven, Republicans can be "dicks" every single day (and that's being kind). But when Obama, who begged Republicans to take part in everything that's gone through Congress - the stimulus, health care, financial regulation - and capitulated to the GOP on every bit of it, calmly and maturely calls the Republicans out for playing with fire over the country's obligations to pay its bills, he's the dick.

See how this works? And remember, the media's liberal.

Republicans, naturally, threw a tantrum for being "lectured" by Obama. But it's nothing new because the few times a Democrat does question or call out the Republicans, the right goes into immediate spin and damage control mode. A massive counter-attack is unleashed from all directions - including Fox "News" and talk radio - to discredit the accuser and the media. And with the conservative media, its massive and powerful propaganda machine and a compliant "liberal media," they make sure whatever was said gets lost in all that noise.

For example, in 1995, Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha, a supposed hawk, had the nerve to question the disastrous Iraq war. He was met by an orchestrated barrage of attacks that accused him of wanting to "cut and run," as if there's something wrong with "cutting and running" (it is "pro-life" after all. Besides, Ronald Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon in 1984. So I guess it's okay for Republican presidents to "cut and run.").

Another example is Fox "News" going on the attack and blaming the "liberal media" for its coverage of the News Corp. phone hacking scandal.

Even when a Christian commits a mass killing, the right has to go on the offensive and A) con/spin the public into believing he wasn't a Christian (who cares?!), and B) it's the "liberal media's" fault for "labeling" him a "Christian extremist" because they're "anti-Christian" (Jon Stewart does an excellent job calling out Fox "News" on this).

The right has to unleash these attacks because they can not, under any circumstances, allow a single truth or fact about them, their policies, their interests, or even Christianity (how petty is that?), to resonate, at least among their mindless and gullible base/viewers/listeners. Or else, they fear, they'd wise up and leave this cult (fat chance as it is).

(Aug. 21 insert: After Warren Buffett said the super rich has been "coddled" and should pay higher taxes, a Fox "News" anchor suggests he's a Socialist. Of course he did. He had to, to discredit Buffett.)

(Aug. 27 insert: Eric Alterman:

...as I noted in this column in December of last year, when President Barack Obama noted in 2008 that the science underlying man-made global warming was “beyond dispute,” the libertarian Cato Institute took out a full-page ad in The New York Times to attempt to undermine what was then a statement of fact—just a warning shot in a campaign that has resonated with considerable success throughout the mainstream media.

Jane Mayer notes in her profile of the Kochs in The New Yorker that Cato scholars have been particularly energetic in promoting the Climategate scandal...

In the two weeks after the emails went public, one Cato scholar gave more than 20 media interviews trumpeting the alleged scandal. In fact, the researchers have since been exonerated as has the data....

Meanwhile, the phony Climategate controversy led to significant questioning of the worldwide scientific consensus on global warming and led more Americans than any time since 1997 to question its reality. The Kochs promote this statistic on their company’s website, Mayer noted, but fail to come clean about their own role in creating it. [Bold mine.])

The right has figured out that best defense is a rapid, overwhelming attack offense. It allows them to get away with their lies, blatant hypocrisy and double standards, as well as the GOP's historically disastrous record. They live by one set of rules and hold the left to an entirely different set. And because Democrats the pathetic saps never fight back, and because the "liberal media" has been intimidated into treating the right's hypocrisy and lies on the same level as the truth and the facts (Aug. 14 insert: equating succession with national health care for example) the right gets away with it.

Paul Krugman:

We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.

So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.

The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.

What all this means is that there is no penalty for extremism;...

You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault?...

...The “both sides are at fault” people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it’s out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray. (Bold mine.)

No, it's out of fear of the right and afraid of being branded "liberal" (as if they wouldn't be labeled "liberal" anyway). So the media doesn't have the guts to report Republicans lies as lies.

And when "both sides are playing nasty partisan politics," when "both sides are to blame," when "both sides are 'extreme'" (yea, Democrats are extreme...extreme Republicans!), and when "both sides have to 'compromise,'" the GOP wins in a number of ways. It's like the bully and the wimp both getting sent to the principal's office. The bully won because he got the wimp's lunch money, watch and mother's jewelery, wasn't the one who got beat up and is so feared on the schoolyard, he rules it. Just like Republicans use fear to rule Washington.

Also, when Americans get "fed up" with "both parties," they leave the political process. And that shrinks "pool" of voters, volunteers, organizers, protesters and contributors. The GOP knows their base voters and supporters aren't going anywhere. In fact, it's all the nasty partisan confrontations that keeps their base involved. But when moderates, independents and Democrats - too mature and too smart for this crap - throw their hands up in disgust and leave the process, the percentage of right-wing conservatives street thugs that are left to participate increases. So they'll make the most noise, and most importantly, have the numbers on election day.

There's a saying that goes, "Half of life is just showing up." And that's what the GOP counts on.

Then again, numbers aside, it sometimes comes down to perception, power, intimidation and clout.

For example, earlier this year, unions protested in mass all across the country over the assault of their bargaining rights. The capitol in Madison, Wisconsin was overflowing for weeks with outraged union members. But it didn't do any good. Republicans rammed the legislation through. But a handful of Tea Party protestors can get Republicans to get the government to come dangerously close to default. See how things work?

(The GOP's goal is to weaken unions because it's the only sizable voting block and organized fund raising machine that the Democratic Party has. Take it away, or at least dismantle it, and there's nothing left to the Democratic Party's main source of funding.)

How the hell did we get here?

The Republican "Party" has completely destroyed whatever assemblance of good governance the country had, on purpose. They had to because they don't have the maturity, intellect, responsibility or desire to govern responsbily at all. And since the Democrats never stood up to Republicans, it's gotten worse. A lot worse. Our entire the political system - from top to bottom - has been wrecked beyond repair. Mission accomplished.

But Republicans weren't always like this. Back in the 1980s there were Republicans like Warren Rudman, Howard Baker and Nancy Kassebaum, good senators, who actually cared about the country and took their jobs seriously. You think they'd play games with America's credit score?

Since then, Republicans, the entire right for that matter, have become political terrorists, assassins, arsonists, anarchists, demagogues and Christian fundamentalists. It probably started with the GOP's political strategist Lee Atwater. And Karl Rove picked up where he left off.

Rove figured out that if you took all the mud and dirty tactics from the campaigns, and applied them to every day politics, you could win there too.

What Rove has done during his career is so obscene that he doesn't have the character to take the White House tour, let alone work inside. He's the epitome of what's wrong with our politics and governance today. A mountain of lies, attacks, spin, talking points, hypocrisy, manipulation, ridicule, double standards, political assassination, dividing the electorate along regional, racial, social and economic lines, and dirty, nasty campaigns - that are conveniently void of any intellectual policy discussion and debate - have poisoned the political system, destroyed the legislative process and wrecked the government's ability to function, on purpose (which validates the GOP talking point that government is bad and incompetent).

And then there's the corporate money that Rove pours into the campaign financing cesspool (aka "legalized bribery").

Just because it's legal and constitutional doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean he has to do it. So instead of trying to be part of the solution and cleaning up the campaigns - getting the money out and putting intelligent discussion and honest debate in - Rove goes out of his way to make sure he pollutes they system with as much money as possible. He has to because the more lies, mud and attack ads there are in a campaign, the less mature, honest and intellectual debate there is. And since Republicans can't argue the facts and can't defend their record, that's exactly how they need it.

Rove's brand, tone, behavior and "playbook" have absolutely no place in America's politics. But instead of being embarrassed and removing him from his seat at the poltical table, Republicans and their moronic base admire him, cheer him on, and treat him like a hero who did work inside the White House. So that's exactly what the GOP wants politics in America to be. And you don't have to look any further then the last two months six months year two years five years 20 years for proof of that.

So until Karl Rove and those who will surely follow in his footsteps are not welcomed, and kicked out of the "party's" political apparatus - this is worth a second look to see what I mean - we'll never be able to address the country's problems maturely, intelligently, practically and responsibly, let alone solve them. Of course, that will never happen; future "Karl Rove's" will always have a place in this "party." So everything wrong in this country will continue to be the liberal's fault, the Democrats fault, "big government's" fault, ACORN's fault, and/or the media's fault. Never the Republican's fault. Mission accomplished.

But it gets even worse.

What the GOP has figured out, is that the "party" benefits by recruiting the most conservative Republican candidates for office. Not only for Congress, but at the state level too (actually, Democrats also try and recruit the most conservative candidates. Want proof? More and more "Democrats" are pro-life, pro-gun, anti-union, and willing to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.).

Forget moderates. They have no place in the Republican "Party" (want proof? Where are they?). They want to run extreme right-wing conservative candidates because the more conservative they are, the more ignorant they are, the more stubborn they are and the bigger bully they are; and therefore, the less of an independent "thinker" they'll be. And that's exactly what the GOP is looking for: like-minded, extremely stubborn conservative conformity. Independents, individuality and intellects need not apply (proving even more that this political "party" is a God damn cult).

So when seats are filled by ignorant, stubborn, radical conservative Republicans, they'll all "think" alike and toe the party line, regardless of the issue because it doesn't matter. They don't give a crap about their districts, their states or the country. They only care about the unborn and the clinically dead. And if you're somewhere in the middle, then the hell with you, unless of course you're extremely wealthy or own guns.

So with all this corporate money already flowing in, Republicans are really playing to staunch conservative contributors and voters, nationally - pro-lifers, gun nuts, Christian fundamentalists and anti-government zealots - who listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox "News" all day. All they need need to see and hear are confrontations with those evil, baby killing, gun grabbing, "tax and spend," "big government" Democrats and liberals who've destroyed the country (here's a perfect example). (Sept. 2 insert: Here's another.)

And when it comes to the elections, the GOP has them down to an exact science. They know what percentage of Republican voters a specific GOP candidate needs and know how to get it, and/or boost conservative turnout. They know what percentage of independents they need (to con) and know how to get it, and/or suppress it. And they know how much they need to suppress Democratic turnout and know how to do it. And now they're legislating it. (October 4 insert: Five million Americans could be disenfranchised.) And they don't miss a trick.

Sure they'll lose some races, but elections have become a computerized chess game to Republicans. And they're the programmers. Meanwhile, Democrats are wondering why the horse looks so funny.

Conclusion

The systematic takeover of politics and government in America by the right is complete. There is no left anymore. And the way things are going, there won't be a middle class either.

Note: My views on the final debt ceiling deal surrender papers are here.

Aug. 12 insert:

You think I was kidding about Republicans blocking Obama's judicial and governmental nominees? The Nation's Ari Melber (and remember, Democrats control the Senate):

Republicans are holding symbolic sessions during their entire vacation in order to prevent recess appointments. This is just the latest ploy in a long obstruction campaign by the GOP. Since Obama came into office, Republicans have blocked an unprecedented number of nominees from ever getting a vote. Take judicial nominees. Republicans have blocked almost half of the nominees for judicial nominations, the worst obstruction rate in U.S. history...

...nominees for jobs shaping economic policy - obviously the No. 1 issue in this country - have been totally shut down. Obama nominated Nobel economist Peter Diamond to the Federal Reserve Board over a year ago. Republicans filibustered, he was renominated two more times, and he ultimately withdrew in disgust.

The top spot at the famous Consumer Protection Bureau remains empty. Republicans even brazenly blocked votes on nominees for the Board of Protection commissioner at the Homeland Security department and the head of Industry and Security at the Commerce department. Both of those posts were finally filled through recess appointments last year, but it's only gotten worse.

This week, White House officials openly said they need Tim Geithner to extend his term as Treasury Secretary, in part because Republicans would filibuster a vote on his replacement.

Look, you don't fight unemployment by trying to shut down one of the most important jobs on the president's economic team. The solution is pretty simple -- Senator Reid and President Obama should call the Senate back in session now...They should refuse to adjourn until there are votes on all these nominees. They can use quorum calls, break the silent filibuster that most Americans don't even know is happening, and they can keep every member working seven days a week and refuse to adjourn...(Bold mine.)

Yea, but that would take leadership...and Obama getting pissed off at Republicans. Can't have any of that!

August 20 insert: More on the GOP's obstruction of judicial nominees, and its consequences, is here.