Ann Althouse Attacked at Wisconsin Capitol Singalong

This is generating some interesting discussion: "Attack on Althouse at the Wisconsin Capitol singalong" (found at Memeorandum).

Plus, Althouse gets picked up at Breitbart TV, and from the comments there:

As they keep doing this kind of behavior on a near daily basis now, they do not realize that America has grown tired of this and their patience will eventually wear thin. Because the left is losing power and their true agenda is now exposed in the light of day for the Communist agenda that it is, they are desperate to achieve that ever elusive and imaginary Utopia their leader has promised. When in reality, all they accomplish by doing this is to unite the opposers to Obama's agenda even more.



Not to mention the fact that some day, probably soon, they will pick on the wrong person and find out what it feels like to have your ass beat, and good.

Well, yeah. All in self-defense, of course.

Time for Institutional Reform? Well, Only When Democrats Are Losing

Leave it to the bright lights of the political science profession to call for major structural reforms on the heels of the debt deal. It reminds me of all the useless handwringing over the filibuster once Obama-the-Socialist was elected. Progressives lost. And the losers are screaming foul! See Jacob Hacker and Oona Hathaway, at New York Times, "Our Unbalanced Democracy" (via Memeorandum):

OUR nation isn’t facing just a debt crisis; it’s facing a democracy crisis. For weeks, the federal government has been hurtling toward two unsavory options: a crippling default brought on by Congressional gridlock, or — as key Democrats have advocated — a unilateral increase in the debt ceiling by an unchecked president. Even if the last-minute deal announced on Sunday night holds together, it’s become clear that the balance at the heart of the Constitution is under threat.

The debate has threatened to play out as a destructive but all too familiar two-step, revealing how dysfunctional the relationship between Congress and the president has become.

The two-step begins with a Congress that is hamstrung and incapable of effective action. The president then decides he has little alternative but to strike out on his own, regardless of what the Constitution says.

Congress, unable or unwilling to defend its role, resorts instead to carping at “his” program, “his” war or “his” economy — while denying any responsibility for the mess it helped create. The president, on the defensive, digs in further.

This is, to say it plainly, pure bull. The system's working just the way it's supposed to. The electorate voted for a GOP House majority in 2010. And the Republicans stuck to their guns, to the shock of the old establishment, both Democrats and Republicans alike, who have historically, in previous rounds of debt "negotiations," faked spending restraint while hiking taxes. We have a presidential system and the separation of power. Each office is elected individually, with elections staggered every two years between the House (two-year terms, the entire membership up for reelection every two years), the Senate (six year terms of office for political insulation, with one-third of senators elected every two years), and the president (four year terms of office, term limited since 1951 to prevent cults of personality). Thank the Framers of the Constitution. They built a system that effectively prevents tyranny of the majority. If the voters are unhappy, they get to pick the government they want in 2012. That's how it works. No one's taking hostages. The system's not dysfunctional. If you don't like the filibuster, elect 60 senators from your own party to the majority in the Senate. That solves the problem. If you don't like Republican backbone in the House, take back the chamber in 2010. That's how it works. Amazing how progressives whine about how the sky is falling when folks say we ought to live within our means. It's all going to work out, and in the end the average voter will have demonstrated more influence than the upper-crust academics sneering from their ivory towers.

Image Credit: The People's Cube.

Elizabeth Drew: 'What Were They Thinking?'

At New York Review of Books. I enjoy reading Drew, if only for a wistful reminder of old establishment Washington:

Someday people will look back and wonder, What were they thinking? Why, in the midst of a stalled recovery, with the economy fragile and job creation slowing to a trickle, did the nation’s leaders decide that the thing to do—in order to raise the debt limit, normally a routine matter—was to spend less money, making job creation all the more difficult? Many experts on the economy believe that the President has it backward: that focusing on growth and jobs is more urgent in the near term than cutting the deficit, even if such expenditures require borrowing. But that would go against Obama’s new self-portrait as a fiscally responsible centrist.

Lawrence Summers, Obama’s recently resigned chief economic adviser, said on The Charlie Rose Show in July that he found it “dispiriting” that “all of the energy is on the projected deficits…when the problem right now is that the economy is in danger of stagnating from lack of demand.” The Republicans had made it clear for months that they would use the need to raise the debt ceiling as an instrument for extracting concessions from the Democratic President in the form of more cuts in federal programs. And the President assented to their premise, but only if there should also be some additional revenues. Were they all insane? That’s not a far-fetched question.

The President argued that it’s critical to make cuts that will “get our fiscal house in order,” so that the American people and the politicians would accept the idea of new programs leading to growth and more jobs. But there are numerous indications that the public is ready for such programs now, and serious analysts see no reason why he should not also be taking such steps now, even if this increases the deficit in the short run. But that would be at odds with Obama’s current self-portrayal. People who are looking for work, or worried about their unemployment insurance, or getting their kids to college, may not be impressed with the argument that they must be patient while the President adjusts his fiscal image in time for the 2012 election.

Since the President wanted to cut spending but also increase taxes and the Republicans insisted on cuts with no new taxes, they were for months too far apart to find much agreement on a budget plan to be attached to the debt ceiling increase—which had to be enacted by August 2 to avoid a default. No one could quite believe that this would happen, because it was so unthinkable; it was assumed that the two parties would reach agreement. Each side actually expected the other to be more flexible. The Republicans assumed that the President would be pliable; the Democrats didn’t expect the Republicans to be so inflexible about raising taxes.

The whole essay goes on like this, portraying Republicans as obdurate and conservative ideas as mythical. What Drew can't explain is why Obama is losing. Why is the president unable to get a budget and debt ceiling deal. It's not GOP "hostage-taking." Listen to that press conference from yesterday and pay attention to the rhetorical legerdemain. Especially good is how Obama finesses his massive overspending as Bush's fault: "We were expecting a $1 trillion deficit by the time I took office," he lies. And he lies some more by blaming his own deficits on the "recession" and not the failed stimulus and ObamaCare. He's a pathetic political hack. Republicans are the ones "winning the future" here, by standing up for budget restraint. We don't a have revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Democrats just don't seem to learn that key lesson.

See also Los Angeles Times, "Dueling plans for debt ceiling." And New York Times, "Parties Head to Showdown as Obama Warns of a ‘Crisis’." (At Memeorandum.)

'Cut, Cap and Balance'

At The Hill, "House Republicans release 'Cut, Cap and Balance' bill."

House Republicans on Friday afternoon released their "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill that the House is expected to take up next week.

Republicans have said they would only accept an increase in the federal debt ceiling if immediate cuts are made, federal spending is brought back into balance over the next several years, and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is approved. The GOP bill, H.R. 2560, would do all three.

Details at the link

Behind Battle Over Debt, a War Over Government

At New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The endgame in the fight to increase the nation’s debt limit has only begun, but intense exchanges this week between the two parties have made it clear that this is not so much a negotiation over dollars and cents as a broader clash between the two parties over the size and role of government.

What makes a bipartisan “grand bargain” so elusive is less the budget numbers, on which compromise could be in reach, than each side’s principles, which do not lend themselves to splitting the difference. President Obama wants deficit reduction, including tax increases for wealthier Americans and corporations. Congressional Republicans, prodded by a cadre of junior lawmakers, want a vastly smaller government constrained by lower taxes. The two are not the same thing.

Mr. Obama will make his case on Friday in a White House news conference, his third in just two weeks.

However this showdown is settled, it seems increasingly likely to define not only the legislative record of this Congress, divided between a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-controlled Senate, but also the 2012 elections and Mr. Obama’s prospects for a second term.

More details at top link, and at the Wall Street Journal, "Plan B Emerges on Debt."

Ann Coulter: ' McConnell Schools Obama on Debt'

Well, here's another prominent conservative backing the Senate Minority Leader ... Ann Couter at Human Events:

Democrats don't want to cut any government spending programs, not now, not ever. The country is on a high-speed bullet train to bankruptcy (the only kind of bullets liberals approve of), and the Democrats' motto is: Spend! Spend! Spend!

Democrats are at an advantage in the "should the U.S. go bankrupt or not?" debate because, based on their economic policies so far, they obviously favor bankruptcy.

This allows them to sit back and demand that Republicans propose all the spending cuts and then turn around and scream that Republicans have declared war on the poor and disadvantaged.

It's a nice trick, especially considering Republicans control only the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats control all other branches of our government: the Senate, the White House, and The New York Times op/ed page. What's their plan?

Their plan is to keep spending, while blaming tax breaks for corporate jets for the entire $14.3 trillion deficit. The Democrats will never suggest any cuts to a budget that has put the country another $4 trillion in debt only since Obama became president.

She's funny. More here.