Short: Debt Default 101 ... before it's moot

The talking point on the right is that US doesn't have to default on its bonds, or SS payments, or anything that could bring a shitstorm down on the GOP.

Is this true? How would we know, especially those of us who aren't zipperheads waiting for conservative commentators to tell us what to say?

I did what I always do, some online research. Here's a history of US federal government defaults. There was a brief, accidental default in 1979. The one before that was in 1934, when the US went to a fractional gold standard. These defaults tell us nothing about what would happen in the 21st century if the US was to default.

What does a non-zipperhead business reporter think will happen if we default? It depends how long the default lasts, but it's not good and gets worse from there.

Finally, what about prioritizing US government payments? No can do. No legal framework and no practical framework.

I hope you aren't too tired for one last question. Why aren't the Republicans asking these questions instead of speculating out their asses?

Default party confetti!!!! Bonds, of course

Image: shredinstead.com

Extra. Here's the follow-up post with more details on why prioritizing payments isn't a workable idea.

GOP wants negotiations, eh? Part 2

Robert Costa, the National Review reporter with all the recent GOP inside scoops, directed his twitter followers to this Wall Street Journal op-ed by Paul Ryan. Of course I read it.

Paul Ryan sounds reasonable--he wants "a breakthough" instead of a crisis. He correctly identifies mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as the biggest fiscal challenges. He wants to "talk specifics" and get the "conversation" going.

But here's what he doesn't say:

• He doesn't say how the negotiations should be conducted, or what timeframe is reasonable. You can't do any important reform of entitlements in less than three months, and it probably should be longer. We'll need a fairly long-lasting Continuing Resolution and debt limit to do that. Ryan isn't brave enough to admit this forthrightly.
• He lauds the 1982 SS reform, especially the rise in the retirement age. For some reason, he doesn't mention the major increase in the SS tax rate. Actually, we know the reason. He can't mention a tax increase because it's forbidden among "conservatives."
• He lauds the Medicare reform proposals he and Senator Wyden made, but ignores that he misrepresented Wyden's position and greatly angered Wyden in the process.
• He doesn't mention Obamacare, so delaying it, defunding it, or repealing it doesn't seem to be part of his plan, at least in this op-ed.

Of course he's right that both sides ought to sit down and talk. The Tea Party GOP members haven't allowed that because talk can lead to compromise, and compromise means the end of America. I don't know if Ryan is serious about new negotiations. This could be the mask of rationality over the same partisanship that's prevailed for the last 5 years. I don't trust Ryan when he says he supports "common-sense" reform. Normally Ryan equates "common-sense" as the GOP proposals. Back in 2011, he rejected the best common-sense proposals, which came from the Simpson-Bowles commission.

So I don't trust him. I'd like to see how he follows up on these suggestions. How specific does he get? Once I see that, I'll know whether he's serious or not. I won't give up on him at this point because a mildly reasonable Republican leader is an extremely rare and helpful thing right now.

Ready for heavy negotiating, or just the same old?

Image: uselectionatlas.org

Good news from the GOP, Part 1

So while I was writing that the GOP was pretty quiet about their debt ceiling strategy, they were in Virginia discussing and changing that very strategy. I won't spend a lot of time discussing the new offer, but it's roughly this:

• The GOP will vote to extend the debt ceiling for three months.
• The intention is that during that period, the president will present his budget, and the House and Senate will debate it.
• If no budget is passed after three months, the Congress members no longer get paid.

That plan doesn't sound like much, but it's still quite a step forward for the GOP. For one thing, they recognized that they had a problem many weeks before breaching the debt ceiling.

The problem: They had no rationale for holding up a debt ceiling increase because they had no alternative plan on the table. So far, their new strategy is about as thin as it was before. The president will have to present his budget, which has almost no chance of passing, and then... Well, that's where the current non-plan looks like the previous non-plan.

So it's best for them to punt for a few months and build a strategy that they can present. Nonetheless, the Republicans have recognized the problem and seem to be working seriously on it. That's usually the hardest step. I'll be watching for them to deploy the rest of their new strategy.

The new GOP strategy? Obama's budget? Something even better?

Image: afuitbs.com

Extras. And here are some suggestions for the GOP from its own camp:

• Allahpundit sees the three-month as same-as-now.
• Our commenter, Truth > Spin,  pointed to this idea-- Hennessey's shrinking-room suggestion.
• Krauthammer recommends going with small demands so the Dems can't say no.
• The statement by Eric Cantor, who seems to be the point person for the change.

Preview of Part 2 -- I'm not completely sure. More ideas are percolating, some of which have already been written, edited out, and are likely to be tossed. But it was important to me to post about this significant development before it got any later.

Obama's budget dilemma

Obama has a constitutional requirement to submit a budget. It makes sense, but I didn't realize this was a constitutional requirement. [Correction, it's not a constitutional requirement--see comments below.]

So many times the budgets have been DOA (dead on arrival), so they didn't matter. The budgets were ridiculed, often well-deserved, and the real deals were worked out as continuing resolutions (CR). We've been funding our federal spending with continuing resolutions are several years in a row, and we've probably done that before under other presidents too. Big deal, what's the difference, meh...

This time the GOP is trying to make this budget matter. Their new stance is that the budget has to be something that can pass, so it will have to include enough cuts to satisfy the GOP-controlled House, and Obama will have to name the cuts.

Last year Obama offered a ridiculous, partisan budget which didn't receive a single vote (if that right-wing talking point is true). By the way, it didn't matter because the debt ceiling deal of August 2011 had settled the spending questions: there was going to be a CR describing the federal expenditures for 2012. It was settled, minor squabbles aside.

Obama's Challenge

So, this year Obama has to decide:

• Is he going to present another partisan budget that goes nowhere, or
• Is he going to present a real budget that can be the basis of negotiations?

I don't know which Obama is going to choose. I can tell you one thing, though, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the second/better option. Obama has disappointed when it comes to forward thinking.

Equal Opportunity Challenge

It's really too bad. I believe that the first party that develops a reasonable budget wins big for being realistic and credible leaders. They have a great chance to guide our governmental focus for the next generation. Yet no one is leaping up to do it out of fear of  'owning the cuts' and taking the backlash.

I don't think that's what will happen. The backlash won't land on the reasonable, it will land on the most unreasonable. The Dems won the 2012 election because they negotiated in 2011, and they showed that they were ready and willing to settle on a reasonable compromise. In the 2012 campaign, they sounded like they weren't going to reverse that compromise in 2013 if reelected.

The Republicans have yet to show that they will negotiate. They end up in negotiation, but too late, only after the Dems show they won't simply capitulate. It's no wonder the GOP didn't win the presidency. Who wants to give too much power to people like that?

So, Mr. Obama, please recognize that you can take that big step and grab the mantle of a reasonable, clear-thinking leader. You'll never have a better chance to do this, because, ha!, you've already been reelected. Do it. Lead on this one.

(Still not holding my breath. It's less than a 50% chance. Lots of room to be pleasantly surprised,  though.)

Hasn't happened yet. Will it?

Image: leadershipspirit.wordpress.com

Bad news for spending cuts, Part 2

Is the GOP still in disarray? They've been very quiet about their strategy related to the debt ceiling. Perhaps there are huddles going on right now, and in a few days or couple weeks we'll hear what the Republicans actually want. Right now, however, it's still unclear.

A GOP talking point after the fiscal cliff settlement was that tax increases outnumbered spending cuts by 41:1. Well, duh, it was a tax bill. The GOP couldn't get spending cuts into the bill because they had no leverage, and they wasted all the negotiation time haggling over tax issues, not spending. They could have tried to trade cooperation for some cuts, or a debt ceiling increase for cuts, but that wasn't their focus.

Now, they want to avenge their defeat, but their first plan sucks. They say they won't vote for a debt ceiling increase without an equal amount of spending cuts. However, they won't specify what spending cuts they want. There are some logical reasons for this:

1. They don't want their name on painful, unpopular cuts.
2. The Democrats will demagogue against cuts that the GOP proposes, and try to gain electoral advantage on the issue.
3. It's the president's responsibility to provide a roadmap for the future spending.

However, logic isn't going to force Obama to take on these risks. He can run out the clock on the debt ceiling, and then there won't be any alternative on the table when we reach the debt ceiling. With no plan, the GOP will look rather bratty if they plunge us into default, so they definitely have an interest in coming up with one.

They also need to have a real plan, not a fuzzy plan like the Ryan budget. They can't propose Medicare vouchers because that's a non-starter. They will have to breathe deep and plunge into some real budgeting. Along with the blame, they would also pick up some credit.

I'd be surprised if Boehner or Ryan will do this. It's possible, but they haven't gotten much into the nitty-gritty before. Perhaps some senators will do it, though the gang of six or eight has been shrinking. Still, this seems like a potentially great project for some policy-oriented wonk, elected or not.

Perhaps in a few weeks we'll be flooded with plans, including a couple good ones. This SHOULD happen, because there's a veritable vacuum right now, and nature is supposed to abhor a vacuum. Just don't expect anything from Obama. He's obviously going to be involved in the negotiations (if any), and he'll take enough hits that way. He's got little to gain by going first on cuts, and he's not a visionary on these issues. Anyone waiting for his leadership is naive or has an axe to grind.

The GOP: Too scared to be scissors. The Dems: Paper all the way.

Image: uncyclopedia.wikia.com

Mint-y fresh

I'm not going to say a lot about the idea of Obama having the Treasury mint a trillion dollar coin and thereby avoid the issue of the debt limit. I don't consider it a serious solution to a serious problem, and the debt ceiling deserves a serious solution. A sometime commenter here, swain, wrote this on Plain Blog:

The Trillion-Dollar-Coins plan is a bad idea... And it's very gimmicky.

But the bigger problem this plan gives the executive branch the power to mint as much money as it wants whenever it wants. The reason we have an independent Fed is because we know that's a really, really bad idea...

Suppose George W. Bush decided one day that he would exploit an obscure law, designed to print commemorative quarters for collectors, to instead generate $2 trillion in government funds.

Even if a literal reading of text of the law suggests this is possible, isn't it absurd? ... Regardless of the text, that's a VERY long ways from the legislative intent. No amount of sloppy wording can create a loophole that big...

We really don't want a President to decide to (mis)interpret an insignificant law to conclude they have unlimited authority to create infinite amounts of money...

And, I love Obama, but a President that tried to claim that power should be impeached... At some point you just have to say... Um. No.

I second that. We have to face up to the issues confronting us, not search for tricksy loopholes.

Postscript. Really, whoever thought of this, just go write a sitcom if you need an outlet for your wacky ideas.

The limits of leverage

One of the epiphanies I had about politics since I started writing this blog was realizing the importance of leverage. Specifically, the GOP could finally make the Dems cut government spending because they had the leverage of the debt ceiling.

Leverage Past

Back in the summer of 2011, it was clear to both the GOP  and the Dems that the GOP had the leverage.  However, then the Dems foisted a deal on the GOP that stole most of the leverage back, because the GOP no longer had the choke points of appropriation bills and debt ceiling increases.

Neither party was able to exert its will in 2012 because the absolutely necessary matters had already been decided. The next "must-legislate" moment wasn't coming until the end of 2012 with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, the prime focus of both sides were the campaigns for the control of the House, Senate, and presidency.

Back to the present. With expiration of the Bush tax cuts and new tax rates in place, it would seem that the Dems have no leverage anymore. But that viewpoint is incorrect.

No Monopoly on Leverage

Leverage is not being able to do everything you want. The GOP found that out in 2011. Few of the cuts were immediate, the Dems forced the Defense budget to bear a lot of the cuts, and the GOP weren't able to include provisions that made the Bush tax cuts permanent, which was high on their wishlist.

This wasn't a failure of leverage, but it shows the limits. Leverage doesn't ensure passage of a particular agenda when the House, Senate, or President is dead set against it. They all have veto power that they will use. You can get them to do something within the wide middle of political outcomes, but you can't blackmail them into capitulation. Bargaining and compromise is expected by the majority of the electorate. Drama and ultimatums are going to be punished unless they are dropped for last-ditch realism and compromise.

Leverage To Be?

So, how will leverage play out in the next choke point, the debt ceiling? I doubt the GOP will get all the cuts they want (but won't specify). They may get some additional cuts on top of the agreed level of cuts from the August 2011 deal. They won't get to exempt Defense or write their own script on where the cuts will occur.

If Obama says no to unreasonable demands, as judged by center of the country, he won't be blamed if government shuts down. If the GOP can put together a reasonable list of additional cuts (per the same judges), Obama will be blamed if he still says no. The important thing is taking the temperature of the center of the country and knowing what it is considered an unreasonable demand, then making sure you aren't on the wrong side of that fuzzy line if there's a stand-off.

However, I don't see the GOP accurately taking those readings yet. As a party, they never faced reality on the expiration of the tax cuts. McConnell saved them by starting real negotiations just four days before doomsday. That didn't give much time to cobble together a well-crafted program. The GOP looks likely to do just as poorly on the debt ceiling choke point.

The GOP hasn't done well with their leverage. They aim too high, shoot too much ammo, waste time, and then have accede to a lesser deal than if they had proposed a center-right solution in the beginning. There's no improvement in their game that I can see. If I was their coach, I'd throw in the towel.

Ideas, anyone?

That better be a new plan, son.

Image: kccollegegameday.com

Not a good plan: Atlantic hostage post, National Review hostage post.

"You really should take Simpson-Bowles"

During the campaign, the GOP complained that Obama really should have supported Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report. They made this earnest suggestion while not supporting S-B themselves, but it was just perfect for the Dems.

Of course it's chutzpah to tell your opponents what positions they should take, but not really surprising. Simpson-Bowles is the ugly girl with a great personality and much more good sense than all the boys and girls combined. Someone should be bringing her to the senior prom negotiating table, but not ME. She's just not right for me, because I need a girl with lower revenue requirements than 21% of GDP and a real overhaul of Medicare. Besides, if I bring Simpson-Bowles as an opening at negotiations, the end point is going to be much worse than S-B when negotiations are finished. [Odd that this problem wasn't on the radar when various GOPers remarked that Obama should have embraced S-B.]

A few conservatives, such as this editor at Town Hall, are bucking this logic and pushing for the GOP to make S-B as their first serious offer. Currently, that's the outsider's position because the leadership isn't close to doing that.They're still in the faux outrage phase, "flabbergasted" that Obama as victor is less conciliatory than he was in August '11 or during the debates.

Well, it looks like no one will take the sensible ugly girl to the prom. Instead, they'll be acting like adolescents, jumping off the fiscal cliffs, maybe shutting down government over debt ceiling increases, and trying the make hay with whatever opportunities they have.

When it comes to the end of the Bush tax cuts, the truth is that no one has to do anything. They fade into the sunset all on their own. Each side will blame the other--"We wanted to save them, but those other scoundrels just wouldn't cooperate"--but neither will sacrifice a high card to prevent the tax rises. They will, however, try like hell to pin the blame on the other guys.

The next real choke point will when we hit the debt ceiling in March, but there is also the funding bills for the government which will start in the spring, if I remember correctly from 2011. Maybe some smart young senator or Congressman will ask Simpson-Bowles to one of those lovely events. Maybe she'll be the date for the entire Gang of Six, and she'll finally achieve the popularity she deserves.

Call me already--you know you need me!

Image: dontwannahearit.com

The Unbearable Debt Deal Quantified

As I wrote before, the wily Dems managed to get the Republicans to agree defense spending cuts that they now find unpalatable. Republicans are looking for ways to avoid those cuts.

• One way is for the House, Senate, and whatever president we have in 2013 to agree not to make those defense cuts. That's a pretty big stretch. It won't happen if Obama is re-elected. Even with a Republican president, Democratic senators could block moves to void the defense cuts.

• Another way is for the super committee to agree on another plan that the House, Senate, and president all accept.

The Republicans are now in the weaker position:

• They want to reduce the defense spending cuts.
• They want to maintain Bush tax cuts, which are worth $3.7 trillion over 10 years.
• They have no leverage for either of these goals.

The Democrats are now in the stronger position:

• They have largely accepted cuts to Medicare that are capped at 2% a year.
• The debt ceiling deal protected Social Security and Medicaid from cuts.
• They have leverage using defense spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2012.

Despite their weak negotiating positions, the best offer from the Republicans is:

• $250 billion higher tax revenues through limiting deductions if...
• Tax rates are frozen at below Bush tax rates.

It's no wonder that the Dems aren't agreeing. They hold a lot more leverage now, and the Repubs' offer is paltry. Republicans only seems serious about deficit reductions when social programs pay the price. They can dish out the austerity, but they can't take it. We'll have to see if they'll threaten a government shutdown by holding up appropriations next year. As far as I can see (for what that's worth), that is the only leverage they will have until after the election.

The debt ceiling fight was the historic crisis that prompted me to start this blog. If looks even more historic now. It's quite a reversal for the Republicans. I wonder if that's the price they paid for playing chicken, and which Democrat was responsible for that advantageous outcome.

 Who dunnit?

Despite this apparent win for the Democrats, the 2012 election is still up for grabs. I'm not going to predict which party is going to win, or which party is able to spin this to their advantage. So often, it has been the Republicans, so I won't count them out.

The Unbearable Debt Deal

Republicans used the debt ceiling to extract cuts from the Democrats, but they didn't make sure they got only the cuts they could stomach. Somehow, the wily Dems managed to get the Republicans to agree to a little pain themselves. Only now the Repubs are talking about reneging on the cuts they don't like, namely the defense cuts.

How did this happen? Because the Republicans no longer know what compromise feels like. They want what they want, and they don't want to give up anything else. Sounds like a spoiled child. That child is maybe going to get a lesson, but I wish it was sooner than 2013, when the cuts are finally due to bite. Can the Republicans take the medicine that they urge on so many others, and that they agreed to? I don't know. At this point, I'm expecting kicking and screaming, not adult behavior.

Update 11/22/11. For analysis of the bargaining positions, see this post.

History for Amnesiacs: Our stolen Social Security taxes

In this lesson, I have to ease off my usual how-could-you-forget tone. I had to do a bunch of research to confirm, and in some cases correct, my own memory of events.

Social Security (SS) was born underfunded. Maybe I should have researched why the founders in 1935 thought 1% per year were adequate savings, but I didn't. However, as far back as I can remember, which goes into the 1960's, SS was in trouble and in need of rescue. The employee contribution rate went from 1% in 1935 to 7.65% since 1990.

(Click to enlarge)

I remember the series of SS crises, as collections failed to keep up with current and projected pension demands. The Greenspan Commission in 1983 was supposed to fix SS for good. I guess politicians and voters bought the story, or maybe just felt that the taxes were as high as Americans could stomach, because the rates haven't been raised since the commission set the rate at 7.65%.

One thing that didn't happen was isolating the surpluses and making sure the money was available when the bulge of retirements started to tax the SS fund in the 2020's. This is where my research went off the rails. I expected to find that because there was no "lockbox" for the surpluses, they had been frittered away through tax cuts and deficit spending during the Bush II years. That's the Democratic narrative, anyhow.

The Twist

What I found instead is that the SS trust fund never had a method of securing its surpluses. It always handed them over to the Treasury in return for IOU's. Unlike a normal pension plan, the SS trust fund not only didn't secure its surpluses, but it never invested them. It was always on the road to relying on US federal dollars for its own deficits when the baby boomers retired in droves.

The SS trust fund also funded most of our modest deficit spending for 3 decades. But starting in the 1980's, we ran significant extra deficits beyond that. So not only does the federal government owe the SS trust fund $2.6 trillion, but it owes non-government creditors nearly $10 trillion on top of that.

(Click to enlarge)

One part of the Democratic narrative is correct. The SS payroll taxes were increased and that provided the federal government with ready money to fund extra spending and tax cuts and buy up yearly deficits, so that money was frittered away.

A more important truth is that, despite creating these surpluses, neither party in the 1980's had a plan that allowed the SS trust fund to use these surpluses. When you think of pension funds losing billions in hedge fund collapses, it's reassuring to know the SS trust fund isn't being used that way. But to find out that the money isn't even being stuffed in a mattress, that none of our top economists have ever figured out how to stash or invest or isolate or protect that much money, that is maddening.

All that time that I was being taxed, I was one of the many baby boomers who said "I'm not going to count on Social Security because it's not going to be there when I retire." However, finding out more of the mechanics now, it really hurts. OUUUUCCHH.

Even when the commission declared that the tax increases would keep the SS trust fund solvent in perpetuity, and it increased taxes ON ME and EVERYBODY to create much larger surpluses, THEY NEVER HAD A PLAN. Those surpluses were just thrown down the same rabbit hole. What the hell was that commission for? Why the f**k didn't the commission work on that part of the problem? My respect for Greenspan, which started dropping after he retracted his "irrational exuberance" comment and kept pumping up the bubble, just hit a new low. It's now tunneling its way to China. How appropriate.

Cut-only deficit reduction

In my earlier post about the debt deal, I didn't discuss an issue that's being weighing on me: how important is it to have both spending cuts and tax increases? 

This isn't something that has to be decided all at once. Obviously, we're going to be dealing with deficits and debt for many years. Since we absolutely will be having many iterations on this, we can start with some of approach A, add some more of approach A, add some of approach B, add more of approach B, tweak both A and B, maybe find an approach C that can help. Since a large majority in Congress and the president agree that we must cut spending, let's start there. Requiring tax increases, which many in Congress resist, is a complication we don't need to add into the mix. At least in this iteration.

Another reason to hold off with tax increases is the perception that Congressional Democrats "tax and spend." Part of that perception is outdated: tax revenues have ticked up only a bit in the last 30 years. However, we have been spending much more by running deficits, and it hasn't only been Democrats, since Republicans have had majorities in Congress quite often. Now, however, the calls to fix the deficit primarily or solely through tax increases... er, revenue targets, are coming from progressives who conveniently ignore the projected costs of the programs we already have. I wonder if they are so frightened of the consequences of cuts that they refuse to even look at the math. I've seen this fear before, prior to welfare reform, and the dire predictions didn't pan out. These cuts will probably be more painful, but also more necessary.

A final reason to make the first round of deficit-reduction through cuts is to see how much cutting hurts. We don't have much experience with cutting or its pain, since it's tended to be more spending, more programs, new needs identified that the government feels it should address. If the cuts are too deep and there are painful cries from a sizable majority, that may mean we really do want to pony up more in taxes to get the services we want. But we haven't tested that proposition in this new world where we aren't borrowing a large percentage of a program's cost. We won't know how the cuts hurt until we start actually wielding the scalpel.

The Political Lie Machine: An Artificial Crisis

A talking point for the left has been that Tea Party aligned House member created an artificial crisis over raising the debt ceiling. The argument goes that Congress already voted for the spending, so the borrowing for that spending was implicitly approved at that time.

Well, kinda, sorta, but it's a pretty weak argument. By tedious but realistic analogy, if you've been whipping out your credit card all month, you've promised to pay all those bills. But you'd be a fool not to look at the total and gasp if it's incredibly high. It's not only important to see the big picture on spending, it's critically important. So, I call bullshit on this argument.

(Apologies for not having a better link to illustrate. It's maybe 6 days this I read arguments like this, and I already can't find the article. The internet is a google times worse than my attic.)

The Debt Limit Deal

I'm glad the bill passed the House and the Senate. The House vote was 269-161, with 174 Repubs and 95 Democrats voting yes. My own representative voted against, prompting me to email a stern disapproval for his rejection of compromise. The vote in the Senate was 74-26.

The rejectionists seem to fall into two camps: the Tea Partiers who want such deep cuts that default is perhaps the ideal way to get them, and the liberals who don't realize yet that the money train can't continue. The lack of a reasonable sense of fear on both sides amazes me. Tea partiers think that government is so bloated that we can do away with 40% without a crisis bigger than 9-11. The liberals must be math-impaired. There is no way that current trend in social program costs is affordable. I want to sit the liberals down and make them crunch some numbers, and then see if they can justify their beliefs.

Overall I'm happy with the compromise, but I would have preferred a few more cuts early on. The bipartisan commission and the triggers are perhaps the best part of the bill. The last bipartisan commission actually worked pretty well. Its report, which is quite detailed and very solid, should have been the basis for an orderly debate on the issue. I don't understand why it wasn't accepted when it was released. With this crisis (courtesy of the Tea Party), most of the country is finally ready for the discussion, but why should 8 months make such a difference? There hasn't been a huge change in the economy or federal budget, so it must have been that our attention (and balls) were grabbed and squeezed, and we finally looked at the problem. It's too bad that's what it takes, but maybe that's part of being an American--living with so many happy people who don't recognize a problem until it almost swallows them.

I'm sad to see Orrin Hatch among the No votes in the Senate. He used to be someone with solid principles, someone who saw the humanity in his adversaries, someone I might have liked as President. But it's a lot harder now for red state politicians to be that kind of respectful and respectable elected official. In light of that, huge kudos to the red state republicans who voted yes--Murkowski, Kyl, McCain, Boozman, Isakson, Crapo, Risch,  Lugar, Roberts, Cochran, Wicker, Blunt, Johanns, Burr, Hoeven, Portman, Thune, Alexander, Corker, Cornyn, Hutchinson, Barrasso, Enzi. I sincerely hope you don't lose your seats in primary challenges. If that happens, maybe do what Lisa Murkowski did and let the entire state decide.

Finally, it would be a lapse not to thank the freshman Republicans in the House for being such hard-nosed, pain-in-the-ass, difficult, nasty, single-minded pricks who happen to be right to focus on the debt issue and make it stick. We need jerks like you sometimes (like now), but I won't love you for it. Sorry, it's not fair, but this is the way it is, at least until my thinking evolves some more.

Update 11/7/11: I needed a reminder of who negotiated this deal. The New York Times credits Obama, Boehner, and McConnell. Biden and Reid were heavily involved just recently, so they're probably due some credit too.