More incompetence

By February 2002, President George W. Bush had nominated 89 judges to the lower federal courts. This week, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy prodded President Obama, who has nominated just 42 federal judges to date, to "get up names as quickly as possible." President Obama promised to make this "a priority." He'd better. There are currently 102 vacancies on the federal bench.

http://www.slate.com/id/2243845/

Obama can't blame the judicial vacancies on any opposition filibuster. The vacancies exist in large part because Obama hasn't nominated judges for a majority of them.

And, what's the excuse for not doing it when he had 60 votes?

The senate "jobs" bill

Senate Democrats circulated a jobs bill Tuesday that’s light on new initiatives on boosting hiring and heavy with provisions sought by lobbyists for business groups, doctors and the satellite broadcasting industry. . . The draft has very few new ideas for creating jobs, other than a $10 billion plan to exempt companies from paying the employer’s share of Social Security payroll taxes for new hires if they are unemployed and hired this year. . . . The rest of the measure is mostly comprised of last year’s unfinished business, including renewal of business tax breaks that have expired, an extension of unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies and forestalling a cut in Medicare payments for doctors. . . . The overall measure would cost roughly $80 billion . . .

http://www.thereporteronline.com/articles/2010/02/10/business/doc4b72aeeb680a9777376189.txt

The "$80 billion" dollar senate "jobs" bill will include "$10 billion" for jobs and $70 billion mostly for old ideas recommended by "lobbyists for business groups, doctors and the satellite broadcasting industry".

Are they stupid or evil?

The dumbest move so far

Chris and Candice Basso would like to move up to a larger home this spring, taking advantage of a federal tax credit worth up to $6,500 for repeat home buyers.

But even a big tax credit won't be enough to lift them into a bigger, better home.

The Centreville, Va., couple are trapped in a two-bedroom townhouse that's worth less than their unpaid mortgage. They face the same predicament with a condo that they own and rent out. Unable to sell either property for what they owe and with their equity wiped out, a new mortgage is out of the question.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-02-10-moveup10_CV_N.htm

They gave the bail out money to the banks, and trusted the banks to help out upside down homeowners. Of course, they didn't.

If they had given grants directly to upside down homeowners, in the amount by which they were underwater, payable directly to the lenders on the homeowners' behalf, in reduction of the home mortgages, both banks and homeowners would have been bailed out, and consumers would be spending again.

That was the dumbest move so far. (The second dumbest was giving all the "cash for clunkers" money to Japanese and Korean automakers, and not requiring recipients to "Buy American".)

Senators want the easy way out

Even as they call for reining in the record federal budget deficit of $1.6 trillion, more than one-third of the nation's 100 U.S. senators have criticized proposed spending cuts in President Obama's budget that would affect their states.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-09-spending_N.htm

You can't cut the deficit without cutting spending and / or raising taxes.

But, if you do, the economy will boom. That's what Clinton did, and we had budget surpluses and record prosperity during the Clinton years.

Even more liberal sexism

From classy Vanity Fair / upper west side critic James Wolcott:

I'm sure Sarah Palin never requires similar crib notes for the art of amour. Todd puts on the pirate suit, she pretends to be Rhonda Fleming, and the ocean waves heave to the rhythm of their rocking.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2010/02/as-soon-as-the-amusing.html

It's as if someone told all the fey intellectuals that they can play sexist super stud, and write about a politician's "boobs", and speculate about her sex life, as long as the subject is Palin.

Substitute the name of any Democratic female politician and her spouse in that sentence, and Wolcott would be expelled from "progressive" New York art and dance circles.

More liberal sexism

Palin - "a blend of Nixon and Buchanan", with boobs and a Christianism now fused into Republicanism - is a lethal force in the land.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/tomorrow-belongs-to-her.html

"With boobs"? Why are there no professional feminists or women's groups rushing to Palin's defense?

If you oppose Obama's healthcare or spending plans, the media calls you racist. But, if Palin is attacked or demeaned in expressly sexual terms, the media just joins in the fun.

By ignoring Palin's stands on the issues, and exclusively focusing on her person and personality, the media may get her elected president. Not because people agree with her, but because people see she's being treated unfairly.

A good question

At the private White House meeting today between Obama and Congressional leaders, the President and John Boehner got into a testy exchange . . . [over] Obama’s proposal for a bipartisan fiscal commission on how to get control over the deficit.

Obama asked Boehner and Mitch McConnell if they were prepared to commit to appointing members to the commission. Boehner pushed back, aides say, arguing that if the White House is serious about cutting spending, he should should start now, and suggested Obama use his rescissions authority to send spending cut proposals to the Hill.

Boehner pledged GOP cooperation if Obama sent such proposals to Congress. But he and McConnell refused to commit to appointing members to the commission.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/obama-to-boehner-republicans-just-want-to-kill-all-my-initiatives/

That's a good question. If Obama wants to cut spending, he can . . . cut spending. The president has rescissions authority to send spending cut proposals to Congress.

The answer is obvious. Obama doesn't want to cut spending. Instead, he wants to do nothing about the deficit (except increase it), appoint yet another commission, and claim "Job done!"