Saxby Chambliss, Johnny Isakson take aim at lame-duck session and a ‘fiscal cliff’

Georgia’s two U.S. senators have spent the month of August laying the groundwork for the campaign after the campaign.

In December, with a bitter and exhausting race for the White House in the rear view mirror, a lame-duck Congress will be forced to come to grips with the consequences of last year’s failure to approve a plan to significantly reduce a $16 trillion federal deficit.

Without bipartisan agreement in both the House and Senate, $1.2 trillion in cuts to domestic and defense programs will begin at years’ end. Of that, $492 billion in cuts over 10 years will be aimed at the Pentagon. Plus, those Bush-era tax cuts will all vanish.

The operative term is “sequestration.” But “fiscal cliff” will do.

Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson have held session after session at Georgia’s military bases and their surrounding communities, emphasizing the “devastating” impact the cuts would have on local economies – not to mention defense readiness.

“This is just one of those times, if there ever was a time, that we have an opportunity to try to thread both sides back together and operate the way the House and Senate are supposed to operate,” Chambliss said in an interview in Macon, after delivering his dire message to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce.

The across-the-board cuts are the penalty for the failure of a “super committee” to come to grips with the deficit. Both the committee and the sword of Damocles were contained in the debt-ceiling agreement hammered out by the Senate and House last August.

Republican are still divided over its wisdom. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney opposed the deal. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, now the GOP vice presidential nominee, supported it.

“Sequestration was the poison pill designed to prevent what’s happening from ever happening. Unfortunately, they swallowed the pill,” said Isakson, in a telephone interview from Pelham, Ga.

One sign of the two senators’ seriousness: In addition to Republican members of Congress, they have invited Democrats – John Barrow of Augusta and Sanford Bishop of Albany – to their press conferences, too.

Similar forays have been conducted by senators in Texas and New England – important geography for the Air Force and Navy, respectively.

That announcement by Lockheed Martin that it is laying off 550 workers from its Marietta plant – U.S. government orders of its C-130J are down – could be considered part of the same effort.
As could last week’s report by the Congressional Budget Office, which declared that sequestration could send the nation into another recession, and kill 2 million jobs in the process.

The “super committee” negotiations failed last year, in part, because tea party enthusiasts took the upper hand in the debate. House Republicans dared not accept anything that smacked of compromise – much less a tax increase.

Isakson and Chambliss are clearly trying to bring business leaders into the next debate, earlier and more forcefully, as a counterweight.

Chambliss outlined four options for Congress:

— Let the across-the-board cuts take place. “There are a lot of people in the House and Senate that would actually like to see that happen.”

— “Secondly, we can eviscerate the whole thing, which would be the wrong thing to do.”

— “Thirdly, we can kick it down the road, 60 days or 90 days, 12 months, whatever. “

— “Or we can come up with the big deal, the grand bargain, that addresses all of these issues that involved in the fiscal cliff, as well as sequestration.”

Chambliss, of course, has been pushing for the big deal, though his bipartisan “Gang of Six” effort with Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., adopting many of the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles debt commission.

That a lame-duck Congress could or should reach a massive debt bargain in a 30-day window isn’t likely, Chambliss admits. What he would like to see is a good start – perhaps delaying expiration of the Bush tax cuts for six months, while the next Congress hammers out a new tax code.

As an incentive, Congress could adopt yet another hammer – automatic implications of the Simpson-Bowles recommendations if the House and Senate fail to act. That would require a 3-to-1 ratio of federal spending cuts to revenue increases.

Keep in mind that, last year, all Republican candidates for president – including Romney – said they would reject even a 10-to-1 ratio of cuts to tax hikes.

December will be a risky season for both Isakson and Chambliss. “This is not about not making the cuts. It’s about doing it the responsible way — not abdicating to an across-the-board cut,” Isakson said.

But the risk is greater for Chambliss, who is likely to begin his 2014 re-election campaign next year. “The profile of this issue is getting raised every day, and I’ve been out front on it from day one. If you solve the problem, the politics takes care of itself,” Chambliss said. “But will it draw an opponent? Yeah, I’m sure.”

More than likely, Chambliss will shake hands with that opponent – whoever he or she may be – at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this week.

- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

112 comments Add your comment

innerpba

August 25th, 2012
9:23 am

The Party of No: They are so worried about keeping their jobs they forget to actually do their jobs. It isnt enough to want to block any presidential achievement. the work of the country must go on. Chambliss’ Gang of Six was a disappointment last year because the Republicans would not compromise on any point. It was all their way or no way. Nothing will ever be solved with that mentality.

Skip

August 25th, 2012
9:26 am

Cuts for thee just not for me.A military the size on the next ten country’s combined and it’s still not enough for the chicken hawks? Feed the war machine with someone elses kids.

jconservative

August 25th, 2012
10:07 am

All of this could be avoided by compromise. But Congress has lost the ability to compromise. So nothing gets done. We have had two straight $1 trillion deficits caused by the inability of Congress to govern the country. Remember, every cent of the money spent has been approved by Congress and signed by a president.

If all parties are not willing to meet the other party half way, then the “fiscal cliff” may be the best thing for the long term health of the US economy.

findog

August 25th, 2012
10:10 am

The problem with politicians is they never suffer, never consider, then only act on
con•se•quence
noun
1. the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.
2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
3. the conclusion reached by a line of reasoning; inference.
4. importance or significance: a matter of no consequence.
5. importance in rank or position; distinction: a man of great consequence in art.

These big men talk all mighty and when they get what they want start squealing like a stuck pig.

Shar

August 25th, 2012
10:10 am

The Republicans have played to the social extremism of the Tea Party as a surefire method of “firing up the base”, all the while privately assuring their corporate masters that the real business of the Party is protection of the current economic status quo, which has resulted in massive losses for the middle class but enormous gains for the top 10%.

Their pandering has driven them into a corner from which they can make no intelligent policies for the benefit of the country as a whole without frothing up “the base”, and they are now trapped. There will be no compromise, no ‘grand plan’, because each individual Republican is terrified of Grover Norquist and Tea Partiers who demand “no socialized medicine” along side “keep your hands off my Medicare”.

The automatic cuts will have to take place, and their destructive economic effects displayed, before Republicans will have the guts to act even partially rationally or consider the good of the country before their own electoral calculus.

cc

August 25th, 2012
10:17 am

jconservative:

“But Congress has lost the ability to compromise.”

Yes, they have. The “ability to compromise” was lost under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. When the dims controlled both houses, they refused every attempt at compromise by the Republicans over ObamaCare and the “green” legislation, both of which are and will do catastrophic damage to our economy. The snoppy “Party of No” comment above by ‘innerpba’ much more aptly applies to the dims.

Jezel

August 25th, 2012
10:17 am

These guys did not seem too worried when our country was running up the deficit…beginning some 12 years ago …why all the talk about it now? These two need to go sit down some where and let some one else give it a try.

cc

August 25th, 2012
10:18 am

Enter your comments here

cc

August 25th, 2012
10:19 am

Typo: “snoppy” should read “snippy”

Sorry . . .

Old Farmer

August 25th, 2012
10:19 am

If you have a budget problem, you can cut your spending or raise revenue. It’s time to raise taxes on the top 10% or at least the top 1% of Americans. As Warren Buffet, who supports this tax, says: there was a class war and we won.

Since Ronald Reagan was president the country was promised that if we just help the rich people then the benefits would trickle down to all people. This never happened. The middle class has shrunk and many Americans are in the tank.

We need to look in to raising more revenue with a tax increase on the very high earners.

cc

August 25th, 2012
10:23 am

Jezel:

“running up the deficit…”

Show me any period where anyone increased the debt by over $6 trillion dollars in three and a half years. The Kenyan holds that singular distinction.

Don Abernethy

August 25th, 2012
10:25 am

It’s time for some new blood in a do nothing congress.

cc

August 25th, 2012
10:27 am

Jezel:

Jezel”running up the deficit…”

I made the assumption you were referencing the national debt here. If you really meant defici, Obama probably holds the record for that also.

findog

August 25th, 2012
10:32 am

cc, yes 6T of which 5T was based on GOP governing of the all mighty W

cc

August 25th, 2012
10:34 am

Old Farmer:

“As Warren Buffet, who supports this tax, says: there was a class war and we won.”

You mean the Warren Buffet who currently is appealing a $10 million dolar debt to the IRS?

The middle class did extremely well under President Reagan. I think you have bought into the Kenyan’s progressive income tax scheme which will benefit the country little and punish the producers and job creators. That odea is usually most popular with those who are on the dole or expect to move onto the government dole.

cc

August 25th, 2012
10:36 am

Old Farmer:

Typo: “odea” should be “idea”

cc

August 25th, 2012
10:39 am

findog:

You actually bought that? I always thought you more intelligent than that . . .

WAW

August 25th, 2012
10:41 am

Because President Obama convened the Simpson-Bowles debt commission, any (R) who had signed the PLEDGE was automatically against it. Democrats didn’t like it. Republicans didn’t like it. So, guess what, it had bi-partisan agreement. But it would have prevented the cliff campaign right before the White House commodes are changed. So Saxby and Johnny are blowing (R) smoke up the Chamber of Commerce’s (R) chimney.

Auntie Christ

August 25th, 2012
10:49 am

The middle class did extremely well under President Reagan. I think you have bought into the Kenyan’s progressive income tax scheme which will benefit the country little and punish the producers and job creators.
*************************************************
Reagan gave us the biggest income tax increases in history, he raised taxes 6 times during the 8 years in office, including, along with alan greenspan, assuring us that if Social Security taxes were raised the program would be sustainable for 75 years or more. Thanks to the repubs allowing SS funds to go into the general fund for congress to raid, SS is in jeopardy, which is what the repubs wanted all along so as to claim that the ‘welfare state’ cannot be sustained. Yet the repubs tell us if we dare go back to the tax rates we had under reagan, the ‘job creators’ can’t create jobs. Finally reagan increased the deficit from $50 Bil when he took office to over $250 Bil when he left, a 500 % increase.

Old Farmer

August 25th, 2012
10:50 am

@cc: I do agree that Obama never stood a chance since Bush and Cheney trashed our country so thoroughly.

When Bush took over from Clinton, there the national debt had been paid. By the time we got through with the false war in Iraq, and Bush’s tax cuts for rich people, our country’s finances had been destroyed.

Well, these tax cuts for rich people have done zero for our country. The trickle down promised by Reagan years ago never happened. It was a fairy tale, or another way to put it, it was a lie.

We do have a debt problem and now it’s time for the very wealthy to help their country and we need to raise taxes on them. God knows they have gamed the system long enough. The good news is that I think many Americans are beginning to catch on to the game.

GeorgiaBoy

August 25th, 2012
10:55 am

Both these turkeys were SO concerned about the debt that they voted to borrow billions from chinese and indians to give to Big Banks in the “stimulus”.

The only jobs they’re concerned with are their own!

White, Male, Southern and Conservative: Everything Liberals Hate

August 25th, 2012
10:56 am

Old Farmer:

“When Bush took over from Clinton, there the national debt had been paid. ”

That statement alone should exclude you from further comment.

yuzeyurbrane

August 25th, 2012
10:58 am

The solution is not as complex as it seems. First, repeal all the sequestrations so Congress can next year deal with each program on its merits in the normal legislative process (hearings, committee votes, etc.). Second, let the Bush tax cuts expire on December 31 as currently provided by law, but have a preliminary tax reform measure ready to go for a quick vote with the new Congress which would give all taxpayers the Bush rates up to the first $250,000 in income. This would be a tax cut, Grover Norquist. It would also buy time to consider a comprehensive tax reform measure where everything would be on the table and considered in the normal legislative process. The main goal would be to avoid the bad law you get when a gun is pointed at your head. A grand deal is possible but it is unrealistic to think it will come about in the lame duck session. It is also a compromise that Sen. Chambliss, Sen. Isakson and other reasonable Senators and Congressmen of both parties should be able to support.

yuzeyurbrane

August 25th, 2012
11:05 am

White Male–big deal re Old Farmer’s comments on national debt. When Clinton left office we were running budget surpluses which were being applied to reduce national debt. In fact bond traders were worried that it would be paid off and they would no longer get their commissions for selling US Treasury bonds to China. His main point is thus still correct.

DannyX

August 25th, 2012
11:18 am

“That odea is usually most popular with those who are on the dole or expect to move onto the government dole.”

You mean like the 47% who pay no federal income tax that conservatives are always whining about? Most of those are claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit brought to you by your very own Republican hero, Ronald Reagan who called the EIC the “”the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

Is that the “progressive tax” scheme you brought up cc????

AnotherSoldier

August 25th, 2012
11:25 am

It has to be a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. And CC, give some credit to Obama for putting the was spending on the books – prior to him it was “Supplemental spending” which was not counted in the budget. In other words, we used to cook the books to make it look better.

As a soldier, there is much waste in the military – sad, but true. We spend so much on “toys” that never get used, yet we are fine with cuts at the VA – and my fellow soldiers are taking it on the chin. I know guys who have gone through 4 or more cycles. And those who can’t answer the call are waiting as much as a year to get the benefits they NEED to deal with PTSD and other, more obvious injuries.

Bring back the draft, and I am willing to bet that suddenly the calls to go to war go down greatly.

On the spending side – Romney wants to cut subsidies to wind and solar – well, fine – but why do we keep giving tax payer $$ to the oil companies when they are recording record profits? Fossil fuels are a necessary evil, at the moment, they are finite resources. Have you ever tried flying a military jet with solar power? We should all conserve there so that our military can fight the wars we have to fight, instead of guzzling the gas like a drunk on a bender. Buy a freakin’ hybrid next time, America – and not that truck that gets 15 MPG and never leaves a paved road.

That’s what the country needs.

AnotherSoldier

August 25th, 2012
11:27 am

That should read “war spending on the books”

White, Male, Southern, and Conservative: Everything Librals Hate!

August 25th, 2012
11:33 am

yuzeyurbrane:

“When Clinton left office we were running budget surpluses which were being applied to reduce national debt”

Clinton had a modest surplus for ONE of the eight years he held office. If you doubt me, check it for yourself, preferably from a source other than the Democratic Party . . .

mike "hussein" smith

August 25th, 2012
11:34 am

CC at 10:17 — You can’t rewrite history just cause you’re still mad about the Dems taking over Congress. The Senate committee writing a health care law, which had a 3-3 party split despite the Dems’ holding a majority in the Senate, was stymied every step of the way by the Republicans. Max Bacchus bent over backwards to come up with some compromise, but then Grassley usually wound up sticking a knife in his back. That effort was doomed to failure because the committee should have had 6 Dems and 4 repubics.

mike "hussein" smith

August 25th, 2012
11:35 am

Yes, I meant to say repubics.

White, Male, Southern and Conservative: Everything Liberals Hate!

August 25th, 2012
11:41 am

AnotherSoldier:

“Bring back the draft”

The elimination of the draft was a huge mistake. It was a poltical remedy to a problem. Nixon figured the protests would disappear if he eliminated the possibility that the demonstrators would have to serve in Vietnam. He was correct but this action damaged our country. Everyone should be required to serve their country. It should not only be an obligation, but and honor also.

cc

August 25th, 2012
11:45 am

mike “hussein” smith:

“That effort was doomed to failure because the committee should have had 6 Dems and 4 repubics.”

Then, perhaps you can explain why we have this wonderful ObamaCare now?

Going Right

August 25th, 2012
12:07 pm

Old Farmer – You state: “It’s time to raise taxes on the top 10% or at least the top 1% of Americans.”.
1. How much of a ‘tax raise’ should there be? (You plug in the percentage);
2. How did you arrive at that percent or number?
Would that balance the budget? This year? Forever?
3. The (filthy) rich – who had everything on earth given to them without lifting a finger, yada, yada, yada.- would no doubt say to hell with making money and tell their benefactors to stop giving them money thereby stopping the flow of “financial transfers.”
4. If the (filthy) 10% or 1% have their money stolen from them to satisfy the Socialist Democrats, would the SD’s then agree to get the lover 53% (+/-) to pay at least 3 to 5% of their AGI toward “balancing the budget?” After all, they pay little or NO Federal Income tax now.
5. Are you, Old Farmer, willing to have your taxes raised to achieve this noble income redistribution scheme? The Anointed One (leader of the Socialists) would shuck and jive, grin and bounce up around the stage, and GASP! maybe even turn off his tele-Prompter for days!

B. Thenet

August 25th, 2012
12:08 pm

Saxby Chambliss deserves a great deal of credit for the position he has taken on this issue, no doubt he will draw some deranged tea party hack in the GOP primary in 2014 who will rake him over the coals for daring to speak to a Democrat in a civil manner.

This is one Democrat who would cross party lines to vote for him in the 2014 GOP Primary.

Now get that deal done Saxby

DannyX

August 25th, 2012
12:11 pm

Chambliss and Isakson have bigger issues to deal with.

The 2 of them need to figure out how to deal with Romney’s plan to increase defense spending, a way to pay for Romney’s war in Iran, cut taxes yet again, and at the same time reduce the deficit

Its deja vu all over again.

Doug Hall

August 25th, 2012
12:14 pm

Shame on these two demagogues, preaching small government and posing as anti-wasteful spending crusaders, then running around the state promising more wasteful Defense spending and more government jobs at military bases. We should cut the defense budget and use the savings to secure Medicaid, provide health care for all Americans, and improve education.

AnotherSoldier

August 25th, 2012
12:25 pm

It should be noted that every taxation system in the history of mankind somehow redistributed income. That is the nature of a tax. But any business owner should recognize that they need income to operate and the USA is no different in that regard. I can’t cut expenses to be profitable – I need income to do that.

td

August 25th, 2012
12:26 pm

Old Farmer

August 25th, 2012
10:19 am

If you have a budget problem, you can cut your spending or raise revenue. It’s time to raise taxes on the top 10% or at least the top 1% of Americans. As Warren Buffet, who supports this tax, says: there was a class war and we won.

If we put back the Clinton tax increases on just the rich then you are only going to raise $80 billion per year (Two weeks worth of money to run the Federal government) and we are running a $1 trillion deficit.

The top 1% made (AGI) $1.3 trillion dollars last year and paid $318 billion in taxes. If you taxed them all at 100% then you would barely balance the budget.

Your argument about tax increases is bogus and nothing more then class envy and buying into the Democratic BS. Spending is the problem not revenue.

td

August 25th, 2012
12:32 pm

yuzeyurbrane

August 25th, 2012
11:05 am

White Male–big deal re Old Farmer’s comments on national debt. When Clinton left office we were running budget surpluses which were being applied to reduce national debt. In fact bond traders were worried that it would be paid off and they would no longer get their commissions for selling US Treasury bonds to China. His main point is thus still correct.

Link please?

cc

August 25th, 2012
12:34 pm

Remember the Kenyan telling Americans he was focused “like a laser” on job creation?

Romney, RNC correct about Obama golfing, jobs meetings
By Louis Jacobson

Published on Thursday, July 19th, 2012 at 5:06 p.m.
Related rulings:
Over the last six months, President Barack Obama has golfed 10 times and held 106 fundraisers, but his jobs council has never met.
Republican National Committee, Thursday, July 19th, 2012.
Ruling: True | Details
Share this article:

The Republican National Committee used a graphic and a video to blast President Barack Obama for spending more time golfing and fundraising than meeting with his jobs council.

Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee have double-teamed on the charge that President Barack Obama has spent his time unwisely over the past six months.

“In the last six months, he has held 100 fundraisers, and guess how many meetings he has had with his jobs council?” Romney said in a July 18, 2012, campaign event in Bowling Green, Ohio. “None. Zero. Zero in the last six months. So it makes it very clear where his priorities are.”

A subsequent RNC graphic charged that Obama had golfed 10 times and held 106 fundraisers over the past six months.

We checked the jobs council’s own web page and found that it cites four meetings so far — Feb. 24, 2011 at the White House, June 13, 2011 in Durham, N.C., October 11, 2011 in Pittsburgh, and Jan. 17, 2012 at the White House — making that part of the claim accurate.

Meanwhile, using White House speech archives and press pool reports, we were able to confirm at least 103 of the 106 fundraisers — close enough for us to rate the overall statement True.

Souce: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/19/republican-national-committee-republican/did-barack-obama-hold-100-plus-fundraisers-while-h/

20/20

August 25th, 2012
12:35 pm

If you wish to refute this information, go the Web site of the Office Of Management and Budget and search for something you believe is said that I couldn’t pick up when I did the research.

Many Democrats in Washington these days like to point to the fact that the federal budget was balanced for part of the time that President Bill Clinton was in office. What they do not mention is that those balanced budgets occurred only when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

More recently, the federal budget was balanced in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. A Republican-controlled Congress approved the appropriations for each one of those years and Democratic President Bill Clinton signed them. In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, when President Clinton governed with a Democrat-controlled Congress, the federal government ran deficits of $203.2 billion and $163.9 billion respectively.

The estimated deficit for this fiscal year (2010) of $1.55 trillion is more than three times as large as the $458.6 billion deficit that President George W. Bush presided over with a Democratic Congress in fiscal 2008. In fiscal 2010, of course, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress as well as the White House.

Since 1960, the federal budget has been balanced in only 6 fiscal years. For two of those fiscal years—1960 and 1969—Democrats controlled Congress. For four—1998, 1999, 2000, 2001—Republicans controlled Congress.

WHO BALANCED THE BUDGET?

Control of Congress Budget Balanced? Deficit/Surplus

President William J. Clinton (Left office Jan. 20, 2001)
1994 Democrat No –$203.2 billion
1995 Democrat No –$163.9 billion
1996 Republican No –$107.4 billion
1997 Republican No –$21.9 billion
1998 Republican YES $69.2 billion
1999 Republican YES $125.6 billion
2000 Republican YES $236.2 billion
2001 Republican YES $128.2 billion

President George W. Bush (Left office Jan. 20, 2009)
2002 Split No –$157.8 billion
2003 Split No –$377.6 billion
2004 Republican No –$412.7 billion
2005 Republican No –$318.3 billion
2006 Republican No –$248.2 billion
2007 Democrat No –$160.7 billion

Raise taxes on the rich

August 25th, 2012
12:40 pm

The wealthy are paying nearly the lowest tax rates since the Great Depression. They can and should pay more.

Romney tells us he’s paid at least 13% income tax rate for the past several years. Oh, good for you. I pay almost double that rate! HOW IS THAT FAIR!!!

Walter

August 25th, 2012
12:41 pm

We could save a ton by getting our troops out of Afghanistan – many billions of dollars and too many lives are being wasted for nothing. Secondly, there needs to be major cuts in entitlement programs (I don’t meant social security or medicare because we are all paying in to those programs so I don’t consider them entitlements) PLUS we need to let the Bush tax cuts go away. One party says one thing and the other one says the opposite but no one says both. They say that the tax cuts are necessary because the wealthy create jobs, OK, where are all these jobs if we still have 8%+ unemployment? If they cut or reduce SS or Medicare, will they equally cut/reduce what we are paying in? I don’t think so!

Our rich politicians want more tax cuts

August 25th, 2012
12:45 pm

Our dear wealthy leaders are willing to sacrifice so much for our nation. Actually, they are willing to sacrifice us (middle and lower income people) for the sake of their precious tax cuts.

cc

August 25th, 2012
12:50 pm

20/20:

Very good! I stand corrected on Clinton.

Where's my offshore tax haven

August 25th, 2012
12:51 pm

Am I a bad person? Rich people like Romney put their millions/billions in banks in the Cayman Islands and all I can do is watch the weather channel with the hope that a hurricane will level the island.

cc

August 25th, 2012
12:51 pm

Our rich politicians want more tax cuts:

Poor, poor, pitiful me.

cc

August 25th, 2012
12:57 pm

Where’s my offshore tax haven:

“Am I a bad person?”

Yep.

cc

August 25th, 2012
1:07 pm

The top 3 posts this year (all posted yesterday):

BADA BING
August 24th, 2012
3:09 pm
Lost Dog
Wash DC Area
Last seen in the 1500-1700 blocks of Pennsylvania Ave.
Reward
++++++

TrishaDishaWarEagle
August 24th, 2012
3:14 pm
Imagine the Obama white house menu for a Korean delegation state dinner:
sweet and sour Shih Tzu
Hound doggy fricassee
collie kabobs
Refried Chihuahua
++++++

BADA BING
August 24th, 2012
3:26 pm
The Pres can’t get a Greyhound because Michelle won’t allow him to have fast food.
++++++

yuzeyurbrane

August 25th, 2012
1:09 pm

White Male and td–20/20 cites OMB for saying 4 Clinton budgets produced surpluses, not 1 as White Male alleges. Whatever, we were clearly on path of prosperity and balanced budgets when W took office. As to td, the basis for my saying bond traders were worried about negative effective of surpluses to their business is my clear recollection of the commentary at the time. It wasn’t so long ago nor am I so old that there is any material inaccuracy to my recollection. I don’t really want to spend them the time looking up newspaper business or economic columns from that time but I feel that if you want more reassurance on my point that you can do so and find that I am being pretty accurate. If it were me, I would start my research with the Wall Street Journal and NY Times.