Am I the only one who continues to be bothered by this kind of nonsense?

Q Scott, just one point of clarification on Social Security. Does the President view lifting that $90,000 cap as a tax increase?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've addressed this issue on a number of occasions. What -- the President made it very clear early on that we're not going to get in the business of ruling things in or ruling things out. He stated his principles. His principles are very clear. One of them is no increase in the payroll taxes. And he said he welcomes all ideas that focus on solving this problem, we should discuss this and work in a bipartisan way to address this issue.

In terms of raising the wage cap -- or raising the cap, we've pointed out that that issue -- that doing that does not solve the problem -- the fiscal problem facing Social Security, it only pushes the date out a few years. But it doesn't address the problem. And so I think that's important to keep in mind.

But those -- we're going to discuss all ideas with members of Congress about the best way to proceed forward. The President has made his views known in terms of how he believes we ought to approach it and solve the problem. And we're -- we will listen to all ideas that are out there, but that doesn't mean we're ruling things in and doesn't mean we're ruling things out.

Q Just to be clear, there are no non-negotiable proposals. This isn't a non-negotiable thing, a payroll tax increase, it's just something that it's his principle, he says --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he does believe we should not increase payroll taxes.

Q But it's not --

MR. McCLELLAN: He said he's open to all ideas. Remember, just recently, he said he's open to all ideas with the exception of increasing payroll.

Q With the exception of that, okay.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what he made -- that's what he made clear --

Q Is raising --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what he made clear recently.

Q Is raising the cap under the category of things that he wouldn't rule in or out?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is -- let me repeat. This goes back through what we've answered previously -- I think what he's answered, what administration officials have answered. He's stated his principles. You all want to try to get us into negotiating with ourselves. We're not going to do that. We stated our principles and made clear what his views are. He's made clear what his views are. And we're going to listen to all ideas that are out there for solving this problem.

What's important is that people recognize the serious problem facing Social Security. There are some in Congress who want to look the other way, or want to stick their head in the sand, and that doesn't do anything to solve the problem. The American people expect us to solve problems, and the American people recognize there are serious problems facing Social Security, as seen in poll after poll.

Q Raising it to $140,000, does he view that as a tax increase?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've answered it, Roger.

Q I'm not clear on it.

MR. McCLELLAN: You're asking me to negotiate with ourselves, and we're not going to do that.

Q I'm not -- I'm just trying to --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's asking us to -- because there are proposals that members of Congress and others have put on the table that they want to discuss, and we're not trying to get into negotiating through the press. What we're doing is talking with members of Congress about their ideas for solving this problem.

But we'll -- what we have to continue to focus on is the problem facing Social Security and talking with the American people and talking with members of Congress and why we need to act this year. The American people recognize the serious problems facing Social Security. They recognize that the system that was created for a different time period needs to be strengthened for our children and grandchildren. It doesn't need to be changed for today's retirees. But we do need to strengthen it for tomorrow's retirees.

Q It would be wrong to say -- it would be wrong to say that any item, including a tax increase, is non-negotiable. It would be wrong to say that -- for us to say that.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I will repeat what the President said. You all are trying to get us into discussions that we believe we should have with members of Congress, and we're not going to do that.

Q No, it's just --

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, John, but --

Q Earlier you said all -- everything else is on the table but tax increases.

MR. McCLELLAN: And that's what our position is.

Q Okay, so --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what our position is.

He thinks he can get away with just making stuff up:

[Bush's] reduction of the American tax burden probably saved the world from a devastating depression.

Sigh. C'mon Andy. This is garbage.

Look, I'm pro-taxes at the moment. I want to raise them and I'm tired of being afraid to say so. Someone needs to lay the groundwork, or else we'll see more depressing articles like this one, only this time announcing the home=schooled Grove Norquist's final triumph over reason, mathematics, and the federal government. I think we need to raise them to meet our security needs and out of concern for intergenerational equity. Not to mention that big deficits like the one we have need end up being a drag on the economy in their own right.

Back to Andy, while some tax reduction might have been necessary, it's only because the Democrats linked up with moderate Republicans in order to shift the focus somewhat away from future upper bracket cuts toward immediate cuts aimed at those with a higher marginal propensity to consume that they had any stimulatory effect. Even so, the economy probably would have rebounded pretty rapidly anyway. But geez, a devasting worldwide depression for an event that cost $89 billion? Oops, but Andy gets confused in the next paragraph:

There are huge trade and budget deficits that he has no convincing plan to reduce. By massive increases in government spending he has ensured that the current tax cuts will eventually be turned into big tax rises.

Good thing we cut all of those taxes and launched a big fat $4 billion a month war, as you advocated so vigorously and demagogically!

Sigh.

I don't even want to deal with the other stuff, which basically is of a piece with Sullivan's inability to reconcile with the fact that George Bush is actually not doing a good job by the criteria he outlines, despite the fact that Bush is executing the policies he supported. There's no pony in there. It's your fault too, Andy. For God's sake, own up to it.

Why is this guy a famous columnist again?

So the Bush administration is considering effectively punishing blue states by eliminating federal deductions for state and local taxes.

The Democrats should announce that any Republican representing a state that would be disproportionately affected by the change would be heavily targeted if they go along with this plan. It's long past time to put the moderates on the spot.

Oh, it was a fine day on Capitol Hill. And clearly too much to expect that the session would end without providing at least several handfuls more of compelling reasons for Congressional reform.

The Omnibus budget bill got caught up in a complicated little wrinkle, for all the world to see on CSPAN. Seems someone (turns out a House Republican) unbeknownst to certainly the Democrats and, according to Sen Stevens, unbeknownst to the Senate Republicans as well, tried to slip a little passage in the volumnious text.

It would have given the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees or their "agents" the power to review any American's tax return with no restrictions whatsoever. Josh Marshall has many of the lovely specifics, but here's the core:

Specifically, none of the privacy law restrictions -- or the criminal and civil penalties tied to them -- would apply when the Chair or anybody he or she designates as his or her "agent" looked at your tax return.
[...]
Sen. Stevens of Alaska, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, originally blamed the provision on a 'staffer'. But later, according to the AP, Sen. Frist and "congressional aides" said it was inserted at the behest of Rep. Istook [R, Ok., Chair, House Transportation Sub-Committee of Appropriations Committee].
[...]
At the last minute, Senate Democrats caught the language (keep in mind these omnibus bills can be like phone books), protested and the Republicans beat a hasty retreat. Some of it is discussed in this AP article at MSNBC, though they lamely call it a "tax-disclosure gaffe."

The Republicans are acting like it was all an innocent mistake. And it seems clear that there are Republican senators who didn't know anytihng about it and are pissed. But clearly this was no accident, unless provisions have started to write themselves.

The Kossacks had a field day, live blogging the Senate floor appearances of outraged Democrats. The Republicans must be glad they're leaving town for Thanksgiving right about now.

Forgive me if this has been posted already, but the Economists' Voice, a joint project of Brad DeLong, Joseph Stiglitz, and some other guy, apparently has a website. I'm a little mystified by their decision to use PDFs, but at least the content is good.

Here's an interesing piece by Stiglitz on the deficit, what it means, and what to do about it. Stiglitz, it should be noted, disagrees with the conventional wisdom that cutting the deficit in the 1990s was an important step in lowering interest rates. He is much more concerned about distributional issues and the impact on public investment.

And yes, he is appropriately shrill.

Step One: Care about how your government is run.

Step Two: Read this.

Step Three: Submit to Cthulu's will.