Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

These are my links for July 25th from 20:38 to 21:24:

• How Governments Are Using Social Media for Better & for Worse – Social media has become a crucial part of how we interact with our friends, community and even run our cities. Governments are starting to take serious notice and incorporate social media into their own day-to-day actions.

  Governments may not be early adopters but the proliferation of social in national media has ramped up its importance for governments around the world. While this initial stance kept politicians on the defensive, enough time has passed that individual politicians and even entire governments are starting to use social media to connect with their communities in new, open ways.

  We’ve chosen a few examples to illustrate some of the many ways government is embracing social media. Have a read through some of these initiatives and let us know in the comments how your own government or political representative is putting social media to good use. The list is neither exhaustive nor does it try to summarize the entirety of a government’s social outreach. It is instead meant to start a conversation.

• Speaker John Boehner’s solution to the debt-ceiling standoff – A Republican aide aware of the discussions in the House e-mails me the contours of the debt deal the speaker of the House will proceed with:

  Republicans insisted if the President wants his debt ceiling increase, the American people will require serious spending cuts and reforms. This two-step approach meets House Republicans’ criteria by (1) making spending cuts that are larger than any debt ceiling increase; (2) implementing spending caps to restrain future spending; and (3) advancing the cause of the Balanced Budget Amendment — without tax hikes on families and job creators. While this is not the House-passed “Cut, Cap, & Balance,” it is a package that reflects the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance. Here is more information on the plan:
  ?Cuts That Exceed The Debt Hike. The framework would cut and cap discretionary spending immediately, saving $1.2 trillion over 10 years (subject to CBO confirmation), and raise the debt ceiling by less — up to $1 trillion.
  ?Caps To Control Future Spending. The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration).
  ?Balanced Budget Amendment. The framework advances the cause of the Balanced Budget Amendment by requiring the House and Senate to vote on the measure after October 1, 2011 but before the end of the year, allowing the American people time to build sufficient support for this popular reform.
  ?Entitlement Reforms & Savings. The framework creates a Joint Committee of Congress that is required to report legislation that would produce a proposal to reduce the deficit by at least $1.8 trillion over 10 years. Each Chamber would consider the proposal of the Joint Committee on an up-or-down basis without any amendments. If the proposal is enacted, then the President would be authorized to request a debt limit increase of $1.6 trillion.
  ?No Tax Hikes. The framework included no tax hikes, a key principle that Republicans have been fighting for since day one.
  Is this the same plan the Senate majority leader and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) presented to the White House? A House senior aide tells me, “The plan we are introducing is essentially the plan that McConnell, Boehner, and Reid agreed to and which Reid presented to President.” A Senate adviser confirms, “If there are any changes, they are minor.”

  =======

  Then what?

  The House bill goes to the Senate and will pass with some changes.

  Then, Obama can either sign it or let America go into default.

  This is what the GOP should have done weeks ago instead of negotiationg with the primma dona who resides in the White House.

These are my links for July 25th from 18:48 to 19:01:

• Ron Paul thinks defaulting isn’t such a bad thing – Ron Paul, the conservative congressman from Texas, doesn't think the panic about raising the debt ceiling is as serious as some would have us believe. In fact he thinks it might be healhy for the nation in the long run.

  The man affectionately known as "Dr. No" wrote an op-ed for Bloomberg on Friday titled "Default Now, or Suffer a More Expensive Crisis Later" in which he says that the U.S. defaulted three times in the 20th century and the world didn't end.

  "Despite the defaults in 1934, 1968 and 1971, world markets have been only too willing to purchase Treasury debt and thereby fund the government’s deficit spending," wrote Paul, a GOP presidential hopeful.

  "If these major defaults didn’t result in decreased investor appetite for U.S. obligations, I see no reason why defaulting on a small amount of debt this August would cause any major changes," the Republican argued.

  Paul did acknowledge that losing the pristine AAA rating would hurt, but the longtime legislator said the pain would actually be good for a Congress that he thinks spends far too much.

  "If the government defaults on its debt now, the consequences undoubtedly will be painful in the short term. The loss of its AAA rating will raise the cost of issuing new debt, but this is not altogether a bad thing. Higher borrowing costs will ensure that the government cannot continue the same old spending policies. Budgets will have to be brought into balance (as the cost of servicing debt will be so expensive as to preclude future debt financing of government operations), so hopefully, in the long term, the government will return to sound financial footing," wrote Paul, the father of "tea party"-backed Sen. Rand Paul.

• White House stokes debt-ceiling crisis – A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”

  If this is accurate the president is playing with fire. By halting a bipartisan deal he imperils the country’s finances and can rightly be accused of putting partisanship above all else. The ONLY reason to reject a short-term, two-step deal embraced by both the House and Senate is to avoid another approval-killing face-off for President Obama before the election. Next to pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fit the election calendar, this is the most irresponsible and shameful move of his presidency.

  As for the House, why not pass the deal that Sen. Harry Reid agreed to, send it to the Senate and leave town? Enough already.

These are my links for July 20th from 18:05 to 19:23:

• Dilbert July 20, 2011 – Shame | Flap’s Blog – FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog – Dilbert July 20, 2011 – Shame #tcot #catcot
• Flap’s Dentistry Blog: Video: Dentistry of the Mujahideen – Video: Dentistry of the Mujahideen
• Flap’s Dentistry Blog: Fighting a Parking Ticket Like Doing Your Own Dentistry? – Fighting a Parking Ticket Like Doing Your Own Dentistry?
• Just Say No to the Gang of Six Proposal/Fraud/Sell Out – The new Gang of Six proposal brewing in the Senate is a total sellout which promises to usher in a vast new round of new taxes. Not just closing of loopholes, but real live taxes we will all have to pay.

  The proposal is based on the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction Commission as modified by the "Gang of Six" US Senators. It plans to raise $1 trillion in new tax revenues. While the gang is vague on the details of the new taxes, the Bowles-Simpson Commission was quite clear – it proposes the virtual elimination of all tax deductions, certainly for taxpayers with joint incomes of over $200,000 and possibly for everyone. The revenues it would generate from eliminating or sharply curtailing the mortgage interest, charitable, and state and local tax deductions are set to generate $1 trillion of new revenues over ten years and to finance a vague and unspecified hoped for cut in the top tax bracket.

  The elimination or significant curtailment of these deductions would have a ruinous economic impact.

  Cutting out the mortgage interest deduction would cost American taxpayers almost $100 billion a year. It would decimate the already moribund real estate sector and would make their current homes unaffordable for millions of homeowners by changing the financial rules in the middle of the game.

  Restricting or eliminating the state and local tax deduction is, in effect, to levy a 25-35 percent surcharge on state and local taxes – income and property – hammering people who live in high tax states. The cost in jobs and state revenues are likely to be staggering.

  ======

  Read it all

These are my links for July 13th from 16:06 to 16:22:

• Coburn may return to Senate’s ‘Gang of 6′ – Sen. Tom Coburn said Wednesday that he may rejoin the so-called Gang of Six, the bipartisan band of senators seeking to reach agreement on a big deficit-cutting deal that would blend spending cuts with a tax code overhaul.
  The Oklahoma Republican dropped out of the group two months ago saying Democrats weren't willing to cut enough spending from programs like Medicare. He says he may rejoin the group depending on how it responds to ideas he's sent over. The closely watched group has been working for months in hopes of a bipartisan deficit-cutting deal that might gain momentum despite the partisanship consuming Capitol Hill.
  Asked about rumors he's thinking of rejoining the group, Coburn said: "They're not rumors." But he said he doesn't know whether he will in fact return and that it would depend on how the group reacts to some ideas he's sent over.
  "We'll see" about rejoining the group, Coburn said. "I floated a couple of things. Let's see how they're responded to."
• How are those debt talks going? – Badly – There are, I think, three likely outcomes. One is that Obama blinks on taxes, as he did in last year’s lame duck session. I rate the chances of that happening as slim. The second is that we hit “default” and everyone scrambles for a few days to, yes, get the Social Security checks out. Everyone is shaken and there is that “grand compromise.” I put the likelihood of that at close to zero. And finally, there is some other variation (McConnell’s or another backup plan) that avoids a default and does not force Republicans to vote for tax hikes. That seems the most likely for now.

  The real solution is for the voters to participate in a great referendum. More government and tax hikes or less government and no tax hikes? That’s what the 2012 election will be about.

  ======

  The GOP House should pass a 3 or 6 month all cuts budget deal raising the debt ceiling and force the Senate to filibuster or Obama to veto it.

• Amazon Tax Referendum Filed – With the state budget not yet two weeks old, the first of what could be multiple challenges to its underpinning policies has been issued: a petition for the voters to overturn the new law requiring sales tax collection from online purchases.
  A formal request for a referendum on ABx 28 was filed with the office of Attorney General Kamala Harris on Friday afternoon by lobbyist Charles Halnan.

  Halnan lobbies for, among other companies, Amazon.

  The state constitution requires backers of a referendum to gather, within 90 days, voter signatures equaling five percent of the total vote in the most recent gubernatorial election. That looks to be about 504,000 signatures once the petition is cleared by the AG.

  Of course, one question raised during last year's debate over Proposition 25 was whether a budget-related bill like this one is eligible for a referendum. Before Prop 25, budget-related bills were generally seen as not eligible, given that they were approved by a supermajority and given that they took effect immediately. For those who would construe that to be synonymous with an "urgency" statute, the constitution would seem to say it's not eligible. But others will no doubt say that these aren't synonymous. A clarification by the courts may be needed on this one.

• New GOP honcho Carly Fiorina is "focused on 2012,” but on future run for office? "Never say never" – Among the topics she addressed in conversation with the Chronicle:

  *On Republicans' shot at taking back control of the Senate:"It's a very achievable goal. It's one we have to work hard towards. The Democrats have more seats to defend than we do..and many of the seats in 2012 cycle are in states Barack Obama lost." While Republicans "have challenges,'' Democrats have more challenges, she said.

  *On the GOP anti-tax agenda, in California and nationally: "I think Republicans are on very solid ground to say that tax increases are bad for job creation. Everyone agreed with that just six months ago. President Obama was against raising taxes; the Democrats were…Bill Clinton has said the corporate tax rate was too high.'' The bottom line: "You can't raise taxes in the middle of an economic recession….there are only two things you can do during a budget crisis — cut spending, and grow the economy."

  *On raising the debt ceiling: "It's important that the U.S. government not default on its obligation. It's equally important that we put in place a set of longterm solutions that restore accountability and fiscal responsibility in Washington and that create the environment where businesses can grow."

  *On the "stark" differences between the messages of the two parties: "The Republican agenda is fundamentally different from the Democratic agenda…first, Republicans want to decentralize power, Democrats want to centralize it and they want to centralize it in Washington. Republicans generally will put their faith in the individual; Democrats will put it in an institution. Republicans will favor job creators and Democrats will favor government agencies."

  *On her own future in politics: "I'm focused on 2012 and helping other people win….(but) never say never….I've said from the moment that (my) campaign finished, I enjoyed every minute of it. I don't have a bad taste in my mouth. I had a wonderful experience, and I'm proud of the campaign we ran."

These are my links for July 13th from 14:50 to 14:52:

• Another possible contingency plan in the debt limit fight – Having blasted the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's "last resort" proposal, I thought I'd offer an alternative contingency plan. The way I see it, members of Congress have an obligation to raise the debt ceiling to accommodate future deficit spending that they already voted for, but nothing beyond that. That would mean, since Congress already approved a 2011 budget that includes deficit spending as part of the  deal to avert a government shut down, they should pass a clean debt limit increase that would take us through the end of the fiscal year, on Sept. 30. If and when Republicans eventually reach a deal on the fiscal 2012 budget, they should then vote to increase the debt limit by the amount of deficit spending that the Congressional Budget Office projects for that year.

  Admittedly, there are a number of obstacles to this plan. The most obvious being that it isn't clear if there would be enough votes in Congress, and President Obama has publicly ruled out any short-term deals. Yet as things stand, the McConnell approach has been deemed "dead on arrival" in the House. So if we're talking about "last resort" contingency plans, it's hard to see why this approach would be any less plausible.

  If Republicans favor this plan and it encounters opposition from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Obama, that would do several things. It could make Obama start to look intransigent and it would be another opportunity to highlight the fact that the Democratic Senate hasn't even formally released a 2012 budget while the Republican House has done its job and passed one. If there's no agreement about 2012 deficit levels and we don't even have details on Democrats' opening bid, why should Republicans agree to increase the debt limit past the end of this fiscal year? Compared to the McConnell plan, which hinges on arcane Congressional procedure to disguise the fact that Republicans would effectively be voting for a debt limit increase, this would have the advantage of being a clear, transparent, stance that's easy to explain to voters.

• Home ownership declines in California – The last decade saw a major housing boom, followed by a cataclysmic bust, and the net result was a declining rate of home ownership in California, according to a new analysis of 2010 census data by University of Southern California demographer Dowell Myers.

  Beyond the raw numbers, says Myers, the census data revealed a generational and ethnic transfer between an aging white population and a relatively young Latino population. During the last decade, white home ownership dropped by 157,877 units while Latino-owned homes increased by 383,778 with the latter group accounting for more than three-quarters of ownership growth in the state.

  The overall increase in owner-occupied homes, just under a half-million during the decade, was less than half the numerical increase in the 1980s and the state's overall home ownership rate, 55.9 percent, is one percentage point lower than it was in 2000 and the second lowest rate in the nation, just ahead of New York.

  Within California, home ownership rates vary widely from a low of 35.8 percent in densely populated San Francisco to well over 70 percent in foothill and mountain counties.

  The slowing incidence of home ownership, Myers noted, lessens upward pressure on home prices in the supply-demand equation.

These are my links for July 13th from 08:26 to 08:32:

• Can President Obama keep paying Social Security benefits even if the debt ceiling is reached? – The president obviously does not want to show all of his cards in this high-stakes game of poker. Raising the specter of not issuing Social Security checks is designed to raise pressure on Republicans, but could also cause angst among the elderly.

  At this point the answer is unclear but we become suspicious when politicians begin to use “may,” rather than speak in definitive sentences. If Treasury has the ability to keep paying Social Security benefits, even if the debt limit is reached, the Obama administration should make that clear. The Treasury Department’s new statement begins to add some clarity. We will keep watching how the president speaks about this issue.

  ========

  Answer is perhaps….

  Read it all

• The McConnell Plan’s Pitfalls – Shortly after Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell unveiled his “contingency” plan for a debt limit increase, the Associated Press bulletin read: “GOP Leader McConnell proposes giving Obama new power for automatic debt limit increase.”

  It’s surely not the headline McConnell wanted, but unlike much of the media coverage of the debt fight, it’s accurate. And that’s a problem.

  It is not, however, the main problem with the McConnell plan. Far worse, in my view, is that the plan isolates House Republicans, it undercuts their (tentative) plan to offer an aggressive debt limit proposal of their own, it turns their principled intransigence from a possible strength to a certain liability, and it virtually ensures that, in the event of default, Republicans – not the White House – will be blamed.

  McConnell’s plan gives the president the ability to raise the debt ceiling through 2012, in three separate increments, by requiring Obama to propose spending cuts greater than each request. Its main virtue is that these hikes would have to pass largely with Democratic support – something that McConnell and others believe will redound to Republicans’ benefit heading into the 2012 election cycle. And, the theory goes, if President Obama offers phony spending cuts, as he almost certain to do, his posturing as the “adult in the room” on entitlements and spending will be exposed as unserious.

  But there’s the catch, too: the spending cuts do not have to be real or even implemented in order for the president to get his debt ceiling increases. McConnell acknowledged this at the press conference to announce the plan Tuesday afternoon. ABC’s Jonathan Karl asked: “Does it guarantee you’ll get your spending cuts or not?” McConnell responded: “No, it doesn’t.”

  ======

  Read it all

  A different perspective than the Wall Street Journal

• Debt-Limit Harakiri or Why McConnell’s Plan is Not So Bad – The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic. As former Senator Phil Gramm once told us, never take a hostage you're not prepared to shoot. Republicans aren't prepared to stop a debt-limit increase because the political costs are unbearable. Republicans might have played this game better, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has more cards to play.

  The entitlement state can't be reformed by one house of Congress in one year against a determined President and Senate held by the other party. It requires more than one election. The Obama Democrats have staged a spending blowout to 24% of GDP and rising, and now they want to find a way to finance it to make it permanent. Those are the real stakes of 2012.

  Even if Mr. Obama gets his debt-limit increase without any spending cuts, he will pay a price for the privilege. He'll have reinforced his well-earned reputation as a spender with no modern peer. He'll own the record deficits and fast-rising debt. And he'll own the U.S. credit-rating downgrade to AA if Standard & Poor's so decides.

  We'd far prefer a bipartisan deal to cut spending and reform entitlements without a tax increase. But if Mr. Obama won't go along, there's no reason Republicans should help him dodge the political consequences by committing debt-limit harakiri.

  ======

  Read it all…..

  An interesting perspective…..