I question the assertion that the failure to raise the debt limit would have any impact on Social Security checks whatsoever. First, the Social Security payroll tax is a separate revenue stream which is legally dedicated to the payment of Social Security benefits. Second, any shortfall in the revenue from the payroll tax to pay current benefits would be made up by the redemption of the Social Security bonds issued by the Federal government over the past 30 years. The Social Security bonds are as much of a debt under the 14th amendment as any debt to China or Wall Street. Therefore, it would seem that Social Security benefits would be untouched by any failure to raise the debt limit.

If Drum is correct (and I think he may well be), the first thing the administration should stop paying is the pension and health benefits for members of Congress – specifically Republicans. This should be followed by holding the paychecks for Congressman and Congressional staff. Let Congress “share” in the consequences of their actions. Perhaps, they would begin “to feel our pain.” This is what FDR would have done.

You must be in his state where Amazon has a physical presence.

I live in Colorado where Amazon cut off their affiliates some time ago. I, along with a number of other Coloradans, simply stopped patronizing Amazon. I dumped the Kindle app and started buying my e-books from Barnes & Noble which collects sales tax. Keep in mind that all profit is made at the margins. The critical mass for consumer direct action is not all that large. Boycott Amazon!

Oops. Looks like you missed this one. Time to get that ole crystal ball cleaned.

Two cents from Colorado. Remember, the DP convention in Denver. We are a right to work state (OK – a modified right-to-work state where a “union shop” requires a second election and a super majority – 75% – to win.) We had only two small union hotels and the Pepsi Center was non-union. The Great Love Fest took place in a non-union football stadium.

This is nothing new for the Democratic Party.

I submit that it was no mistake to leave out the severability clause. It was another part of the not so secret deal with the insurance industry. If the courts throw out the individual mandate, the prohibition on preexisting conditions and limits on premiums go too. In the end, it was the poison pill that the insurance industry got as part of the individual mandate.

Jon – I followed the link and reviewed the report. I have to say that I think you overstate the case. From a 71 page report which basically outlines the establishment of exchanges with concrete recommendations in Penn., you refer to about 4 paragraphs buried in the report which merely make a recommendation that a BHP be investigated.

I know we’re all looking for a silver lining in the disaster we call federal healthcare reform, but this does not appear to be it.

Has Colburn lifted his hold on the relief for Haiti yet?

That was the argument I presented to my wife. She then reminded me that corporations are making record profits regardless of the recession and high unemployment rates. Rather than building new plants or hiring people, they are investing the profits in the market. Remember GM used to be an automobile manufacturer which occasionally would lend its customers the money to buy their cars. GM is now a financial instituion which manufactures automobiles on the side.

Last night, my wife commented that many people were going to vote for Republicans because they either need a job or are afraid of losing it. They believe that business is punishing the working and middle class by not creating jobs as a political tactic to defeat Democrats. If the Republicans win – the theory goes – business will start hiring. If the Democrats win, businesses will continue to hold back the economy until the next election.

At the time, I thought this was pretty far fetched and the paranoia of a small group of individuals. Now, I wonder – could they be right.

I have not had the opportunity to read your “long, boring comments.” However, your analysis is limited to those jurisdictions which mandate judicial foreclosures. At last count, this was only 23 states. The other 27 states permit foreclosures without any judicial involvement. Therefore, there is no “judgment” to set aside.

In fact, here in Colorado there is no way to raise the issue of fraud within the foreclosure process itself. The debtor is entitled to what is called a Rule 120 hearing, but the only issue before the court is whether the debtor is in default. If the debtor wishes two challenge the standing of the party foreclosing, the debtor must file a separate lawsuit seeking an injunction against the public trustee. Few debtors have the financial means to pay the filing fee let alone the attorneys fees for such litigation.

I have not seen anyone discuss the actual contents of a title insurance policy. Again, here in Colorado, the title insurance policies do not cover defects and title which are not of record unless you pay an additional premium for special endorsement. I have not seen any of the new title insurance policies, but I expect that they have, or will soon have, and exclusion for foreclosure defects not of record. (As my own personal experience demonstrates, the banks are no longer filing assignments with the clerk and recorder.) For a fee, the buyer’s lender can insure against this risk. However, the borrower is required to pay for the title insurance. Once again, the cost of this entire mess will be borne by the middle class.