DWBartoo makes a good point. Maybe they’re counting on winning the next presidency/SCt appointment. However, there is a totally separate motive for the Prop8 lawyers to convince their clients to extend litigation: attorney’s fees.

Well It’s the same old fucking story
With your two different sets of rules
The same old fucking story
One for me, two for you
It’s the same old fucking story
It’s the same old fucking story all around yeah

Beach – do you really think the Fed would be able to get the political support necessary for bailing out Europe? I can just see the headlines now, “TARP II: The United States Bails Out Lazy, Irresponsible Socialists Under Obama’s Watch.” That’s not going to happen. If Bernanke tries it without political support, he’d be crucified.

I think the Euro will probably disintegrate. I keep hearing that the costs of disintegration are higher than the costs of saving the system, but it would be far from the first time the markets and politicians acted irrationally. I don’t think the ‘masters of the universe’ can even get a handle on the problem, let alone guide us out of it.

The political leaders of the Eurozone are playing chicken with the ECB, but I suspect the ECB is crazy enough to let the system collapse in the vain hope of promoting “discipline” or “austerity.” Watch for a last-ditch attempt at a deal with China. China gives big investment; Euro gives large trade and diplomatic concessions. This too may be unlikely to succeed. China can’t decide whether it wants to negotiation for that deal or instead just wait for the Euro periphery to go bankrupt and start buying up the liquidated assets.

Look at the structure of the revenue increases –

1) .125% annual increase in mortgage guarantee fees = something that was probably going to happen anyway
2) food stamps for millionaires = total sop to allow republicans to posture and claim they’re not completely bought and paid for by the rich
3) surtax on over-a-million annual individual income designed not to take effect for a year and then die off in 10 years.

To me this strongly indicates the dems haven’t moved from their original position = the payroll tax cut need not be paid for and will be a worthwhile investment in boosting (preventing further deterioration) of the broader economy. Throughout the budget/debt ceiling negotiations, Obama has shown himself to be a master of future, “on paper” cuts/fees/taxes/service reductions designed never to come into being. In every deal, Obama has attempted to lay the groundwork for rewriting these agreements with a more agreeable congress. Expect him to come out swinging again after winning reelection – he’ll probably try to pull the equivalent of another health care bill on immigration or energy.

Has everyone seen this?

Preeminent economics journal in the US estimates coal-fired electricity generation damages range from 0.8 to 5.6 times value added. –> And that’s before tar sands.

American Economic Review 101 (August 2011): 1649–1675 http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi= 10.1257/aer.101.5.1649

We need to change tactics to make DADT even more of a painful PR issue for the White House.

There are different levels of judicial review of the constitutionality of a given statute. The easiest standard for a suspect statute to overcome is the “Mere Rationality Standard.” To pass the rationality standard for constitutionality a statute must 1) pursue a legitimate state objective (state as in gov’t, not as in 50 states) and 2) the means chosen to pursue this objective must be rationally related to the objective.

Here’s where the PR attack comes in. Ask Obama/Ax/Gibbs/Whoever what the legitimate state objective of DADT is, then ask them how DADT is rationally related to achieving that objective.

For example:
Press Secretary Gibbs, is DADT a rational method to achieve increased unit cohesion in the military?
President Obama, you’ve stated DADT harms unit moral/cohesion and damages military readiness, as a constitutional scholar, do you believe DADT rationally pursues a legitimate state interest?

The answer will either directly lead to the conclusion that DADT fails the mere rationality standard (i.e. is unconstitutional and should not be defended in court), OR
The answer will show a prominent WH official saying they think DADT is rational – a serious flip-flop and slam on the GLBT community.