Too Much Wishful Thinking on Middle-Class Tax Rates

From Greg Mankiw, at the New York Times, "Wishful Thinking and Middle-Class Taxes":

IN the continuing fiscal negotiations between President Obama and House Republicans, both sides have, from the very beginning, agreed on one point: Taxes on the middle class must not rise. But maybe it’s time to reconsider this premise. An unwavering commitment to keep middle-class taxes low could be one reason the political process has become so deeply dysfunctional.

Let’s start with the problem: the budget deficit. Under current policy, the federal government is spending vastly more than it is collecting in tax revenue. And that will be true for the next several decades, thanks largely to the growth in entitlement spending that will occur automatically as the population ages and health care costs increase. As a result, the ratio of government debt to the nation’s gross domestic product is projected to rise, substantially and without an end in sight.

That can happen for a while, or even a long while, but not forever. At some point, investors at home and abroad will start questioning our ability to service our debts without creating steep inflation. It’s hard to say precisely when this shift in investor sentiment will occur, and even whether it will strike in this president’s term or the next, but when it does, it won’t be pretty. The United States will find itself at the brink of an unprecedented financial crisis.

Republicans and Democrats agree on the nature of the problem, but they embrace very different solutions. My fear is that both sides are engaged in an excess of wishful thinking, with a dash of mendacity.

If Republicans had their way, they would focus the entire solution on the spending side. They say that reform of the entitlement programs can reduce their cost. The so-called premium-support plan for Medicare, from Paul D. Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice-presidential candidate, would let older Americans use their health care dollars to buy insurance from competing private plans. (Interestingly, it’s similar to the system envisioned for the nonelderly by President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.) The hope is that competition and choice would keep health care costs down without sacrificing quality.

The premium-support model may well be better than the current Medicare system, but its supporters oversell what it would be likely to accomplish. The primary driver of increasing health care costs over time is new technology, which extends and improves the quality of life, but often at high cost. Unless the pace or nature of medical innovation changes, this trend is likely to continue, regardless of structural reforms we enact for Medicare.

Democrats, meanwhile, want to preserve the social safety net pretty much as is. They balk at any attempt to reduce this spending, including even modest changes like altering the price index used to calculate Social Security benefits. They focus their attention on raising taxes on the most financially successful Americans, contending that the rich are not paying their “fair share.”

Fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, people’s judgment is often based on anecdotes that distort rather than illuminate. The story of the undertaxed Warren Buffett and his overtaxed secretary looms larger in the public’s mind than it should.

Here are some facts, so you can judge for yourself....

Even if President Obama wins all the tax increases on the rich that he is asking for, the long-term fiscal picture will still look grim. Perhaps we can stabilize the situation for a few years just by taxing the rich, but as greater numbers of baby boomers retire and start collecting Social Security and Medicare, more will need to be done.

Continue reading (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: I'm for shrinking government, so this is the bottom line for me, at The Lonely Conservative, "People Should Pay For the Government They Voted For." Raise taxes. Go over the cliff.  I guarantee you that Obama won't get off cost-free. The real cost of the election will start biting people in the ass.

Low- and Moderate-Income Taxpayers to Face Biggest Burden if U.S. Goes Over Fiscal Cliff

Here's an excellent Fox & Friends segment from over the weekend, especially the second half, "If Bush Tax Cuts Expire - What Would It Mean For Your Taxes?"

And at the Wall Street Journal, "Cliff Would Strike Low Incomes Hard":

If the U.S. goes over the "fiscal cliff," some Americans may fall harder than others.

The biggest impact in sheer dollars would land on relatively affluent households, particularly when it comes to the tax increases that make up the bulk of the cliff. But in terms of percentage of tax increases, low- and moderate-income taxpayers will face the biggest burden—an often overlooked part of the budget debate that's now getting attention as the year-end deadline nears.

Households earning $10,000 to $20,000 would see a large increase in their overall federal tax burdens, from an average of $68 to $605. The blow would be especially harsh for married couples and households with children. The fiscal cliff "clobbers low-income households with children," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. "It is striking how large some of the increases are."

A household that makes between $10,000 and $20,000 in income and has a child would get a $2,761 payment from the Internal Revenue Service under current rules, thanks to various tax breaks and credits. After the cliff, that would be cut by $1,324, or about half.

Married couples earning $20,000 to $30,000 today would get an average $15 payment from the IRS under current rules. In January, they would owe an average $1,408 to the IRS, because several of those breaks would be narrowed or eliminated.

Budget talks were mostly quiet Sunday, officials on both sides said, after a week when efforts between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) to cut a deal collapsed, and the House failed to pass a backup plan.

Some leaders, including Mr. Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), attended a memorial service for the late Sen. Daniel Inouye in Honolulu. Mr. Obama said he would cut his holiday vacation short and return to Washington this week to work on an agreement.

The so-called fiscal cliff comprises about $500 billion in tax-break expirations and government spending cuts that are set to take effect in early January, unless Congress acts. With little more than a week to find a solution, Democrats and Republicans are focusing on the real-world impacts of the fiscal cliff and seeking to shift blame for it.

"We're taking…this incredible mallet and [are] about to smash America," Newark's Democratic Mayor Cory Booker said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "People are going to be cut out of programs that support the poorest Americans….This is really what bothers me right now."

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), said on Sunday: "Given the impact on all segments of the economy, it's disappointing that Democrats are so cavalier about letting the country go off the cliff."

The Obama administration contends Republicans would let much of the fiscal cliff's impact happen for moderate-income families, by allowing Obama-era breaks to expire.

If Congress misses its year-end deadline but quickly restores the expired tax breaks, the tax impact on lower-income households could be modest.

One problem, however, might be unavoidable: a delay in sending tax-refund payments that normally arrive between late January and March. The IRS already has warned lawmakers it might have to postpone the tax-filing season by several weeks, possibly for everyone.

Much of the tax debate has focused on upper-income Americans, who will likely see taxes rise in some form next year. If no budget deal is reached, households making more than $100,000 would absorb more than 50% of the total tax increase, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. And those earning more than $1 million would see their taxes rise by an average 24%, from about $1.1 million to about $1.3 million.

At the other end of the income scale, the risk comes from the expiration of less-heralded parts of the Bush-era tax code, as well as Obama changes that expanded several breaks for lower- and middle-income households.

About two million people also face the prospect of losing unemployment checks starting in January, with the expiration of extended federal unemployment benefits. "For the long-term unemployed, their entire income may disappear," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

See also, "How 'Cliff' Talks Hit the Wall: Behind Scenes, Boehner Failed to Sell Republicans on Taxes, While Obama's Spending Plans Rankled."

Obama's ball-busting budgeting. And I'll tell you, the Republicans aren't coming out too pretty here either. That video at top says the average tax hit for incomes over $108,000 would be more than $14,000. The liability would be enormous especially for people making over $1 million (around $100,000), but still. The bill comes due in April, as we're talking about the 2012 tax filings that will be affected, unless the IRS is able to reset the deadline. I doubt there'd be a better impetus to a new American tax revolt than going over the cliff, but perhaps an agreement will come at the 11th hour. We'll see.

Boehner's Budget 'Plan B' Collapses

Here's the key bit from the Wall Street Journal's editorial, "Teetering on the Cliff":

The Speaker's miscalculation was that, just as in 2011, he thought he could get into a room with the President and negotiate a grand bargain. His intentions were good but he misjudged the all-or-nothing ideological nature of this Presidency. After the debacle of 2011, Mr. Obama could have treated the negotiations as the art of the bipartisan deal that could set the stage for immigration reform and other second-term achievements. Flush with victory, he could have at least made a gesture on entitlements.

Instead, he has treated the talks as an extension of the election campaign, traveling around the country at rally-style events at which he berates Republicans for not accepting his terms of surrender. Grant gave Lee more at Appomattox.

Plan B was Mr. Boehner's attempt to salvage some political dignity and a policy victory or two in return for conceding on tax rates. The bill wasn't even technically a vote to raise taxes because the rates are set to rise automatically on January 1 if Congress does nothing. The bill also kept the estate tax at 35%, rather than going up to 55% as now scheduled, and it made the tax cuts on lower incomes permanent.

With a narrow deal on taxes, Mr. Boehner figured he could live to fight another day on spending

More at that top link. And a CBS News report, "House votes on Boehner's 'Plan B'."

And at the Los Angeles Times, "Boehner cancels House vote as 'Plan B' falls short of GOP support."

Libya Inquiry Sharply Critical of State Department

At The Hill, "Benghazi probe faults 'systemic failures' at State Department":

An independent review of the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi made public Tuesday night faults “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” of the State Department.

The report by the Accountability Review Board says the local mission's reliance on Libyan guards and militia members was “misplaced” and that the Libyan government's response was “profoundly lacking.” However it “did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.”

The report also confirms that there was no peaceful protest ahead of the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, as the Obama administration initially said in the days after the attack.

“The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity,” the report says.

In a letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she accepted the report's 29 recommendations, all but five of which are unclassified. She said her department has already taken additional steps to beef up security at U.S. diplomatic posts around the world, including instituting periodic reviews of the 15 to 20 high-threat posts.

Of course she accepts the findings.

If she didn't accept them I doubt she would have taken to fainting so conveniently. She would have been up on Capitol Hill denouncing the politicization of the administration's foreign policy. But now she's just quietly accepting the recommendations, laying low while she eases out of office, keeping the road open to her 2016 presidential bid. How corrupt.

More at Legal Insurrection, "Benghazi Report — No protest, deteriorating security conditions ignored."

PREVIOUSLY: "Benghazi Reveals Obama Is a Coward and Disgrace."

Stimulus Forecasts Show Obama Can't Blame GOP for Poor Economy

At IBD, "Obama's Attacks On GOP Tax Policy Blunted By Own Data":

President Obama continues to blame the soft economy and record red ink on Republican policies, including "tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."

But three years ago he seemed convinced the economy had made a clean break from those old policies, and would soon roar back on the strength of his own policies. The proof is in his economic projections.

In his 2010 budget, Obama predicted his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would "jump-start our economy" and "create new jobs" and "many years of economic growth."

Stronger economic activity, he promised, would bring in more government revenues and "cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office," putting "our nation on sound fiscal footing."

"The time has come to usher in a new era — a new era of responsibility in which we act not only to save and create new jobs, but also to lay a new foundation of growth," the president said.

Didn't Deliver

His recovery plan included more than $1 trillion in new government spending. A Democrat-controlled Congress passed it without a single Republican vote.

Based on the new economic program, the White House forecast real GDP in 2012 would grow at a robust 4.6% clip, cutting the unemployment rate to 6.0%. It also saw the budget deficit dropping to 3.5% of the economy.

The projections didn't come even close to panning out. Real GDP growth has stagnated at 2%, while unemployment hovers near 8%. Far from being halved, the deficit had soared to 8.5% of GDP.

As the jobless rate soared to 10% — well beyond the promised 8% high point — the White House had to adjust its assumptions and timeline. In its 2012 budget, however, it still projected 4.0% economic growth.

Despite White House spin, it became clear the president's economic plan had failed to deliver on its promised stimulus.

They all knew this. Obama, David Axelrod, Stepanie Cutter --- they all knew all of this.

Which is why they lied 24/7 about the problems facing the country and launched the most unprincipled demagogic smears against private property and wealth accumulation in modern history. And it worked! I doubt four more years of economic stagnation will help the party maintain its general election majority, but then again, I was wrong about 2012, so who knows? Maybe another paradigm of lies will lift these criminal authoritarians to yet another presidential win in 2016. Democracy doesn't just collapse in one big instant, it withers away in the slow death of a thousand cuts. It's withering now under the Democrats, but all is not lost. The republic will survive when enough people who've been butt-reamed and had the wool pulled over their eyes wake up and scream, "I'm not going to take it anymore!"

Michigan Stuns Labor as Blue Model Continues to Unravel

From Walter Russell Mead:

Labor’s clout is in steep decline in the Middle West. In a move that was unimaginable just ten years ago, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed a pair of “right-to-work” bills into law, dealing a serious blow to unions in one of the states that gave birth to the modern labor movement in America. The Wall Street Journal:

Gov. Snyder’s willingness to sign the legislation—a reversal of his previous position that right to work was a divisive issue that he would prefer to avoid—highlights the diminution of union clout both in Michigan and nationally.

The UAW once had more than one million members in the U.S., and as recently as 2004 had 654,000 active members. Now, after years of cuts by Detroit’s big auto makers and their parts makers, the UAW’s national membership is down to roughly 380,000 members, according to Labor Department filings. In Michigan, about 17.5% of workers were union members in 2011, according to Labor Department figures.

Besides the realities of declining union membership, this development more broadly suggests deep splits and ambivalence in American politics: At the national level, Democrats are running strong, but in many states something different is happening. Michigan was long seen as a great example of the blue social model. The high wage, unionized automobile industry supported the state economy and promoted the development of a mass blue collar middle class. It was a great social achievement, and Americans were not wrong to love it, but it has been in gradual yet inexorable decline for more than a generation.

Today’s blue model liberals face a challenge. Can they find a path that actually restores states like Michigan and cities like Detroit to the kind of health they knew back when the blue model actually worked?

Continue reading.

Mead suggests that "red state conservatives have yet to show that they can deliver something better," although right-to-work states, across the country, enjoy far more robust employment sectors than do the states of the bankrupt blue state model. See Heritage: "Simple truths about Right-to-Work."

IBD/TIPP Poll: Fiscal Cliff Sinks Dems' Hopes After Obama Re-Election

From Investor's Business Daily, "IBD/TIPP Poll: Fiscal Cliff Deflates Democratic Hope":

Democrats stopped basking in the afterglow of President Barack Obama's re-election victory and abruptly lowered their outlook on the economy this month, as fears of the "fiscal cliff" dominate year-end headlines, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll released Tuesday.

The Economic Optimism Index dropped to a year low of 45.1 in December from 48.6 in November, the second straight decline, with sentiment among Democrats falling by 8.2 points to 65.6.

Republican economic sentiment, which hit a record low right after the Nov. 6 vote, dipped 1.1 points to a new low of 23.7 in December. Readings below 50 indicate pessimism.

"Consumer confidence is driven largely by party affiliation," said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelli gence, which conducted the poll.

Given the wide partisan disparity, a truer indicator could be how independents feel, he added. They turned slightly gloomier too, slipping to 42.3 from 44.

An earlier run-up in sentiment was first led by Democrats in September, when the successful presidential convention boosted re-election prospects and brightened their views on the economy. The index advanced further in October as Mitt Romney's strong debate performance lifted Republican sentiment.

But the election brought the index back down. A separate survey Tuesday also found it devastated hopes among small-business owners worried about regulation and ObamaCare costs.

The National Federation of Independent Business' sentiment gauge dropped 5.6 points to 87.5 last month, the lowest since March 2010. The share of small businesses positive about the economic outlook fell from a net 2% to a deeply pessimistic -35%.

You're 'Going to Die Painfully...'

This is why they're called thugs.

At Twitchy, "You’re ‘going to die painfully’: Gov. Snyder faces threats, death wishes over Mich. right-to-work bills; Update: Threat to kill Snyder’s family appears."

Big Labor Eliminationism in Lansing

From James Taranto, at WSJ, "'There Will Be Blood'."

As union violence escalates, Mich. House Dems delete tweet promising 'there will be blood' bit.ly/T56BoJ
— TwitchyTeam (@TwitchyTeam) December 11, 2012

As the Michigan House debated a right-to-work measure today, a member of that august body warned of--or perhaps threatened--violence. "We're going to pass something that will undo 100 years of labor relations and there will be blood, there will be repercussions," WWJ-AM quotes Rep. Doug Geiss, a Detroit-area Democrat, as saying. "We will re-live the battle of the overpass."

The station offers a refresher in labor history: "The battle of the overpass was a bloody fracas in 1937 between union organizers and Ford Motor Co. security guards. [United Auto Workers organizer] Walter Reuther was famously thrown down a flight of stairs and another union organizer was left with a broken back."

So far this time there are no reports of violence or threats by management (unless you count Geiss, who is after all supposed to represent taxpayers, as part of "management" vis-à-vis government employees). But union leaders have echoed the violent rhetoric. WWJ quotes Terry O'Sullivan of the Labor International Union of North America, as saying at a rally, in reference to elected officials who support the right to work: "We are going to take you on and take you out."

MLive.com, a Michigan news site, reports that union thugs "tore down a large tent maintained by American's [sic] For Prosperity Michigan, which reserved the space to support the right-to-work legislation"

More at the link.

Also at Instapundit, "ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Hoffa Predicts ‘Civil War’ in Michigan."

PREVIOUSLY: "#Savage Union Thugs Attack Conservative Steven Crowder in Lansing, Michigan."

#Savage Union Thugs Attack Conservative Steven Crowder in Lansing, Michigan

At Fox News, "Fox News contributor punched in face at pro-union protests in Michigan."

And at The Other McCain, "BREAKING VIDEO: MI Union Thugs Greet Right-to-Work Law With Thuggery and Cupcakes, But Mostly Thuggery." All the video at that link.

And from Bob Belvedere, "The Naked Face of Leftism: Thug America":

This is exactly the kind of behavior the Left wants to see. Ever since Leftism came into being in the mid-18th Century, they have believed a necessary first step in bringing about Revolution is to sow Chaos in all areas of the society. They want the populace to break into tribes of competing grievance groups. To achieve this, the Left needs many groups from various fields it can count on to do it’s dirty work — bureaucrats, elected officials, academics, etc. These minions of the Masterminds lay the ground work by sabotaging all of the institutions of the Society from within and without, working to pervert and, thus weaken, the existing Culture.

At some point, however, the Leftist Masterminds need to move to the next phase of the march to Revolution: violence. We have entered that phase in the last few years in The United States Of America. Barack Hussein Obama and his comrades have encouraged and nurtured and unleashed forces designed to tear this country apart.

Well, yes, it's classic mob violence.

These are monstrous progressive freaks. More from Dana Loesch, "Donors offers $$$ For Info Leading to Arrest Of Union Thug **UPDATED ONE THUG IDENTIFIED" (at Memoerandum).

IMAGE CREDIT: Instapundit.

Worker Liberation in Michigan

At the Wall Street Journal:

The economic policy drift in Washington is antigrowth, but here and there in the states are glimmers of hope and change. The best news of late is in Michigan, which is poised this week to pass a landmark right-to-work law.

You can tell this is a big deal based on the fury of Big Labor's reaction. Union activists plan to descend on Lansing Tuesday to protest, including many from out of state. State police will have to be on duty to ensure that legislators can get through what is likely to be a loud and abusive cordon of activists who want to block the vote.

This thuggishness is a deliberate and familiar union political strategy: Cause as big a ruckus as possible in hopes of making right to work seem radical when it's already the law in nearly half the country.

We hope Republicans and Governor Rick Snyder aren't intimidated, because they have the moral and policy high ground. Union activists want voters to believe that right-to-work laws deny union organizing rights, or ban collective bargaining. President Obama peddled this distortion on Monday in Redford, Michigan, claiming that "what we shouldn't be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions."

Right to work does no such thing. It empowers individual workers. As allowed under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, right to work merely lets individual workers choose for themselves if they want to join a union. The laws prevent closed union shops, which coerce individual workers to join unions and to pay union dues. A teacher who opts out under right to work, for example, could save several hundred dollars in annual union dues that go to political causes he may not even believe in...

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!

Boy, that sounds awful scary, if you're a union boss, that is.

More at the link.

Oh, and speaking of scared, here's Rich Yeselson at the American Prospect, "This Is Not Wisconsin. It's Worse" (which as this post was scheduled, was drawing enough traffic to crash the site, so see Digby's Hullabaloo).

Greg Gutfeld Slams 'Gangnam Style' Anti-American Rapper

You'll get a laugh, despite how serious this is:

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama Daughters Meet Psy the 'Gangnam Style' Troop-Kill Rapper," and "Joe Biden Photographed With Anti-American 'Gangnam Style' Rapper."

A Nation of Takers Hurtles Toward the Fiscal Abyss

From Bruce Thornton, at FrontPage Magazine:

The on-going negotiations over avoiding the tax hikes and spending cuts we call the “fiscal cliff” are the simply the latest act in a farce of self-serving political denial. For decades now both parties have overseen and nurtured the expansion of the entitlement state all the while ignoring the slow-motion economic implosion whose predictable end can be seen today in a bankrupt Greece currently surviving on EU handouts. But American voters and politicians are so marinated in expectations of endless federal and state largess that modest reductions in spending, such as those proposed earlier this year by Congressman Paul Ryan, are attacked as draconian “cuts” that will “shred” the safety net and throw millions into Dickensian penury.

And make no mistake. The “cliff” might not be reached in January, even without a deal. But it’s still waiting down the road. Baby Boomers, 75 million strong, are retiring at a rate of 200,000 a month, and they can expect to live on average until 84 if they make it to the retirement age of 65. The two big drivers of entitlement spending, Social Security and Medicare, weren’t designed to transfer money to retirees for so long, or pay for artificial knees and hips for Boomers who want to be active in their 70s and 80s. If left unreformed, spending just on Social Security and Medicare will eat up 14% of GDP in 40 years, necessitating even more federal borrowing than the 40 cents currently borrowed for every dollar the feds spend. That’s not a cliff, that’s an economic abyss.

Reining in entitlement spending, then, is the major problem that everybody needs to focus on. And a good place to start is Nicholas Eberstadt’s A Nation of Takers. Eberstadt’s grim documentation of the reckless expansion of what he calls the “vast and colossal empire of entitlement payments that it [the state] protects, manages, and finances,” and his analysis of the ill effects such transfers have had on the American character should be read by everyone serious about the fiscal threats to our way of life.

Redistributing wealth through programs like income maintenance, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment insurance has become the federal government’s most important function. This development would have astonished the Founders, who codified national security and defense as the national government’s primary role. And this momentous shift has led to an accelerating number of Americans on some sort of dole. In the early 1980s, 30% of Americans received at least one government benefit. By 2011 just over 49% were. The costs of this increase have accelerated as well. In 1960, entitlement spending by government at all levels was $24 billion in today’s dollars. In 2011, the cost was almost $2.2 trillion. As Eberstadt glumly prophesizes, we are heading for “the day in which entitlement spending comes to exceed all other activities of all levels and branches of the U.S. government.”

The costs of such profligacy, however, are more than economic. These wealth transfers have had deleterious effects on traditional American character. Observers of the American character traditionally had remarked on what Eberstadt describes as a “fierce and principled independence” and “proud self-reliance.” This independence extended to financial self-reliance as well. Americans “viewed themselves as accountable for their own situation through their own achievements in an environment bursting with opportunity,” Eberstadt writes, and had “an affinity for personal enterprise and industry” and a “horror of dependency and contempt for anything that smacked of a mendicant mentality.” Accepting help or handouts was considered “an affront to their dignity and independence.” These are the strengths of character and virtue that have created the richest, freest, and most powerful nation in world history. But the federal government’s ever- increasing handouts––which these days are not considered signs of shame, but deserved legal and civil rights––are eroding these virtues.

Yeah, those virtues have been circling the drain for some time. And the Obama-Socialists have been all too happy to apply the plunger to accelerate the flushing action.

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube, "In Progressive America Virtue Has No Value."

George Will: 'Quite Literally, the Opposition to Gay Marriage is Dying...'

Well, I'm not whistling past the boneyard quite yet, but Will's not far off the mark on this. The question, which he raises, is whether enough states so far have used the democratic process to expand the homosexual right the marry. We still have roughly 42 states where marriage remains between one man and one woman, so it's still early despite appearances otherwise, and the Supreme Court isn't guaranteed to favor the radical left's agenda in any case. But if I were to bet, Will's thesis would get good odds.

Althouse has more, "'Conservative Pundits: Accepting Same-Sex Marriage Is Common Sense'." (At Memeorandum.)

PREVIOUSLY: "Kennedy and Scalia Likely at Odds on Homosexual Rights."

Kennedy and Scalia Likely at Odds on Homosexual Rights

Well, this is pretty much exactly what I argued on Friday.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Supreme Court showdown expected over gay rights decisions." Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, both 76 years-old, will be battling it out:

The two have much in common. Born in 1936, they graduated from high school in the early 1950s and excelled at Harvard Law School, where they were a year apart. They were Republicans who rose through the legal ranks. When appointed to the court, both bought homes in McLean, Va.

They agree on much. Both voted to strike down President Obama's healthcare law as an overreach by the government. Scalia joined Kennedy's majority opinion in the Citizens United case that freed corporate and union spending on political ads.

But Kennedy, the libertarian, and Scalia, the social conservative, clash fiercely over the court's role in deciding moral controversies.

The two split 20 years ago when the court's conservative bloc was poised to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the ruling that legalized abortion. Though personally opposed to abortion, Kennedy switched sides in spring 1992 and cast a crucial vote to uphold a woman's right to choose. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," Kennedy wrote.

In the past, Scalia has accused Kennedy of having "signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." Scalia is likely to have the votes of fellow conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and probably Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to uphold state and federal laws that exclude gays from marriage.

But Kennedy has the much stronger hand. He ranks third in seniority after the chief justice and Scalia, and he has four liberal justices on his left. Because the senior member of the majority decides who writes the opinion, Kennedy could decide who writes the opinions if he votes with the liberals. And he could take the assignment for himself.

His past writings provide clues as to how he might see the issue.

In a New York case, the justices will decide whether the federal government can deny legally married same-sex couples the benefits that go with marriage. These include filing joint tax returns and receiving survivors benefits from Social Security.

Gay rights advocates challenged this exclusion in the Defense of Marriage Act as discriminatory, and they have won rulings from judges in New England, New York and Northern California.

Kennedy is likely to agree with the challengers, and he explained why in 1996, the same year Congress passed the marriage act. The court then faced a Colorado voter measure that repealed gay rights ordinances in several cities. Kennedy spoke for the court in striking it down. He said that the measure was "born of animosity" toward gays, he said, and that the Constitution "prohibits laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships."

If Kennedy and the court strike down the federal benefits provision of the marriage act, it would be a major victory for gay rights, but it would not affect the 41 states where same-sex marriage is forbidden.

The California case on Proposition 8 could be far more significant because it involves the right to marry. Ted Olson and David Boies, the attorneys who led the challenge, plan to argue broadly that marriage is a fundamental right and that excluding gay couples from marriage denies them the equal protection of the law.

A Kennedy-Scalia clash from a decade ago gives a preview. When two gay men challenged a Texas anti-sodomy law, Kennedy wrote a glowing opinion taking their side. "They are entitled to respect for their private lives," he said, and "the state cannot demean" them by treating them as second-class citizens.

In a moment of high drama, Kennedy gave a professorial reading of his opinion on the last day of the court term in 2003. When he finished, Scalia's voice cut through the room as he delivered an angry dissent.

Kennedy's opinion left the laws against same-sex marriage "on pretty shaky grounds," Scalia said at the time. "If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?"

That's the question now before the court in the California case.

More at the New York Times, "Sidebar: Court Enters Same-Sex Fray With Uncharacteristic Speed" (via Memeorandum).

Obama Daughters Meet Psy the 'Gangnam Style' Troop-Kill Rapper

Utterly amazing, at Twitchy, "Killer photo op: Obama and daughters meet U.S. troop-slay rapper PSY."

Some of the dude's lyrics, via Weasel Zippers:

Kill those f-king Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives.
Kill those f-king Yankees who ordered them to torture.
Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers.
Kill them all slowly and painfully.

Lovely, isn't it?

Previously: "Joe Biden Photographed With Anti-American 'Gangnam Style' Rapper."

Joe Biden Photographed With Anti-American 'Gangnam Style' Rapper

Gaffe-tastic!

At Twitchy, "Joe Biden poses for photo with PSY." And Demi Lovato's Twitpic page.

The K-Pop star who once advocated killing and torturing American soldiers and their family members was photographed tonight alongside the Vice President of the United States.

Makes sense, I guess. The Democrats are the anti-American party.

See also Scared Monkeys, "Before there was “Gangnam Style”, Rap Singer Psy had Anti-American Military style … “Dear American” Song “Kill those f***ing Yankees” … To Perform for President Obama for a Christmas In Washington (Update: Psy with Weak Apology)."

Shoot, "Kill Those F***ing Yankees"? That's practically a 2007 campaign speech from Barack Obama. He was basically rooting for a U.S. defeat in Iraq, for all the same pure political justifications that have marked his "Gutsy Call" presidency.

These people are epic anti-American clowns.

UPDATE: Christian Toto at Big Government has more, "VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN POSES WITH ANTI-AMERICAN RAPPER PSY":

Had President-elect Mitt Romney posed for pictures with someone who once wished violent death upon the family members of U.S. soldiers the story would be swirling through the mainstream media for days. Maybe longer.

Vice President Joe Biden did just that earlier today, but don't expect it to make much noise in traditional media circles.

It's okay, they're Democrats. Gotta maintain the narrative, you know?

Ezra Klein: Yesterday's Revenue Can't Support Tomorrow's America

This is a fascinating piece, from the progressive wonder boy, at the Washington Post.

Klein's statistics all seem fine and dandy. He just comes to the wrong conclusion: that taxes must expand rather than spending contract. It's always that way with lefties. The final solution is to engorge government to such levels that all private activity is snuffed out.

While Klein focuses on the degree of taxation as a percentage of GDP, he doesn't consider that the average tax incidence of the individual is already nearing unsustainable levels. We're nearly taxing individuals in blue states at the level of the most generous Scandinavian welfare states. See: "Top Marginal Tax Rate Will Exceed 50% in California, New York, and Hawaii in 2013." California, following the November election, will boast the nation's highest marginal tax rate of 51.9 percent. It's no surprise that California's been bludgeoned by a massive exodus of businesses from the once-Golden State.

In any case, the Ezra Kleins of the world will never learn, for their ideology is one of no restraints, only the never-reached goal of human equality and the perfect resolution of mankind's material needs (in "tomorrow's America"). It is, in another word, Utopianism.

See Victor Davis Hanson for the reality check, at IBD, "Spending, Not Lack of Revenue, Is Real Problem."

Morsi Backs Down — For Now

At the Los Angeles Times, "Egypt's Morsi backs off decree that expanded his power":

CAIRO — In a political reversal to calm weeks of unrest, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi early Sunday rescinded much of last month’s decree that expanded his powers and exposed a dangerous divide between the nation’s Islamists and the mainly secular opposition.

The announcement reverses most of the declaration the Islamist president issued Nov. 22, including putting his office beyond judicial oversight. The peeling away of that power was a major demand of protesters. But Morsi continued to defy the opposition by refusing to cancel a Dec. 15 referendum on a proposed constitution drafted by an Islamist-dominated assembly.

The turnaround by Morsi, who in a national address Thursday had refused to budge on his decree, was a signal that he wanted to ease tension that has resulted in clashes between his supporters and opposition groups that have left at least six people dead and hundreds injured.

It was unlikely, however, that reversing the decree but sticking to the referendum vote would appease the tens of thousands of protesters who have marched on his palace in the capital and in cities across Egypt.

“This is not a compromise; the president got all that he wanted,” said Bassem Sabry, an activist and writer. “What the Muslim Brotherhood wants [is to] get the constitution rammed through in a quick referendum before anyone gets a chance to properly discuss it.”

Morsi’s concessions came as news reports indicated that he was preparing to reimpose emergency law to allow soldiers to arrest civilians in response to the latest unrest.

More at the link.

It won't last. Morsi will come up with something else, some other extra-constitutional measures to consolidate the Muslim Brotherhood's choke hold on the state. See Eric Trager's piece from a couple weeks back, at TNR, "Shame on Anyone Who Ever Thought Mohammad Morsi Was a Moderate."

America Will Find Out How a Termed Out Socialist Will Govern

Cartoon via the Looking Spoon.

And Daniel Henninger suggest we won't be waiting long, "Obama's Ruinous Course":

A wise judge once wrote in dissent that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Let us now extend that wisdom to presidential elections.

Barack Obama says his election victory is a mandate to pursue the policy course he's insisting on in negotiations with Republicans on the fiscal cliff. He wants a tax increase of $1.6 trillion, $50 billion of new and immediate stimulus spending and the end of congressional approval to raise the ceiling on U.S. debt—the debt that a ratings agency downgraded in 2011.

The campaign stump speech in which Mr. Obama demanded that Congress cede him control over the debt ceiling slips my mind. But we all recall his repeated cries for increasing taxes on "the wealthiest" ($200,000 individual/$250,000 joint), so arguably he has a claim to that. Consequences do come with the democratic habit of holding elections.

But if that is true, then Republicans are justified in citing the consequences of the message of the midterm election held a mere two years ago. In 2010, the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives. Less noted but as important in measuring the nation's desires, that election gave the GOP control of the largest number of state legislatures it had held since 1928. A similar surge occurred for Republican governors.

Last time I looked, the progressive movement still hadn't turned Washington, D.C., into the only political jurisdiction of consequence in the United States. The message of the 2010 election, for Republicans anyway, was unambiguous: Slow down the runaway public-spending train, the spending train that caused the nation's voters to torch and punish Republicans in the 2006 midterms.

On the available evidence, a Republican who forgets those recent elections is headed for retirement. So naturally Barack Obama wants John Boehner and the Republicans in control of the House to forget those elections.

Bear in mind as we spend the holidays on this precipice, that the "fiscal cliff" wasn't born yesterday. It crawled out of its crypt in late 2011, after the Republican leadership and Mr. Obama—the deficit-reduction "super committee"—failed to negotiate essentially the same deal they are failing to get done now.

The inability of this Congress and this president to compromise on anything, now or at any time in the past four years, is itself a problem worthy of some thought.

Here's one thought: The main reason there isn't, and may never be, a solution on the fiscal cliff is that Barack Obama doesn't know how to do a political compromise. Where in his career did Barack Obama ever learn the art of the political deal? Nowhere.

Well, there you go. It's going to a long quadrennial.

More at that top link.

Progressives suck, especially our Dear Progressive Leader Barack Hussein. All hail!