Random Good News for the Weekend

From TPM - Gov. Scott Walker's job disapproval rating up to 57 percent.

What the People Want

The title is from a post by Kevin Drum. He points out,

"Out in real America, people want to tax the rich, cut stupid weaponsprograms, and stop subsidizing prosperous oil companies. They don't want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or education."

Which is great and all. But I want to focus on another line from the post -

"Democrats, if they could manage to agree on a halfway coherent message, most likely hold all the cards in a budget showdown"

Yeah. So it works in theory, but if it's dependent on the Democrats doing the politics right, then you can certainly expect it not to work out.

Air Force Reduction in Force

Interesting goings-on in the Air Force of late. Since the economy has been so bad the last couple of years, the natural attrition of Airmen (officers and enlisted) has slowed to a crawl. So the higher-ups have recently been looking for additional ways to get the numbers down. It looks like they've exhausted all of the voluntary ways for people to go (with the idea being that they're not replaced and this brings our overall numbers down). Next up - Reduction in Force (RIF) boards. Everybody's records meet a group of senior officers and those who don't make the cut have to separate. Looks like the NLT separation date is February 1, 2012. And for those of you who are pretty sure you're not going to make the cut? Opt for voluntary separation during the month of March and you get a little bump to your separation pay.

I just learned that my year group is going to be one of those meeting one of these boards. I'm exempt because I have over 15 years total military service and because I'm within 2 years of retirement. These are anxious times for some of my peers, though.

Republican Budget Cutting will Hurt the Economy

There have been some recent reports (Goldman Sachs, Moody's) which says the budget cuts will hurt the economy (lesser GDP) and cost jobs. John Boehner says, "So be it." I agree with Kevin Drum:

In any case, it hardly matters. Maybe it's a million jobs, maybe it's half a million jobs. Maybe it will cost a point of GDP, maybe it will cost half a point of GDP. But considering that the economy is still sluggish and unemployment is extremely high, why are we considering budget cuts that will have any negative effect on jobs and growth? Especially cuts in the only part of the budget that isn't a long-term problem?

That's the big news from Bernanke's testimony: not that he thinks other estimates of job losses are too high, but the fact that he agrees the Republican budget plan will cost jobs and slow growth. That's coming from a Republican Fed chair! How much more evidence do we need that our current budget cutting mania is insane?

Neo-Con Controversy

I didn't realize this was an issue, but it looks like the dreaded neo-conservatives are bemoaning the outcome in Egypt as a loss for U.S. foreign policy. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering the debacle they led us into in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All in all, I agree with this guy.

"I think I can suggest one thing that's more pathetic than the usual round of "who lost [fill in the blank]", and that would be a round of "who lost [fill in the blank]" when we won. Nobody lost Egypt! Egypt just ousted its dictator in a non-violent popular revolution! It's going to have democratic elections in six months! In what perverse universe does this count as a defeat for American foreign policy, for the West, for enlightenment civilisation, for lovers of human rights? Sweet Douglas Feith, what do these people want?"

Line of the Day

From Kevin Drum on the Speaker's reaction to Goldman Sachs' (notorious liberals they) report that the House spending cuts could reduce U.S. GDP by up to 2%.

"Boehner sure seems to have the traditional GOP mindset down pat: if inconvenient evidence is at hand, pretend it doesn't exist."

Social Security Is Not In Crisis

Just ask the White House Budget Director, Jack Lew. He points out in his USA Today Op-Ed,

"Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries.

When more taxes are collected than are needed to pay benefits, funds are converted to Treasury bonds — backed with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government — and are held in reserve for when revenue collected is not enough to pay the benefits due. We have just as much obligation to pay back those bonds with interest as we do to any other bondholders. The trust fund is the backbone of an important compact: that a lifetime of work will ensure dignity in retirement.

According to the most recent report of the independent Social Security Trustees, the trust fund is currently in surplus and growing. Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years."

FWIW, I tried to make this point in a discussion in the comments of a post at the Professor's blog, but didn't do it nearly as well (or with as much authority) as Mr. Lew. Of course, since Mr. Lew is a member of the Obama administration, my opponent in that discussion may not buy it coming from Mr. Lew either.
h/t TPM