My Beautiful and Talented Wife (The BTW) pointed me to this story from Lisa de Moraes in this morning's Washington Post about what's available to watch on cable TV today.  The money quote:

And nothing says "founding fathers" like a 17-hour MSNBC "To Catch a Predator" marathon, including two blocks of extra-special "Predator Raw: The Unseen Tapes.

I'm heading to the movies, where Maxwell Smart and Indiana Jones await.

At some point in the past month or so, John McCain and Barak Obama or their advisors have both said that they will pay for some or all of what they're proposing with reduced military spending. 

The problem is that, even if all US troops are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not at all clear that the Pentagon budget will fall much or even at all.

Consider the following:

Pete's post on gasoline prices obviously hit a nerve.

So here's my question:

If consumers are willing to pay higher prices for gasoline, why should we think that energy companies are going to do anything but charge those higher prices?

Much of this was prompted by Pete's post.  We..and I'm definitely including myself in this category...have lives that assumed that relatively cheap energy would continue.  We have gas guzzling cars, like air conditioning, drive many miles to work, haven't supported mass transit or oil altenatives, etc.   We might not like today's higher prices, but didn't we set ourselves up for this?  Whosever said that prices would always be low?

In other words, in what's supposed to be a market-driven economy, aren't we complaining about the market working?

Yes, I know that supply is being set by a cartel.  But given the amount of refining capability and the worldwide demand, it's not clear to me that pumping more oil would make that much of a price difference in the current environment anyway. 

Andrew, as usual, asks an interesting question: "...how long it should take people to make up their minds about how to cast their ballots..."?

Unless the situation has changed dramatically in the past few years, the answer is that the overwhelming number of voters have already decided who they are going to vote for.  Indeed, most voters make up their minds long before the balloting is ever conducted.  My guess is that as much as 80 percent of the electorate know from the start who they are supporting.  That's especially true in the general election where party affiliation, which is obviously known from the start, rather than any issue, is the most important reason for most people.

Back in April, I wrote about New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine's "testicular fortitude" when he announced a 2009 budget that proposed tp reduce spending below the previous year by eliminating three whole departments and 5000 jobs.  I was, and continue to be, extremely impressed with what Corzine proposed.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear as if New Jersey voters are as impressed.  Since he proposed the budget, Corzine's approval ratings have dropped steadily and the primary reason appears to be the spending cuts he proposed.

The irony is that a previous New Jersey governor, Jim Florio, was bounced from office in 1993 partly because he dared to propose tax increases.  Florio then lost the Democratic nomination to Corzine in 2000 when he tried to run again.

Last Wednesday's report on WTOP, the all-news radio station here in Washington, was both startling and priceless.  I'm paraphrasing the second part of this quote, but the beginning is exactly what I heard:

"Well-fed policymakers later today will be deciding whether to increase interest rates."

 It took me a minute or two to realize that the reporter was really saying:

"Well, Fed policymakers later today will be deciding whether to increase interest rates."

The more I think about it, I'm not sure what was actually being reported.  After all, lunch is almost certainly provided at these meetings.

First, some full disclosure: In my day job I have a number of mortgage lending industry clients.  None of them knows about or were involved in this post in any way.

Dean Baker has a post today using his usual excellent analytic abilities to dissect a story in today's New York Times about the current state of the mortgage issue.  While I don't always agree with Dean's sense of outrage, his post is definitely worth looking at after you read the Times.

One thing the article and Dean fail to point out is that the housing/mortgage crisis isn't really one problem; it's a steady series of different problems that absolutely defy a single or simple solution.  Lumping them together as "The Crisis" as the Times does complicates the public policy process.

You're playing golf.  You're on the 4th hole.  It's a par 4 and you do it in 3.  (I know this is hard to believe; just work with me.)

You got a birdie on that 4th hole so, according to golf vernacular, you're "minus 1" or 1 below par.  But you actually have 3 more strokes than you had at the end of the previous hole, so you're actually "plus 3."

So which is it, minus 1 or plus 3?

I was asked the equivalent of that question yesterday during a presentation I was making on the 2008 election.  But even though I was the last speaker before the morning session ended and everyone in the room was about to head out with a box lunch for the first tee, the question was about gasoline prices rather than golf.

The question was why were Americans so angry about the price of gasoline when we were paying so much less than most of the rest of the world.

Pete started this and Andrew added smartly to the discussion.  Here are a few thoughts from someone who has served on a budget-related commission and watched while many others crashed and burned.

1.  It's extremely rare that federal commissions ever solve problems.  They are usually a way to delay taking action on some issue.

2.  The only exception to #1 I can think of is the commissions that have dealt with military base closures.  But this is also the exception that proves the rule.  The base closure commissions were successful because they were created when a consensus had developed that their recommendations more or less would be followed.

3.  There is no such consensus on entitlements.

4.  In fact, there is no consensus of any kind on entitlements.

My weekly column from Roll Call:

It doesn't make any difference whether you agreed with his politics, George Carlin's commentary on some of the stranger things we all experience in life everyday was truly funny.  I have performed as a standup comedian and I can tell you that what he did and how he did it left most other comics in the dust.  His routine on the seven things you can't say on television not only was classic comedy, it said more about us at the time than I suspect we ever wanted to admit.  And his character of Al Sleet, "The hippie-dippie weatherman with the hippie-dippie weather, man" was right up there with the best ever created by any comic in any generation.

Carlin died yesterday just a week or so after being named to receive the Mark Twain prize, a lifetime achievement award for humorists, by the Kennedy Center.  That's so mainstream that I wonder if he was amused, flattered, and shocked at the same time.

The Washington Post had an interesting article yesterday by Lori Montgomery that asks the right question: given the real budget outlook, the AMT and expiring tax cut trains coming down the track, and the cost of what's being proposed, should anyone take what the presidential candidates are saying seriously?

CG&G's own Pete Davis has been on top of this issue for some time (see here, and here).  Our own Andrew Samwick has been writing about it even longer.  And I'll have a piece this Tuesday on what to expect budgetwise from whoever gets elected.

But in the meantime, the Post story is definitely worth a few minutes of your time.

I've been traveling much of the past two weeks for work. Nine cities, seven states, and close to 30 presentations about the election and the economy.

What I'm about to say is based purely on anecdotal information. It is not meant to be statistically significant or a good sample. And my audiences were anything but a good cross section of the general population.

But my conclusion is as straight forward as possible: Americans, or at least those I spoke to and with, are very very angry.

Their anger initially seemed to be directed at specific things. Understandably, gasoline prices always seemed to be the first thing mentioned, for example. In fact, the economy in general was a constant source of anger. No one I spoke with over the past few days seems to be looking at the current economic situation as positive. Costs are going up, jobs are going down, inflation is rising, housing is unsettled, investment opportunities are limited, etc.

People are really angry at George Bush.

From his testimony this morning on Capital Hill:

 "There are limits to how big the deficit and the debt can be. Soon it will begin to have effects on interest rates, it will have effects on economic growth, and on stability, so ... it's not just balancing the federal budget, it's really a much broader question of the stability and strength of our economy over a longer period of time,"

Andrew...oh guru of airline economics gurus...riddle me this:

US Airways is about to start charging a few dollars for soft drinks.  In a normal economic environment this would spur those of us who still fly to buy a can or two of Diet Coke at Cosco at 50 cents per can and bring it on the plane.  But this isn't a market in any sense of the word because TSA reguations prohibit anyone from bringing any container with more than a few ounces of liquid...including a sealed soda can...through security.

So doesn't that make any airline selling soda or juice for $2/can (at least I assume you get the whole can) a government sanctioned monopoly?

But wait, there's more.

If US Airways is charging $2/can, shouldn't we expect that the one alternative passengers have to buy water and soda --the concessionaires at the airport -- to compete by selling the same thing for, say, $1.75?

If that's the case, shouldn't we look at the stock of companies with airport concessions as a good buy right now?

My day job is as a managing director in a public relations firm. Many of my colleagues and I know many people in the media because that's one of the things we're paid to do. But many of us knew Tim Russert because we wanted to.

I first met him about 30 years ago when he interviewed me to be Senator Patrick Moynihan's budget staffer. His questions were tough even then and I didn't get the job. He interviewed many clients and friends over the years since then and preparing for a Meet The Press interview was always one of the most intensive things I ever had to help them do.

My most recent meeting with Tim was at the Meet The Press 50th anniversary celebration. I was hardly the most important person in the room, or even the 500th most important person in the room. But he greeted me and the BTW with a sense of style and appreciation for our being there that made us both feel special.

A big storm went through the DC while I was in sunny California. Many areas, including where I ive, lost power for a day or two. My Beautiful and Talented Wife (The BTW) had to go to a hotel.

This story from today's Washington Post talked about how everyone coped with the power loss. But the sign of the times is this money quote from a teenager who didn't have access to the internet:

Our only news source was -- get this -- the newspaper," he said. "I always read the sports section. But this time, I was forced to read outside my boundaries. The news!"

While in San Francisco this week, I made a quick side trip to Berkeley to have breakfast with economic blogger extraordinaire Brad DeLong. It was Brad's blog that first got me interested in blogging and it was his encouragement that pushed me over the edge to get started.

In addition to having a chance to catch up with Brad and John Ellwood from the Goldman School of Public Policy, I had a chance to have coffee at Peets.  For those of you who don't know, Peets was Starbucks long before Starbucks became Starbucks but, as anyone who has attended UC Berkeley will gladly tell you, much better.  It was heavenly.

I was doing my very East Coast thing of checking my Blackberry every 30 seconds before Brad arrived and, thanks to the time difference, was having an intense e-mail exchange with a client and her counsel.  We quickly concluded that a document had to be redrafted.

Andrew...you're our economics-of-the-airline-industry maven so this question is for you.

I just returned from three of the toughest travel days I can remember: every flight was delayed.  One, from LA to San Francisco, was delayed for more than three hours.

Some of the delays were weather related and, as much as I'd like to blame the industry, I know that responsibility lies elsewhere. 

Most of the delays seemed to be the result of air traffic, especially jammed schedules that had too many plans scheduled to depart at the same time from the same airport.

That's what prompts this question.  Is there a silver lining to the reduced schedules the airlines seem to puuting in place for economic reasons?  Is it possible that (putting weather problems aside) flights will leave and arrive on time more often if there are fewer of them?  Or should we assume that the FAA will reduce the number of controllers to match the schedule leaving us all right where we started?

Here's this week's "Fiscal Fitness" column from Roll Call.

Hey, Scott. Bob Dole Did theSame Thing to Me 

As far as I know, Scott McClellan and I only have one thing in common: Bob Dole has attacked us both.

Dole’s attack on McClellan occurred last week when he sent an e-mail to the former White House press secretary to express his unhappiness about his tell-all book. Dole, a Kansas Republican who served as Senate Majority Leader, never said anything in the book was wrong. He simply implied that, because of his character, McClellan's opinion wasn't worth reading.