This almost full-page chart (click on the multimedia box) from today's New York Times (way too big to reproduce here) by Congress experts Norm Ornstein, Tom Mann, and Raffaela Wakeman answers virtually every question there is to ask about the past uses of reconciliation. 

The chart shows that, as I posted on February 28, reconciliation has been used when Democrats and Republicans were in the majority; to increase and decrease the deficit; to increase and decrease spending and revenues; and to create, expand, and decrease programs.

In other words, as far as reconciliation and health care is concerned, move along; there's nothing see here.

I have to ask.

David Brooks wrote this in the Times on Thursday comparing today's radicals in the Republican Party with the hippies from the 1960s.

Two days earlier, we published this in CG&G comparing today's congressional Republicans with...wait for it...the hippies from the 1960s.

Coincidence?

I can't believe I didn't focus on this before.

A week ago, Shan Carter and Amanda Cox at the New York Times published this very cool, fun, interesting, and interactive chart that shows the different components of the federal budget in a way that analysts, geeks, observers, and commenters up to now have only dreamed about.  It puts to shame the static pie chart that has been used in the budget itself for decades.

What's most impressive and useful is the way the chart displays a great deal of information both visually and with text that provides the actual numbers.  Also, check out the buttons at the top left of the chart.  In particular, click on "Hide Mandatory Spending," and be amazed at how simply and easily it tells you all you really need to know about the federal budget debate.

The only thing missing is a similar chart for revenues.  Shan and Amanda?

Floyd Norris had an interesting article in yesterday's New York Times about the state of the auto industry.  He notes that car buyers in general are coming back and, as he shows in the second graph, there's been a sharp uptick in consumer purchases.

 

But I'm not one of these buyers, and am not going to be for quite some time in spite of the fact that my current car is almost seven years old and that I've never had a vehicle this long before.  The reason?  Somehow the experience of buying a new car has become even worse than it was before the economy in general and the auto industry in particular tanked and it's simply not worth my time or frustration.

So I'm voting with my feet...and wallet.

Here are the first two paragraphs from a CBS News/NYTimes poll published today in the Times:

Most Americans continue to want the federal government to focus on reducing the budget deficit rather than spending money to stimulate the national economy, a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds. Yet at the same time, most oppose some proposed solution for decreasing it.

Fifty-six percent of respondents said that they were not willing to pay more in taxes in order to reduce the deficit, and nearly as many said they were not willing for the government to provide fewer services in areas such as health care, education and defense spending.

Today's New York Times has an interesting op-ed by "Public Editor" Clark Hoyt about reporters who also write columns, that is, opinion pieces, on the same subjects they cover.  His question: Is that appropriate?

The question is interesting but largely passe to the point of almost being quaint. Print reporters routinely get interviewed on television and radio about the stories they cover and are often treated as experts in their field.  Many print and on air journalists these days also have blogs in which they provide their opinions on many of the same subjects they write about as reporters.

It's not surprising, therefore, that the publications for which these journalists report also want them to provide the opinion-oriented content instead of allowing them to provide it elsewhere.

There's also a bottom line consideration that Hoyt doesn't mention: Having one of your reporters write a column in most cases means that you don't have to pay someone to provide that additional content.

Andrew is right on in calling all of the candidates to task for their fantasies of fiscal discipline in the face of such daunting challenges as the war, a weak economy, and the fiscal fiasco of the past seven years under President Bush 43.  John Brody of the New York Times and Jim Horney of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities deserve public services award for bringing it all together in Brody's article Sunday.

Let's debunk the fantasies.

The New York Times has an article today by John Broder that will give anyone and everyone who watches the federal budget debate something to worry about.

So, in no particlar order...

Although it doesn't quote him, the article indicates that McCain economic advisor and former Congressonal Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin says, ..."if the war and the personal and corporate tax cuts that Mr. McCain advocated added to the federal deficit and debt, so be it."

This is an outright admission that the candidate still in the race who considers himself to be the most fiscally conservative has little interest in government borrowing and sees no reason to limit his plans or deal with the budget hand he will be dealt if he gets elected.

The article also indicates that McCain "...plans to pay for tax cuts and modernizing the military by eliminating earmarks and wasteful spending from the federal budget."

The front page, right column, above the fold story in today's New York Times confirms that before it leaves office, the Bush administration will likely not reduce troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan much below current levels. That means that all of the budget projections for military spending for fiscal 2009 and at least 2010 are way below what the actual number will be. Even assuming no escalation, 2010 military spending and, therefore, the deficit, could be more than $150 billion higher than current estimates.

One of my biggest concerns about the ongoing mortgage situation is the continuing (or even growing) use of anecdotes about what brokers and lenders did to excuse homebuyers from taking any responsibility for their actions.