Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has named his picks to the "super committee" charged with making deficit reduction recommendations.
Reid named Washington Sen. Patty Murray and center-right Max Baucus, who the Post's Rosalind Helderman today (8/10/11) calls a "natural choice," given that he chairs the Finance Committee. The New York Times is a little more helpful, pointing out that Baucus
broke with other Democrats and supported tax cuts enacted in 2001 under President George W. Bush. He also worked with Republicans in 2003 to pass legislation that added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.
This is important for anyone who thinks that the tax cuts and drug benefit contributed greatly to the deficit problem.
Reid also picked Massachusetts' John Kerry, about whom the Post writes:
Kerry comes as something of a surprise, since he has focused more closely on foreign relations. However, as a respected former presidential candidate, his selection could help appease liberals.
I'm not sure how Kerry would "appease liberals." In this particular case, the main issues are protecting Social Security and Medicare. And as of Sunday on Meet the Press, Kerry's view on that was that
the real problem for our country is not the short-term debt. We can deal with that. It's the long-term debt. It's the structural debt of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid measured against the demographics of our nation.
It's not clear how picking someone with that misleading perspective is supposed to "appease liberals."
About Peter Hart
We know Max Baucus is a closet Republican; Kerry could be too. His 2004 presidential campaign was so bad it seemed as if he was paid to lose. His views of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are also strange. This guy's an Democrat? Really?
Kerry sold his soul a long time ago. The last time he ran, he had a primary challenger; I hope he does again in 2014. His voting record shows that he has contributed to our so-called debt crisis, and that he doesn't care at all about jobs. He will sell us out in the unconstitutional "super committee," guaranteed. I hope my fellow Massachusetts voters will get rid of him in the next election.
This is the paper which, about a year ago, ran a sensational story on the extent of secret government agency offices located around the country. Democracy Now! was practically orgasmic over the report, which made me suspicious.
I checked the map for my local area, and found several little pins in their online map. Apparently they considered Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management offices to be "secret" agencies, though in a state where the U.S. Government is the largest landowner, these administrative offices are necessary. Apparently also, they seem to have considered a Bureau of Indian affairs office a secret agency, though it serves an extensive reservation. There's also a National Weather Service office. When it came right down to it, only the local FBI even came close to being a secret agency. I suspect that at least some of the agents have high security clearances, but so what. It comes with the job. Having a field office nearby makes sense because the FBI has primary jurisdiction over crimes committed on federal land. So, I continue to advocate not reading propaganda rags like the Washington Post. You'll be just as informed, probably better informed, without their biased coverage. Incidentally, the story was never mentioned again. Clearly many folks had reached the same conclusion I did: the story was totally bogus, put out by idiots.
I vote Democrat and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for years keep giving it away. They did not get it that after the last election, America would rather have a Republican were you know were you stand than a Democrat who acts like the Republican boosters.
When 25 congress people can rule the nation and Democratic leadership bends over backward to help them, it is time Democratic leadership, for the sake of the nation, resign.