TampaYankee

It is interesting how the worm can turn in a short time. I wouldn't be surprised if Boehner and McConnell secretly wish that Obama would use the Constitutional Option to pull their asses out of the deep hole they find themselves in. They could tell their rank and file that there is nothing they could do. While shouts of impeachment would be ringing from the House Floor, I also wouldn't be surprised if any vote somehow fell short of a majority or more likely failed to materialize at all. If a vote did materialize then I suspect the Senate vote wouldn't even achieve a simple majority much less two-thrids. All but the Tea Party contingent will be happy to escape this embroglio with skin intact. I don't think Obama will let them off so easy. At least not without getting some big concessions from McConnell about more timely confirmations in the Senate. At least he should if it comes to that.

Minimum Wage, Overtime Laws Due For Reform: Republicans Dave Jamieson dave.jamieson@huffingtonpost In a Congressional hearing Thursday, Republican lawmakers indicated a willingness to reform the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the bedrock Depression-era statute that established a minimum wage and time-and-a-half overtime for American workers. Although he proffered no prescription for reform, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), who chairs the House education and workforce committee, called the hearing to explore whether the fair labor law is "meeting the needs of the 21st century." Invited to testify by the Republican majority were two business executives and a lawyer who said the statute has become too onerous for contemporary employers, leading to an explosion of costly lawsuits brought by workers. "The law was a significant expansion of the government’s authority when it was created in the midst of the Great Depression," Walberg said. "Good intentions can often lead to unintended consequences. It is hard to imagine a law intended for the workforce known to Henry Ford can serve the needs of a workplace shaped by the innovations of Bill Gates." At issue is who's exempt and who's non-exempt from the fair labor law. Non-exempt employees are protected by its provisions, which guarantee at least the federal minimum wage and time-and-a-half for any hours worked in excess of 40. Exempt employees, most of whom are salaried and tend to work in white-collar capacities, are not protected by the law and can be asked to work overtime without compensation. Non-exempt employees who feel they've been cheated out of pay can sue their employers. Companies large and small -- from Wal-Mart to small family restaurants -- often wind up in court, usually settling the minimum wage and overtime claims for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. But Republican witnesses pointed to large-scale, million-dollar settlements as an indication that lawyers and workers are taking undue advantage of the law. J. Randall McDonald, a senior vice president at IBM, said the statute needs updating, suggesting that some workers who are currently covered by the law shouldn’t be. "How do you define some of the work now being done that the law didn’t anticipate?" he asked. "Our ability to use technology has dramatically changed the workplace." Aaron Albright, a spokesman for Democratic committee members, said Republicans are essentially trying to "roll back" the statute so that fewer workers can receive overtime pay. "What's the purpose for the tinkering? It's basically to reclassify workers so that they're not eligible for overtime or minimum wage," Albright told HuffPost. "The proposition is workers are making too much money, and that's probably a surprise to workers who haven’t seen a raise in quite a while. This is about large corporations increasing their bottom lines." In a telling exchange at the hearing, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) asked each of the witnesses the same question: Should the federal minimum wage of $7.25 be raised, lowered, or kept the same? "I don't understand the nature of the question," McDonald responded. The two other Republican witnesses also dodged the question. Only Judy Conti, the federal advocacy director for the National Employment Law Project, gave Kucinich a firm answer, saying the minimum wage is due for a raise. "I want to thank our witnesses for being here," Kucinich said to those sitting alongside Conti. "Your presence here proves what's wrong" with this country. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/fair-labor-standards-act-reform_n_898332.html

The Truth About Taxes: Here’s How High Today’s Tax Rates Really Are By Henry Blodget | Daily Ticker From The Business Insider As the US struggles with a massive budget deficit, the conversation has obviously turned to taxes. Specifically, what should be done with them. (In the accompanying video, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) tells The Daily Ticker's Aaron Task why there's no room to negotiate on what he calls "job killing tax hikes" and that "the Republicans have rightly held out against raising taxes in a recessed and stagnant economy.") Obviously, no one likes paying higher taxes, and everyone likes paying lower taxes. But we live in the real world, not fantasy-land. And in the real world, sometimes people have to do things they would prefer not to do--like pay taxes. But the disagreement on this issue, as well as the facts surrounding it, is intense. Democrats, to the extent they care about the budget deficit, want to raise taxes, which they say are too low--especially on rich people. Republicans, meanwhile, generally say that taxes are far too high and that the budget deficit should be addressed with spending cuts. To get the economy back on track, Republicans argue, you need to give Americans an incentive to work hard--by letting them keep more of what they earn. Republicans also argue that raising taxes would clobber an already fragile economy. So who's right? Are taxes too high? Or are they too low? Do high tax rates on "rich people" create a lazy population in which no one has an incentive to work hard? And what about the Republican mantra that cutting taxes is always good for the economy, while raising taxes is always bad? Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period. This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following: •Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut. •Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today. •Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed. •Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now). •Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up. See original article at: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/truth-taxes-high-today-tax-rates-really-165525248.html

It was reported today on the Dylan Ratigan Show that the big banks/bankers that were the stewards of our economy and who drove it into the biggest crash since the Depression are getting off with paying a few billion dollars in fines. This even though there was clear deliberate fraud fueled by greed in their actions. The few billions a paltry fine considering they caused trillions lost to our economy and 401ks and lost jobs and tax revenues. To add insult to injury the government gave them the bailout funds that they will use to pay the fines. As a final ignominy, they leave the American Taxpayer holding trillions in worthless mortgage securities. Why is that the Big Boy Crooks never go to jail for their crimes. Simple, they own Congress -- pick your party.

What's new?

Not likely. He and his son are American citizens. About the best possible outcome would result in Fox News being sold off. Unless a Gates or Buffet make an offer that cannot be refused it would probably still survive another owner with Roger Ailes still presiding and infecting the airways with right wing propaganda masquerading as news. Else the cable channel would become just another floundering attempt to accompany MSNBC and CNN.

It seems that Wall St has told Boehner and McConnel that enough is enough. Make the deal or else pass a clean Debt Ceiling. This may well be the end of both Boehner and McConnel. Among the Tea Party, this is as bad for the leaders as signing on to tax increases -- no cuts to spending, no limit on the debt ceiling. I mentioned last fall during election season that the GOP leadership had gotten in bed with the devil and that bed was between a rock and a hard place. That eventually they would be done in by their embrace of the crazies. It seems the time has come to pay the piper. That does not mean that the GOP will cease making every attempt to obstruct Obama short of alienating Wall St and Big Business. It does mean that the two leaders are damaged goods in the eyes of the rank and file in Congress and the rank and file GOP in middle America. They have walked away from the demands of the Tea Party to put a monkey wrench in the machinery of government operations and they have offended more classical Republicans by giving up major concessions on entitlement spending and STRONG deficit reduction, the former sought by the GOP for decades, the latter a national crisis according the the GOP and almost everyone else. They are just walking away. The look weak to both factions. Who in the GOP can be happy with them? Waiting for the second shoe to fall...

McConnell Offers Debt Ceiling Out... Sam Stein stein@huffingtonpost.com WASHINGTON -- There were no real signs of progress in Tuesday's White House debt talks. But the meeting did shed light on two evolving dynamics taking place in the ongoing negotiations: President Barack Obama's increasing appetite to cut spending in a substantial way, and Republicans sinking under the weight of their own hard-line approach to a deal. For all its talk of the importance of averting a debt default, the White House is signaling that major deficit reduction has become more than just a bargaining chip to bring Republicans aboard a debt deal. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner opened Tuesday's meeting not by focusing on the perils of debt default, but instead with a "vivid" presentation on "what happens if you don't cut the deficit," according to a Democratic source familiar with the talks. Geithner warned the group that ratings agencies are actively watching both the debt ceiling debate and the ability of Congress to turn around the nation's growing deficit and debt. He pointed to the economic unrest in Europe as evidence of what could happen in the United States if the White House and Congress don't tackle the deficit in a serious way. Lawmakers obviously discussed the pressing consequences of debt default, said the Democratic official. And on that front there still "continues to be a big difference on revenue." But as negotiations on a debt package resumed, Obama made it clear that he isn't playing small ball. He warned Republicans that the major concessions he has offered on entitlement reforms are off the table if they don't agree to a sizable debt deal. There could still be some tinkering with Medicare and Medicaid, he told the group, but it would come from the supplier side, not the benefit side. Throughout the meeting, the president urged Republicans to reconsider the benefits of passing a bigger package, which now seems likely to fall somewhere between the $4 trillion that Obama wanted and the $2.4 trillion that Vice President Joseph Biden targeted in his now-defunct bipartisan deficit group. Whether entitlement reforms remain part of that equation is undetermined. But Democratic negotiators reiterated that even the low end of that deal would have to include a revenue component. The partisanship simmering beneath the talks also appeared to wane somewhat on Tuesday. Another Democratic official with knowledge of the meeting described it as "more constructive than the other ones," adding that there was a "general consensus about the need to stop talking past each other." Congressional leaders are headed back to the White House on Wednesday at 4 p.m. to "begin trying to go officially through the stuff in the Biden discussion." An alternative debt plan floated earlier Tuesday by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) "was brought up" during the meeting, the official added. "But it was sort of pushed to the side" as attendees focused on areas of agreement on spending cuts and revenue reforms discussed in Biden's group. McConnell's proposal crashed and burned within his own party almost as soon as it was unveiled. Under his proposal, Congress would give up its power to raise the debt ceiling and effectively transfer that authority to the White House for the remainder of Obama's current term. Conservatives immediately trashed the idea and accused McConnell of capitulating in the debt debate. The conservative blog RedState even called on supporters to send McConnell a weasel -- and provided a link to a toy weasel on Amazon.com -- as "a testament to his treachery." A top Senate Democratic aide said many view McConnell's proposal as "a pretty cynical ploy" aimed only at protecting Senate Republicans from having to make tough political votes on raising the debt. McConnell made "a miscalculation given the violent reaction on the right," said the aide, and the proposal is "probably a nonstarter since it doesn't seem like it has any chance of passing the House." Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) wouldn't outright endorse or dismiss McConnell's proposal during a Tuesday interview on Fox News, calling it one of several "backup" measures that Republicans have discussed if negotiators can't reach an agreement. "I think Mitch has done good work," Boehner said. But some House Republicans balked as they learned details of McConnell's proposal. "Don't know what in the world McConnell in the Senate is thinking. Wow. Stupid idea," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) tweeted Tuesday evening. And McConnell's offering only added to the GOP's mixed messages on where they draw the line in the debt debate. As Politico's David Rogers wrote, McConnell's move put on full display how Republicans are beginning to look "for an escape path from the default showdown they helped create." Adding to McConnell's woes, the White House publicly embraced his proposal late Tuesday, a move that will likely further alienate the GOP leader from conservatives in his flank. "Senator McConnell’s proposal today reaffirmed what leaders of both parties have stated clearly, that defaulting on America’s past due bills is not an option," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement "The President continues to believe that our focus must remain on seizing this unique opportunity to come to agreement on significant, balanced deficit reduction. As the President has said, 'If not now, when?' It is time for our leaders to find common ground and reduce our deficit in a way that will strengthen our economy." Beyond that, other sources familiar with the meeting signaled that not much came of Tuesday's huddle. One Democratic aide said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that negotiators need to go big with their compromise; another source called the meeting "sleepy." Democratic leaders reiterated that Medicare cuts are not acceptable, while Boehner pressed Obama for details on a scored White House budget plan. A senior House GOP aide noted that, at one point, Boehner urged Obama and Democratic leaders to support amending the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment, an idea backed by conservatives. But the White House resoundingly shot down that suggestion last week. Staff to respective parties were set to coordinate on consensus areas of cuts late Tuesday night. Mike McAuliff contributed to this report. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/mcconnell-debt-ceiling-obama-deficit_n_896649.html

I concede that if it gets to that point the Full Faith and Credit of the United stated might be destroyed anyway. I think that might ultimately depend on the reaction by the people/ business institutions and the political pressure to recognize the sale of bonds. Congress could sanction ex post facto. But if the credit goes in the crapper then at least we wouldn't have conceded the democratic system that has served the country well for 235 years to minority party poison pill despotism. Remember, all of this discussion is predicated on the proposition that an acceptable compromise is beyond reach and we face imminent default. The threat to act without Congress is a measure to put a gun to their head to solve the problem. As with all threats they mean nothing if there is no willingness to follow through with them. All the conjecture about what the Court would do is just that until the Court is faced with the actual case. The more I ponder this and the stakes involved I believe they would find for the President or walk away rather than sanction the chaos that would be created. It might be very different if the words were not in the 14th Amendment but they are there and open to reasonable interpretation. Given one interpretation that leads to government crisis and economic meltdown or another that avoids it albeit with some very narrow swing in power from the Congress to the Executive, some power justifiable by words of the Constitution, I cannot see the Court opting for the former, even if only by 5 to 4. However we will never know if Obama accepts default as his response to Congressional intransigence. I still maintain he would be malfeasant to do so. What other alternatives are there to capitulation and changing the nature of our democracy forever, not to mention loosing our country's identity forged in the post WWII era? Either way we may suffer economic catastrophe, but we do not lose our principles of governing and modern era identity. Some may not share those concerns. That is what elections are about.

Bon Apetite.

Top 10 Scariest Food Additives By David Zinczenko with Matt Goulding Jul 01, 2011 There was a time when "fruit flavored" and "cheese flavored" meant "made with real fruit" and "made with real cheese." Today? It's artificial everything. Most of the food at your local supermarket is no more authentic than Snooki's tan. Our fruit comes packaged in Loops, our cheese delivered via Whiz. Sure, it's edible, but there's no way your great grandparents would recognize this junk as food. The problem with additives runs deep. The FDA currently maintains a list of ingredients called Everything Added to Food in the United States (EAFUS), which features more than 3,000 items and counting. Thankfully, most EAFUS ingredients are benign, but a few of them do have potentially harmful effects. Why they're legal is a mystery to us. Some of them might be backed by powerful lobby groups, while others probably survive simply because some guy at the FDA has too much paperwork on his desk and hasn't made time to adequately review the data. Below are 10 of the most dubious ingredients hiding in your food, compliments of Eat This, Not That! 2011. Even if you're not convinced of their danger, you have to admit this: The more filler ingredients you cut from your diet, the more space you have for wholesome, nutritious foods. For the meat of the article, so to speak, see the full list at: http://health.yahoo.net/experts/eatthis/top-10-scariest-food-additives

Maybe, maybe not. I'm doubtful. Consider the pressure the Court would be under. If the President let it be known that he would service the debt, the SOTUS notwithstanding, the Court might be reluctant to hear the case, or, if it did to rule adversely. The Court also has its status to preserve. If this crisis had the potential to marginalize the Court everafter they might not want to press a showdown over a specific interpretation of the words of the 14th Ammendment that clearly call on the Debt to be respected, i.e. serviced. Asumming the Court did overturn his action, I do not think it is obvious that there would be 67 votes in the Senate for conviction. Politics being what it is some of his party would support him on their own -- maybe enough. Combine that with the very strong support Obama would likely receive from the Wall St and Big Business community and a good part of the population, wavering Senators might find the backbone to hang tight with the Pres. It is very hard for politicians to overlook their own narrow self interest as we are constantly reminded. I admit there is a lot of uncertainty should this come to pass. There is much less uncertainty about the long term adverse effects of default on the economy, at least according to economists and business leaders almost unanimously -- that means on business, bonds markets, jobs, savings, .... The potential for a new millineum version of the 1930s is not inconceivable, with the long term recovery that accompanied it. That might include the potential collapse or sacking of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 401Ks. Is all of this certain to happen? Who knows, but it cannot be ruled out either. The Depression was caused only by bad economic policy and investment practices/decisions unfettered by regulation. There was NO default by the Federal Government to aggravate the Depression. IMO, the GOP seeks to roll back this country values and government to the preDepression era. They are threatening poison pill tatics to do it, or at the least to deny a second term to Obama and reclaim both Houses so they can do it. The GOP is playing with real fire here. It could burn our house down. That cannot be permitted to happen. There is also no broad based taste for the country reverting to a pre New Deal status in terms of social saftey nets, government activism on food, drugs, work place safety, the environment,... Finally, I submit that a minority party holding a gun to the head of the President/Majority party 'that it is their way or the highway' would do as much to damage the fabric of our government on a lasting basis. Poison pill approaches to legislation just cannot be tolerated or accepted as a precedent for minority despotism over the elected majority. If the SOTUS is willing to sanction that then it deserves to be ignored. I do not come to this lightly as I respect our separation of powers and want to see it upheld and maintained. But all of our segments of government need to respect the rights and powers of the others and of the democratic process. The Founding Fathers crafted a government meant to work ONLY THROUGH COMPROMISE of representatives selected by the electorate.

I really appreciate your effort to keep us up to date on this story. It's good to see that the APD terminated those and other officers in connection with this incident. I'm disappointed that there is no word on discipline of the top APD officers connected with this incident. In addtion to Constitutional Rights retraining I would like to see all reduced at least one grade if not two as clearly none of them were fit to hold their posts based on their supervision of the officers in this incident and the atmosphere permeating the Department that would foster such harassment activities.

Good point. After that, anything is possible. Thanks for illuminating the Andrew Jackson story. I learned something today. Yes, it would be a brouhahah and probably not good for his reelection. Even if the SOTUS eventually overturned his decision the horse would be out of the barn as far the immediate servicing of the debt. That would give additional time to those who walked off cliff to reconsider their positions under new pressure from the public and Wall St. to come to some realistic compromise. As for Schumer, his comment is more hopeful than factual. Do you really believe that Obama would allow the country to default due to Congressional intransigence? If so then he would be malfeasant in his oath to support and protect the Constitution. Personally, if it comes to it I'd rather see Obama ignore an adverse Supreme Court ruling, should it come to pass, if the alternative is to let the country default. Let the Senate and then the voters decide which path the country is to take.

It's far from clear that the Court would take the case. On several occasions they have refused to get between Congress and the Executive. Assuming they did, it is not clear that the conservative justices would rule against. Also, there is the precedent where the Court ruled against President Jackson and he ignored them. The only remedy to that is impeachment with conviction - tough sledding with the President's party in the majority in the Senate. This debt ceiling thing is not a conservative issue, it is a radical politics issue. Both GOP and Dem congresses have ALWAYS passed the debt ceiling - conservative or not. This is about political strategy and idelology and not conservative values about the debt ceiling. It is not clear to me that the conservative justices would rule against the application of the 14th Ammendment just because they are conservatives or generally conservative leaning. I doubt they would subvert a fair reading of the Constitution to push political leverage for ideological purposes. That would be, by far, the most damaging aspect to our country to come out of this debt ceiling crisis. Forever after, the Court would be viewed as a political arm for or against the party in power. On another note, this is starting to get interesting as we get down to the wire. I think the Progressives are getting ready to did their heels in if Obama caves in any profound way on entitlement benefits. Unlike the tea partiers in the House, the Progressives CAN kill any conceivably likley bill. Boehner & Obama will need them to pass anything the Senate is likely to accept, IMO. There is no way the Senate will accept a bill passed by a GOP majority in the House.

I don't frequent movie theatres anymore due joint ailments and hearing issues but if I did I'd see Cowboys & Aliens. It looks interesting and different, with a good cast.

It was really neat!! Right out of The Mummy or some Bibliical epic. I suspect there are a lot of pissed off people in Phoenix with dust everywhere in their houses, not to mention cars. I'm equally impressed with the record temps out there. I cannot imagine living in those temps and now dust storms. Maybe a winter home, but not summers.

This is very good news. We have relied on China to supply rare earths needed by our high tech industries. Last year they started cutting back on what they were willing to supply, ostensibly because of their own growing need. This represented a subsantial threat to our high tech industry not to mention Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, and others. This new find in international waters, essentially doubling the world's known reserves, guarantees continued access to these essential substances for the indefinite future.

Huge rare earth deposits found in Pacific: Japan experts Mon Jul 4, 2:58 am ET TOKYO (Reuters) Vast deposits of rare earth minerals, crucial in making high-tech electronics products, have been found on the floor of the Pacific Ocean and can be readily extracted, Japanese scientists said on Monday. "The deposits have a heavy concentration of rare earths. Just one square kilometer (0.4 square mile) of deposits will be able to provide one-fifth of the current global annual consumption," said Yasuhiro Kato, an associate professor of earth science at the University of Tokyo. The discovery was made by a team led by Kato and including researchers from the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. They found the minerals in sea mud extracted from depths of 3,500 to 6,000 meters (11,500-20,000 ft) below the ocean surface at 78 locations. One-third of the sites yielded rich contents of rare earths and the metal yttrium, Kato said in a telephone interview. The deposits are in international waters in an area stretching east and west of Hawaii, as well as east of Tahiti in French Polynesia, he said. He estimated rare earths contained in the deposits amounted to 80 to 100 billion metric tons, compared to global reserves currently confirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey of just 110 million tonnes that have been found mainly in China, Russia and other former Soviet countries, and the United States. Details of the discovery were published on Monday in the online version of British journal Nature Geoscience. The level of uranium and thorium -- radioactive ingredients that are usually contained in such deposits that can pose environmental hazards -- was found to be one-fifth of those in deposits on land, Kato said. A chronic shortage of rare earths, vital for making a range of high-technology electronics, magnets and batteries, has encouraged mining projects for them in recent years. China, which accounts for 97 percent of global rare earth supplies, has been tightening trade in the strategic metals, sparking an explosion in prices. Japan, which accounts for a third of global demand, has been stung badly, and has been looking to diversify its supply sources, particularly of heavy rare earths such as dysprosium used in magnets. Kato said the sea mud was especially rich in heavier rare earths such as gadolinium, lutetium, terbium and dysprosium. "These are used to manufacture flat-screen TVs, LED (light-emitting diode) valves, and hybrid cars," he said. Extracting the deposits requires pumping up material from the ocean floor. "Sea mud can be brought up to ships and we can extract rare earths right there using simple acid leaching," he said. "Using diluted acid, the process is fast, and within a few hours we can extract 80-90 percent of rare earths from the mud." The team found that sites close to Hawaii and Tahiti were especially rich in rare earths, he said. He gave no estimate of when extraction of the materials from the seabed might start. (Reporting by El Tan in Hong Kong and Yuko Inoue in Tokyo; Editing by Michael Watson) See original article at: http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110704/ts_nm/us_rareearth_japan

Three things I would never do: Business in China Business in Russia Buying a strip club in MTL on my own. Lots of great potential in each. Potential in great success, potential in great failure. Not a level playing field in any of them. Certainly not for an alien. Especially true in China and Russia.

It wouldn't phase me. The country cannot let one party resort to extortion to get its ideological way. If I believed I had the Constitution's sanction to pay debt due then I wouldn't hesitate to do so. If I didn't believe I had it then I'd draw a line at what I believe to be fair compromise and let the chips fall where they may. You cannot give in to extortion way beyone reasonable compromise else you might as well go home and cede the government to the other party. Don't even bother to run again. You are done.

Interesting comment from one of the talking heads on Cable -- I can't recall which one -- mentioned that the House might impeach Obama if he went over the heads of Congress. He also mentioned that if so then there was no way the Senate would convict with the Dem majority. I would be an interesting saga if so. I think Obama would be the big winner if he played it right -- but that is an if. That being: when Congress refuses to step up and pay the bills that Congress incurred then the President has to step in to pay the bills as the Constitution demands. This wouldn't phase most on the right but it would seem responsible to those in the middle which is where elections are won and lost. At the least, it wouldn't hurt him.

In addition to White House Legal Counsel I would ask opinions from three recognized Constitutional Law Centers.

Chris Hansen Caught Cheating On Wife By Hidden Camera: 'To Catch A Predator' Host Nailed: Report Looks like the sting tactic that made Chris Hansen famous may have come back to bite him -- big time. The National Enquirer is reporting that they've caught the "To Catch A Predator" host cheating on his wife with Kristyn Caddell, a Florida NBC affiliate news reporter twenty one years his junior, with a hidden camera. Hansen is married with two children and lives in Connecticut. The Enquirer says that they have footage of Hansen out with Caddell, having dinner at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Manalapan, Florida, and then returning for the night to her Palm Beach apartment. The host has been spending time in Florida investigating the disappearance of James 'Jimmy T' Trindade, the Enquirer reports (via the Daily Mail). "To Catch A Predator," a Dateline series, features Hansen and an advocacy organization called Perverted Justice posing as younger women and communicating with older men online, and then catching would-be sex offenders at a location that they and the almost-offender agreed upon. For more, click over to The National Enquirer See the original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/chris-hansen-caught-cheating-on-wife-camera_n_887289.html

The following is predicated on the likelyhood that the 14th Ammendment is controlling over U.S. Debt obligations. I believe the point is that the 14th Ammendment 'decides' the debt ceiling issue. The Treasury does not need Congressional Authorization to make principle and interest payments on the debt which are due. It can issue bonds notes etc. to make such payments i.e. borrow to make such payments due if cash reserves are not on hand. In fact, the 14th can be interpreted that the Treasury MUST make such payments. Rather than holding a gun to the heads of U.S. creditors and credit rating, it turns out to be only an index finger. Congress still has the authority to authorize all new and continuning spending but cannot block servicing the debt by failure to fund it. So, in throwing a tantrum, Congress may choose not to fund certain spending such as defense, social security checks, etc. They have that choice every day of every term. They have exercised that authority regularly whichever party has been in power. That is how we got to where we are. They serve at the pleasure of the people and subject to the pressures of the people and the lobbyists. The one thing they cannot do is veto or threaten to veto authority to make debt payments unless they get their way. That goes for one party in Congress too. So says the 14th Ammendment. So there is no knife to the throat of the economy in order to get their way much as they want us to believe or much as they might have thought. The one thing I do not understand is why this aspect of the 14th Ammendment hasn't been highlighted years earlier and removed the periodic debt ceiling Kabuki Dance that has become ritual for both parties. I think this changes the entire dynamic of the discussion. If I were Obama then I would: Ask the White House Counsel to give a legal opinion on the 14th Ammendment requirements for debt service, That if that opinion were that the 14th REQUIRES or authorizes that debt be serviced independent of Congressional authorization, then I would declare the debt limit issue resolved by Constitution obligation, That necessary and sufficient borrowing would be undertaken for debt service as the Treasury determines and the Constitution requires, and That I urge continue continued effort with Congress to enact a long-term deficit reduction bill by September 1. That takes coercion off the table and puts the deficit reduction ball on a level playing field. Oh, and it puts a little heat on Congress to work to a compromise in a timely manner, or forego the August recess to get it done, or to admit that resolving the deficit takes second place to the August recess.