Dear Lawn,

Monday, you're on your own.

Since the first thaw of spring I've been seeding you, weeding you (by hand) and watering you all in an effort to make you look respectable enough to save you from my wife's threat to tear out what was left of you and throw down fresh sod.

By most standards I have failed — you remain a haven for clover and creeping charlie (ground ivy, left), and a handful of your small bare spots stubbornly refuse to grow replacement grass.

By my far lower standards, however, I have succeeded. You are green. You are growing. Passersby no longer wonder if the Munsters are home. (Photo of Munsters' house, right)

A record rainfall in July exceeding 11 inches gets a lot of the credit, of course. And that will have to tide you over.

As we turn the calendar page into August, I'm turning off the spigot, literally. Front and back, no more sprinkling. The month's average rainfall of 3.6 inches will be way more than enough to keep you alive.

"As long as a lawn gets the equivalent of a quarter of an inch of rain every two to four weeks, it'll be fine," said Ron Wolford, urban horticulture educator for the University of Illinois Extension Service. "The roots will stay alive. It will come back."

Yes, you may take on a bit of the wheat-pasture look that befits the season, but that color will testify to my environmentally sound decision not to waste water.

Brown is the new green, in other words.

"Lawns can tolerate dry spells by going dormant for up to two months," advised Bruce Caldwell, head of lawn-related research and development at ScottsMiracle-Gro. "Dormancy is a period of reduced metabolic activity which helps the grass conserve energy."

I'll keep you long — at least two inches — and thatch you with your own clippings, as gardening experts recommend. Until next spring, I won't care if the grass is, as always, greener on the other side of the fence.

I was startled to read recommendation 3.3 near the end of the Chicago Federation of Labor's "City of Chicago 2012 Budget Efficiency Report," a document released last week by union leaders hoping to prevent the hundreds of layoffs threatened by Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

It suggests the city conduct a "full performance review" that would study "how services are provided, how business is conducted, what emerging demands are being placed on government agencies and departments" and look at "how effectively and efficiently are the processes, procedures, policies, technology, and organizations responsible for the services operating."

Then figure out more efficient, effective ways to do things.
 
Iowa saved $1.7 billion over five years after such a review, according to the report. Colorado, West Virginia and New Mexico each netted several hundred million dollars in savings, leading the labor leaders to calculate that Chicago could save $165 million.

What's startling to me is that this has to be a recommendation; that aggressive performance reviews like this aren't simply standard operating procedure at every level of government every year: What does each employee do? How can we streamline and consolidate our human resources?

Basic questions. And now that Mayor Emanuel is projecting a nearly $636 million budget shortfall for next year, more urgent than ever.

(Tribune photo by Nancy Stone)

Lots of voters will lose interest in fiscal discipline once they realize it means tangible sacrifice on their part. They might even exact vengeance at the polls. Getting voters to endorse frugality is easy. Taking money out of their hands is not....Steve Chapman's Sunday column

A little-known statute gives the secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue platinum coins in any denomination. So some commentators have suggested that the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds.....Jack M. Balkin, a  Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale Law School, in 3 ways Obama could bypass Congress

The symbolic bill passes:

The revised Republican plan passed on Friday includes tougher requirements on Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and send it to the states for ratification, a long-time core demand of conservative Republicans who say it is the only way to control spending.

The two-step plan would cut spending initially by about by about $900 billion and lift the debt ceiling only enough to last a few months.

I know that the "balanced budget amendment" idea polls very well as it makes a certain amount of common sense: We should spend only what we take in, like the average family and that kind of thing.

But do serious economists -- those who really know their stuff and at least make some effort at being honest brokers rather than theory-besotted ideologues -- think it's a sound idea?

I look at this the way I look at term-limit laws: The mechanisms are already in place to accomplish the goal; ultimately, the voters already have the realization of this goal in their power if they choose to exercise it.

In other words, for generations we have been electing and re-electing to Congress men and women of both parties who repeatedly OK deficit spending. Those who speak out in favor of balanced federal budgets are usually marginalized as kooks once it becomes clear the sorts of program cuts will be necessary and what other consequences would ensue.

Now, in a "stop us before we spend again!" cry of piteous, impotent rage, the Republican representatives, many of whom have voted scores of times for out-of-balance budgets and didn't back down as GWBush ran up deficits, now they want to slip this straitjacket over Congress?

Really?!?

I hereby solicit links to realty-based economic analyses that support a balanced budget amendment, as well as to stories about how well BBA's have worked in states (like ours!) that have them.

A roundup of state and local news-review and weekly political chat shows. Descriptions provided by the broadcast outlets in most cases:

Connected to Chicago (WLS-AM): Guest host John Dempsey with Ray Long (Chicago Tribune) and Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times). A breakdown of the debt talks in Washington and Governor Quinn's appointment to a state job of the daughter of Ald. Ed Burke and Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke

Chicago Newsroom (CAN-TV) Host Ken Davis interviews Bob Crawford on the legacy of former Mayor Richard Daley and the future under Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Crawford was the dean of Chicago's City Hall press corps before he retired after 33 years at CBS Radio all-news WBBM-AM (780).

Nearly three years ago, after a series of missed appointments and forgotten dates, I posted a factory-like "Days without a d'oh!" sign on our refrigerator.

It worked. With our renewed determination we started remembering our obligations and appointments at school, work and in the neighborhood.  Everything was dutifully entered into several calendars, and the days without a d'oh! extended to months until, finally, I took down the sign and considered us cured. 

Wednesday night, however, I did the do'h! si d'oh!  My younger son has been expressing a desire to go see the Cubs play an away game, so for a birthday/graduation gift we bought four tickets to see a game at Milwaukee's Miller Park.  Entered the date on the calendar. Filed the tickets away in a safe place when they arrived in the mail.

The plan was to leave after work Thursday for a 7:10 p.m. first pitch. Watching the game Wednesday night, however, I noted the on-screen schedule in the 8th inning said Thursday's was an afternoon game.

Alarmed, I went to check the tickets and discovered that I'd entered the wrong date on the calendars the moment I'd purchased the tickets, and that they were actually for Wednesday night's game.

What a stupid I am.

It wasn't fun breaking the bad news to Ben, but mine was the sort of mistake that money can rectify: I went online, paid my $180 ignorance fee, and we now have three seats to see the Cubs when they visit Milwaukee again late in August.

As I look for that refrigerator sign, I'm asking readers: Can you out-do'h! me?

David Frum on the challenge facing the Wall Street Journal's editorial writers: 

The strict demands of the paper’s ideology do not always lie smoothly over the rocky outcroppings of reality. 

By way of example, he goes on to note:

One of the many traps and impediments facing a Journal editorialist writing about debt is that up until 2009, the US debt burden rose most under the two presidents the Journal most ardently supported: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The debt burden declined most under the presidents the Journal most despises – Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

There is nothing anyone can post on Facebook that makes you like or respect them more than you did before....Meghan Daum in Friday's Tribune

I say false. I have discovered wit and talent and insight and eloquence from surprising sources on Facebook. Do your results vary?

Megan Daum writes, "There is nothing anyone can post on Facebook that makes you like or respect them more than you did before." True or False?

A Reuters/Ipsos poll taken earlier this week found 54 percent of Americans are "very concerned" about the consequences if the U.S. fails to raise the debt ceiling, and another 29 percent are "somewhat concerned."

Evidently the remaining 17 percent either haven't been paying attention or have convinced themselves that talk of a serious economic crisis next week is just another overhyped, phantom scare along the lines of Y2K, "Carmageddon" and recent predictions of the Rapture.
 
My guess is that the ranks of the nonchalant are thinning by the hour. More and more voices of reason are weighing in to say that behind all this partisan bickering and ground-pawing looms a potentially catastrophic blow to the already battered economy — from a drop in the U.S. bond rating to a government's failure to pay its bills.

And the airy confidence of Washington pundits who for months predicted Democrats and Republicans would reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling after a few obligatory rounds of posturing has evaporated.

The threat is real.

When you have Arizona Sen. John McCain, the GOP's presidential nominee in 2008, echoing criticism of "tea party hobbits" and trashing the "bizarre" and "worse than foolish" tactics of fringe members of his party, you know matters have become urgent.

If a pollster happens to call me in the next few days, I'll ask him to mark me as "obsessively concerned."

Yes, deadlines concentrate the mind. And it's not altogether a bad thing that the Republicans have exploited the usually routine process of raising the federal debt limit to focus the nation's attention on the problem of deficit spending. Hypocritical and opportunistic, yes, but still not altogether bad.

We need to have what everyone likes to call an "adult conversation" about spending and taxing — what do we want government to do, and how do we want to pay for it?

It's a hard conversation for Congress because the political parties are in sharp disagreement on these questions, and because reconciling what we want with what we can afford requires making painful choices. So lawmakers tend to avoid the conversation and instead leave the mounting bills for our children and grandchildren to worry about.

It's not an "adult conversation," however, when one side in the debate is metaphorically threatening to pull the pin on the grenade if they don't get their way. It's a hostage negotiation.

To a point, this tactic has worked for the GOP hard-liners. For many months, up to and including his speech to the nation earlier this week, President Barack Obama has been arguing for a "balanced approach" that would combine spending cuts with tax increases to shrink the deficit.

Back to that Reuters poll: 56 percent of respondents back the combination idea versus 19 percent who say they want Congress to do it with program cuts only. A Pew Research Center poll taken last week found 60 percent supporting a combined approach, while a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey last week found 64 percent behind using a mix of cuts and taxes to begin digging our way out of the hole. (More poll results here)

Yet Republicans are determined to ram a cuts-only approach down the throats of the American people, if I may borrow some tea party rhetoric from the health care reform debate. And the Democrats are going along. Neither their plan in the Senate nor the Republicans' plan in the House contains what are euphemistically called "revenue enhancements."

Not bad for a party that controls only one house of Congress!

But rather than bask in their victory in shaping and advancing the necessary conversation, GOP leaders are holding out for a deal that will inevitably force the same fraught and frightening debate to take place again during the 2012 campaign season — ramping up the concern levels of everyone who's following the news and, incidentally, attracting the scorn and disgust of the American people.

That CNN survey last week found 63 percent of respondents saying Republicans in Congress have not acted responsibly during the debt-ceiling negotiations; 46 percent said President Obama hasn't acted responsibly. If everything goes sideways next week, 51 percent of respondents said they'll blame Republicans, and only 30 percent said they'll blame President Obama.

We don't need another destabilizing game of chicken with our nation's economy to keep the conversation going.

Voters will have their chance next year to choose between contrasting visions of taxation, spending and debt management when they participate in the only poll that matters.

From The most hilariously effective signs supporting gay marriage

.

Sun-Times: Tea Party Rep. Joe Walsh sued for $100,000 in child support

 Update: Walsh: Sun-Times "hit piece" false

 
Reuters/Ipsos Poll  July 25, 2011:

How concerned, if at all, are you about [the debt ceiling] issue?

Very Concerned 54%
Somewhat Concerned 29%
Not Very Concerned 8%
Not at all concerned/unsure 8%

Whom do you blame for the failure, so far, of the debt-ceiling talks?

Republican lawmakers 31%
President Obama 21%

Which approach do you think is best?

Cut existing programs 19%
Raise taxes 12%
Combination of cuts and taxes 56%

---

United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll July 21-24, 2011

Who do you trust more to make the right decisions about whether to raise the federal debt limit?

Barack Obama 46%
Republican leaders 35%

In the event of default, whom will you blame?

Obama 23%
Congressional Republicans 31%

--

Pew Research Center. July 20-24, 2011

What is the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit?

Cutting programs 19%
Increasing taxes 8%
A combination 60%

--

CNN/ORC Poll. July 18-20, 2011

Do you think the policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats or George W. Bush and the Republicans are more responsible for the country's current economic problems?"

Obama & Democrats 29%
Bush and GOP 57%

Best way to reduce the deficit?

Spending cuts only 34%
Spending cuts along with tax increases 64%

Based on what you have read or heard about the discussions between Congress and Barack Obama on the debt ceiling, do you think Obama has or has not acted responsibly?"

Has 52%
Has not 46%

...do you think the Republicans in Congress have or have not acted responsibly?

Have 33%
Have not 63%

If the debt ceiling is not raised,whom will you blame?

GOP 51%
Obama 30%
Both 15%

---

CBS News Poll. July 15-17, 2011

Approval marks for handling the handling "the current negotiations on the debt ceiling"

Obama 43%
Congressional Democrats 31%
Congressional Republicans 21%

Wwho do you think is more concerned about doing what is best for you and your family?

Obama 51%
House GOP 32%
Neither 10%

Source PollingReport.com

Real Clear Politics polling averages:

President Obama Job Approval 45.0%
Congressional Job Approval 19.2%

This Washington Post-ABC News poll July 14-17, 2011 (link)

Who do you think cares more about protecting the economic interests of the following, President Obama or the  Republicans in Congress?

                                 Obama/GOP

You and your family 47% 37%
Small businesses 48% 39%
 Middle class Americans 53% 35%
Wall Street financial institutions 26% 59%
Large business corporations 24% 67%

What do you think is the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit?

Cutting federal spending 32%
Increasing taxes 4%
Combination of both 62%

From an essay by Tim Ryan  CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association:

If US debt is downgraded, depending on how and to what extent a downgrade is announced, markets will certainly price in higher rates for Treasury securities and those higher rates will bleed through the broader economy.

Default with a downgrade is a game changer, though, with dire consequences for money funds, capital markets and banking systems broadly. It will be a systemic event in its own right....

While raising the debt limit may seem out of sync with fiscal restraint, failing to raise the limit to fund existing commitments will actually result in more government spending....

If the debt ceiling is not raised, interest rates would spike dramatically. Higher borrowing costs for businesses means less capital can be put toward research and development, business expansion and job creation.