It has been astonishing to watch Obama's sheer unwillingness to give up on his opponents after their refusal to work with him on the stimulus package, health care reform, or the extension of the Bush tax cuts last fall. A Congress dominated by mindless cannibals is now feasting on a supine president. But surely even he now realizes there's no middle ground with antagonists whose only interest is in seeing him humiliated.....from Lessons of the Crisis -- The debt-ceiling debacle revealed that politics is broken in every possible way and there's no point in explaining complicated matters to the American people  by Jacob Weisberg (Slate)

It's interesting to hear Republicans chortle over Obama's leadership failures, when, in fact, clearly his biggest failure was believing that Republicans were interested in meeting him halfway, setting a new tone in Washington and eroding partisan differences. Not to go too often to the well of old pop culture, but I'm reminded of Otter's blithe line in"Animal House," which goes, more or less, "Hey, you screwed up-- you trusted us!"

 About a third of the way through the 74-page debt-ceiling bill signed into law this week is a one-paragraph by-the-way that sets the stage for a zesty battle this fall.

Sometime between Oct. 1 and New Year's Day, says the bill, both the House and Senate must vote up or down on a yet unwritten measure that will be titled, "Joint Resolution Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

The battle will be zesty because the idea is at least superficially very popular with voters — two major national polls taken recently found more than 70 percent of respondents in favor of such an amendment. A similar resolution fell just one vote short of passage in 1995.

But at the same time, many serious economists find it dangerously simplistic, a blunt instrument that stands to clobber the economy when it's least able to withstand the blow.

"Debt" isn't necessarily a dirty word. Without it, many people would never be able to buy a house or car and wouldn't be able to send their children to college. Businesses would have a hard time investing in new facilities and equipment. Governments would be far less able to help citizens through hard times, when they need help most.

True, most balanced budget amendment proposals allow for congressional supermajorities to override spending limits during economic emergencies. But such a provision merely invests more power in minority factions, giving them yet another wrench to throw into a lawmaking machine that's supposed to operate on the principle of majority rule.

And if the people truly want a balanced federal budget, they already hold in their hands the tool — the voting stylus — to elect representatives who will champion austerity over any other form of fiscal policy and refuse ever to OK deficit spending. A constitutional amendment would in effect rip that stylus from the hands of those of us who believe it's sometimes smart and necessary for government to run in the red.

That's not democracy, it's ideology.

And likely ineffective at that.

Look at Illinois. Article 8, Section II of our state constitution requires that "appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year." A balanced budget requirement, in other words, similar to requirements in place in 49 states.

Yet somehow, well, you know....

Even after an income tax hike earlier this year, Illinois is still deep in the hole — $7.4 billion behind in current obligations, according to the state treasurer's office, and on the hook for umpty-billion in bond payments and pension liabilities.

How could that be?

"The budget is always balanced on paper, but never really balanced," said Illinois Republican Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka, who was treasurer from 1995 to 2007. "There are many gimmicks, many tricks" legislative leaders use to get around the requirement, she said.

These include deliberately underestimating expenses, deliberately overestimating revenue, then kicking the balance due into the next year, where it doesn't count against appropriations going forward.

Lawmakers "also create agenda items off the balance sheets and use dedicated revenues that they separate out from the general revenue fund," said Laurence Msall, head of the Civic Federation, a budget watchdog group.

He added dryly, "The General Assembly has shown it has untapped reserves of creativity in its ability to avoid limiting themselves to funds that are actually available to them."

Given that there's no real referee, a balanced budget has become more of a vague, feel-good aspiration in Springfield than a requirement — similar to the state constitution's directive that Illinois pay at least half the freight for education.

And, of course, when disaster strikes, all these states with ostensibly balanced budgets look to Washington to help bail them out. Who will Washington look to?

"These requirements always look good on paper," said Topinka

I wouldn't even go that far.

---

 SOURCES on the balanced budget, an admittedly skeptical roundup:

Story: Dismissing firefighters might cost more than mileage racked up, Emanuel says

Mayor Rahm Emanuel agrees that Chicago firefighters accused of padding their mileage misused taxpayer money, but expressed frustration Wednesday that it could cost more to terminate them than the $100,000 racked up in reimbursements...

The mayor said he has “zero tolerance” for abuse of taxpayer money. In a “perfect, ideal world” he said he would fire the firefighters, but it’s not that simple.

The union contract allows firefighters to go through a grievance process, which could drag on for several months and end up costing the city more than the $100,000 in violations, Emanuel said.

Yeah, see, the thing with justice is that it almost always costs more to administer than the amount of financial loss suffered by the victims.  When we convict a guy for sticking up a convenience store for $100, we'll send him to prison for, let's say four years even though the cost of incarceration alone will be roughly 1,000 times the sum he stole.

Yes, it's expensive. But the calculation is that the deterrent effect on others  of such sentences (along with the temporary incapacitation of the wrongdoer himself) will result in fewer armed robberies and a more just, fairer society.

And why, I have to ask, does the CIty have to spend any off-budget money at all to prosecute what would seem to be fairly open-and-shut cases against these spongy cheats?

Jennifer Hoyle of the City's Law Department responds:

it’s premature to say that these are “open and shut cases.”  We can’t fire 54 people en masse; we have to develop a specific case against each one in order to proceed. The Mayor specifically said that we would discipline individuals engaged in wrongdoing; however, his point was that the culture that allows for such widespread misconduct has to be addressed, otherwise it will keep occurring.

My follow-up:

From my reading of the news stories, the GPS evidence is quite strong. Are you saying it will require extra, outside counsel to bring termination proceedings against these alleged wrongdoers? And while I agree with the point that the widespread culture of misbehavior has to be addressed, what better way of addressing it than putting 54 heads on the metaphorical pike?

Her reply:

Not outside counsel, just that there has to be a separate case for each person, and the discipline has to correspond to the severity of the misconduct and the individual's disciplinary history.

My follow up:

So repeatedly exaggerating your mileage on expense forms is not a firing offense for someone with an otherwise clean record? Hmm. And if there is no need for outside counsel, why the $100,000 price tag? My back of the envelope math says that's about $2,000 per case, and so, at about $100,000/year per asst. corporation counsel that roughly one 40-hour week for a city lawyer per case.

Her reply:

Individuals who were found to have engaged in wrongdoing will be disciplined. Also, [you are making exaggerated assumptions] about the entire group. I'm simply trying to explain that the type of review I described would have to occur in each case.

My follow-up:

So the investigation of each employee will be made either way? Is the City in agreement that a review must or will take place persuant to each allegation?  How complex or additionally expensive is it, then, in each case, to pursue disciplinary charges? I apologize if I'm exaggerating my assumptions about the entire group. Our story said, "City Inspector General Joseph Ferguson recommended the mayor fire 54 firefighters assigned to the Fire Prevention Bureau for allegedly falsifying their mileage reports," and I don't see a lot of nuance there, though I am assuming that Ferguson isn't suggesting people be fired for transposing a few numbers here or there or rounding up to the nearest mile once or twice.  I'm very interested in the  suggestion  that the expense of pursuing the disciplinary process is figuring in to the decisions here, and, further, the claim that the City will incur six-figure costs to pursue that process.

From Blaming Obama for the debt crisis by David Case (Global Post):

It was President George W. Bush who ran up America’s debt, by cutting taxes and dramatically growing the size of the government. Obama hasn’t solved the problem he inherited. On the contrary, he’s added to it, but at a much slower pace than Bush did.

Let’s recall that when Bush came to office in 2001, the government’s budget was in the black....Bush’s tax cuts — along with a rapid increase in defense spending, a prescription drug plan for the elderly and other big-government policies — saddled the country with some $8 trillion in publicly-held debt by 2009 ...

Estimates of the stimulus’ contribution run between $711 billion (the NY Times) and $830 billion (Congressional Budget Office). While not a small number, it’s a fraction of the debt problem (and) the financial meltdown has forced the government to shell out about $400 billion in unemployment benefits over the past few years — a problem that Obama clearly inherited....

US corporations are already sitting on some $2 trillion in cash, according to the Federal Reserve. Relative to the size of their assets, that’s a bigger pile of cash than they’ve held any time since 1959.  

Connected to Chicago (mp3) (WLS-AM): Host Bill Cameron with Ray Long (Chicago Tribune) and Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times). The panel talks about the President's Birthday/Fundraising Bash Wednesday in Chicago.

Chicago Newsroom CAN TV: Host Ken Davis is joined by Megan Cottrell (Chicago Reporter), Hunter Clauss (Chicago News Cooperative) and Don Washington (Mayoral Tutorial). They discuss Chicago’s budget deficit and the Police Superintendent’s proposal to issue citations for marijuana possession.

Robert Feder reports:

Michael Sneed, the star gossip columnist who’s been missing in action from the Chicago Sun-Times for more than five weeks, is alive and almost well. Readers have been told only that she’s been on “personal leave” since her last column ran on June 29. Reached at home Thursday, Sneed said she’s been sidelined with a painful but treatable medical condition. She declined to discuss specifics, but said she expects to make a full recovery and return to work “within the next few weeks”....

I wish her well. "Heal `em," as she might say.

From President Obama's speech at his birthday gathering last night in Chicago:

It’s been a long, tough year. But we have made some incredible strides together. Yes, we have.

Seems to me that "Yes, we have" would be a fair, follow-up slogan to his 2008 watchword, "Yes, we can."

Let his backers fill in the blank: "Yes we have ______."

Then let his detractors fill in the same blank.

After that, the Republicans can try to fill in this blank: "In contrast, our nominee is gonna ______."

Rest assured the Democrats will do the same.

  Obama went on to say last night --

 The thing we all have to remember is, as much good as we’ve done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet.

Former Cub ace Mark Prior, just injured in the minors where he toils in the Yankee farm system, hasn't pitched in a major league game since 2006.

From page 27 of the 74-page The debt-ceiling bill (.pdf):

SEC. 201. VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.
After September 30, 2011, and not later than December 31, 2011, the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, shall vote on passage of a joint resolution, the title of which is as follows: "Joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

That's it. No outline of just what a "balanced budget amendment" must look like, though previous versions have allowed for all kinds of exceptions and super-majority work-arounds.

The idea polls well but not with many economists.

UPDATE -- Found a non-pdf text version here

Here are some recent polling numbers:

CNN/ORC Poll. July 18-20, 2011: "Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?" (Favor 74%); "In order to get the federal budget deficit under control, do you think it is necessary or not necessary to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget?" (Necessary, 60%)

Fox News Poll June 26-28, 2011: "Would you favor or oppose a balanced budget amendment that is, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require the federal government to produce a balanced budget?" (Favor, 72%)

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll March 31-April 4, 2011: "Do you favor or oppose a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution?" (Favor 61%)

From Forbes.com:

Of the 970,000 copies a day USA Today distributes through hotels, some 550,000 are paid for by the hotel and supplied free of charge to guests, according to figures reported to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. But the remainder are what’s known as “guest refund” copies, meaning the guest is automatically charged for them but can request a refund.....The money involved on USA Today’s end is considerable. At the rate Hilton charges, those 420,000 guest refund copies generate $82 million in circulation revenue over the course of a year.

Via the WGN Morning Memo:

Supermodel Linda Evangelista is asking French billionaire Francois Henri-Pinault for $46,000 a month in child support. The Wall Street Journal's Robert Frank tells Kelsey Hubbard how wealthy families in New York can spend up to $46,000 a month on a child's expenses.

Voices from around the corners of the internet I visit on the debt-ceiling deal, updated with more quotes

In Seeing Catch-22 Twice --The awful truth people miss about Heller's great novel. by Ron Rosenbaum in Slate, Rosenbaum makes the case that the author's argument  "was not with war or with death but with God," and offers this quote from Yossarian by way of example

 And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways. There's nothing so mysterious about it. He's not working at all. He's playing or else He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of God you people talk about—a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless, conceited, uncouth hayseed. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatological mind of His when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements? Why in the world did he ever create pain? ... Oh, He was really being charitable to us when He gave us pain! [to warn us of danger] Why couldn't He have used a doorbell instead to notify us, or one of His celestial choirs? Or a system of blue-and-red neon tubes right in the middle of each person's forehead. Any jukebox manufacturer worth his salt could have done that. Why couldn't He? ... What a colossal, immortal blunderer! When you consider the opportunity and power He had to really do a job, and then look at the stupid, ugly little mess He made of it instead, His sheer incompetence is almost staggering.

This poll (so far, at 12:56 p.m.) is associated with Kevin Pang's story today, "Don't let anyone tell you ketchup can't go on hot dogs." I voted yes even though I'm a mustard and onions only kind of guy, since I believe the option should be available for those who desire it.

UPDATE -- Here are the results of the same poll grabbed nearly four hours later:

I post this merely to underscore that these click polls, for all their faults, do tend to be consistent in their measurements. Barring some organized attempt to skew results, polls like this tend to have nearly the same percentage results after 10,000 votes as they did after 1,000 votes or even 100 votes.

Admittedly we don't know how the responding population compares to the population at large -- chicagotribune.com readers tend to be more intelligent, reasonable, insightful and better looking than the average person -- but still, it tells you that click polls aren't entirely worthless and random.

This kind of straight-talk and common sense is why people seem to like the cut of Christie's jib and why we read such commentary as this, which I highlighted yesterday:

Tom Moran, New Jersey Star-Ledger:

President Obama is a fine man, but he just got rolled by Republicans again. He wanted a grand bargain, and they said no. He wanted a balance of spending and tax changes, and they said no again. And now, with 14 million Americans out of work, he’s about to sign an agreement full of job-killing spending cuts. This, he tells us, is good for the country. You get the feeling that if they kidnapped his dog, he would pay them money to return it. And say thank you....He needs a dose of [New Jersey] Gov. Chris Christie. ....Christie is a strong and natural leader. He is clear about what he wants. He fights like an angry pit bull. And he cuts a deal only after he’s roughed up the other side a bit. ... What we have in the Oval Office today is a law professor who doesn’t like to make enemies... Obama gave a few measured speeches, and then was reduced to chirping at press conferences about the need for “balance.”