The Philadelphia Inquirer comes home

There's apparently confusion over whether Philly.com is about to suddenly and unexpectedly erect a paywall, but this part of Phawker's report about the Inquirer is good news if it's true: "Also, expect less national and international wire stories and more local news inside the A section of the weekday edition of the Inquirer."

 

I've mentioned a few times that the Inquirer's front page -- and, really, it's entire A section -- is a relic of older days when A) the Inky had reporting assets to spread around the world and B) when readers couldn't easily get worldwide news from other sources. If I want to read reporting that originated in the LA Times or New York Times, I can read those papers! But the Inky has continued to fill its front section with stories from those organizations. I expect I'll retain a slight bias for the Daily News, just because I live in Philly and I expect the Inquirer will remain largely suburban in its outlook. But this decision is overdue for the Inquirer, and I welcome it.

Does Obama believe a $172,000-per-year salary is modest?

That's the incredulous question posed, in passing, over at The Weekly Standard's blog. And it's a good question! After all, Robert Gibbs' salary is more than three times the median household income of an American family. 

On the other hand, the Standard has a bit of a history of poo-poohing the idea that households with yearly incomes of $250,000 or more could be reasonably defined as "rich." So the Standard's standard is clear: If you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, you're middle class -- unless you're a Democrat.

Slow blogging today

Swamped with other work. But trust me when I tell you that I've got a take on the whole "Huckleberry Finn" thing that's going to make nobody happy.

Mitch McConnell on filibuster reform

A change in the rules by a bare majority aimed at benefiting Democrats today could just as easily be used to benefit Republicans tomorrow. Do Democrats really want to create a situation where, two or four or six years from now, they are suddenly powerless to prevent Republicans from overturning legislation they themselves worked so hard to enact?

via washingtonpost.com

Here's the thing: the proposed reforms don't leave the minority party in the Senate "powerless."

Instead, they make the minority party actually work to obstruct the passage of legislation: If you want to filibuster, you actually have to take the floor of the Senate and filibuster. Right now, all Mitch McConnell has to do, essentially, is utter the word "filibuster" and the obstruction is passed. That's simply too low a bar -- one that presumes the minority has veto power over legislation unless proved otherwise.

Old-time filibustering actually worked once upon a time. It's why civil rights legislation was delayed. Filibuster reform is not filibuster removal. If you want to mount a filibuster, Sen. McConnell, be my guest. Stand up, make a speech, and drag out the cots for your colleagues.

Is America in your soul?

The New York Times adds to its coverage of efforts to repeal birthright citizenship, and includes this mind-boggling comment from Rep. Duncan Hunter:

In April, Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, one of those pushing for Congressional action on the citizenship issue, stirred controversy when he suggested that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants should be deported with their parents until the birthright citizenship policy is changed. “And we’re not being mean,” he told a Tea Party rally in Southern California. “We’re just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen. It’s what’s in our souls.”

If America is in the "soul" of anybody, it's probably somebody who fought to come here--crossing deserts, dealing with smugglers, and yes, breaking laws--so that they could partake in the freedom and opportunity this country supposedly offers. Beyond that, though, I wonder how Hunter proposes to do a soul-based citizenship test.

 

Mr. Mom Chronicles: A nice moment

A scene in the Craft-Mathis household:

Me: Tobias, I love you.

T: I lahv you!

Me (ratcheting it up): Tobias ... I LOVE you.

T: I lahv YOU! (Giggles.)

ME: I love YOU!

T: I lahv YOU! (Laughs maniacally.) Gufbaw.

He's right. I am a goofball.

House GOP to cut $100 billion?

Incoming House Majority Leader John Boehner is leading the charge to cut $100 billion from the domestic budget this year, reports the New York Times. The question is, where would the budget cuts come from? Military, domestic security, and veterans would be spared, but under the Republican plan, remaining federal programs would face savage cuts of about 20 percent this fiscal year. The $100 billion diet was part of a House GOP campaign pledge, but even Senate Republicans have backed away from such drastic cuts. Like many impending House Republican initiatives, its bark is worse than its bite – with the Senate still in the hands of Democrats and Obama retaining veto power, the budget-cutting vote is largely an act of political theater. The vote could give Republicans more bargaining power in their budget showdown with the White House this winter, however. For Democrats, the move to cut funding from education, transportation and scientific research could provide ammunition against Republicans in swing districts.

via slatest.slate.com

You know: I'm looking forward to this, actually. Maybe the House GOP can come up with $100 billion in cuts that won't be painful or set off an angry reaction. I doubt it. But if they do, more power to them. And coming up with an actual list of cuts will be useful: It's easy to campaign against spending when you're not talking about specifics. Showing your hand is a little more difficult.