I've been pretty busy this week which is why blogging was low on my priority list (I don't know if anyone reads this blog, anyway, so what does it matter). Having said that, I'm also reluctant to comment on the the debate over the President's response to the Ryan budget plan. I read the transcript of the speech, and I've read many of the opinion pieces that came in its wake. Essentially, it all boils down to this. Conservatives think the speech was a disgrace and liberals think it was marvelous. If you don't want to spend too much time recognizing the distinction, I recommend you read just two pieces...this one by Charles Krauthammer for the conservative side and this one by Paul Krugman for the liberals. What is so discouraging about all of this is that I believe, as Jay Cost does, that this speech was really all about the 2012 election. Obama needs to shore up his liberal base and the speech was the opening play in achieving that goal. I see absolutely no chance of any bipartisan compromise that would help the country avoid the massive debt crisis that is looming on the horizon anytime in the next two years. It will take another election. It will also take an election that results in one side or the other getting complete control of the Federal Government. If not, then we will kick the can down the road another two or four years. Depressing, I know, but that is how I see it.

These are strange days, indeed. As President Obama makes plans to unveil a plan to deal with deficits and debt many on the left and the right are contemplating the seemingly changed political landscape. Once upon a time it was considered an act of political suicide to suggest cuts in popular entitlement programs like Social Security or Medicare. But it seems that this is no longer the case (notice that I continue to use the word 'seems'). Michael Barone believes the President is responding to the changed landscape as indicated in recent election results and polls. Paul Krugman is despairing that the ultra-liberal candidate of hope and change he and his friends thought they were getting turns out to be an empty suit easily bested by the evil Republicans. But, as always, Robert Samuelson provides the voice of reason in this column reminding everyone that we are on an unsustainable spending path driven by popular programs. Almost half of our population of 300 million (46.2%) is receiving some kind of substantial benefit. That number includes 46.5 million getting Social Security benefits, 46.2 million on Medicare, 42.4 million on Medicaid, 36.1 million getting food stamps, 12.4 million receiving housing subsidies and 3.2 million getting veteran's benefit's. Of that group, only the veteran's can be said to have earned those benefits by direct service to the country. Everything else on the list is welfare in one form or another. Samuelson also points out that polls show Americans want increased spending on education, health care, social security and many other things, but also believe they are taxed enough. This is unsustainable fiscally, economically and politically. So, is there a way out? Yes. When we reach a crisis point and are forced to make hard choices. Mine is a pessimistic view to be sure. But it is what I think based on the evidence at hand.

The Social Security Administration will stop sending us those paper statements in a money saving move. Good. I always found it depressing to look down the list and say how little money I made over the years. An economist says that the U.S. is going down the same deficit spending path as Greece and Portugal. Ruben Navarrette says the American people have more important things to worry about than a government shutdown. A massive debris field of flotsam that was carried out to sea by the Japanese tsunami is making its way across the Pacific. Some of it will eventually wash ashore on the West Coast. Check out the video of a press conference held in Wisconsin to announce that an entire city was left out of the reported vote totals on election night in the closely watched contest for a seat on that state's supreme court. The new totals give Justice Prosser a 7,000 vote cushion. Charles Krauthammer praises Paul Ryan for his leap of faith in putting together a truly radical document and risking the wrath of the left, like he is already receiving from Paul Krugman. Michael Walsh believes the Ryan budget plan re-opens the debate on the size and scope of the government.

Two talk show hosts I once liked and listened to often until their acts wore thin are shown the door by their employers. Glenn Beck and Fox News part ways, while Jay Severin is let go from WTKK in Boston. When I first listened to each of these men on the radio (before Beck got his TV gig) as a fellow talk professional I admired their ability to put on a very entertaining show. Each man at times could put on some very compelling radio, irrespective of the political views they were espousing. You just had to listen. Each man parlayed their creativity and style into monster contracts as they built big ratings generating big revenues for their employers. So long as those ratings and revenues continued to roll in their employers were willing to overlook the more outrageous or controversial things they said. It's easy to ignore activists and community leaders who demand that you fire one of your hosts when your numbers are really good. After all, in the modern radio and television business the first and foremost duty of management at all levels is to hit their revenue numbers (exceeding them is even better). Corporate managers at the regional and national level for these big media conglomerates only see the numbers. Having said that, there is a duty to safeguard the broadcast license of the facility. It is, after all, the license that is the most valuable asset that the big media conglomerate purchased in the first place. Once upon a time, when broadcast companies were small and oftentimes owned by people who were based in the community those outlets served, there was a greater fear of upsetting the locals and endangering the license. That no longer exists. But there is such a thing as a talk host who is more controversial than he is worth. If the ratings and revenues don't make taking the heat a worthwhile endeavor, then broadcast managers are not going to be willing to put up with that heat. This was the case for both Fox News and WTKK in my view. If both men were still pulling monster ratings and huge revenues, then the aggravation of dealing with their sometimes strange theories (Beck) and vulgar pronouncements (Severin) would be worth it (and worth the big money they were getting paid). Without those ratings and revenues, forget it. There is a lot of interesting political commentary from various sources concerning the potential for a government shutdown and the Ryan 2012 budget. Liberal editor and columnist Robert Kuttner is disappointed with President Obama's performance thus far in fighting against the GOP's spending cut proposals, both the ones in the current budget and those proposed by Congressman Ryan. For his part Ryan says the President's budget proposals put the U.S. on an unsustainable track. Paul Krugman, on the other hand, believes Ryan's proposal is ridiculous. Michael Barone believes Rep. Ryan has presented a bold plan which will form the basis for GOP's economic platform in 2012. He believes the American people are now so worried about unsustainable debt and deficits that they will rally around such a plan. I disagree, but more on that later. Charlie Gasparino also likes the plan, but is disappointed that the GOP presidential contenders all seem to be hiding from the details. They are hiding from those details because, like me, they believe when "the people" get wind of those details the majority will reject them.

BUDGETS, POLITICS AND PROSPERITY

Rep. Paul Ryan is set to release his 2012 budget plan (it is actually the GOP's plan, but he is the architect, so it is and will forever be known as the Ryan budget) called "The Path to Prosperity". I don't know if it will put us on such a path, other factors will be in play, but I do agree with this piece asserting that the plan and its components will act as a giant political test for the American voting public. I say voting public rather than the more generic "American people" because the only people that count in our system politically are those who vote. A very significantly conservative and Republican electorate turned out in 2010 leading to all of those GOP wins in Congress and State Houses across the land. If the electorate is composed of a more Democratic-leaning population in 2012 those gains will be reversed. That, of course, is quite possible (and I expect it to be the case). President Obama will be at the top of the Democratic ticket. His presence will bring out more African-Americans, more young people, more left-leaning peripheral voters (political scientist Angus Campbell famously called them "in-and-out voters"). How those voters react to the budget proposals of the GOP will be a factor. Frankly, though, the economic conditions of the country and the job approval rating of the President will be far more significant, in my opinion, in deciding how those voters cast their ballots. As for the short-term, I expect a government shutdown this week as the Democrats are looking back to 1995 and perceive the similar situation which happened then is repeating itself today. They believe the 1995 shutdown helped them politically, so you can bank on it happening today.