O.K., Smart Guys: Fix the Energy Problem How should the U.S. solve its energy problems? The experts brainstorm

Norman Pearlstine, Thomas Kuhn, Bob Shapard, Carol Browner, Jigar Shah, and T. Boone Pickens Henry Leutwyler
This Week

August 1, 2011
Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think

The U.S. first became a net importer of oil in 1948. The intervening decades have led Americans down a steady path of price spikes, shortages, and compromised foreign policy decisions. Imported fuel means expensive gasoline, lost jobs, and hobbled industries, while climate change poses risks as dramatic as they are difficult to assess. So how do we fix our fuel and energy problems? To answer that question—the first in a quarterly series called Fix This—Bloomberg Businessweek Chairman Norman Pearlstine gathered BP Capital Management’s T. Boone Pickens; Bob Shapard, chairman and chief executive officer of Oncor Electric Delivery and chairman of GridWise Alliance; Carol Browner, former director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy for President Obama and EPA administrator for President Clinton; Jigar Shah, CEO of the Carbon War Room; and Thomas Kuhn, president of Edison Electric Institute. Their conversation has been condensed and edited.


What do we mean when we talk about an energy crisis? Is that an appropriate term for framing this discussion?

Shah: The word energy is very confusing. Energy includes both transportation fuel—which I think people are very concerned about—and coal, solar, wind, and other things that produce electricity. People confuse the two, and while we have fast-rising prices of electricity—5 percent rate increases per year since 2000—the fourfold increase in oil prices since 1999 is a much bigger problem in terms of economics than our electricity problem.

Shapard: People perceive there to be a crisis in this country environmentally with carbon and other emissions. I think transportation is the place you go for the biggest impact, and I think it’s a combination of natural gas and electricity that can solve our transportation problem. You can convert a significant portion of our fleet to natural gas and/or electricity. It addresses our dependence on foreign oil, but just as importantly it addresses the environmental issues. While coal plants and power plants are viewed as the villain when it comes to carbon, [giving off] 39 percent of the emissions, 31 percent of the emissions are [from] cars, and the important point is we know the solution on cars.

Kuhn: Never in the history of the world have we been so dependent upon one commodity as we are on oil right now, and every recession has been preceded by a spike in the price of oil. A $10 increase in oil causes $75 billion to come out of this economy. There are a lot of electric cars that are going on the road all over the world, in India, China, and elsewhere. I drive a Chevy Volt. I haven’t visited a gas station in three months. I plug in, I drive at 2¢ a mile compared with 10¢ to 12¢ a mile—that’s about $1 a gallon equivalent.

Browner: One of the first things we did when [President] Obama came to office was set the first fuel-efficiency standards in almost 20 years. We said we can make cars more efficient, and that’s been making our automotive industry stronger.

Pickens: If you remember, President Obama, when he got the nomination, said in 10 years we will not import any oil from the Mideast. I was impressed with that. It’s different than all the other people that ran for President. They said elect me, and we’ll be energy independent. So I thought he’s got a plan, and I hope that he does have a plan.

If there’s a consensus here that we don’t have to be reliant on imported oil, why are we?

Browner: Some of these changes will require congressional action, because what we need to do is give the private sector the certainty and the predictability so that they’ll make the large-scale investments in these changes. They don’t want to start making investments where they think I’m going to build something but I’m not able to sell it.

Shah: Just to be slightly argumentative, I think we were in exactly the same place for both electricity and transportation in the 1970s. For electricity, we opened up that market. I started one of the largest solar companies in the U.S. We had that opportunity because we had net metering, we had streamlined interconnection standards, we had all sorts of ways for us to connect to the grid and actually provide [a new service to] customers who were dissatisfied with the services they were already being provided. Today if you own a gas station, you’re most likely under a franchise agreement with a large oil company that doesn’t allow you to add an alternative fuel station without their permission.

You talk to people in Washington all the time, Boone. Does anybody understand the problem well enough to know how to address it?

Pickens: Get yourself a crisis, and then something will come out of Congress. But we’re sitting here with a bill ready to go in the house, HR1380. [Editor’s note: HR1380 would amend the tax code to encourage investment in alternative energy.] There are 250 million vehicles in America: All I’m trying to address is 8 million 18-wheelers. Go to the past 10 years, and look at our costs with OPEC—$1 trillion in 10 years. The largest transfer of wealth from one group to another. Now go forward 10 years and take [the price of] $100 a barrel forward, which I think is being extremely conservative. That’s $2.2 trillion. Just take the 18-wheelers, that’s 2.5 million barrels a day. Now the $2.2 trillion that we’re going to pay 10 years in the future. … You cut OPEC in half with 8 million vehicles.

Browner: Between what Mr. Pickens has been talking about in terms of the long-haul vehicles and the commitment on electric cars, it would be a huge change in our fleet in this country.

Pickens: Don’t call me Mr. Pickens, O.K.? It makes me feel old when you do that.

Browner: Well, it’s respectful.

Is technology a place that can give us clean or cleaner coal or allow us to do more aggressive fracking for natural gas?

Browner: I personally think the natural gas industry needs to be fully transparent. What scares people is what they don’t know. Right now [fracking] is regulated differently in different states, and I think if the industry would join together and say we’re going to disclose exactly what we’re doing, we’re going to take a giant step forward.

On energy, we certainly know a lot of things that we could do very, very quickly. Energy efficiency is not complicated. There’s a nice little company in Washington, Opower, that works with utilities to send the customer an explanation of how much electricity they’re using in comparison to their neighbors, and you know what the effect of that is? People stop using as much electricity. They don’t want to be less efficient than their neighbors are, and they’re able to achieve a 1 percent to 3.5 percent reduction.

Shapard: If we could reduce electricity consumption by 10 percent, you’d save $25 billion a year in energy costs, you’d reduce CO₂ by about what you get in 10 percent electric vehicle penetration. The problem is people don’t know how to do it. Think about the way you buy electricity today. It’s like going to the grocery store, throwing groceries in your bag, walking out the front door, and once a month the grocer sends you a bill for $800. You didn’t break down eggs from milk from bacon. That’s the way you get electricity, just a big lump bill. If we can give you real-time feedback, studies have shown you’ll use less, you’ll use it smarter.

Shah: I love Opower, but ultimately energy efficiency through individual action is just people spending money out of their own pocket. [It] hasn’t worked for 35 years. I really don’t believe it.

Browner: People make wise decisions when they have access to information. Do you know what percentage of people now use a seat belt? It’s over 90 percent.

Shah: But it’s mandated. There’s a law.

Browner: We got there by educating people.

When we talk about the automotive industry, is the change going to come out of Detroit?

Browner: It’s going to come through the regulators. What regulations do is they create market opportunities for the capital investments, because they create predictability and certainty. When the President said all cars are going to be 35 miles per gallon for the average fleet by 2017, the automotive industry knew what kind of investments they needed to make.

Shah: Here’s one thing that we don’t have in transportation, which I think is critical: There is almost no way in hell that you’re going to get an entrepreneur into transportation. There’s at least 15 different engine technologies that have been invented since the 1960s, but only someone with 50 full-time regulatory affairs people can actually get through the National Transportation Safety Board, through all the EPA regulations, and all of the other things to actually bring a new car to market. Like the group that won the X Prize, right? That’s an actual gasoline-powered vehicle that goes 120 miles to the gallon, and it’s an extraordinary engineering feat. I guarantee you that thing is never going to come to market.

What can we look to that can change the equation in terms of electric vehicles?

Kuhn: Battery technology is making major advancements. Lithium ion batteries [are] coming from a lot of government-supported research with the automobile companies and other companies around the world.

Pickens: Well, don’t end up on a Chinese battery.

Shapard: Even the auto companies are telling us that within five years the price of these batteries could drop in half and the functionality grow.

Shah: But the beauty of the electric vehicle is the business model innovation. There [are] 17 things that you can do that I’ve counted, and you might be able to do more, with an electric battery as an electric utility. The grid’s got to stay at 60 hertz to keep everything running well, and you can use batteries to do this instead of spending reserves with natural gas, which is far more expensive.

Browner: So what you’re saying is when I’m not driving, my car would become part of the electric utility system?

Shah: In California their peak demand for electricity is roughly 60,000 megawatts. If you have 250,000 electric cars, just 250,000 out of 30 million cars they probably have over there, at 20 kilowatts a piece, which is what a lot of these full electric cars are, that’s 5,000Mw. So you now have one-twelfth of the entire grid of storage.

The problem is people go to the dealership and will never buy an electric vehicle. So what you have to do, and entrepreneurs are doing this now, is convert these into vehicle services contracts. You say here’s a free car, just pay me $400 a month, which is what you would have paid for your lease payment, and I’ll get the $4,000 a year out of the utility because you don’t want to deal with the paperwork.

O.K., Smart Guys: Fix the Energy Problem How should the U.S. solve its energy problems? The experts brainstorm

Norman Pearlstine, Thomas Kuhn, Bob Shapard, Carol Browner, Jigar Shah, and T. Boone Pickens Henry Leutwyler
This Week

August 1, 2011
Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think

The U.S. first became a net importer of oil in 1948. The intervening decades have led Americans down a steady path of price spikes, shortages, and compromised foreign policy decisions. Imported fuel means expensive gasoline, lost jobs, and hobbled industries, while climate change poses risks as dramatic as they are difficult to assess. So how do we fix our fuel and energy problems? To answer that question—the first in a quarterly series called Fix This—Bloomberg Businessweek Chairman Norman Pearlstine gathered BP Capital Management’s T. Boone Pickens; Bob Shapard, chairman and chief executive officer of Oncor Electric Delivery and chairman of GridWise Alliance; Carol Browner, former director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy for President Obama and EPA administrator for President Clinton; Jigar Shah, CEO of the Carbon War Room; and Thomas Kuhn, president of Edison Electric Institute. Their conversation has been condensed and edited.


What do we mean when we talk about an energy crisis? Is that an appropriate term for framing this discussion?

Shah: The word energy is very confusing. Energy includes both transportation fuel—which I think people are very concerned about—and coal, solar, wind, and other things that produce electricity. People confuse the two, and while we have fast-rising prices of electricity—5 percent rate increases per year since 2000—the fourfold increase in oil prices since 1999 is a much bigger problem in terms of economics than our electricity problem.

Shapard: People perceive there to be a crisis in this country environmentally with carbon and other emissions. I think transportation is the place you go for the biggest impact, and I think it’s a combination of natural gas and electricity that can solve our transportation problem. You can convert a significant portion of our fleet to natural gas and/or electricity. It addresses our dependence on foreign oil, but just as importantly it addresses the environmental issues. While coal plants and power plants are viewed as the villain when it comes to carbon, [giving off] 39 percent of the emissions, 31 percent of the emissions are [from] cars, and the important point is we know the solution on cars.

Kuhn: Never in the history of the world have we been so dependent upon one commodity as we are on oil right now, and every recession has been preceded by a spike in the price of oil. A $10 increase in oil causes $75 billion to come out of this economy. There are a lot of electric cars that are going on the road all over the world, in India, China, and elsewhere. I drive a Chevy Volt. I haven’t visited a gas station in three months. I plug in, I drive at 2¢ a mile compared with 10¢ to 12¢ a mile—that’s about $1 a gallon equivalent.

Browner: One of the first things we did when [President] Obama came to office was set the first fuel-efficiency standards in almost 20 years. We said we can make cars more efficient, and that’s been making our automotive industry stronger.

Pickens: If you remember, President Obama, when he got the nomination, said in 10 years we will not import any oil from the Mideast. I was impressed with that. It’s different than all the other people that ran for President. They said elect me, and we’ll be energy independent. So I thought he’s got a plan, and I hope that he does have a plan.

If there’s a consensus here that we don’t have to be reliant on imported oil, why are we?

Browner: Some of these changes will require congressional action, because what we need to do is give the private sector the certainty and the predictability so that they’ll make the large-scale investments in these changes. They don’t want to start making investments where they think I’m going to build something but I’m not able to sell it.

Shah: Just to be slightly argumentative, I think we were in exactly the same place for both electricity and transportation in the 1970s. For electricity, we opened up that market. I started one of the largest solar companies in the U.S. We had that opportunity because we had net metering, we had streamlined interconnection standards, we had all sorts of ways for us to connect to the grid and actually provide [a new service to] customers who were dissatisfied with the services they were already being provided. Today if you own a gas station, you’re most likely under a franchise agreement with a large oil company that doesn’t allow you to add an alternative fuel station without their permission.

You talk to people in Washington all the time, Boone. Does anybody understand the problem well enough to know how to address it?

Pickens: Get yourself a crisis, and then something will come out of Congress. But we’re sitting here with a bill ready to go in the house, HR1380. [Editor’s note: HR1380 would amend the tax code to encourage investment in alternative energy.] There are 250 million vehicles in America: All I’m trying to address is 8 million 18-wheelers. Go to the past 10 years, and look at our costs with OPEC—$1 trillion in 10 years. The largest transfer of wealth from one group to another. Now go forward 10 years and take [the price of] $100 a barrel forward, which I think is being extremely conservative. That’s $2.2 trillion. Just take the 18-wheelers, that’s 2.5 million barrels a day. Now the $2.2 trillion that we’re going to pay 10 years in the future. … You cut OPEC in half with 8 million vehicles.

Browner: Between what Mr. Pickens has been talking about in terms of the long-haul vehicles and the commitment on electric cars, it would be a huge change in our fleet in this country.

Pickens: Don’t call me Mr. Pickens, O.K.? It makes me feel old when you do that.

Browner: Well, it’s respectful.

Is technology a place that can give us clean or cleaner coal or allow us to do more aggressive fracking for natural gas?

Browner: I personally think the natural gas industry needs to be fully transparent. What scares people is what they don’t know. Right now [fracking] is regulated differently in different states, and I think if the industry would join together and say we’re going to disclose exactly what we’re doing, we’re going to take a giant step forward.

On energy, we certainly know a lot of things that we could do very, very quickly. Energy efficiency is not complicated. There’s a nice little company in Washington, Opower, that works with utilities to send the customer an explanation of how much electricity they’re using in comparison to their neighbors, and you know what the effect of that is? People stop using as much electricity. They don’t want to be less efficient than their neighbors are, and they’re able to achieve a 1 percent to 3.5 percent reduction.

Shapard: If we could reduce electricity consumption by 10 percent, you’d save $25 billion a year in energy costs, you’d reduce CO₂ by about what you get in 10 percent electric vehicle penetration. The problem is people don’t know how to do it. Think about the way you buy electricity today. It’s like going to the grocery store, throwing groceries in your bag, walking out the front door, and once a month the grocer sends you a bill for $800. You didn’t break down eggs from milk from bacon. That’s the way you get electricity, just a big lump bill. If we can give you real-time feedback, studies have shown you’ll use less, you’ll use it smarter.

Shah: I love Opower, but ultimately energy efficiency through individual action is just people spending money out of their own pocket. [It] hasn’t worked for 35 years. I really don’t believe it.

Browner: People make wise decisions when they have access to information. Do you know what percentage of people now use a seat belt? It’s over 90 percent.

Shah: But it’s mandated. There’s a law.

Browner: We got there by educating people.

When we talk about the automotive industry, is the change going to come out of Detroit?

Browner: It’s going to come through the regulators. What regulations do is they create market opportunities for the capital investments, because they create predictability and certainty. When the President said all cars are going to be 35 miles per gallon for the average fleet by 2017, the automotive industry knew what kind of investments they needed to make.

Shah: Here’s one thing that we don’t have in transportation, which I think is critical: There is almost no way in hell that you’re going to get an entrepreneur into transportation. There’s at least 15 different engine technologies that have been invented since the 1960s, but only someone with 50 full-time regulatory affairs people can actually get through the National Transportation Safety Board, through all the EPA regulations, and all of the other things to actually bring a new car to market. Like the group that won the X Prize, right? That’s an actual gasoline-powered vehicle that goes 120 miles to the gallon, and it’s an extraordinary engineering feat. I guarantee you that thing is never going to come to market.

What can we look to that can change the equation in terms of electric vehicles?

Kuhn: Battery technology is making major advancements. Lithium ion batteries [are] coming from a lot of government-supported research with the automobile companies and other companies around the world.

Pickens: Well, don’t end up on a Chinese battery.

Shapard: Even the auto companies are telling us that within five years the price of these batteries could drop in half and the functionality grow.

Shah: But the beauty of the electric vehicle is the business model innovation. There [are] 17 things that you can do that I’ve counted, and you might be able to do more, with an electric battery as an electric utility. The grid’s got to stay at 60 hertz to keep everything running well, and you can use batteries to do this instead of spending reserves with natural gas, which is far more expensive.

Browner: So what you’re saying is when I’m not driving, my car would become part of the electric utility system?

Shah: In California their peak demand for electricity is roughly 60,000 megawatts. If you have 250,000 electric cars, just 250,000 out of 30 million cars they probably have over there, at 20 kilowatts a piece, which is what a lot of these full electric cars are, that’s 5,000Mw. So you now have one-twelfth of the entire grid of storage.

The problem is people go to the dealership and will never buy an electric vehicle. So what you have to do, and entrepreneurs are doing this now, is convert these into vehicle services contracts. You say here’s a free car, just pay me $400 a month, which is what you would have paid for your lease payment, and I’ll get the $4,000 a year out of the utility because you don’t want to deal with the paperwork.

Youth Quarterback Camps Find a Profitable Seam

By Paul Wachter
This Week

August 1, 2011
Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think
Previous
Next
Related Items
NFL's Silent Stakeholders
BA-Iberia Tap U.S. Pickup to Outdo Air France-KLM, Lufthansa
Electronic Arts Must Face Ex-Athletes’ Antitrust Claims
The Rapture Profiteers
Air France, Lufthansa Drop on Results; Singapore Also Misses

 Happy Campers Clarkson: Mason Levinson/Bloomberg; Leinart: Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images; Brees: Steve Clarkson—NFL washout and youth football eminence—was standing among 100 or so prepubescent boys as they ran between cones, avoided fake blitzes, and threw post and curl routes. Watching on the sidelines was a horde of eager parents, many of whom had plunked down $600 for Clarkson’s four-day Air 7 program. “It’s a big commitment,” says Jay Tuttle, who drove his 11-year-old two hours to the Los Angeles high school field. “But Steve really pushes my son’s skill set.”

For others, it’s a bargain. In the past two decades, Clarkson has become the country’s premier youth quarterback guru. His list of former pupils includes Super Bowl champion Ben Roethlisberger. Joe Montana hired him to tutor his sons. Last year, University of Southern California head coach Lane Kiffin offered a scholarship to David Sills, a Clarkson pupil who has yet to start high school. Youth quarterback coaching also happens to be an avocation Clarkson more or less created and then transformed into a miniature fiefdom. In addition to his Sunday Air 7 camps, he charges up to $10,000 per month for private lessons. “What you’re seeing at the quarterback position, at earlier ages, is specialization,” says Josh Heupel, the co-offensive coordinator at the University of Oklahoma. And there are plenty of takers. “This has been good for Miller,” says Eric Moss, watching his 9-year-old from the sidelines, “whether he plays football in the future—or invades China.”

Clarkson has given rise to one of football’s most profitable gimmicks, and one of its few economic gushers during the National Football League’s lockout that ended on July 25. There are now hundreds of camps run by an array of entrepreneurs ranging from NFL royalty to lesser quarterbacking profiteers. The Mannings—Peyton, Eli, and paterfamilias Archie—host the Manning Passing Academy every summer in Louisiana. The less famous Johnsons—Rob (who played for the Buffalo Bills and Tampa Bay Buccaneers), Bret (a brief stint with the Atlanta Falcons), and their dad, Bob—operate Camp Quarterback in California. And then there’s former high school offensive coordinator Terry Copacia. His brainchild, Terry Copacia’s All-State Quarterback School, holds two-day clinics throughout the country for $189 per student, grades seven and up. Darin Slack, who played for the Division-II University of Central Florida, charges $545 for his three-day Quarterback Academy, more than the four-day Manning affair.

The prices are justified, aspiring youth football moguls insist, by the fact that the position can be taught in a way a 7-foot frame or 95-mile-per-hour fastball cannot. And even if the NFL is out of reach for most kids, private coaches can help them earn a college scholarship—or at least make their high school’s first string. Quarterbacks also happen to be a good commodity to trade in since, private coaches note, they’re more likely to come from comfortable backgrounds. “It’s not a race thing,” says Clarkson, an African American. “It’s the demands of position. You have to be a stable person, and you’ll find most quarterbacks come from stable, two-parent homes.” Coincidentally, two-parent homes are more likely to be able to afford expensive quarterback coaches.

Clarkson discovered these truths with his first client, Perry Klein. After a season backing up John Elway in Denver—followed by two more seasons in Canada—Clarkson believed his career was over by 1986. That year, however, his great-aunt forwarded him an advertisement from a father looking for someone to help his 15-year-old son switch to football from gymnastics. “We threw the ball around on the lawn, and I remember thinking, the kid is O.K. but a little slender,” recalls Clarkson. “Then walking to the car, I turned around, and Perry was doing back flips. You could tell he was a great athlete. A light bulb went off in my head: If I could teach this kid to be a quarterback, he might be something special.” Clarkson took the job and devised a program targeting footwork, an efficient throwing motion, and reading defenses. Klein eventually won a Los Angeles high school title and spent two seasons with the Falcons. Soon other parents came calling, including Montana. “Just because you’re a Hall of Famer doesn’t mean you’re going to be a great coach,” Clarkson says.

Youth Quarterback Camps Find a Profitable Seam

By Paul Wachter
This Week

August 1, 2011
Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think
Previous
Next
Related Items
NFL's Silent Stakeholders
BA-Iberia Tap U.S. Pickup to Outdo Air France-KLM, Lufthansa
Electronic Arts Must Face Ex-Athletes’ Antitrust Claims
The Rapture Profiteers
Air France, Lufthansa Drop on Results; Singapore Also Misses

 Happy Campers Clarkson: Mason Levinson/Bloomberg; Leinart: Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images; Brees: Steve Clarkson—NFL washout and youth football eminence—was standing among 100 or so prepubescent boys as they ran between cones, avoided fake blitzes, and threw post and curl routes. Watching on the sidelines was a horde of eager parents, many of whom had plunked down $600 for Clarkson’s four-day Air 7 program. “It’s a big commitment,” says Jay Tuttle, who drove his 11-year-old two hours to the Los Angeles high school field. “But Steve really pushes my son’s skill set.”

For others, it’s a bargain. In the past two decades, Clarkson has become the country’s premier youth quarterback guru. His list of former pupils includes Super Bowl champion Ben Roethlisberger. Joe Montana hired him to tutor his sons. Last year, University of Southern California head coach Lane Kiffin offered a scholarship to David Sills, a Clarkson pupil who has yet to start high school. Youth quarterback coaching also happens to be an avocation Clarkson more or less created and then transformed into a miniature fiefdom. In addition to his Sunday Air 7 camps, he charges up to $10,000 per month for private lessons. “What you’re seeing at the quarterback position, at earlier ages, is specialization,” says Josh Heupel, the co-offensive coordinator at the University of Oklahoma. And there are plenty of takers. “This has been good for Miller,” says Eric Moss, watching his 9-year-old from the sidelines, “whether he plays football in the future—or invades China.”

Clarkson has given rise to one of football’s most profitable gimmicks, and one of its few economic gushers during the National Football League’s lockout that ended on July 25. There are now hundreds of camps run by an array of entrepreneurs ranging from NFL royalty to lesser quarterbacking profiteers. The Mannings—Peyton, Eli, and paterfamilias Archie—host the Manning Passing Academy every summer in Louisiana. The less famous Johnsons—Rob (who played for the Buffalo Bills and Tampa Bay Buccaneers), Bret (a brief stint with the Atlanta Falcons), and their dad, Bob—operate Camp Quarterback in California. And then there’s former high school offensive coordinator Terry Copacia. His brainchild, Terry Copacia’s All-State Quarterback School, holds two-day clinics throughout the country for $189 per student, grades seven and up. Darin Slack, who played for the Division-II University of Central Florida, charges $545 for his three-day Quarterback Academy, more than the four-day Manning affair.

The prices are justified, aspiring youth football moguls insist, by the fact that the position can be taught in a way a 7-foot frame or 95-mile-per-hour fastball cannot. And even if the NFL is out of reach for most kids, private coaches can help them earn a college scholarship—or at least make their high school’s first string. Quarterbacks also happen to be a good commodity to trade in since, private coaches note, they’re more likely to come from comfortable backgrounds. “It’s not a race thing,” says Clarkson, an African American. “It’s the demands of position. You have to be a stable person, and you’ll find most quarterbacks come from stable, two-parent homes.” Coincidentally, two-parent homes are more likely to be able to afford expensive quarterback coaches.

Clarkson discovered these truths with his first client, Perry Klein. After a season backing up John Elway in Denver—followed by two more seasons in Canada—Clarkson believed his career was over by 1986. That year, however, his great-aunt forwarded him an advertisement from a father looking for someone to help his 15-year-old son switch to football from gymnastics. “We threw the ball around on the lawn, and I remember thinking, the kid is O.K. but a little slender,” recalls Clarkson. “Then walking to the car, I turned around, and Perry was doing back flips. You could tell he was a great athlete. A light bulb went off in my head: If I could teach this kid to be a quarterback, he might be something special.” Clarkson took the job and devised a program targeting footwork, an efficient throwing motion, and reading defenses. Klein eventually won a Los Angeles high school title and spent two seasons with the Falcons. Soon other parents came calling, including Montana. “Just because you’re a Hall of Famer doesn’t mean you’re going to be a great coach,” Clarkson says.

Open thread: Senate to vote on debt bill at 1 p.m., or maybe not

posted at 12:09 pm on July 31, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

They’re supposed to vote at 1 p.m., but according to Plouffe and another “Democrat familiar with the situation,” there’s still no bill. What’s the hold up? In all likelihood, they’re haggling over the “triggers” that’ll happen if the new Super Commission can’t agree on, or Congress won’t accept, new deficit reduction proposals later this year. Jen Rubin’s hearing the following from a Republican source on the Hill:

The second tranche works like this: If a new congressional commission introduces a plan totaling at least $1.5 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving and it’s passed by Christmas there are no across-the-board cuts. Or, if a balanced budget amendment is passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts are avoided. However, if there is no commission package passed AND the BBA is not passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion including Medicare and defense (the details of which aren’t final) go into effect. If the across-the board-cuts go into effect, the debt ceiling is only raised $1.2 trillion (likely insufficient to keep the government operating for long), meaning “we could do this all over again, depending on economic growth.” In other words, if we went to sequestration the total debt ceiling increase would be $2.1 trillion in two doses.

So there’s the BBA concession: Democrats can avoid new cuts in the second stage entirely if they pass the amendment. As for the automatic Medicare/Pentagon reductions, that’s obviously designed to make both sides in Congress think twice before rejecting the Super Commission’s recommendations. The precise formula for that is still being negotiated too. According to Jake Tapper, the White House wants fully 50 percent of the automatic cuts to affect the Pentagon and 50 percent to be spread across various other discretionary programs. GOP hawks won’t go for that, especially since the only alternative might be approving a Commission package that includes new revenues.

As I write this, the Senate has just begun its session and Reid is insisting that they’re “cautiously optimistic” about a deal but not there yet. Here’s your thread for tracking today’s drama. Exit question: How many Republican and Democratic votes will this bargain get in the House? Progressives are reportedly already murmuring about balking because of the lack of revenue in the deal, which means Boehner will need a majority of his previous Republican majority on yesterday’s vote to get this through. (Here’s one vote forecast.) I wonder if they’ll do it on the first try or, a la TARP, if it’ll take a market panic and subsequent re-vote to get it done. Stand by for updates.

Update: The post-deal spin starts before the deal is even struck:

“I don’t think we’ve been hurt at all,” McConnell said on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’.

“The American people wanted us to do something about out-of-control spending and … the debt ceiling is going to produce what many people would believe is a complete change in the trajectory of the federal government beginning to get spending under control,” said McConnell, who is likely to be largely responsible for any package that wins muster with Congress.

Update: John Bolton sounds the alarm for hawks:

Every indication is that the debt-ceiling negotiations are leaving the defense budget in grave jeopardy. By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the “trigger mechanism,” there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out.

While the trigger mechanism comes into play only if the Congressional negotiators fail to reach agreement on the second phase of spending cuts, it verges on catastrophe to take such a national security risk.

Defense has already taken hugely disproportionate cuts under President Obama, and there is simply no basis for expanding those cuts further. Republican negotiators must hold the line, since the Obama Administration plainly will no

Open thread: Senate to vote on debt bill at 1 p.m., or maybe not

posted at 12:09 pm on July 31, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

They’re supposed to vote at 1 p.m., but according to Plouffe and another “Democrat familiar with the situation,” there’s still no bill. What’s the hold up? In all likelihood, they’re haggling over the “triggers” that’ll happen if the new Super Commission can’t agree on, or Congress won’t accept, new deficit reduction proposals later this year. Jen Rubin’s hearing the following from a Republican source on the Hill:

The second tranche works like this: If a new congressional commission introduces a plan totaling at least $1.5 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving and it’s passed by Christmas there are no across-the-board cuts. Or, if a balanced budget amendment is passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts are avoided. However, if there is no commission package passed AND the BBA is not passed and sent to the states, then across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion including Medicare and defense (the details of which aren’t final) go into effect. If the across-the board-cuts go into effect, the debt ceiling is only raised $1.2 trillion (likely insufficient to keep the government operating for long), meaning “we could do this all over again, depending on economic growth.” In other words, if we went to sequestration the total debt ceiling increase would be $2.1 trillion in two doses.

So there’s the BBA concession: Democrats can avoid new cuts in the second stage entirely if they pass the amendment. As for the automatic Medicare/Pentagon reductions, that’s obviously designed to make both sides in Congress think twice before rejecting the Super Commission’s recommendations. The precise formula for that is still being negotiated too. According to Jake Tapper, the White House wants fully 50 percent of the automatic cuts to affect the Pentagon and 50 percent to be spread across various other discretionary programs. GOP hawks won’t go for that, especially since the only alternative might be approving a Commission package that includes new revenues.

As I write this, the Senate has just begun its session and Reid is insisting that they’re “cautiously optimistic” about a deal but not there yet. Here’s your thread for tracking today’s drama. Exit question: How many Republican and Democratic votes will this bargain get in the House? Progressives are reportedly already murmuring about balking because of the lack of revenue in the deal, which means Boehner will need a majority of his previous Republican majority on yesterday’s vote to get this through. (Here’s one vote forecast.) I wonder if they’ll do it on the first try or, a la TARP, if it’ll take a market panic and subsequent re-vote to get it done. Stand by for updates.

Update: The post-deal spin starts before the deal is even struck:

“I don’t think we’ve been hurt at all,” McConnell said on CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’.

“The American people wanted us to do something about out-of-control spending and … the debt ceiling is going to produce what many people would believe is a complete change in the trajectory of the federal government beginning to get spending under control,” said McConnell, who is likely to be largely responsible for any package that wins muster with Congress.

Update: John Bolton sounds the alarm for hawks:

Every indication is that the debt-ceiling negotiations are leaving the defense budget in grave jeopardy. By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the “trigger mechanism,” there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out.

While the trigger mechanism comes into play only if the Congressional negotiators fail to reach agreement on the second phase of spending cuts, it verges on catastrophe to take such a national security risk.

Defense has already taken hugely disproportionate cuts under President Obama, and there is simply no basis for expanding those cuts further. Republican negotiators must hold the line, since the Obama Administration plainly will no

Deal update: $2.4T in cuts and ceiling hikes — both in two parts

posted at 8:42 am on July 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

ABC reports this morning that Congressional leaders have already begun briefing their caucuses on the eleventh-hour deal that emerged from the White House last night. Jonathan Karl notes that the deal is contingent on getting enough support from each House caucus to form a majority, and in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. We’ll come back to that in a moment, but Karl also updates the story on the deal. The topline numbers are apparently $2.4 trillion in matching spending cuts and debt-ceiling raises instead of $2.8 trillion, but now both are split into two parts:

The current framework would give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling in two parts: roughly half of it now and the balance at the end of the year.

Each increase would be subject to a Congressional resolution of disapproval.

If Congress voted to disapprove that increase, however, the President could veto their disapproval.

The AP reported earlier on the $2.4 trillion number, too, although they say the cuts will be “slightly more” than the debt-ceiling boost. That’s still enough to get Barack Obama past the 2012 election, but not by much. It guarantees that the debt ceiling will be a 2012 election issue, although by now that was a given anyway.

However, the added McConnell wrinkle is interesting — and potentially a big win for Republicans. Essentially, Republicans get to claim credit for the cuts while laying blame for the debt increases on Obama. If they “disapprove,” Obama will veto the disapproval and end up owning all of the political baggage for the debt-ceiling increases. That’s a steep price to pay for Obama just to protect himself through the next election, although he could turn it on its ear and refuse to veto the second increase disapproval and force this fight all over again. That would, however, put the country back in “crisis” mode, and that would still be all on Obama.

This brings the deal closer to what I predicted yesterday; in fact, it almost matches it exactly. But can the leaders get the votes for it? If Obama endorses this deal, most Democrats will have no choice but to back it; after all, they have been doing the most Chicken Little screeching about the consequences of legislative failure. Boehner and McConnell will lose a significant number of Republicans, but both will probably hold a majority of their caucuses. I’d expect an agreement along these lines to pass quickly through Congress, maybe fast enough to avoid having to pass a $50 billion, two-week extension to gain time for the debate.

Update: Added “ceiling” to headline for more clarity.

Update II: McConnell tells CNN that they are “very close” to a deal. I’d interpret that to mean that they’re shopping the deal to the caucuses to make sure they can get the votes.

Deal update: $2.4T in cuts and ceiling hikes — both in two parts

posted at 8:42 am on July 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

ABC reports this morning that Congressional leaders have already begun briefing their caucuses on the eleventh-hour deal that emerged from the White House last night. Jonathan Karl notes that the deal is contingent on getting enough support from each House caucus to form a majority, and in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. We’ll come back to that in a moment, but Karl also updates the story on the deal. The topline numbers are apparently $2.4 trillion in matching spending cuts and debt-ceiling raises instead of $2.8 trillion, but now both are split into two parts:

The current framework would give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling in two parts: roughly half of it now and the balance at the end of the year.

Each increase would be subject to a Congressional resolution of disapproval.

If Congress voted to disapprove that increase, however, the President could veto their disapproval.

The AP reported earlier on the $2.4 trillion number, too, although they say the cuts will be “slightly more” than the debt-ceiling boost. That’s still enough to get Barack Obama past the 2012 election, but not by much. It guarantees that the debt ceiling will be a 2012 election issue, although by now that was a given anyway.

However, the added McConnell wrinkle is interesting — and potentially a big win for Republicans. Essentially, Republicans get to claim credit for the cuts while laying blame for the debt increases on Obama. If they “disapprove,” Obama will veto the disapproval and end up owning all of the political baggage for the debt-ceiling increases. That’s a steep price to pay for Obama just to protect himself through the next election, although he could turn it on its ear and refuse to veto the second increase disapproval and force this fight all over again. That would, however, put the country back in “crisis” mode, and that would still be all on Obama.

This brings the deal closer to what I predicted yesterday; in fact, it almost matches it exactly. But can the leaders get the votes for it? If Obama endorses this deal, most Democrats will have no choice but to back it; after all, they have been doing the most Chicken Little screeching about the consequences of legislative failure. Boehner and McConnell will lose a significant number of Republicans, but both will probably hold a majority of their caucuses. I’d expect an agreement along these lines to pass quickly through Congress, maybe fast enough to avoid having to pass a $50 billion, two-week extension to gain time for the debate.

Update: Added “ceiling” to headline for more clarity.

Update II: McConnell tells CNN that they are “very close” to a deal. I’d interpret that to mean that they’re shopping the deal to the caucuses to make sure they can get the votes.

Reid postpones vote to “give everyone as much room as possible” for deal; Update: $2.8T in cuts and debt-ceiling boost, no tax hike?

posted at 11:45 pm on July 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

The late breaking news from the nation’s capital tonight is that the late-breaking news from the capital early tomorrow morning has been postponed:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced shortly after 10 p.m. Sunday that he would postpone a vote on his bill to raise the debt limit to give negotiators at the White House more time to work.

He said the Senate would vote on his plan at 1:00 p.m. Sunday, instead of 1:00 a.m., as was originally scheduled. …

“I believe we should give everyone as much room as possible to do their work,” he said. “I spoke to the White House, quite a few times this evening, and they’ve asked me to give everyone as much time as possible to reach an agreement if one can be reached.”

The Senate adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Saturday and will reconvene at noon Sunday.

Translastion: The remarks by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell earlier today appear to have been accurate. CBS’ Mark Knoller had been tweeting earlier that Dan Pfeiffer was poo-pooing the notion that a deal was brewing, but that he has “covered WH long enough to know when pool kept late on Sat night something’s going on.” And as I predicted earlier tonight, the first stage may be a very short-term debt-limit increase to get time to finalize a deal:

If they get a tentative deal, Pres Obama will agree to short term extension of debt limit to allow time to enact deal.

If Obama told Reid to extend the vote for another 12 hours, then the White House must figure that they’re close to a deal.

Update: Jimmie Bise links to ABC, which reports the tentative parameters of the deal:
Debt ceiling increase of up to $2.8 trillion
Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion
Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment
Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion (or whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)
Committee must make recommendations before Thanksgiving recess
If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare.

So Obama gets all of the increase in one fell swoop, but no tax hikes, apparently, plus a total of $2.8 trillion in reductions for projected spending (none of the plans actually made cuts in spending) in areas guaranteed to hurt both parties. The vote on the BBA is a win for Boehner, but only in the sense that Republicans get Democrats on the record for opposing it. It’s a deal we could have reached two weeks ago, but were never going to reach until time ran out.

Update II: Via Jeff Dunetz, National Journal’s Major Garrett also gets a similar story from his sources, but the news is a little better:
2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.

I expect plenty of hyperventilating at the term “Super Committee,” but it’s basically the kind of ad hoc committee that Congress can authorize at any time. It sounds a lot like the BRAC process used by Congress to identify military bases for closure. The prohibition on net tax revenue gains is a big, big win for Republicans if it holds. I should note that Jimmie Bise in his post believes that the second round of cuts might be actual cuts; if so, then this is an even bigger win.

Note too that the second round of cuts appears to be guaranteed; if the Super Commission can’t agree on specific and precise reductions, then an across-the-board cut goes into place.

Update III: Jen Rubin hears the same deal from the offices of two “senior” Republicans on the Hill.

Reid postpones vote to “give everyone as much room as possible” for deal; Update: $2.8T in cuts and debt-ceiling boost, no tax hike?

posted at 11:45 pm on July 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

The late breaking news from the nation’s capital tonight is that the late-breaking news from the capital early tomorrow morning has been postponed:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced shortly after 10 p.m. Sunday that he would postpone a vote on his bill to raise the debt limit to give negotiators at the White House more time to work.

He said the Senate would vote on his plan at 1:00 p.m. Sunday, instead of 1:00 a.m., as was originally scheduled. …

“I believe we should give everyone as much room as possible to do their work,” he said. “I spoke to the White House, quite a few times this evening, and they’ve asked me to give everyone as much time as possible to reach an agreement if one can be reached.”

The Senate adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Saturday and will reconvene at noon Sunday.

Translastion: The remarks by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell earlier today appear to have been accurate. CBS’ Mark Knoller had been tweeting earlier that Dan Pfeiffer was poo-pooing the notion that a deal was brewing, but that he has “covered WH long enough to know when pool kept late on Sat night something’s going on.” And as I predicted earlier tonight, the first stage may be a very short-term debt-limit increase to get time to finalize a deal:

If they get a tentative deal, Pres Obama will agree to short term extension of debt limit to allow time to enact deal.

If Obama told Reid to extend the vote for another 12 hours, then the White House must figure that they’re close to a deal.

Update: Jimmie Bise links to ABC, which reports the tentative parameters of the deal:
Debt ceiling increase of up to $2.8 trillion
Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion
Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment
Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion (or whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)
Committee must make recommendations before Thanksgiving recess
If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare.

So Obama gets all of the increase in one fell swoop, but no tax hikes, apparently, plus a total of $2.8 trillion in reductions for projected spending (none of the plans actually made cuts in spending) in areas guaranteed to hurt both parties. The vote on the BBA is a win for Boehner, but only in the sense that Republicans get Democrats on the record for opposing it. It’s a deal we could have reached two weeks ago, but were never going to reach until time ran out.

Update II: Via Jeff Dunetz, National Journal’s Major Garrett also gets a similar story from his sources, but the news is a little better:
2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.

I expect plenty of hyperventilating at the term “Super Committee,” but it’s basically the kind of ad hoc committee that Congress can authorize at any time. It sounds a lot like the BRAC process used by Congress to identify military bases for closure. The prohibition on net tax revenue gains is a big, big win for Republicans if it holds. I should note that Jimmie Bise in his post believes that the second round of cuts might be actual cuts; if so, then this is an even bigger win.

Note too that the second round of cuts appears to be guaranteed; if the Super Commission can’t agree on specific and precise reductions, then an across-the-board cut goes into place.

Update III: Jen Rubin hears the same deal from the offices of two “senior” Republicans on the Hill.

Sixth Quarter of Gains for Yuan

The Chinese yuan posted the sixth straight quarterly gain on the speculation that China will allow the currency to appreciate faster in order to slow growth of consumer prices.

The People’s Bank of China increased the reference rate for the yuan to 6.4716 per dollar today, allowing the currency to fluctuate 0.5 percent in either side of the target. Li Daokui, the adviser to the central bank, explained the rise of prices in June by higher costs of agricultural products and pork. China Securities Journal said today, citing the State Information Center, the inflation is estimated to be 5.3 percent in the first half of 2011 and about 4.9 percent for the whole year.

USD/CNY traded at 6.4648 today as of 11:22 GMT, fluctuating near its opening rate of 6.4644, after rising as high as 6.4680 and falling as low as 6.4625.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Chinese Yuan, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the Chinese Yuan:
» Yuan Appreciates Above 6.5 vs. USD for a Short Time (2011-04-29)
» Chinese Yuan Appreciates with Other Asian Currencies (2011-04-02)
» China Allows Yuan Appreciate, Can It Do So? (2011-01-12)
» Yuan Rises Beyond 6.6 per Dollar as China Battles Inflation (2010-12-31)
» Can Yuan's Gains Be Limited by Demands for Slower Appreciation? (2010-12-29)

Sixth Quarter of Gains for Yuan

The Chinese yuan posted the sixth straight quarterly gain on the speculation that China will allow the currency to appreciate faster in order to slow growth of consumer prices.

The People’s Bank of China increased the reference rate for the yuan to 6.4716 per dollar today, allowing the currency to fluctuate 0.5 percent in either side of the target. Li Daokui, the adviser to the central bank, explained the rise of prices in June by higher costs of agricultural products and pork. China Securities Journal said today, citing the State Information Center, the inflation is estimated to be 5.3 percent in the first half of 2011 and about 4.9 percent for the whole year.

USD/CNY traded at 6.4648 today as of 11:22 GMT, fluctuating near its opening rate of 6.4644, after rising as high as 6.4680 and falling as low as 6.4625.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Chinese Yuan, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the Chinese Yuan:
» Yuan Appreciates Above 6.5 vs. USD for a Short Time (2011-04-29)
» Chinese Yuan Appreciates with Other Asian Currencies (2011-04-02)
» China Allows Yuan Appreciate, Can It Do So? (2011-01-12)
» Yuan Rises Beyond 6.6 per Dollar as China Battles Inflation (2010-12-31)
» Can Yuan's Gains Be Limited by Demands for Slower Appreciation? (2010-12-29)

Export & Import Prices Push Aussie Higher

The Australian dollar gained today versus the euro and the Japanese yen as the advance of import and export prices prompted the speculation that the central bank will raise interest rates.

Australian import prices rose 0.8 percent in the second quarter, while export prices increased by 6.0 percent. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index of regional shares climbed 1.1 percent. The positive economic data caused most market participants to bet that the next move of the Reserve Bank of Australia will be hike, not cut.

AUD/JPY climbed from 84.87 to 85.20, while EUR/AUD fell from 1.3302 to 1.3284 as of 8:35 GMT today.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Australian Dollar, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the Australian Dollar:
» Aussie Goes Lower as China's Manufacturing Slows (2011-07-21)
» AUD/USD Trades Higher After RBA Minutes (2011-07-19)
» Aussies Goes Down as Europe Hurts Risk Appetite (2011-07-18)
» AUD Fall with Stocks & Commodities on Concerns for Global Growth (2011-07-15)
» Aussie Heads Down on Europe Woes & China's Growth (2011-07-11)

Export & Import Prices Push Aussie Higher

The Australian dollar gained today versus the euro and the Japanese yen as the advance of import and export prices prompted the speculation that the central bank will raise interest rates.

Australian import prices rose 0.8 percent in the second quarter, while export prices increased by 6.0 percent. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index of regional shares climbed 1.1 percent. The positive economic data caused most market participants to bet that the next move of the Reserve Bank of Australia will be hike, not cut.

AUD/JPY climbed from 84.87 to 85.20, while EUR/AUD fell from 1.3302 to 1.3284 as of 8:35 GMT today.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions regarding the Australian Dollar, feel free to post them using the commentary form below.

Earlier News About the Australian Dollar:
» Aussie Goes Lower as China's Manufacturing Slows (2011-07-21)
» AUD/USD Trades Higher After RBA Minutes (2011-07-19)
» Aussies Goes Down as Europe Hurts Risk Appetite (2011-07-18)
» AUD Fall with Stocks & Commodities on Concerns for Global Growth (2011-07-15)
» Aussie Heads Down on Europe Woes & China's Growth (2011-07-11)

Open thread: Senate ready to table … everything? Update: McConnell not negotiating with Reid — yet; Update: Boehner’s bill defeated, 59-41; Update: Senate to vote on Reid’s bill?

posted at 8:00 pm on July 29, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

Scotty B might be off the hook. Over at the Examiner, Philip Klein hears that the Senate’s not only about to table Boehner’s bill, they’re about to table Reid’s bill. How come? Apparently it has to do with the CBO score: Reid’s plan ended up coming in lower than expected, just as Boehner’s bill did, so presumably he thinks it’s D.O.A. as is. (In fact, if you toss out Reid’s gimmicks, Boehner’s bill would save more money than his would.) Whether that’s true or just an excuse because he realizes the GOP has enough votes to filibuster, I assume this means Reid won’t bother offering his own bill at all. What he’ll do instead is meet with McConnell and Boehner tonight and come up with something that can get seven Republican votes, then file for cloture late — very late — this evening so that they’re on track for a final vote on Monday. But who knows? Things are chaotic right now. Turn on CSPAN 2 and watch the fun.

There’s already been one surprise since the House vote, in fact. From Cantor’s spokesman:

    House to vote on @SenatorReid ‘s Debt Ceiling bill tomorrow – will show not capable of passing.

They’re pushing that out now, of course, to warn Reid not to waste time by pushing his own bill. Maybe that’s why he’s supposedly ready to table his own plan. Stand by for updates. Possible RINO sightings to come!

Update: A cryptic tweet from Claire McCaskill:

    McConnell told Senator Reid at around 6pm that he will not negotiate with him. Sigh. Very Disappointing.

I think that means he won’t negotiate until Boehner’s bill is voted on. As for Reid’s own bill being tabled, Mark Knoller illuminates: “McConnell offered to let Reid vote on his deficit bill tonight. Reid agreed IF McConnell agrees to simple majority passage. Offer withdrawn.” So the GOP held out. Reid didn’t have the votes.

Update: Boehner’s bill is dead — but not on a party-line vote. It was 59/41, presumably because Senate tea partiers like DeMint and Rand Paul voted no. I’ll post the roll as soon as I have it.

Update: Another surprise: It looks like Reid wants a vote on his bill after all and is “filling the amendment tree” to make sure the GOP doesn’t try to add anything to it. But he doesn’t have the votes. Supposedly, he’s called a presser at 8:45 p.m. to whine about a GOP filibuster.

Update: McConnell’s offering to vote on Reid’s bill now but Reid won’t agree unless it’s a simple majority. He can’t get to 60. Republicans are holding the line (or at least 41 are).

Update: The six Republicans who voted against Boehner’s bill: DeMint, Lee, Paul, Vitter, and Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham, both of whom are in robust reelection-pander mode.

Open thread: Senate ready to table … everything? Update: McConnell not negotiating with Reid — yet; Update: Boehner’s bill defeated, 59-41; Update: Senate to vote on Reid’s bill?

posted at 8:00 pm on July 29, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

Scotty B might be off the hook. Over at the Examiner, Philip Klein hears that the Senate’s not only about to table Boehner’s bill, they’re about to table Reid’s bill. How come? Apparently it has to do with the CBO score: Reid’s plan ended up coming in lower than expected, just as Boehner’s bill did, so presumably he thinks it’s D.O.A. as is. (In fact, if you toss out Reid’s gimmicks, Boehner’s bill would save more money than his would.) Whether that’s true or just an excuse because he realizes the GOP has enough votes to filibuster, I assume this means Reid won’t bother offering his own bill at all. What he’ll do instead is meet with McConnell and Boehner tonight and come up with something that can get seven Republican votes, then file for cloture late — very late — this evening so that they’re on track for a final vote on Monday. But who knows? Things are chaotic right now. Turn on CSPAN 2 and watch the fun.

There’s already been one surprise since the House vote, in fact. From Cantor’s spokesman:

    House to vote on @SenatorReid ‘s Debt Ceiling bill tomorrow – will show not capable of passing.

They’re pushing that out now, of course, to warn Reid not to waste time by pushing his own bill. Maybe that’s why he’s supposedly ready to table his own plan. Stand by for updates. Possible RINO sightings to come!

Update: A cryptic tweet from Claire McCaskill:

    McConnell told Senator Reid at around 6pm that he will not negotiate with him. Sigh. Very Disappointing.

I think that means he won’t negotiate until Boehner’s bill is voted on. As for Reid’s own bill being tabled, Mark Knoller illuminates: “McConnell offered to let Reid vote on his deficit bill tonight. Reid agreed IF McConnell agrees to simple majority passage. Offer withdrawn.” So the GOP held out. Reid didn’t have the votes.

Update: Boehner’s bill is dead — but not on a party-line vote. It was 59/41, presumably because Senate tea partiers like DeMint and Rand Paul voted no. I’ll post the roll as soon as I have it.

Update: Another surprise: It looks like Reid wants a vote on his bill after all and is “filling the amendment tree” to make sure the GOP doesn’t try to add anything to it. But he doesn’t have the votes. Supposedly, he’s called a presser at 8:45 p.m. to whine about a GOP filibuster.

Update: McConnell’s offering to vote on Reid’s bill now but Reid won’t agree unless it’s a simple majority. He can’t get to 60. Republicans are holding the line (or at least 41 are).

Update: The six Republicans who voted against Boehner’s bill: DeMint, Lee, Paul, Vitter, and Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham, both of whom are in robust reelection-pander mode.

Open thread: Boehnerpalooza; Update: U.S. will probably stay AAA, says Moody’s; Update: “Put something on the table!”; Update: Bill passes, 218-210; Update: First compromise proposals emerge

posted at 5:25 pm on July 29, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

The vote’s set for 5:45 p.m. ET or shortly thereafter but the outcome’s a fait accompli. I agree with Ed that tacking on a balanced-budget amendment is mainly a face-saving gesture, but so what? The Senate was going to kill Boehner’s bill last night anyway. Adding a BBA and pushing it through preserves the “we passed two bills and you passed zip” talking point in case we hit the ceiling next week and a messaging war erupts. It’s basically Cut Cap and Balance lite (very lite!), and like Tina says, it may put Democrats on the defensive by forcing them to explain their entrenched resistance to the amendment. Although, if we really wanted to do that, the best way would be to borrow Jeff Flake’s fiendishly clever ploy to attach a BBA to Reid’s bill and have the House pass that. Let Obama explain why Reid’s plan in isolation is wonderful but Reid’s plan plus a balanced budget must be defeated at all costs.

For what it’s worth, I think Guy Benson’s spot on as to how this all shakes out:

    This is my best analysis, informed by a series of discussions with Capitol Hill staffers: Mitch McConnell will use any leverage he and Speaker Boehner have amassed (I’d argue that leverage has been slightly diminished, since Boehner had to resort to a gimmick to pass his own plan through the House) to strengthen and improve Reid’s bill as much as possible. In this final negotiation, Democrats’ top concern will be protecting the president by ensuring the final deal clears the debt ceiling decks until after 2012. For their part, Republicans will fight for the deepest cuts possible, and perhaps a guaranteed vote on a BBA in the Senate. The resulting deal will likely be unacceptable to some House Republicans — especially those who are, or were, “no’s” on the Boehner deal. It will still pass the House, however, because Pelosi will be instructed to release her caucus to give Boehner the votes he needs to cobble together a majority.

They’re almost certainly going to resolve the short-term/long-term sticking point with some version of McConnell’s old proposal to let Obama raise the ceiling unilaterally unless two-thirds of both chambers vote him down. (“Do House Republicans really want to do this again in six months?” wondered NBC this morning.) They also need to hash out some sort of trigger mechanism for the new debt commission so that the two sides stay at the table and produce an actual proposal. In exchange for that, presumably, Republicans will demand and receive more front-loaded cuts and some sort of protection for defense spending. Obama said just within the past hour that he’d accept a two-day raising of the debt ceiling to keep negotiations going, so if they can’t get all this hammered out this weekend, look for that bill to pass on Monday. The two sides are only $8 billion apart once you ignore Reid’s phony war “savings,” so there’s your starting point.

Here’s the CSPAN live feed in case you’re not near a TV. We may or may not have a separate open thread for tonight’s Senate votes depending upon how soon they happen. If not, stick with this post for updates. To whet your appetite, TPM reports that Senate Democrats are eyeing no fewer than 11 Republicans as possible yes votes on Reid’s bill:

    Right now, Democrats are looking to about 11 gettable GOP votes: Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Scott Brown (R-MA), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Tom Coburn (R-OK). The last three were the Republican members of the Gang of Six deficit reduction group.

I simply can’t believe they’d help him pass it after House Democrats made Boehner choke, but there’s your drama for the evening: Will the Senate GOP cave before a compromise is even reached? If it happens, it’ll be RINOgeddon.


Update: Now they tell us.

    Moody’s Investors Service said today it expects the U.S. will get to keep its Aaa credit rating, “albeit with a shift to a negative outlook,” provided Congress and the White House can work out a deal to avoid missing payments to U.S. bondholders.

    Moody’s launched a review of the U.S. credit rating on July 13, as the fight over how to raise the current $14.3 trillion federal borrowing limit was starting to heat up. Moody’s review will finish when the debt limit is extended “for more than a short period of time,” the company said. That line gives some ammunition to Democrats and President Barack Obama, who have said any debt deal should lift the borrowing cap through the end of 2012.

Advantage: Obama and Reid. The silver lining for Republicans is that Moody’s also said it only cares about payments related to the debt service when assessing “default.” Since Treasury will have plenty of revenue to cover that, default isn’t happening.

Update: Boehner’s unloading on President Present in his floor speech. “Put something on the table! Tell us where you are!”

Update: They’ve got until Monday to hammer out a deal, right? Wrong. According to The Hill, for procedural reasons the real deadline is … tomorrow.

Update: The deed is done, 218-210. Time to switch over to CSPAN 2 and watch Reid and the Democrats go to work. I’ll post the House roll as soon as it’s available.

Incidentally, this Hill article makes it sound like the Senate might not vote on Reid’s bill. The plan, apparently, is to hold a vote right away to table Boehner’s bill and then have Reid and McConnell huddle to produce a compromise bill. That bill will be presented for a cloture vote late tonight — if they can work out the details — so that things can move forward per proper procedure before we hit the ceiling.

Update: Via Fox reporter Chad Pergram, the 22 Republicans who voted no: Amash, Bachmann, Broun, Chaffetz, Cravaack, DesJarlais, Duncan (SC), Gowdy, Graves (GA), Huelskamp, Johnson (Ill), Jordan, King (IA), Latham, Mack (FL), McClintock, Mulvaney, Paul, Scott (SC), Southerland, Walsh, Wilson (SC).

Update: From Chuck Todd, nothing surprising here: “Reid is floating more cuts up front, a promise on a VOTE for a BBA and some stronger trigger to get Senate GOP xovers.”

Open thread: Boehnerpalooza; Update: U.S. will probably stay AAA, says Moody’s; Update: “Put something on the table!”; Update: Bill passes, 218-210; Update: First compromise proposals emerge

posted at 5:25 pm on July 29, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

The vote’s set for 5:45 p.m. ET or shortly thereafter but the outcome’s a fait accompli. I agree with Ed that tacking on a balanced-budget amendment is mainly a face-saving gesture, but so what? The Senate was going to kill Boehner’s bill last night anyway. Adding a BBA and pushing it through preserves the “we passed two bills and you passed zip” talking point in case we hit the ceiling next week and a messaging war erupts. It’s basically Cut Cap and Balance lite (very lite!), and like Tina says, it may put Democrats on the defensive by forcing them to explain their entrenched resistance to the amendment. Although, if we really wanted to do that, the best way would be to borrow Jeff Flake’s fiendishly clever ploy to attach a BBA to Reid’s bill and have the House pass that. Let Obama explain why Reid’s plan in isolation is wonderful but Reid’s plan plus a balanced budget must be defeated at all costs.

For what it’s worth, I think Guy Benson’s spot on as to how this all shakes out:

    This is my best analysis, informed by a series of discussions with Capitol Hill staffers: Mitch McConnell will use any leverage he and Speaker Boehner have amassed (I’d argue that leverage has been slightly diminished, since Boehner had to resort to a gimmick to pass his own plan through the House) to strengthen and improve Reid’s bill as much as possible. In this final negotiation, Democrats’ top concern will be protecting the president by ensuring the final deal clears the debt ceiling decks until after 2012. For their part, Republicans will fight for the deepest cuts possible, and perhaps a guaranteed vote on a BBA in the Senate. The resulting deal will likely be unacceptable to some House Republicans — especially those who are, or were, “no’s” on the Boehner deal. It will still pass the House, however, because Pelosi will be instructed to release her caucus to give Boehner the votes he needs to cobble together a majority.

They’re almost certainly going to resolve the short-term/long-term sticking point with some version of McConnell’s old proposal to let Obama raise the ceiling unilaterally unless two-thirds of both chambers vote him down. (“Do House Republicans really want to do this again in six months?” wondered NBC this morning.) They also need to hash out some sort of trigger mechanism for the new debt commission so that the two sides stay at the table and produce an actual proposal. In exchange for that, presumably, Republicans will demand and receive more front-loaded cuts and some sort of protection for defense spending. Obama said just within the past hour that he’d accept a two-day raising of the debt ceiling to keep negotiations going, so if they can’t get all this hammered out this weekend, look for that bill to pass on Monday. The two sides are only $8 billion apart once you ignore Reid’s phony war “savings,” so there’s your starting point.

Here’s the CSPAN live feed in case you’re not near a TV. We may or may not have a separate open thread for tonight’s Senate votes depending upon how soon they happen. If not, stick with this post for updates. To whet your appetite, TPM reports that Senate Democrats are eyeing no fewer than 11 Republicans as possible yes votes on Reid’s bill:

    Right now, Democrats are looking to about 11 gettable GOP votes: Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Scott Brown (R-MA), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Tom Coburn (R-OK). The last three were the Republican members of the Gang of Six deficit reduction group.

I simply can’t believe they’d help him pass it after House Democrats made Boehner choke, but there’s your drama for the evening: Will the Senate GOP cave before a compromise is even reached? If it happens, it’ll be RINOgeddon.


Update: Now they tell us.

    Moody’s Investors Service said today it expects the U.S. will get to keep its Aaa credit rating, “albeit with a shift to a negative outlook,” provided Congress and the White House can work out a deal to avoid missing payments to U.S. bondholders.

    Moody’s launched a review of the U.S. credit rating on July 13, as the fight over how to raise the current $14.3 trillion federal borrowing limit was starting to heat up. Moody’s review will finish when the debt limit is extended “for more than a short period of time,” the company said. That line gives some ammunition to Democrats and President Barack Obama, who have said any debt deal should lift the borrowing cap through the end of 2012.

Advantage: Obama and Reid. The silver lining for Republicans is that Moody’s also said it only cares about payments related to the debt service when assessing “default.” Since Treasury will have plenty of revenue to cover that, default isn’t happening.

Update: Boehner’s unloading on President Present in his floor speech. “Put something on the table! Tell us where you are!”

Update: They’ve got until Monday to hammer out a deal, right? Wrong. According to The Hill, for procedural reasons the real deadline is … tomorrow.

Update: The deed is done, 218-210. Time to switch over to CSPAN 2 and watch Reid and the Democrats go to work. I’ll post the House roll as soon as it’s available.

Incidentally, this Hill article makes it sound like the Senate might not vote on Reid’s bill. The plan, apparently, is to hold a vote right away to table Boehner’s bill and then have Reid and McConnell huddle to produce a compromise bill. That bill will be presented for a cloture vote late tonight — if they can work out the details — so that things can move forward per proper procedure before we hit the ceiling.

Update: Via Fox reporter Chad Pergram, the 22 Republicans who voted no: Amash, Bachmann, Broun, Chaffetz, Cravaack, DesJarlais, Duncan (SC), Gowdy, Graves (GA), Huelskamp, Johnson (Ill), Jordan, King (IA), Latham, Mack (FL), McClintock, Mulvaney, Paul, Scott (SC), Southerland, Walsh, Wilson (SC).

Update: From Chuck Todd, nothing surprising here: “Reid is floating more cuts up front, a promise on a VOTE for a BBA and some stronger trigger to get Senate GOP xovers.”

Medical-device manufacturer to lay off 1400 …

posted at 2:05 pm on July 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

In March 2010, Nancy Pelosi warned us that we had to pass ObamaCare to “find out what’s in it.”  What is in it is jobs for China.  What’s not in it is jobs for Americans, as the Boston Globe reports today (via NewsAlert):

    Boston Scientific Corp. said yesterday that it plans to eliminate 1,200 to 1,400 jobs worldwide during the next 2 1/2 years to free money for new investments, the Natick medical device maker’s second major round of cuts since last year.

    The company would not say how many jobs will be lost in Massachusetts, where fewer than 2,000 of its 25,000 employees are based. In February 2010, Boston Scientific said it would pare 1,300 jobs worldwide, but similarly did not say where.

    Yesterday’s move, a day after Boston Scientific disclosed it was investing $150 million and hiring 1,000 people in China, raised fears that the company will gradually shift more work to foreign sites with less government oversight and lower costs than the United States.

Massachusetts state Senator James Elridge (D-Acton) reacted … predictably:

    “My sense is, sadly, that like many other American companies, they are shedding jobs in Massachusetts and adding jobs overseas,’’ Eldridge said. “And this is a company making greater profits, so it’s even more outrageous.’’

Yes, that’s what happens when the American government makes it more expensive to do business in the US.  And that’s exactly what ObamaCare did, especially with medical-device manufacturers like Boston Scientific.  Fourteen months ago, those manufacturers warned that they would have to cut costs in the US as a consequence of the new taxes imposed on their sales:

    Massachusetts medical-device companies say they’ll cut back on operational costs – and jobs – after a planned 2.3 percent tax on their products is implemented in 2013, according to a new survey.

    The Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council, which held its annual meeting yesterday in Boston, said about 90 percent of the 100 medical-device firms said they would reduce costs due to the new tax tucked into the recently passed health-care reform bill.

It’s not as if Boston Scientific didn’t try to warn people about the problem, either.  Less than two weeks ago, they joined hundreds of other medical-device manufacturers to plead for a repeal of the tax:

    More than 420 companies including Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical and Stryker signed on to a letter asking the U.S. Congress to repeal a planned 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices. The tax could cost $20 billion a year and is set to take effect in 2013 as part of broad health care reform package passed last year.

    “The tax is already having an adverse impact on R&D investment and job creation, jeopardizing the U.S. global leadership position in medical device innovation,” said the letter.

    “If this tax is not repealed, it will continue to force affected companies to consider cutting manufacturing operations, research and development, and employment levels to recoup the lost earnings due to the tax,” it said. “It will also adversely impact patient access to new and innovative medical technologies,” it added.

    “The medical device excise tax is a serious burden for companies struggling to maintain America’s global leadership in the development of medical technology,” said Stephen J. Ubl, president and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), a medtech lobbying group that drafted the letter.

The tax wasn’t the only problem in the bill, either, as I wrote at the time:

    Taxes on companies aren’t ultimately paid by business entities.  They get paid by the consumer in the long run.  In order to save costs, these device manufacturers will either have to lay off employees or cut back on innovative research — and likely both.  The end result will be higher prices, lower support, and less innovation to meet medical needs of consumers.

    That’s not the only problem facing the industry, either.  They now have to provide an accounting for their marketing efforts among physicians, thanks to a new “sunshine bill” that requires full disclosure of any marketing directed at physicians.  That will escalate internal costs, putting even more pressure on device makers to cut elsewhere or raise prices, or both.

The jobs will move overseas mainly to meet demand overseas.  But we could have kept the jobs and sales here, had it not been for the increasing regulatory and tax policies of the Obama administration, starting with — but hardly ending with — ObamaCare.

Update: I changed the headline, because as TNeloms points out in the comments, not all of the closed jobs are in the US.  However, given the reaction of Democrats in Massachusetts, it’s looking like a good chunk of them will be.

Medical-device manufacturer to lay off 1400 …

posted at 2:05 pm on July 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

In March 2010, Nancy Pelosi warned us that we had to pass ObamaCare to “find out what’s in it.”  What is in it is jobs for China.  What’s not in it is jobs for Americans, as the Boston Globe reports today (via NewsAlert):

    Boston Scientific Corp. said yesterday that it plans to eliminate 1,200 to 1,400 jobs worldwide during the next 2 1/2 years to free money for new investments, the Natick medical device maker’s second major round of cuts since last year.

    The company would not say how many jobs will be lost in Massachusetts, where fewer than 2,000 of its 25,000 employees are based. In February 2010, Boston Scientific said it would pare 1,300 jobs worldwide, but similarly did not say where.

    Yesterday’s move, a day after Boston Scientific disclosed it was investing $150 million and hiring 1,000 people in China, raised fears that the company will gradually shift more work to foreign sites with less government oversight and lower costs than the United States.

Massachusetts state Senator James Elridge (D-Acton) reacted … predictably:

    “My sense is, sadly, that like many other American companies, they are shedding jobs in Massachusetts and adding jobs overseas,’’ Eldridge said. “And this is a company making greater profits, so it’s even more outrageous.’’

Yes, that’s what happens when the American government makes it more expensive to do business in the US.  And that’s exactly what ObamaCare did, especially with medical-device manufacturers like Boston Scientific.  Fourteen months ago, those manufacturers warned that they would have to cut costs in the US as a consequence of the new taxes imposed on their sales:

    Massachusetts medical-device companies say they’ll cut back on operational costs – and jobs – after a planned 2.3 percent tax on their products is implemented in 2013, according to a new survey.

    The Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council, which held its annual meeting yesterday in Boston, said about 90 percent of the 100 medical-device firms said they would reduce costs due to the new tax tucked into the recently passed health-care reform bill.

It’s not as if Boston Scientific didn’t try to warn people about the problem, either.  Less than two weeks ago, they joined hundreds of other medical-device manufacturers to plead for a repeal of the tax:

    More than 420 companies including Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical and Stryker signed on to a letter asking the U.S. Congress to repeal a planned 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices. The tax could cost $20 billion a year and is set to take effect in 2013 as part of broad health care reform package passed last year.

    “The tax is already having an adverse impact on R&D investment and job creation, jeopardizing the U.S. global leadership position in medical device innovation,” said the letter.

    “If this tax is not repealed, it will continue to force affected companies to consider cutting manufacturing operations, research and development, and employment levels to recoup the lost earnings due to the tax,” it said. “It will also adversely impact patient access to new and innovative medical technologies,” it added.

    “The medical device excise tax is a serious burden for companies struggling to maintain America’s global leadership in the development of medical technology,” said Stephen J. Ubl, president and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), a medtech lobbying group that drafted the letter.

The tax wasn’t the only problem in the bill, either, as I wrote at the time:

    Taxes on companies aren’t ultimately paid by business entities.  They get paid by the consumer in the long run.  In order to save costs, these device manufacturers will either have to lay off employees or cut back on innovative research — and likely both.  The end result will be higher prices, lower support, and less innovation to meet medical needs of consumers.

    That’s not the only problem facing the industry, either.  They now have to provide an accounting for their marketing efforts among physicians, thanks to a new “sunshine bill” that requires full disclosure of any marketing directed at physicians.  That will escalate internal costs, putting even more pressure on device makers to cut elsewhere or raise prices, or both.

The jobs will move overseas mainly to meet demand overseas.  But we could have kept the jobs and sales here, had it not been for the increasing regulatory and tax policies of the Obama administration, starting with — but hardly ending with — ObamaCare.

Update: I changed the headline, because as TNeloms points out in the comments, not all of the closed jobs are in the US.  However, given the reaction of Democrats in Massachusetts, it’s looking like a good chunk of them will be.

Allen West: Not going to get involved in Tea Party “schizophrenia”

posted at 1:25 pm on July 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Matt Lewis says, “When Laura Ingraham and Rep. Allen West are calling out the Tea Party, you know something’s up[.]” As it turns out, some of the Tea Party attack on Allen West turned out to be a misunderstanding, but West takes the opportunity to support John Boehner and remind people that Harry Reid’s plan cuts defense spending. Laura Ingraham pledges her support to West as she scolds some conservatives for attacking West for attempting the possible:



As I said on the air yesterday in an interview, any definition of “fiscal conservative” that doesn’t include Paul Ryan and Allen West is one that I can’t recognize. West defends himself and the Republican caucus well enough, so I don’t need to recap it, but West has a point when he asks what he’s voting for if people demand that he vote against Boehner 1.1.

Besides, the entire notion that the Tea Party Nation would push for a primary against West is based on a faulty media report. Judson Phillips, its founder and CEO, repudiated that notion entirely in a statement later in the morning:

    Setting the Record Straight

    There is a story in The Hill that a group of Tea Party organizations is threatening a primary challenge against a number of Freshmen Congressmen including Allen West. This story says a press release has been issued with Tea Party Nation supporting an effort to push a primary challenge against Allen West.

    Tea Party Nation has NEVER said we want to see a primary challenge against Allen West. West has been a staunch Tea Party supporter and though we strongly disagree with his support of the really terrible John Boehner plan, West has been an overwhelmingly good Congressman and we would be hard pressed to find someone better.

    The group that put this press release out used Tea Party Nation’s name without our permission. No one at TPN was shown this press release in advance. Had we been shown that press release, we would have vetoed the use of our name.

    We still call for a primary challenge to John Boehner and there maybe some Republicans who deserve a primary challenge, but Allen West is not one of those.

    To be absolutely clear, neither Tea Party Nation, nor Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips support this effort.

    We specifically repudiate it.

Not that there is anything wrong with primary challenges anyway, of course. That’s a perfectly legitimate way to push for policy goals, and the Tea Party in general made good use of them in 2010. However, targeting Allen West of all people for being insufficiently conservative would have been a fast track to irrelevancy, and Phillips certainly understands that.