The New York Times:
A bill to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines: 10 Democrats voted yes, eight Republicans voted no. A bill to require background checks on buyers in all gun sales, including from private sellers: 10 Democrats voted yes, eight Republicans voted no. A bill to stop illegal trafficking of firearms: 10 Democrats and one Republican voted yes, seven Republicans voted no.
Many Republicans claim to share the national concern over unabated violence, but, as the committee hearings showed, whenever there is an opportunity to do something about it, they find a way to object. [...] Many Republicans say they support the background check requirement, but they are demanding that no records be kept of whether the checks take place, which would render the bill unenforceable.
Given the certainty that Republicans will filibuster these bills on the floor, it could be very difficult to get the 60 votes necessary to give them an up-or-down vote. (The assault weapons ban may not even muster a simple majority in the face of the gun lobby’s furious opposition.)
For more analysis, head below the fold.
The Washington Post's Greg Sargent looks at why compromise with Republicans is impossible:
...Senate Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee cast a vote that underscores the genuine nature of the differences between Republicans and Democrats on taxes in a fresh way. They voted unanimously against an amendment — to the Dem budget — that would seek to close loopholes that enable profitable corporations to pay nothing in taxes.
Citizens For Tax Justice has found that as of last spring, over two dozen major corporations “remained in the no-federal-income-tax category over the 2008-2011 period.”
The good news is that the amendment passed the committee with all Dems voting for it, though its future in the Senate budget legislation is anything but assured. The noteworthy point is that every Republican on the committee voted against it.
Dems on the committee are taking this vote as a sign that there is literally no proposal to bring in new revenues that most Republicans are willing to support, no matter how sensible or fair minded.
David Rothkopf at CNN:
The budget is important. Cutting our deficits matters. But in a country in which corporate profits and the stock market are at record highs but in which jobs are being created far too slowly and median incomes are sagging, we have far more basic issues to grapple with.
The United States is like a business whose model for making revenue is failing, trying to save itself by cutting down on travel expenditures and the cost of making photocopies. Sure, we shouldn't overspend. But if we don't figure out what business we're in -- what new industries will create tomorrow's jobs, what kind of new workers we'll need, what kind of infrastructure we must have to be competitive and attract investment -- our deficit problems will seem minor compared with our social and political concerns.
Our most important national discussion should not be about spending but about investment. We need to recognize that some federal programs help grow the economy and weigh the return on investment we will get from these and which are essential to growing the new industries that will be the employers of tomorrow ... and will provide the growth that is the only real solution to our debt issues.
Jeff Greenfield on the Iraq War:
Next Tuesday, March 19, marks the 10th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq; a war propelled by the assertion that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction that threatened the U.S. [...] If you’re looking for false information flowing from the highest levels of government about Iraq, there’s certainly no shortage of examples. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld repeatedly asserted that there was “no doubt” Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction; Rumsfeld went so far as to suggest where the weapons were.
But I’m not sure that “lying” is the most dangerous attribute of leadership. When it comes to genuinely awful consequences, my vote is squarely with “delusion”—an honestly held belief based on misapprehension, ignorance, or willful blindness.
Greg Mitchell at
The Nation:
For the past few days I’ve been spotlighting the high media crimes and misdemeanors committed in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, almost exactly ten years ago, featuring “treasured” journos such as David Brooks and Bob Woodward or even newspapers as a whole (The Washington Post). But it’s The New York Times and Judith Miller, among others, who will truly live in infamy—partly because of the paper’s outsized (perceived) influence.
The Star-Ledger editorial board looks at Jed Bush's immigration stumble:
Here’s what Jeb Bush gets wrong about immigration: Without a path to citizenship, 11 million undocumented people in the United States would be suspended in a legal limbo, with no way to join the American mainstream. It would create a shadow class, totally at odds with American values.
It’s a losing proposition, for them and for us. We need them to be engaged as taxpayers and as residents who feel they have a stake in their adopted land.