A week ago, Scott Scolnick at Capital Climate reported that November was the hottest on record. As Joe Romm at Climate Progress notes: The 2010 "meteological year" (December-November) was also the hottest on record, and the calendar year is likely to be the same.

As they have for every month in 2010 except January and February, U.S. daily maximum temperature records far exceeded minimum records in November. Thanks to a cold surge in the last week of the month, the ratio of heat records to cold records declined to 1.8:1, but the ratio of 2.7:1 for the year to date is still well above that of the most recent decade. Heat records dominated cold records by a wide margin for most of the month, reaching a peak of 126 on the 23rd. Daily cold records, on the other hand, peaked at 90 on the 25th.

Meanwhile, according to the Globe and Mail's Shawn McCarthy:

• • • • •

^{See boatsie's diary, Why the climate summits aren't working.}

• • • • •

At Daily Kos on this date in 2007:

This evening's Rescue Rangers are Louisiana 1976 and grog with shayera editing.

• boatsie presents Ground Zero in the climate wars by telling us about bangladesh & COP16: "real people don't live underwater". (Louisiana 1976)
• What does Malcolm X's description of "the field negro" and modern Republican economic theory have in common? Benintn connects a few remarkable dots in I don't need a tax cut. I need a pay raise. (grog)
• In a thoughtful, thought-provoking piece, Elisa Massimino HRF tels us about the issues involved in WikiLeaks and Internet Freedom. (Louisiana 1976)
• Mentarch has invented and defines using examples such as WikiLeaks Crimedicking - A New Term For The 21st Century Lexicon. (Louisiana 1976)
• With much detail Michael E. Busch tells us how it's been the GOP's week in Republicans Carpe Themselves Some Diem. (Louisiana 1976)
• randomfacts describes the Two Kinds of Inflation in an informative essay. (Louisiana 1976)
• In Indians 101: The Indian Reorganization Act, Ojibwa describes a paternalistic, federal system that was, nonetheless, a radical change for many Native American tribes. (grog)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: December 9, 2010

va dare has Top Comments 12.10.10 The Liberation of Virginia Dare (Redux).

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread.

Sen. Bernie Sanders deserves mad props for spending a long, long day "reminding the world that lack of jobs and declining incomes are bad things." Here's how he began:

"I am simply here today to take as long as I can to explain to the American people the fact that we have got to do a lot better than this agreement provides."

Which he proceeded to do throughout the day, eloquently speaking about the vast income inequality in America today. He was joined in the first half of his 8.5 hour day by Sens. Sherrod Brown and Mary Landrieu:

Crooks and Liars captured a few of the highlights. Here he is describing how many children in the United States live in poverty as opposed ot the rest of the industrialized world.

And this is a good one: "Addressing usury, banking issues and credit card companies in particular, Sanders calls them 'loan sharks and extortionists, no different than gangsters.'"

Thanks for saying, Sen. Sanders.

From leaked e-mails obtained by Media Matters, we now know FOX News was pushing GOP talking points on health reform, specifically not using the term "public option," but calling it the "government" option, or a "government-run program."

Now we know that "credit" for the terminology goes to AHIP, the health insurers with whom the White House and Sen. Max Baucus were negotiating the bill.

[T]he linguistic shift first emerged in February in research provided the GOP by the health insurance industry group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

AHIP focus groups from late February (whose findings appear in this document, provided by the former aide) found that voters like the idea of a "public" plan, and that the most negative term is a "government-run health insurance plan."

A round of polling from AHIP in February and March confirmed that argument. "It is clear the most negative language to use when describing a 'public plan' is 'a government-run health insurance plan,'" reads a presentation the group distributed, starting in March, to allies, Republican staff and opinion leaders and to conservative media, according to the former aide.

Igor Volsky explains why this is a big deal, just in case you don't think that the corporate lobbyist/broadcast media/political party collusion in policy making is a problem.

This is fairly significant because it once again reaffirms the existence of a messaging pipeline which stretches from the industry to the lobbyist to the lawmaker and to Fox — and not necessarily in that order. The effectiveness of this communication system was on full display during the health care debate, when Republicans went to the floor and literally read from the industry-sponsored critique of the health law and then again echoed their arguments about the causes of premium increases after the law passed. None of this happened through some coincidence or a meeting of the minds. More likely than not, Republicans and their friends in the media were reading from talking points they received directly from the industry....

In his book Deadly Spin, Wendell Potter explains how this process works through the help of public relations firms and a mass distribution of information to friendly news outlets (read: Fox News) and conservative think tanks who then place favorable editorials in the country’s leading newspapers. This example deserves a prime spot in the book’s second edition, which, with some more investigative work, could contain whole treasure trove of anti-reform phrases and talking points that originated with AHIP.

With a fix like that in, that and the "understanding" the White House had with health lobbyists that the public option would not be included in the final bill, it's a testament to grassroots organizing on the left that the proposal had traction for as long as it did.

[bumped - Barbara Morrill]

We are just days away from opening up DK4 -- the new version of the site -- to a public beta that everyone will be able to access. We finally got our brand-spanking new servers in, and the tech team is busy moving everything over to its final home before you guys can go in en masse and break things some more.

But reading through this thread, it's clear that people are apprehensive about the big changes. So let me give you guys some background about why changes are being made.

I've got some lengthy explanations and thoughts below the fold.

This is one of the most confusing news stories over the tax cut deal that's been written. If I'm reading it correctly, House Dems have taken their frustration over being shut out of the tax cut deal negotiations and generally dictated to by the administration over it by inserting a prohibition of funding for shutting down Guanatanamo and holding civilian trials for its detainees into the continuing resolution they passed this week.

Incensed over President Obama’s tax compromise, House Democratic leaders are showing signs of abandoning the administration and going their own way on critical issues such as national security.

In a striking move, the appropriations committee late Wednesday attached a provision to a $1.1 trillion resolution to keep the government funded next year that would prevent Obama from spending any funds to try terrorism suspects in civilian court instead of military commissions.

The language would essentially prevent the closing of the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay.

That's what the article says, but in fact it makes no sense. While the majority of the Dem caucus is truly and vehemently opposed to the deal, a good chunk of the caucus--and particularly the progressives who are most opposed to the deal--is also supportive of closing Guantanamo and of upholding due process and holding civilian trials for detainees rather than relying on a military commissions process which still has not been fixed from the Bush era. Which makes this paragraph in the story make more sense:

Most Democrats didn’t know the provision was included in the continuing resolution until the rule for the bill hit the floor, when liberal members began defecting in large numbers. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), a leading voice on national security issues, and the four top Democrats on the Judiciary Committee found out during the vote on the rule, Moran said.

So what this is really a story about is either incompetence in leadership, or they made a stupid deal with Blue Dogs who've been fighting the closing of Guantanamo about which they didn't inform the rest of the caucus. That this was a Lame Blue Dog effort seems most likely, but it doesn't absolve leadership for letting it happen.

However it came about, it's a travesty. Imagine Dems drawing a line in the sand on one issue to the right of the administration on civil liberties. That's inexcusable and Senate leaders should cede to Attorney General Holder's demand that the the provision be removed from the continuing resolution.

What's coming up on Sunday Kos ....

• Mark Sumner will look at why WikiLeaks isn't the comet of a coming war -- it's a battle already underway.
• brooklynbadboy will argue that President Obama's style of governance isn't ideological or pragmatic, but something else entirely.
• Laurence Lewis will explain that the new Obama tax cuts are a tacit acknowledgement that the economy is a disaster.
• Dante Atkins will examine a source of progressive discontent on a larger scale: the failure to end the Bush interregnum.
• As ugly as the 2010 election cycle was for Democrats, there is at least an inch or two of silver lining amid the dark clouds. Steve Singiser will look at three examples of potentially positive consequences that emerged from the recently concluded midterms.
• The president has said he is “itching” for a fight with Republicans in the next two years. Kaili Joy Gray will discuss what that fight might look like -- and whether it might be too late.

New York Times:

Obama Weighs a Broad Tax Overhaul

WASHINGTON — President Obama is considering whether to push early next year for an overhaul of the income tax code to lower rates and raise revenues in what would be his first major effort to begin addressing the long-term growth of the national debt.

While administration officials cautioned on Thursday that no decisions have been made and that any debate in Congress could take years, Mr. Obama has directed his economic team and Treasury Department analysts to review options for closing loopholes and simplifying income taxes for corporations and individuals, though the study of the corporate tax system is farther along, officials said.

The objective is to rid the code of its complex buildup of deductions, credits and exemptions, thereby broadening the base of taxes collected and allowing for lower rates — much like a bipartisan majority on Mr. Obama’s debt-reduction commission recommended last week in its final blueprint for reducing the debt through 2020.

Doing so would offer not only an opportunity to begin confronting the growth in the national debt but also a way to address warnings by American business that corporate tax rates and the costs of complying with the tax code are cutting into their global competitiveness.

Mr. Obama signaled his inclination in off-the-cuff remarks on Wednesday as he was defending the tax cuts deal negotiated with Congressional Republicans this week. “We’ve got to have tax reform,” he said.

Color me skeptical. Why? Because this is a convenient way to deflect the argument that the tax cut deal currently on the table will effectively make Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. Instead of explaining why next time will be different, those making the case for the deal can point to tax code reform as the way to end the Bush tax policy.

Even if the White House is serious about an overhaul, the only sort of reform plan Republicans would agree to is one that continues the basic shape of Bush tax policy. Paul Ryan made that perfectly clear in rejecting the deficit commission plan.

The only leverage the White House will have is if they make it clear that returning to Clinton-era tax rates would be an acceptable outcome two years from now. But as long as they rule out the possibility of returning to Clinton tax policy, as long as they continue to argue that Bush tax policy is superior to Clinton tax policy, Bush tax policy is exactly what we're going to get.

MSNBC.com:

At Obama's side, Clinton backs tax deal

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton made a surprise appearance at President Barack Obama's side on Friday to back the tax cut compromise Obama negotiated with Republicans.

"I don't believe there is a better deal out there," Clinton told reporters in the White House briefing room who'd been summoned at a moment's notice to see the former chief executive back the current one. Clinton and Obama had just finished a private meeting in the Oval Office.

Obama said it was a "terrific meeting" and then turned the podium over to Clinton.

The voluble former president took it away, and Obama left part-way through his remarks, saying he had holiday parties to attend.

"Both sides are going to have to eat some things they don't like," Clinton told reporters. "We don't want to slip back into a recession. We've got to keep this thing going and accelerate its pace. I think this is the best available option."

Implicitly ruling out a return to the tax policy that he enacted in 1993, President Clinton argued that delaying a deal to extend Bush tax cuts would only strengthen the Republican position.

Update: Full transcript below the fold.

Most American states have been reeling in this great recession, cutting not just meat out of their budgets, but bone. In some states that means cruel, draconian measure. That would include Arizona, which decided to impose new death panels by slashing Medicaid funding for life-saving transplants. But states are having to take drastic measures, like closing firehouses, cutting cops, and laying off teachers.

Congress has been able to make some bad deals to keep aid flowing, like last summer's deal to cut food assistance programs in order to extend critical funding for Medicaid and other state aid. Apparently we're at a place in America where you have to make choices--keeping people employed and with basics of health care, or helping them buy food.

Almost all of the states have constitutionally mandated balanced budgets, unable to run deficits. In recessions, declining revenues mean states have to make cuts--they can't borrow against the future. Recessions and high unemployment also bring greater demand, particularly more people being forced on to Medicaid because of job loss. So the states lay off state workers, demand decreases because these people have less to spend, and more private sector lay-offs result.

It's a vicious cycle that isn't going to stop any time soon, apparently. With continuation state aid missing from the tax cut deal, states are bracing for the end of any kind of help.

And the situation at the state level is about to get worse. "We think that states may be facing their most difficult year yet in 2012," said Phil Oliff, a policy analyst for CBPP. That is because nearly all the aid authorized by Congress will have run out by June 2011, when states are setting their fiscal 2012 budgets. Meanwhile, state revenues have started to recover modestly, but remain well below 2008 levels. Projections are tentative at this point, but CBPP foresees a total shortfall of about $140 billion at the state level in 2012.

With federal aid running out, reserves fully tapped, and many revenue-boosting options already explored, public sector job losses are likely not just to continue but to "accelerate," said Chris Whatley, deputy executive director of The Council of State Governments. "You’re going to see states cutting to the bone."

Further federal aid to states could soften those cuts. It would also, according to leading economic models, be among the most stimulative ways for the federal government to spend money: the Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that compared to other parts of the Recovery Act, non-infrastructure aid to states did almost as much to boost the overall economy as payments to individuals like unemployment insurance, and more than any class of tax cuts.

"We’re talking about how many jobs this creates, and what the economic impact is, but for whatever reason, we’ve decided to leave the most effective arrows in our quiver," said Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at the Center for American Progress.

Despite the logic of further state aid, and the apparent opportunity created by the tax cut talks, the topic seems to have been nearly absent from the recent negotiations. Representatives for state governments said leaders in Congress had already made it clear that they had no appetite for extending the major spending provisions of the Recovery Act — and that states, having gotten the message, had mostly stopped asking.

"The prospects of getting any more [Medicaid] or education jobs funding is about nil," said Whatley. "There is a clear aversion ... to fund anything that squawks like the stimulus." Michael Bird, federal affairs counsel for the National Conference of State Legislatures, said he had received the same message. After the August jobs bill, "we were told, this is going to be it," he said....

If further spending is out, one of the tax measures in the deal may actually worsen the revenue situation for some states. The package includes a provision, first sought by the White House in September, that will allow businesses to deduct 100 percent of the cost of new investments from their tax liabilities upfront, rather than depreciating them over their lifespan....

But it could hurt state budgets now, too. That’s because in about half the country, taxable income for state purposes is defined as whatever way the federal government defines it; a federal deduction automatically becomes a state deduction. In much of the rest of the country, that conformity isn’t automatic, but it is routine. A CBPP paper last month warned that because of these linkages, a similar proposal could cost states $20 billion in revenue between 2011 and 2013 — and while states would also recoup most of those funds over the next decade, unlike the federal government, states cannot run deficits in the meantime.

"The additional state revenue losses resulting from the proposal would make it necessary for states to enact additional budget cuts or tax increases, which would reduce the proposal’s overall stimulative effect," the organization wrote.

Economists all over the map agree that tax cut stimulus doesn't stack up with direct spending stimulus in terms of bang for the buck. There will be some stimulative effect from this tax deal, largely from the extension of unemployment benefits, but the deal is largely the less effective tax-cut stimulus.

There's serious question as to whether that stimulus be enough to offset the trade-offs. One of the most critical--and worst--trade-offs is tax-cut stimulus now in exchange for any kind of direct spending stimulus in the near future, when budgets will be slashed at the federal level because of deficit concerns. That axe will fall on the states, and with it more jobs.

Apparently saying things like this gets you elected to the United States Senate -- at least if you're Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn:

I'd issue this challenge: anyone who thinks we oughta pay for tax cuts, oughta have to put up a list of programs that we oughta eliminate to pay for them.

Uh, isn't it supposed to be the other way around? I mean, Coburn is the one who wants to spend $700 billion on tax cuts for the wealthy. Shouldn't he explain how he's going to pay for it?

I mean, we're not opposing these tax cuts for shits and giggles. We oppose them precisely because we don't want to offset the lost revenue with spending cuts or massive borrowing. We don't think it makes sense to make the rich richer while simultaneously cutting back on programs that benefit all Americans or adding to our national debt. And it's kind of weird that he doesn't understand that.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been holding a mock filibuster today (mock, because he's not actually blocking a measure scheduled for a vote on the floor), with welcome help from Sens. Sherrod Brown and Mary Landrieu. It might not be the real thing, but it's been powerful in laying out the progressive case against this tax deal. He's particularly strong when he's talking about income inequality, points he made in this video:

"Mr. President, in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," Sanders said. "The top 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income--more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That is apparently not enough. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent."

PolitiFact got requests to fact-check Sander's claim. They did, and found it's true.

So, we're left with three studies that vary slightly but which all point in the same general direction -- showing the top 1 percent earning between 21.4 and 23.5 percent of the national income in 2007. The studies also show that this share exceeds what the entire bottom 50 percent of the United States earns. So we rate Sanders' statement True.

Whether it's 21.4 or 23.5 percent is of much less importance than the fact that the top one percent earns more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That's obscene, and Democrats should not be lining up to perpetuate that status quo.

(The Kossack livebloggers will be following Bernie as long as he goes.)

• Brown people love Twitter. I wonder if it has something to do with the greater penetration of mobile usage in the Latino and African American communities. Twitter is obviously usable using a phone in a way that blogging and other web communication technologies are not.
• There's a reason Republicans don't end up being scientists:

  But anyone who’s thought about this for more than a few minutes knows a very specific answer to the question of why there are no Republican scientists: it’s because contemporary science is an empirical, reality-based intellectual enterprise and all such enterprises are inherently non-conservative, unless they involve making a lot of money (there are probably some forms of business that fit the above description and I would not be surprised if some of the people who do them are conservative). If contemporary science was based on reasoning from principles (like the sort of “science” Aristotle liked to do), it might be of interest to conservatives. But it’s not.

• The revolution has begun in Glenn Beck's mind. Or, at least in what's left of his mind.
• Yup:

  [Warbloggers] were scared, ignorant, angry, and psychologically imbalanced people who dangerously hurt this country and its future. Many lived in the New York City area, utilizing personal knowledge of victims of 9/11 to cast utter righteousness of their desire to incinerate as many brown people as possible. Oh what a time is was for them.

  I think of that now when I read how almost no prominent Republican is outraged that the GOP blocked the bill to give aid to 9/11 workers and victims. Not Giuliani, not Chris Christie, no one. Yesterday Bloomberg said it's "everyone's fault." They don't care. They never did. Like the non-crazy of us all knew all along, Republicans gave a shit about 9/11 vicims solely when it let them hate on Democrats.

• I'm a fan of Matt Taibbi:

  Bai is one of those guys -- there are hundreds of them in this business -- who poses as a wonky, Democrat-leaning "centrist" pundit and then makes a career out of drubbing "unrealistic" liberals and progressives with cartoonish Jane Fonda and Hugo Chavez caricatures. This career path is so well-worn in our business, it's like a Great Silk Road of pseudoleft punditry. First step: graduate Harvard or Columbia, buy some clothes at Urban Outfitters, shore up your socially liberal cred by marching in a gay rights rally or something, then get a job at some place like the American Prospect. Then once you're in, spend a few years writing wonky editorials gently chiding Jane Fonda liberals for failing to grasp the obvious wisdom of the WTC or whatever Bob Rubin/Pete Peterson Foundation deficit-reduction horseshit the Democratic Party chiefs happen to be pimping at the time. Once you've got that down, you just sit tight and wait for the New York Times or the Washington Post to call. It won't be long.

• Exactly the kind of "love" Jesus was talking about.
• Atrios is right, we actually have come a long way, at least when it comes to gay rights.

  I'd say when I started blogging 8+ years ago (please kill me) the democratic coalition was not nearly as united on issues like gay rights as they are now. I'm pretty sure back then if a fucknozzle like Manchin had voted against DADT repeal there would have been a lot of people explaining that it was necessary to maintain support in WVA, blah blah blah. Now I think we're all united on the fact that he's a fucknozzle.

• Dems genuinely in disarray.

  Incensed over President Obama’s tax compromise, House Democratic leaders are showing signs of abandoning the administration and going their own way on critical issues such as national security.

  In a striking move, the appropriations committee late Wednesday attached a provision to a $1.1 trillion resolution to keep the government funded next year that would prevent Obama from spending any funds to try terrorism suspects in civilian court instead of military commissions.

  I'm not convinced one follows the other -- in other words, that the Guantanamo provision is a reaction to the tax cut debacle. But assuming it is ... this is Congress' way to get back at the president? Pushing to the RIGHT of one of the few issue areas in which this administration is trying to do the right thing from the left?

• For Beatles fans -- a cool photo of the band getting ready to cross street for famous Abbey Road photo.
• Vote in the poll below!

The New York Times has the report:

The Obama administration is retreating on long-delayed environmental regulations — new rules governing smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers — as it adjusts to a changed political dynamic in Washington with a more muscular Republican opposition.

Nice word, that: retreating.

The move to delay the rules, announced this week by the Environmental Protection Agency, will leave in place policies set by President George W. Bush. President Obama ran for office promising tougher standards, and the new rules were set to take effect over the next several weeks.

Nice framing, that: leaving in place policies set by Bush.

The EPA says it needs more time to make its decision. Again. Environmentalists are angry, but the administration seems to have made some people happy.

But in a striking turnabout, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute — which have been anything but friendly to Mr. Obama — are praising his administration.

Joshua Freed of the Third Way says this is a good thing, because "environmental zealots"-- some might even say purists-- forget the importance of business interests. Someone perhaps should ask Freed how well business interests will do with a 5-20% loss of global GDP, which is the estimated cost of failing to address the climate crisis.

The Associated Press:

"It is hard to avoid the impression that EPA is running scared from the incoming Congress," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch.

Nice phrasing, that: running scared.

Democratic Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, who chairs the Senate clean air subcommittee, explains the impact:

The delay leaves millions of Americans "unprotected from harmful ozone air pollution under an outdated, ineffective ozone standard," Carper said. "This decision also keeps states in limbo about what standards they need to meet, forcing them to continue to postpone significant decisions today to clean our air tomorrow."

But the EPA certainly will get it right, next time, right? The administration's budding new fan base at the American Petroleum Institute hopes not.

"We also hope EPA will now reconsider other costly and unworkable proposals," such as a planned rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, said Howard Feldman, API's director of regulatory and scientific affairs.

We will see. Whatever the EPA does is going to upset someone. It would be nice if the EPA bases its decisions on the opinions of the scientists. Who might also be called the realists. Stay tuned.

Sen. Joe Manchin, whose picture appears in the dictionary next to the definition of DINO, explains why he voted no -- the only Democrat to do so -- on yesterday's cloture vote of the Defense Authorization bill that included repealing "don't ask, don't tell."

"I do not support its repeal at this time," he said in the statement. "I would like to make clear that my concern is not with the idea of repealing DADT, but rather an issue of timing."

Uh huh. Because when it comes to ending discrimination, timing it right should always be your top priority -- you know, so you don't offend bigots and racists.  

"My concerns, as highlighted in the recent defense survey and through the testimony of the service chiefs, are with the effect implementation of the repeal would have on our front line combat troops at this time," he said.

Of course. Never mind what the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to say, and ignore that those service chiefs all said "that they could implement it if asked to do so," because he's so concerned with the effect on front line combat troops. Except:

Manchin said he is "very sympathetic to those who passionately support the repeal," but added that he needs more time "to visit and hear the full range of viewpoints from the citizens of West Virginia."

Which is it, Joe? You're concerned about front line combat troops or finding out if the repeal is popular with the folks back home? Pick an excuse and stick with it.

The only thing Manchin's statement was missing was the claim that some of his best friends are gay.

The lobbyists aren't just taking over the GOP freshman class in the House. They're claiming a beachhead in the soon-to-be Speaker's office.

House Speaker-elect John Boehner announced Thursday that he hired the medical device industry’s chief lobbyist as his policy director, adding to a growing number of Republican lawmakers who have recruited top aides from K Street.

Brett Loper, senior executive vice president at the Advanced Medical Technology Association, was deeply involved in the health care debate and fought against the fees Democrats ultimately assessed the industry to help pay for reform.

“I'm very pleased Brett will be joining our team,” Boehner said in a statement. “There are few people who are better equipped to help our new majority change the way the House works and advance a new governing agenda that reflects the will of the people we serve.”

Kudos to Boehner for admitting that the people he serves are on K street. But how's that going to play at the Tea Party?

Ezra Klein offers a rebuttal against concerns that the payroll tax holiday will will jeopardize Social Security:

The tax deal cuts employee-side payroll taxes by two percentage points in 2011. This won't harm Social Security, or at least it shouldn't harm Social Security, because the money will just be replaced by general fund revenues (confused yet?). All in all, that should mean Social Security emerges unscathed.

But some liberals are understandably concerned that the payroll cut will be extended indefinitely. Then Social Security loses part of its long-term funding. And then what? More benefit cuts? Privatization?

I say, bring it on. Cutting payroll taxes and replacing them with general fund revenues is appealing in two ways. First, payroll taxes are much more regressive than income taxes. Second, I'm actually fine with breaking the sanctity of Social Security's closed funding loop. A lot of liberals disagree with me on this point, but hear me out.

On the first point, Klein is indisputably correct: payroll taxes are regressive, and not just because they are flat, but also because they are capped. I'm not as convinced on his second point, but it is certainly true that Social Security owes its political durability not exclusively to its funding mechanism but also to the benefits that it delivers.

However, I don't think either of these points address the central problem the payroll tax holiday creates. As should be abundantly clear, by the end of 2011, there will be tremendous pressure to extend the payroll tax holiday, and that pressure will come from both sides of the aisle. At a policy level, Klein's solution makes sense: simply replace the lost payroll tax revenue with funds from the general account. You'd have make some changes to revenue and spending policy in the general account to make this work, but that approach would would allow you to preserve Social Security while making its funding mechanism more progressive. If it could be done, it would be a good thing to do.

The problem here, however, is that it is extraordinarily risky (some might say naive) to assume that Congress will embrace a sensible solution.

The prospect of another hostage crisis next December should alarm us, especially given that (a) not only will Republicans control the House and have a larger caucus in the Senate, but (b) they are already working on setting up the crisis. As I wrote earlier, we now know that the payroll tax holiday was the GOP's preferred stimulus option. Meanwhile, Republicans are already acknowledging that a year from now, there will be tremendous pressure to extend the payroll tax holiday, but they argue that the only way to extend it would be to make Social Security solvent, which is their euphemism for cutting back on Social Security.

Now endorsing any sort of cuts on Social Security seems like a political death sentence. If you weren't watching how this tax cut hostage crisis has played out, you might think that it was Democrats who were setting a trap for Republicans. After all, Democrats should be able to destroy the GOP on this, right? Not only could Democrats argue that no cuts are necessary, they can argue that raising the payroll tax cap beyond it's current $106,800 limit would generate enough revenue to stabilize the system and allow for a lower payroll tax.

It's an argument Democrats can and should win, but if we've learned nothing else from this hostage crisis, it's that "can and should" doesn't mean "will." And betting on on a common sense outcome is a big mistake given the current state of American politics.

Even if Democrats manage to convince the public that their plan is better, Republicans will never support it. Empowered with their majority status in the House and increased numbers in the Senate, they'll hold the payroll tax cut hostage, and their ransom note will be simple: if you give us a bipartisan agreement to "fix" Social Security, we'll give you the payroll tax cut. Otherwise, the tax cut expires.

That will put President Obama in the position of choosing between allowing the expiration of the payroll tax holiday (for which he would be accused of raising taxes) and agreeing to a Republican measure to weaken Social Security. Either way he loses, but assuming that the Republican plan calls for gradual cuts, the "candy now, pain later" option will be to cave into the GOP position -- and suddenly we'll find ourselves in exactly the same position we're in today, a hostage crisis in which a result that was unthinkable just one year earlier suddenly becomes a done deal.