If THIS Budget Deal is a "Victory", I'd Sure Hate to Suffer a Defeat!

The current deal...

Adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. The deal purports to "cut" $2.1 trillion, but the "cut" is from a baseline that adds $10 trillion to the debt. This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate - results in a BEST case scenario of still adding more than $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening. Never, ever balances.

The Super Committee's mandate is to add $7 trillion in new debt. Let's be clear: $2.1 trillion in reductions off a nearly $10 trillion,10-year debt is still more than $7 trillion in debt. The Super Committee limits the constitutional check of the filibuster by expediting passage of bills with a simple majority. The Super Committee is not precluded from any issue, therefore the filibuster could be rendered moot. In addition, the plan harms the possible passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Since the goal is never to balance, having the BBA as a "trigger" ensures that the committee will simply report its $1.2 trillion deficit reduction plan and never move to a BBA vote.

It cuts too slowly. Even if you believe cutting $2.1 trillion out of $10 trillion is a good compromise, surely we can start cutting quickly, say $200 billion-$300 billion per year, right? Wrong. This plan so badly backloads the alleged savings that the cuts are simply meaningless. Why do we believe that the goal of $2.5 trillion over 10 years (that's an average of $250 billion per year) will EVER be met if the first two years cuts are $20 billion and $50 billion. There is simply no path in this bill even to the meager savings they are alleging will take place.

We're only going to START Regulating Abortion Centers Now?

Where have the state regulators been since 1973? I guess not many women must have been REALLY dying from illegal unregulated abortions after all... so what was that 1973 landmark legal case, Roe v. Wade about, again? A woman's Constitutional Right to inferior medical standards of care?

Baltimore Sun

Abortion clinics in Maryland will have to apply for a state license, provide a 24-hour hotline for patients, show that they have qualified anesthesia providers and develop emergency plans should procedures go awry according to new draft regulations the state's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene released Friday.

Clinics failing to comply would face a $1,000 penalty -- or have their license revoked. The department is seeking public comment on the regulations until mid-August.

In a statement, the health department said the draft regs "reflect the right balance of preserving both safety and access."

The regulations were issued in response to a high-profile incident last fall when a woman was critically injured at an Elkton clinic run by Steven C. Brigham, a man who did not have a license to practice medicine in Maryland. His unorthodox approach involved initiating abortions in New Jersey and instructing patients to drive to Maryland where he completed the surgery.

Revelations about the Elkton clinic led lawmakers and religious groups to call for tighter rules governing the state's approximately 40 abortion providers. But abortion rights activists worried that that overly onerous regulations could shut down most or all clinics in the state. Both sides are expected to comment on the draft rules.

In drafting the regulations, Maryland's health department researched other times when abortions have gone awry. They found that in the past 20 years the five doctors have been disciplined for harming patients. Three of the 5 incidents stemmed from poor administration of anesthesia.

And requiring abortion doctors to have both a medical degree AND a license to practice is an overly onerous regulation??? How bad does politically correct hypocisy have to stink before common sense takes over?

Casa de Maryland says "No Democracy for Marylanders!"

...and so it begins from the Baltimore Sun

CASA de Maryland wants a court to overturn the petition drive that suspended the Maryland Dream Act, and plans to sue the Maryland State Board of Elections, a spokeswoman said. Their hope is to reinstate the controversial law and prevent it from going to referendum in 2012.

The group will hold a news conference this morning in front of the Anne Arundel County court in Annapolis this morning to describe their lawsuit, said CASA spokeswoman Kim Propeack.

More than 132,000 Marylanders signed a petition this summer to reject a state law allowing illegal immigrants tuition discounts at state colleges and universities -- nearly double the number needed to trigger a referendum. But CASA funded lawyers have spent the past few weeks poring over the petitions looking for flaws.

There's been no public polling on the issue, but my Sun colleague Julie Bykowicz wrote in Sunday's paper about Maryland's split personality on immigration issues. The state funds flow to CASA, a group that welcome immigrants regardless of status; but some counties have used their tax money to aggressively deport undocumented workers.

Why even have a democratic process when a much more efficient judicially tyrannical one works soooooo much better. One judge can now over-rule 132,000 citizens. And of course, the ACLU WILL be filing it's "friend of the court" brief which will set the stage for THEIR court challenge AFTER Maryland voter's overturn their state legislator's latest vote buying scam.