Ok, I'm tired of bold

So anyway, Congress and the administration can choose where the cuts land, or can let them automatically cut all spending in the category by whatever percentage the CBO thinks is necessary to meet the cuts. Or they can do some of each, protecting specific spending and letting the automatic cuts land at a higher percentage across the rest of the category.

But that's not what I was looking for and I haven't gone back to look again, so don't put too much weight on it.

You're getting it... Ah, Grasshopper...

Heh.

You got most of the tags right, but forgot to include paragraph ("return" characters) which screwed up the formatting a bit.

If you really want to get technical, you should include a "p" tag in front of every paragraph, and a "/p" tag at the end of it. But just hitting "return" does the same thing, so don't worry about it.

The italics was a different problem -- one that I have all the time here in the comments, especially with bold. Your "intro" tag included "/" or the mark for "end tag" with the "i". Your closing tag also included the "/" (or else it would have screwed up everybody's comments).

Anyway, I've fixed both. You'll get it, it just takes a week or so of using them regularly before it becomes automatic.

:-)

-CW

will corn subsidies be cut, or even eliminated? It was rumored that both parties had agreed to this, and the farmers were actually OK with it...

I sure do hope so. In the era of corporate farming, it is a form of welfare whose time is past. Beyond that, it causes embarrassing hypocrisy on the Right. For example, the Bachmanns (or, as Bill Maher referred to them, the "Indoor Palins") receive a fair dose of farmer welfare. As does the guy in MO who placed billboards condemning the socialism in the country, paid for by the huge subsidy payments he receives. (Citation lacking, but well reported online)

dsws

Hat tip to you for digging. Modest suggestion: even in the era of technology, there is no substitute for note cards which can be moved around, and strips of a torn yellow pad stuck in the pages of the USC to cut your way through to ... well, to who knows where. Good luck!

Thanks for the link, and thanks for passing it along to him. This is not only impressive (national publication) to me, but is doubly-so because he linked to CW.com rather than the HuffPost or Business Insider. Got to love those links directly back to these pages!

Anyone who notices (or even prompts, as Kevin did), PLEASE let me know, as I don't keep up on who cites me as much as I should. My ego thanks you in advance.

And, Kevin, you are far from a "nobody," at least as we're all concerned. I hear BC is spectacular, but have yet to make the trip myself...

:-)

-CW

Keep digging. This is why bills are hundreds of pages long -- because they all (almost all, I should say) are amending previously-passed laws. Which makes for incredibly dense reading, and lots of looking up of citations. I spent last weekend reading Supreme Court decisions, which are actually one HECK of a lot more readable than bills.

Have you noticed anything in there about what, exactly, is being cut? Or is it all just dollar targets for the later appropriations bills? I haven't heard a peep from the media about what -- exactly -- is being cut by the new law. Makes me think it's all just targets, with no actual specifics. The question I've been wondering: will corn subsidies be cut, or even eliminated? It was rumored that both parties had agreed to this, and the farmers were actually OK with it (corn prices are very high right now, I believe) -- but then, there were a LOT of rumors running around.

Anyway, keep up the good work!

-CW

On page 43, it says, "Unless a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction as provided in section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Budget Control Act of 2011 is enacted by January 15, 2012, the discretionary spending limits listed in section 251(c) shall be revised, and discretionary appropriations and direct spending shall be reduced, as follows ..."

So it refers the reader to both section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) and section 251(c). But if you go to section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) you get referred to subclause I, which refers you to 2 U.S.C. 639(a) and 601(f). The first of those refers you to sections 907 and 932. I haven't looked where those refer you to. I suspect that many provisions eventually go around in circles.

Michale.....

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/faa-stalemate-plan-make-congress-travel-by-bus/243099/

Kevin.

This morning, I mailed a link to this piece to James Fallows at the Atlantic. He mailed me back thanking me and said he'd make use of it. When I then checked his site, he indeed cited you and quoted from your article!!! I'm so pleased with myself and hopeful this will attract some of his fans to your site. It is reassuring that a nobody from a ghost village in British Columbia can be listened to by someone I respect.

The above SHOULD read....

CW,

I agree whole-heartedly with the commentary....

Nothing to add.. It was perfect... :D

LB,

Update: Last night, I wrote that there was credible evidence that the Bank of Japan was intervening directly in the currency markets to support to Dollar against the Yen. About an hour ago, the BoJ confirmed it, and it is continuing now.

Is that a good thing??? :D

My bust...

Michale.....

I agree whole-heartedly with the commentary....

Nothing to add.. It was perfect... :D

Update: Last night, I wrote that there was credible evidence that the Bank of Japan was intervening directly in the currency markets to support to Dollar against the Yen. About an hour ago, the BoJ confirmed it, and it is continuing now.

Is that a good thing??? :D

Michale.....

Man, you guys are quick!

I thought I had fixed that before anyone noticed it... then I read the comments.

You're right, "m" not "b" and it's now fixed (although you might have to reload the page in your browser to see it). Mea culpa.

-CW

It's disgusting to think of men and women like that, working the ground at Dulles or National, moving planes filled with the Members on their way to do even less than none of the nation's business for a month. Unlike Congress, for them, doing the job the best it can be done is what they do.

Once again, the phrase we've heard so often in so many contexts comes to mind: the only difference between the bastards is that while the Democrats seem to not have a brain, the Republicans have no heart.

And, yes, I know that for many, that second airport is named "Reagan". It's just that I have a hard time using that name, and mention of air traffic controllers, in the same paragraph.

Update: Last night, I wrote that there was credible evidence that the Bank of Japan was intervening directly in the currency markets to support to Dollar against the Yen. About an hour ago, the BoJ confirmed it, and it is continuing now.

It's always heartening to see someone standing up for Congress.

Still, they seemed pretty anxious to get the heck out of dodge and I don't recall hearing any one of them bemoan the fact that their inaction has cost the nation close enough to 100,000 jobs.

Or, did I miss that?

I assume the first b is supposed to be an m?

Seriously, Chris, I can't believe that this isn't more of an issue or that President Obama didn't take full public advantage of being on the right side of yet another critical issue with ALL of the facts on his side again, especially in the wake of the debt ceiling debate.

Who knows, maybe there are some things going on behind the scenes that will bring all of this to a head - and a successful conclusion - in the next couple of days. There may even be a MIDOTW to be handed out as a result.

I just only heard about this a few days ago on none other than the PBS Newshour. If this doesn't highlight what the Republicans are up to, then I don't know what will.