"The liberal pundits — the 'progressives,' as liberals insist on calling themselves since they royally stunk up the word 'liberal' - tried to label the tea party conservatives as knaves, kooks and cleaned-up Ku Kluxers, to drive them into sullen silence as in the past. This time, that didn’t work. The pundits, like the Democrats in Congress, are in a pout because the 'sealed' deal doesn’t raise taxes, and cuts deep into the blubberhood where big government lives. ...

"But this time, the Republicans and other conservatives did not flinch, their spines stiffened by courage taken from the teapot. Washington hasn’t seen a panic like this since Beauregard sent the Federal army scrambling back to Washington from Manassas battlefield in the summer of ‘61. This was the change we’ve been hoping for."

"The big picture is that the deal is a victory for the cause of smaller government, arguably the biggest since welfare reform in 1996. Most bipartisan budget deals trade tax increases that are immediate for spending cuts that turn out to be fictional. This one includes no immediate tax increases, despite President Obama's demand as recently as last Monday. The immediate spending cuts are real, if smaller than we'd prefer, and the longer-term cuts could be real if Republicans hold Congress and continue to enforce the deal's spending caps. 

"The framework (we haven't seen all the details) calls for an initial step of some $900 billion in domestic discretionary cuts over 10 years from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline puffed up by recent spending. If the cuts hold, this would go some way to erasing the fiscal damage from the Obama-Nancy Pelosi stimulus. This is no small achievement considering that Republicans control neither the Senate nor the White House, and it underscores how much the GOP victory in November has reshaped the U.S. fiscal debate."

"Obama faces two massive problems — jobs and debt. They’re both the result of his spectacularly failed Keynesian gamble: massive spending that left us a stagnant economy with high and chronic unemployment — and a staggering debt burden. Obama is desperate to share ownership of this failure. Economic dislocation from a debt-ceiling crisis nicely serves that purpose — if the Republicans play along. The perfect out: Those crazy Tea Partyers ruined the recovery! 

"Why would any conservative collaborate with that ploy? November 2012 constitutes the new conservatism’s one chance to restructure government and change the ideological course of the country. Why risk forfeiting that outcome by offering to share ownership of Obama’s wreckage?"

"If Obama truly was serious about solving our nation's debt crisis he would have released a serious plan months ago. Instead, he not only passed the buck to a debt commission that he created, he then cynically dismissed their work when they announced a solution. Obama then introduced a budget so fanciful that the Senate rejected it 97-0. House Republicans, meanwhile, bravely took a hard vote on a real budget proposal scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Obama reacted by publicly rebuking House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and then outlining a plan that was so vague the CBO refused to even score it. 

"The Treasury Department has reportedly been telling U.S. banks that there is no risk the federal government will default on U.S. debt. And there is no reason it should. The federal government takes in far more money each month in taxes than it owes in interest payments. But there is a real danger that ratings agencies may downgrade the nation's triple-A credit rating anyway. If that happens, Obama will only have himself to blame."

"Obama's position is as brittle as it is rigid. It's true that some polls suggest the public is more inclined to blame congressional Republicans than the president if the dispute remains unresolved and the results are disastrous. But Obama would have to be delusional to think that presiding over such a disaster would enhance his re-election prospects."

"Eight days before a much-dreaded reckoning that will come if they cannot agree on how to deal with the federal government's burgeoning debt, three principal players in Washington's latest drama produced a day of dueling speeches, press conferences, and budget blueprints. When the performances were concluded, an agreement seemed only slightly more likely than before -- and the nation's fiscal future as clear as mud."

"Barack Obama was in full-scold mode Friday night, summoning Congressional leaders to the White House to 'explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default.' It's a terrific question, albeit one the President refuses to answer. He remains far more interested in maneuvering to blame a default or credit downgrade on Republicans than in making himself part of any plausible solution to a crisis he insists is imminent. ...  

"... [I]t has long been clear that Mr. Obama isn't interested in spending reform. In February he proposed a budget that spent more than any in U.S. history. In April he demanded that Congress pass a 'clean' debt ceiling hike that included no spending cuts whatsoever. Only after House Republicans unveiled their own sweeping budgetary reforms did the White House rush to also claim it wanted deficit reduction as part of the debt-ceiling debate."

"Ask almost any Democrat to explain why high taxes are bad, and you will get hit with the velvet fog, minus the velvet. First they’ll explain that while they do favor 'increasing revenues,' they don’t favor higher taxes if by 'high taxes' you mean taxes that are 'too high.' They favor 'smart' tax rates that are 'targeted' (i.e., 'higher'). Then they’ll explain that they don't want to raise your taxes; they want to raise taxes on your boss, your employer, and the companies that sell you gas, cars, cigarettes, food, clothes, electricity, and various 'unnecessary' surgical procedures. They leave out that those taxes get passed on to you. 

"Then, they’ll rush to safer territory: all of the wonderful things government does. Government, don’t you know, is just the word we use for all the things we do together. So every time you cut a check to the IRS, an angel gets its wings."

"A new analysis of federal workforce data shows that even in this time of retrenchment and downsizing, the federal government almost never fires or lays off workers.  In fact, in many corners of the federal government, it is virtually impossible for an employee to be fired. 'Federal employees' job security is so great that workers in many agencies are more likely to die of natural causes than get laid off or fired,' writes USA Today, which conducted the survey.

"The paper reports the federal government 'fired 0.55% of its workers in the budget year that ended September 30.'  For the private sector, the figure is about 3%.  And for some parts of the federal workforce, the firing rate was even lower.  For example, USA Today found that federal workers in the Washington, DC area have 99.74% job security.  Some agencies, like the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, did not fire or lay off anyone in the last year."

"Remember pay-as-you-go legislation? Passed to offset the cost of increased spending and reduced revenues, it exists in name only to both parties. The so-called 'debt ceiling' is a similar abstraction. It reminds me of my biyearly 'weight ceiling' pledge -- as in, there is none. Any ceiling that is always raised and then set as some new arbitrary level that is negotiated solely by the ones who are borrowing ... well, that doesn't comport to any definition of 'limit.' That's a federal budget."