Rick Wolff on S&P in the Guardian

A familiar voice in the Guardian on S&P's judgment on US debt. He says there are "two sane responses: laughter and a yawn." My favorite is this paragraph:

The first [reasonable reaction to S&P's announcement] is sheer incredulity. S&P is famous for having issued what Senator Carl Levin (chair of the Senate investigations subcommittee) recently called "inflated credit ratings" prompted by "rampant conflicts of interest" in the US financial industry. Senator Levin named this company a "key cause" of the economic crisis. That is polite-speak for having published misleading information about credit risks and/or having shown monumentally poor judgment in assessing such risks. So, we now should take seriously what this utterly compromised company says? What?!

This nicely summarizes my own first thought when I heard that S&P was issuing a warning on U.S. debt. Please.

Chuck Schumer has a letter for me to send to my Congressperson

Here it is:

As an American, I want my representatives in Congress to avoid a government shutdown. That means finding bipartisan compromise.

But bipartisan compromise will not be found in domestic discretionary spending cuts alone.

We need to scour all parts of the budget that contribute to the deficit, not just the parts of the budget that some of us don't like. We need to reset the budget debate to look at the changes we can make that will have the biggest impact on the deficit.

That means looking at things like military spending, agriculture subsidies, and revenue raisers.

Please, don't shut down our government because the debate over the budget got stuck in a rut. Reset it.

Tim Pawlenty dishes just what Tea-partiers want to hear

Bruce Bartlett has an excellent take-down of Presidential wannabe, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. I agree completely, except for the conclusion:

Tim Pawlenty is not ready for prime time. He may think he has found a clever way of appealing to the right wing tea party/Fox News crowd without having to propose any actual cuts in spending, but it isn’t going to work. It’s too transparently phony even for them.

The first sentence is fine. I don't think that last part is true: Pawlenty's reason-free rhetoric is just what many of the Tea-party types seem to want to hear.