TAXES ON THE TABLE.... Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) noted the other day that the parties will have to compromise on budget issues, but he wants to dictate the terms. The right, he said, has to budge by agreeing to Pentagon cuts, while the left has to accept cuts to everything else.

In Paul's vision, this is a "compromise" -- the parties come together to give him the cuts he wants, without raising any tax on anyone by any amount at any time.

To state the obvious, Paul and the conservatives like him have an interest in the deficit, but their top concern is the same as it's always been -- they care about taxes. If deficit reduction were the principal goal, some modest tax increases would be a no-brainer. And yet, it's the only policy practically every Republican in D.C. refuses to even consider.

But "practically every Republican" isn't "literally every Republican." Late last year, Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) started talking informally about a budget plan. Their talks are ongoing -- they intend to have a bill sometime this year -- and have begun to include a variety of their colleagues, including (gasp!) a few liberal senators.

It's hard to explore the substance of a plan that doesn't really exist yet, but what I find noteworthy about the Warner/Chambliss effort is the deliberate way in which it's rejecting the Paul-like approach. If we're going to be serious about deficit reduction, the Republican leader of the effort said this week, tax increases have to be "part of the mix." (via Zaid Jilani)

Chambliss made clear that despite his long record as a reliable fiscal conservative, he is willing to defy the conservative shibboleth that tax increases dare not be mentioned. "I've never voted for a tax increase and hope I don't have to ever vote for one, but I do think it's got to be a part of the mix," said Chambliss, who has a 93.28 percent life time rating from the American Conservative Union.

Chambliss said that he and Warner -- in their discussions about the $1.5 trillion budget deficit and the $14 trillion national debt -- have talked about "the difficulty that he's going to have with his side of the aisle on reforming Social Security and Medicare." "And he knows I'm going to have difficulty on the revenue side with folks on my side."

Now, I have a pretty strong hunch I'm not going to like what Warner and Chambliss come up with, especially with regards to Social Security. But I'm willing to give some credit to Chambliss -- who can fairly be described as a not-at-all-moderate conservative from a deep red Southern state -- for realizing that tax increases have to be part of any serious deficit reduction plan.

As recently as the 1980s, Reagan and the Republican mainstream considered tax increases a necessarily evil that had to be passed, from time to time, in the name of fiscal responsibility. It's why Reagan raised taxes seven out of the eight years he was in office, and he did so with plenty of Republican votes in Congress.

I don't imagine the current GOP mainstream will be nearly as sensible anytime soon, but Chambliss' realistic, pragmatic acknowledgement is a big step in the right direction.

THE POORLY-NAMED 'PROTECT LIFE ACT'.... Maybe Republicans interpreted the midterm election results as a sweeping mandate to focus on abortion? The party that apparently has no interest in job creation seems to be spending quite a bit of energy on the culture-war issue.

After holding a symbolic vote on gutting the health care system, House Republican leaders announced that their next top priority was the odious "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." At the state level, there's an aggressive Republican push to limit reproductive options.

And now we have the "Protect Life Act."

First, a little context. Under existing law, American hospitals have to treat everyone -- or at a minimum, stabilize them -- regardless of their ability to pay. If the facility can't provide treatment, it must transfer a patient to a hospital that can, and then that hospital is required to provide care.

Republican Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania has a new idea related to a question that few ever ask: what happens when a patient requires an emergency abortion to save her life? Pitts wants to empower hospitals to simply let the woman die.

The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the "Protect Life Act," is an amendment to the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new section of the bill inserted into the language just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives. [...]

Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing in terminating pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer.

The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts' bill say.

Now, as a practical matter, this effort has the same problem most of the ideas coming from House Republicans have -- the Senate almost certainly won't support it, and President Obama would quickly reject it if the measure were to reach his desk. A bill like the "Protect Life Act" is pretty outrageous on its face, but even its proponents know it won't have a shot until Republicans control Congress and the White House again.

The point, though, is that a measure like this one reflects the values and priorities of the GOP officials who support -- the bill currently has 100 co-sponsors, not including Pitts -- which is scary enough.

And in the larger context, it's also a reminder that Republicans have badly misread their mandate if they see 2011 as a valuable opportunity to roll back women's reproductive rights.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a look at President Obama's attendance at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington this week, which generated a little more attention than usual.

It's worth noting, of course, that many have raised legitimate questions about whether there should even be such a thing as a National Prayer Breakfast for the president and elected officials. In a nation that honors the separation of church and state, it's an awkward tradition.

That said, the tradition doesn't appear to be going anywhere, and presidents have been attending the events for several decades. Given the right-wing's relentless attacks on President Obama's faith, his participation draws a greater focus than his recent predecessors.

I've seen some suggest that Obama was defensive at the Prayer Breakfast, feeling the need to defend himself against the ridiculous accusations of his unhinged critics, but I didn't hear it that way. Rather, the president's remarks struck me more as an instance in which Obama shared his vision on faith as "a sustaining force'' in his life, and his larger spiritual journey, describing how he "came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace him as my Lord and savior.''

The president did, however, briefly acknowledge those who persist in pointless attacks. "My Christian faith, then, has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years, all the more so when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time,'' he said. "We are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us, but whether we're being true to our conscience and true to our God. 'Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you, as well.' ''

I found the reaction from Mark Halperin, who is not always generous in his praise of the president, pretty interesting. On MSNBC's "Hardball" the day of the remarks, Halperin described Obama's remarks as "a brilliant performance," adding, "This guy has game. If you want to make a long list, what are all the reasons Barack Obama is favored for being re-elected? Forget the Electoral College, forget the unemployment rate and earnings and all that. That performance [at the National Prayer Breakfast] has a level of sophistication and skill that not one Republican on the field right now can duplicate."

Also from the God Machine this week:

* A larger group of civil-rights, community, and faith groups have urged Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) to scrap plans for hearings exploring the "radicalization of Islam," equating the Republican's hearings with McCarthyism. King said he didn't care, and would refuse to respond to the group's concerns.

* A state judge in Ohio put a display in his courtroom contrasting the "Moral Absolutes" of the Ten Commandments with the "Moral Relatives" of humanism. In a unanimous decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the display is obviously unconstitutional.

* Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) next big project, following the announcement of his retirement, is a book called "Gift of Rest." It will reportedly be on the senator's orthodox Judaism, and why he honors the Sabbath as a day of rest.

* It's Super Bowl Sunday tomorrow, but some religion-based ads have already been rejected.

GIVING NEW MEANING TO THE PHRASE 'DIM BULB'.... The right finds the strangest things to get worked up about. Take light bulbs, for example.

In 2007, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and congressional Democrats worked on an energy bill, which included advanced light-bulb standards, intended to spur innovation, lower costs, and improve energy efficiency. The provision was approved with bipartisan support, and the larger legislation was easily passed and signed by President Bush.

The effort was a great success. Republicans have now decided they don't care.

One of the leading Republicans in Congress, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), appeared on the G. Gordon Liddy Show [Thursday] and discussed this notion of an "innovation economy." After Liddy peddled the ludicrous claim that House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) had implemented a ban on incandescent light bulbs in the United States, McCotter used the opportunity to scoff at liberal efforts to improve the incandescent light bulb, a product that was first invented over 200 years ago. He called the irony "striking" that liberals would "prais[e] the end of the incandescent bulb at the very time they're talking about an innovation economy."

If this sounds dumb, you should listen to the exchange to appreciate just how dim these bulbs really are.

Liddy asked if McCotter could help "get our light bulbs back." The Republican lawmaker said he could, adding, "I saw that some on the left were praising the end of the incandescent bulb, at the very time they're talking about an innovation economy. The irony is striking."

In Grown-Up Land, that's not what "irony" means. When the left talks about "innovation," the point is to emphasize new technologies that can advance national interests. When Democrats look forward on energy policy, and move past an inefficient, 200-year-old light bulb design, there's nothing "ironic" about it. McCotter has it backwards.

By the way, who's Thaddeus McCotter? He's the guy Republicans recently made the chairman of the House GOP conference -- a top leadership post -- who, just last week, threw his support to the Mubarak regime in Egypt.

Regardless, the larger point is worth keeping in mind, because it keeps coming up -- while some policymakers focus on how to improve American competitiveness in the 21st century, a few too many Republicans have their eyes on the 19th century.

TAKING BRAND PROTECTION A LITTLE TOO FAR.... We've come to expect some oddities from the former half-term governor of Alaska, but this seems unusual, even for Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin has become an industry. The former Alaskan governor has had books deals, starred in a reality television show and set up a political PAC that raised $3.5 million last year. Through midterm election endorsements, broadcast on her 2.7 million-fan Facebook page or via her 400,000 follower Twitter feed, Palin has cemented alliances to new GOP governors such as South Carolina's Nikki Haley and various members of Congress.

But Palin is more than just a former mayor, governor, vice presidential candidate and political force. She has catapulted over most politicians to a status of entertainment icon. She has become a brand -- and she's trying to protect it by trademarking her name.

The Palin brand is so valuable, that other family members are in on it. Sarah Palin's 20-year-old daughter, Bristol, is a well-compensated spokeswomen on sexual abstinence for the Candie's Foundation, has become a reality star in her own right on "Dancing with the Stars" and may land a job as a radio show host in Arizona.

And these savvy women are taking all the prudent steps a brand holder does to protect an asset. In the last several months, Politics Daily has learned that the Palin family lawyer, Alaska attorney Thomas Van Flein, has filed applications to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to trademark "Sarah Palin" and "Bristol Palin."

It's not altogether clear what kind of activities the Palins want to prevent -- I guess Tina Fey should be concerned? -- or why the former governor's daughter would feel the need to trademark her name, too.

What's more, in case anyone's wondering how common this is, neither President Obama nor any of the likely Republican presidential candidates have taken the step of trying to trademark their names.

Nevertheless, at least for the time being, when we put an "R" after Palin's name, we'll be referring to her party affiliation, not the legal designation for her trademark. The application with the PTO can't go through -- Palin never signed the paperwork.

BACHMANN BACKS OFF AFTER TARGETING VETERANS.... Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) caused a bit of a stir last week, presenting a budget plan that included freezing Veterans Affairs health care spending and cutting veterans' disability benefits considerably. Yesterday, she backed off.

To put it mildly, the Bachmann proposal did not go over well among groups representing the needs and interests of veterans. The national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement responding to the Republican's idea, saying, "No way, no how, will we let this proposal get any traction in Congress.... The day this nation can't afford to take care of her veterans is the day this nation should quit creating them."

It took a little longer than it should have, but yesterday, a full week after recommending the cuts, Bachmann reversed course.

Rep. Michele Bachmann backed off a plan on Friday to cut $4.5 billion in benefits to veterans, following strong opposition from several veterans groups. [...]

[S]ince Bachmann released her proposal, veterans groups have voiced the loudest objections, causing Bachmann to drop them from her budget-cutting plans.

"One point on my discussion list was a $4.5 billion proposal that would affect payments made to our veterans," Bachmann said in a statement posted to her website. "That discussion point has received a lot of attention and I have decided to remove it from consideration. The problem of government spending must be solved, but not on the backs of our nation's war heroes."

Bachmann offered no explanation as to why she thought the backs of our nation's war heroes were less of an issue last week.

I also liked the fact that she made the announcement on a Friday afternoon, which is generally a time when politicians release bad news they hope won't generate any attention. In this case, Bachmann did the right thing on a Friday afternoon, perhaps hoping few would notice she'd screwed up in the first place.

And while I'm glad to hear that veterans' benefits will probably escape the Republican budget axe, it's worth noting that the rest of Bachmann's budget plan remains pretty ridiculous. As George Zornick explained yesterday, "While Bachmann's decision to retract her proposal is laudable, there are other elements to her proposal that are just as punitive to large groups of Americans: for example, she proposes reducing Pell Grants for college students (along with a complete abolition of the Department of Education). She also wants to eliminate the Maternal and Child Health block grant."

FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* New mass protests in the streets of Cairo: "Cracks in the Egyptian establishment's support for President Hosni Mubarak began to appear Friday as jubilant crowds of hundreds of thousands packed the capital's central Tahrir Square to call for his ouster, this time unmolested by either security police or uniformed Mubarak loyalists."

* The White House's not-so-subtle hints to the Mubarak government: "The Obama administration, encouraged by the relative calm in Egypt on Friday, is urgently trying to persuade opposition groups to participate in a dialogue with Vice President Omar Suleiman in a meeting scheduled for Saturday morning."

* A federal judge in Mississippi, appointed by George W. Bush, dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act -- yet another legal win for the law -- but it wasn't on the merits. District Judge Keith Starrett rejected a lawsuit because the plaintiffs lacked standing. At least 14 lawsuits have been tossed on procedural grounds. (thanks to reader V.S. for the tip)

* How can the unemployment rate go down when so few jobs are being created? Annie Lowrey offers an explanation.

* Good advice: "The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, warned Congressional Republicans on Thursday not to "play around with" a coming vote to raise the government's legal borrowing limit." He added that lawmakers shouldn't view the debt ceiling as a "bargaining chip."

* Good question: "Why is Live Action doctoring its Planned Parenthood audio?"

* Remember the 1099 problem in the Affordable Care Act? A fix was approved this week in the Senate, 81 to 17.

* Rush Limbaugh yesterday mocked violence towards journalists at the hands of Egyptian thugs. Veteran war correspondents and those who monitor journalist safety overseas were not amused.

* The law needs to be enforced: "New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday announced the results of an undercover investigation into a gun show in Arizona -- and that those results show just how simple it is to buy a gun there with minimal oversight."

* Is the famously lucrative Master of Business Administration just another useless, overpriced degree? It's a reasonable question.

* "Press Secretary School" actually sounds pretty fun to me: "Incoming White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in preparation to replace Robert Gibbs, has been conducting mock press briefings, with press staffers such as Gibbs and deputies Bill Burton and Josh Earnest conducting the grillings."

* I'm sorry to see Open Left go, and I wish the best for Chris Bowers and the rest of the team that did such great work at the site over the last several years.

* The "dumbest narrative of the year so far"? That's an easy one -- Politico has now run two separate pieces on First Lady Michelle Obama praising the barbecue n Charlotte, N.C., which the publication insists on calling a "gaffe."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, THE SELF-DESIGNATED VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.... For much of the Bush/Cheney era, the notion of making policy decisions based on what's popular was deemed silly, if not offensive. Real leaders, we were told, don't stick their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing; they make the tough call and do what's right, regardless of popularity contests.

The position was always something of a post-hoc rationalization, but it had a certain charm. It's a shame Republicans abandoned it.

In the debate over health care policy, the GOP and its allies are obviously obsessed with public opinion -- to the point that they routinely lie about it -- working under the assumption that Americans' judgment is paramount (except on all policies in which the public agrees with Democrats).

This week, Charles Krauthammer tries a similar tack with EPA regulation of carbon emissions.

"I think it shows how ideologically determined the Obama administration is even after being chastised heavily in the midterm election about overreaching. It's trying to reach around Congress, around the will of the people -- and Congress when it rejected cap-and-trade -- essentially imposing the carbon tax on the country which doesn't want it, but it's going to try to do it by regulation."

There's a lot of nonsense packed into this paragraph, but this is important, so let's unpack it.

First, Krauthammer tells us what midterm voters were thinking, which is rather presumptuous. He thinks the results were "about overreaching"; I think they were about punishing the status quo with an unemployment rate near 10%. To support his analysis, Krauthammer points to nothing in particular.

Second, Krauthammer tells us the "will of the people" is to not have the EPA use its authority under the Clean Air Act to combat climate change. How does he know "the people" happen to agree with him? Krauthammer doesn't say, but he's apparently designated himself the voice of America. How gracious of him.

Third, Krauthammer mentions in passing that Congress "rejected" cap-and-trade. That's only partially true -- a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate approved of the policy (which, by the way, used to enjoy the strong backing of the Republican mainstream, before the party's recent descent). It's not the policy's fault Republicans resorted to unprecedented obstructionism.

Fourth, the Obama administration isn't "trying to reach around Congress," at least not in a practical sense. Lawmakers were given a choice -- pass legislation to address the climate crisis, or the EPA would have to act. Congress made its choice, so the EPA is moving forward, with the backing of a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

We can have a serious debate about the merits of cap-and-trade vs. Clean Air Act regulation vs. carbon taxes. There's more than one way to address the problem. We can even have a conversation about the public's understanding of these issues, and the relative value in approving unpopular policies (if they are, in fact, unpopular).

But Krauthammer's take is just lazy -- he assumes, based on nothing, that "the people" agree with him, and that effectively ends the discussion.

The discourse has to be better than this. There's too much at stake.

GINNI THOMAS CONTINUES TO BREAK NEW GROUND.... It's probably safe to say there's never been a Supreme Court justice's spouse quite like Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Throughout 2010, Ginni Thomas' once-obscure right-wing activism took on a much higher-profile role. She told audiences nationwide that "there's a war going on against tyranny," and in her worldview, the tyrants are America's elected leaders. All the while, Thomas collected large, undisclosed contributions from secret donors, some of whom, conceivably, may have had business before the Supreme Court. (Clarence Thomas was required to report her income on his financial disclosure forms, but for several years, for reasons that remain unclear, he chose not to.)

The creepiness factor went up considerably, of course, when Thomas left an odd, accusatory voice-mail message for Brandeis University professor Anita Hill in October, calling early on a Saturday morning, asking her to apologize for having been sexually harassed by her husband.

Thomas parted ways with her far-right activist group, Liberty Central, and has now apparently designated herself a "Tea Party Ambassador," through her new lobbying outfit, Liberty Consulting. For a price, her clients can even take advantage of Ginni Thomas' "connections."

Thomas already has met with nearly half of the 99 GOP freshmen in the House and Senate, according to an e-mail she sent last week to congressional chiefs of staff, in which she branded herself "a self-appointed, ambassador to the freshmen class and an ambassador to the tea party movement."

But her latest career incarnation is sparking controversy again.

Thomas's role as a de facto tea party lobbyist and -- until recently -- as head of a tea party group that worked to defeat Democrats last November "show a new level of arrogance of just not caring that the court is being politicized and how that undermines the historic image of the Supreme Court as being above the political fray," said Arn Pearson, a lawyer for Common Cause, the left-leaning government watchdog group.

Even for Ginni Thomas, this is pretty bizarre. In fact, while she claims to have met with nearly half of the new GOP freshman class, House Republicans hardly seem to know who she is: "Roughly half a dozen aides for new members told POLITICO that their offices received handwritten meeting requests from Thomas the day after they were sworn in, as well as follow-up e-mails requesting a meeting with her -- but only one of them had met with her. The rest had no plans to do so."

It's not even altogether clear exactly what kind of services Ginni Thomas is selling, since "self-appointed ambassador" isn't quite a traditional position in D.C. Apparently, her clients get "advice for short or long term projects and bringing resources to bear for impact -- whether it includes a short term bill-reading project, assistance on congressional oversight efforts or an effective coalition for impact.

Dave Weigel added, "So you can hire Ginni Thomas to help determine whether a bill will pass constitutional muster if it comes before, you know, her husband."

What a ridiculous mess.

IF THIS IS THE PIVOT TO JOBS, IT NEEDS SOME WORK.... A Politico report noted this morning, "House Republicans know they're struggling with their economic message." Apparently, when the GOP focuses its attention on everything except job creation and economic growth, it gives the impression that Republicans have flawed priorities.

But at least the GOP seems to realize it has a problem. After this morning's jobs report came out, for example, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) argued that "far too many people remain out of work," which is why "all" of the GOP's efforts "are centered around jobs."

This is laughably false. After one month on the job, Cantor's House Republican caucus has tackled a pointless health care bill, a dangerous anti-abortion bill, school vouchers, D.C. marriage rights, and vague threats about spending cuts, all of which would undermine job creation. The number of GOP bills that have received any attention and/or consideration related to job creation? Zero. Republicans went from obsessing over "where are the jobs" to ignoring the issue altogether.

As of today, though, the party hopes to get back on track.

In light of today's Bureau of Labor Statistics report showing lackluster job creation in January, even as the unemployment rate dropped and the private sector added jobs for the eleventh consecutive month, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) attempted to resuscitate his party's pro-job mojo. In a press release attacking President Obama's "job-crushing" "spending binge," Boehner boasted that Republicans "have a plan" to pick up the pace of the recovery:

"Republicans have a plan to help our economy get back to creating jobs: the Pledge to America. Instead of relying on 'stimulus' spending and debt, our plan creates a better environment for job creation in America by stopping job-crushing Washington rules, cutting unnecessary spending, and ending the Washington spending binge, which is hampering job creation by eroding confidence in our economy, crowding out private investment, and adding to the uncertainty small businesses face.

Um, what?

Let's unpack this a bit. Republicans aren't going to create jobs; they're going to create an "environment" for jobs. How? With a silly p.r. stunt that even Republicans have long since forgotten about, and vague talking points that never made any meaningful sense anyway. (Seriously, John? You're still going with "uncertainty"? Didn't we debunk that one months ago?)

I'd also pay good money to hear Boehner put some policy flesh on these bones. When the Speaker says he thinks public investment is "crowding out private investment," what do you suppose he means -- or thinks he means? Does he imagine all kinds of private enterprises, eager to pump capital into the economy, holding off because their funds have been "crowded out"? Or is he just throwing this out there because some pollster told him it'd sound good?

Boehner & Co. are apparently convinced their problem is "a failure of communication, not policy." If the first step is admitting you have a problem, it only works when you acknowledge the actual problem.

THE GOP CAN GET WHAT IT WANTS ON HEALTH CARE (BUT IT DOESN'T CARE).... This week, several lawmakers in the House and Senate began exploring policy alternatives to the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. What was interesting about this is that all of the lawmakers are Democrats.

Most reasonable observers expect the mandate to survive the legal challenges, but some Dems are exploring alternatives anyway, in part because of the politics, and in part out of concern over an unpredictable judiciary. Earlier this week, for example, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) suggested an open-enrollment period with a penalty on those who wait. Soon after, Rep. Peter Defazio (D-Ore.) floated the notion of an individual opt-out, with a locked door that prevents free-riders from trying to get back in later.

At face value, I'm a little skeptical about the ideas on the merits, and we can talk more about them if they start to gain any traction. The larger point is, there are Dems ready to work on this issue -- they're not wedded to the mandate, and they'll gladly give it up.

In theory, mandate-hating Republicans should welcome these developments, right? After all, if they're sincere about their deep-seated* disgust for the mandate -- which they consider some kind of outrageous abuse, despite having come up with the idea in the first place -- GOP officials should jump at the chance to get rid of it. If the mandate is an affront to American freedom -- it's not, but just for the sake of conversation -- it stands to reason Republicans would gladly work with willing Dems on this.

But that's not happening. As best as I can tell, not a single GOP lawmaker -- literally, not one -- has stepped up this week to either propose a way to eliminate the mandate or work with Dems on an alternative.

It led Aaron Carroll to make a very compelling challenge to conservative opponents of health care reform.

I say this because I see many of you so absolutely crazed by the individual mandate. It's as if this is akin to "taxation without representation". You believe this is the first step on the slippery slope to fascism. Fine.

If that's the case, where is the simple proposal to lose the mandate? I know you'd have no trouble getting every Republican behind that bill. I bet you'd even get a fair number of Democrats. Heck, Senator Obama was opposed to it. So if you really, really hate the mandate so much, go ahead and lose it. [...]

But I've seen no one propose that. Why not? I suspect it's because you're really not as offended by the mandate, as you are by the PPACA. [...]

[P]rove me wrong. If the mandate so offends you, call on your representatives to support a bill to remove it right now. It's not like there aren't other means to achieve the same incentives.... So there's the challenge. Support a fix to the mandate right now. If you won't, then you obviously aren't that concerned about "liberty."

This need not be considered rhetorical. There's a House Republican majority that claims to hate the mandate -- will they work on a policy that replaces it? Literally every Republican senator believes the mandate is unconstitutional -- are they ready to talk to Dems about an alternative?

We know the answers, precisely because we know the GOP isn't sincere at all. It'd be easy for Republicans to prove otherwise, but I have no doubt that will not happen. It would (a) require constructive policymaking, which Republicans don't like; and (b) take away one of the right's favorite things to whine about, which is far more important than amorphous talking points about "freedom."

* thanks to H.L.A. for the typo catch

FOX NEWS SHOULD JUST STAY AWAY FROM THEOLOGY.... Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has made an effort to dabble in theological issues lately, and the results have been unintentionally hilarious. Today, Fox News' "Fox Nation" website goes down a similar road, and the results were arguably even more ridiculous.

President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast at the White House yesterday, and cited a familiar Biblical verse. As far as the Fox News website is concerned, the president "botched" the Scriptural reference. Fox Nation reported (on its front page, as if this were important):

President Obama misquoted a familiar Bible verse during a faith-based address at the National Prayer Breakfast.

"Those who wait on the Lord will soar on wings like eagles, and they will run and not be weary, and they will walk and not faint," the president said during a speech to several thousand people at the breakfast.

But the actual passage, from Isaiah 40:31, states: "But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."

As it turns out, the notion of an "actual passage" from the Bible is itself rather ridiculous. There are multiple translations and multiple versions. Fox News' executives no doubt think highly of themselves, but no one has yet made them the final arbiters of which Scriptural language should be considered the "actual" language of the Bible (though House Republicans may yet work on a resolution to that effect).

And in this case, as Ben Dimiero explained, "Obama was quoting from the New International Version, while Fox Nation was pointing to the King James Version to 'debunk' him. This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic."

For all the effort Republicans have invested in questioning the president's faith, maybe Obama isn't the one whose Christianity should be considered suspect.

STAY AWAY FROM THE GIMMICKS.... I can appreciate why politicians like budget gimmicks. Much of an unengaged, uninformed electorate probably finds them appealing, and for policymakers themselves, embracing gimmicks is easier than actual work.

For example, instead of lawmakers coming up with plans to balance the budget, we get lawmakers pushing plans for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The former requires a lot of touch choices and hard work; the latter sounds nice and pushes off the detailed solutions for later.

This week, a similar gimmick was proposed called the "Commitment to American Prosperity" Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). Their plan doesn't actually spell out cuts or present ideas for specific reductions, but instead comes up with arbitrary spending caps. Specifically, the CAP Act would dictate to Congress that it can spend no more than 20.6% of the size of the U.S. economy. (We're currently around 24%.)

To get to this level, Congress would have to make deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare, or automatic, across-the-board reductions would kick in. Corker called his plan a "legislative straitjacket," which he considers a good thing.

Ed Kilgore described this as one of those ideas that's "crazy if serious, and deeply cynical if not."

The craziness comes from the central idea that total federal spending needs to be immediately and inflexibly limited to a fixed percentage of GDP that's lower than the levels of the Reagan administration. As a long analysis from Paul Van de Water of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities points out, this sort of "cap" is not only arbitrary, but does not reflect the aging of the U.S. population (which inevitably increases retirement costs), the recent spike in health care costs, or the automatic increase in government spending that occurs during a recession, and, well, the basic need in a democracy for representative institutions to make decisions on taxes and spending.

Reaching the target proposed in this bill would involve reducing federal spending -- all of it -- by about 20% as compared to current levels. So much for Washington having any ability to deal with any challenges to the country, domestic or international. The negative impact on the economy would be vast and immediate.

But the cynicism comes from the mechanism by which the CAP Act would achieve its crazy goals: "sequestrations" of spending conducted by the Office of Management and Budget and enforced by an executive order of the president.... The "idea," so to speak, is to respond to the inability or unwillingness of Congress to identify specific program cuts by administratively cutting every single program by the same percentage. The only difference is that the CAP Act, unlike Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, would include mandatory spending -- basically Social Security and Medicare -- in the sequestrations.

This is, in other words, a spectacularly bad idea. I realize McCaskill is up for re-election next year in a "red" state, and wants to bolster her reputation for fiscal responsibility, but the CAP Act isn't responsible at all -- it's reckless and dangerous. There's a reason no other Democrat in the Senate is taking this seriously.

Again, I can appreciate the temptation of ridiculous gimmicks. Republicans use them as a substitute for thought and policy work all the time, and they fit nicely in campaign ads.

But the risk is, the ubiquity of the gimmicks, coupled with the scarcity of sensible policymakers, might create conditions that allow one of these dumb ideas to actually pass. And at that point, the consequences for all of us would be severe.

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In Montana, Sen. Jon Tester (D) is likely to face a very tough challenge from the state's lone U.S. House member, Republican Denny Rehberg. This week, with Rehberg launching his Senate bid, Tester immediately began tying him to one of his close allies: "He's going to bring Michele Bachmann to Montana -- that's who he'll be standing beside when he announces."

* On a related note, businessman Steve Daines (R), who had been running against Tester in Montana, ended his Senate bid and launched a campaign for Rehberg's House seat.

* In a bit of a setback for NRSC recruiting, Rep. Sam Graves (R) of Missouri officially announced yesterday that he will not take on incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) in 2012. Graves called it "an agonizing decision," but wants to keep his House chairmanship.

* Former Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.), who lost a Senate primary last year, sounds like he's poised to try again, this time running for retiring Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) seat.

* There will apparently be two Mormon candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination -- Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman -- but Utah Republicans appear to strongly prefer the former Massachusetts governor to the former Utah governor.

* And speaking of Utah, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) was outwardly hostile towards Tea Party groups over the last year, but facing the threat of a tough primary challenge in 2012, the conservative senator has reversed course and begun telling Tea Partiers he's one of them.

* Sen. Daniel Akaka (D) isn't raising a lot of money just yet, but the 87-year-old legendary Hawaiian still intends to seek re-election in 2012.

* If former Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) wanted to launch a comeback bid next year, she has the support to be quite competitive. Public Policy Polling found the recently-defeated lawmaker narrowly leading Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) in a potential rematch, 46% to 45%.

SPEAKING OF MANDATES.... Way back in October, a regular reader by the name of B.G. emailed me with a compelling thought.

Opposition to the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is grounded on the theory that the Government does not have the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to require an individual citizen to purchase a product in the private market. (For what it's worth, I don't agree with the theory.)

However, conservatives/Tea Partiers/Republicans to a man/woman support (at least in theory) privatizing Social Security, and requiring citizens to contribute money, that would have otherwise been paid into Social Security, to individual investment accounts which would be managed by private entities for a fee.

If conservatives are correct that the Government does not have the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase a private product, wouldn't that also be an argument against the privatization of Social Security?

I remember thinking at the time, "That's a good point. I should do something with this." At which point, I forgot all about it. (It was right before the midterms; I was distracted.)

Fortunately, B.G. wasn't the only one thinking about these lines. Jonathan Cohn, as part of a very persuasive pitch that the right is arguing against the health care law in bad faith, makes a related argument today.

You remember privatization, don't you? The idea was to take Social Security, a mandatory public pension program, and turn it into a system of mandatory personal investment accounts. The schemes evolved over time, with different details, but the gist was always the same. During your working years, you'd make contributions into the accounts, just like you currently pay taxes that fill the Social Security Trust. Over time, you would invest the money in your private account -- that is, you'd buy stocks, bonds, and so on -- typically within certain guidelines set by the government. Once you hit retirement, you'd start to withdraw from the accounts or perhaps purchase an annuity, relying on subsequent payments for your financial security.

Conservatives presumably thought privatization was constitutional; otherwise, they would not have worked so feverishly to enact it. But if the principle holds for old-age insurance, it ought to hold for medical insurance, too. In other words, if it's ok for the government to make you pay for regulated private investments, then it should be ok for the government to make you pay for regulated private health insurance. Yet, as far as I can tell, the folks who spent all of those years promoting Social Security as an all-American, free market innovation are the same ones that now insist the Affordable Care Act is an unprecedented threat to liberty.

It's almost as if the right, lacking in intellectual consistency, hasn't thought through the practical implications of its ideological agenda.

I'll look forward to seeing conservatives' reaction to Cohn's (and B.G.'s) point.