Think Progress has a good post on the hypocrisy of the GOP vis-a-vis the use of the filibuster.  You’ll recall that the GOP demanded an “up or down vote” on Bush’s judicial nominees.

Now, not so much.

But now that they are out of power and President Obama has the ability to appoint judges, Republicans are threatening a filibuster of judges if Obama doesn’t appease them. In a letter to the White House yesterday, all 41 Senate Republicans “requested that Obama respect the Senate’s constitutional role in reviewing judicial nominees by seeking their consultation about potential nominees from their respective states.”

Great.  Virginia’s own Sen. Mark Warner is now trying to sabotage Obama’s agenda.

Matthew Yglesias sums up quite nicely how conservatives argue that taxes on the rich should always be cut.

…[W]hen progressive tax policy has been in place during a period of growth, and that growth has led to a budget surplus, you argue not that it’s smart to balance the budget over the course of the business cycle, but rather that the surplus reflects the government “overcharging” in taxes that should be returned to those who pay the most taxes; which is to say to those who have the most money; which is to say to the rich. That’s a 1999 argument. Then if the economy falls into recession wiping out the surpluses, you argue that a tax cut for the rich is needed as economic stimulus. That’s a 2001 argument. And if the economy is growing during a period of conservative tax policy, you argue that the low taxes produced the growth so need to be kept in place forever. That’s a 2005 argument. And then if the economy falls into recession again, you argue that additional permanent tax cuts for the wealthy are the only solution.

Those who argue for tax cuts have one ultimate goal in mind:  to fulfill Grover Norquist’s vision of shrinking government to the point where you can flush it down the toilet.

If you missed it, read the lead story in yesterday’s Outlook section of the Washington Post.  It takes on the blowhards on CNBC.

…just days before Bear Stearns stock became worthless, Jim Cramer's head nearly exploded off his shoulders, so intense was his conviction that his viewers should NOT. SELL. BEAR. But what I don't understand is the hundreds of thousands of people who still tune in every night to hear what he has to say. The newfound populist fame of CNBC's Rick Santelli is a mystery, too. His recent rant against Obama's mortgage bailout plan was really just more not-so-thoughtful advice, wasn't it? His seemed to be just another yelp from the network that surely did its part showing people the way to the bottom, now telling the president with complete conviction that a lot of those people shouldn't be helped back up.

What’s left unsaid is that not only is the advice from CNBC bloviators wrong, it is delivered with a decidedly right-wing perspective.  The station lacks journalistic integrity.

One, its guests are overwhelmingly conservative.  Often, CNBC books two guests to discuss a subject.  One is a conservative, and the other is Attila the Hun.  Rarely are progressives given a platform to give the other side of the story.  More important and to the point of the article, economics is not a science.  We’re guessing.  We should have more discussions that include “yes, but.”  We can’t know what’s going to happen next in the economy, much less the stock market.  But we can have rational discussions about options and possibilities.

Two, we are asked to trust the reporting of anchors and reporters who regularly share with us their own opinions , and they, too, are far right-wing.  How are we to trust their reporting when their biases on worn on their sleeves?  The following reporters/anchors on CNBC cannot be trusted:

• Charlie Gasparino
• Maria Bartiromo
• Erin Burnett
• Michelle Caruso-Cabrera
• Dennis Kneale
• Melissa Francis
• Larry Kudlow
• Melissa Lea
• Becky Quick
• Carl Quintanella
• Joe Kernen

But Democrats and progressives must share some of the blame.  When they see unfair coverage and unbalanced views, they need to make an issue of it.  The Republicans are aggressive when it comes to media.  Dems wait for the phone to ring.

How long before:

A. Steele apologizes?

B. Steele says his words were taken out of context?

C. Steele accuses the media of “gotcha journalism”?

D. Limbaugh is crowned Grand Poobah of the GOP?

Almost as reflexive as “tax cuts are the best remedies to fix the economy” is the GOP charge that tax hikes “hurt small businesses.”  It’s a myth.

Obama’s tax hikes will impact households making more than $250,000 a year.

Ninety-five percent of small businesses would be unaffected.

And, contrary to GOPers* charges, “…most small businesses don’t create jobs. They tend to be lawyers, accountants and other professionals who earn some of their money from partnerships or otherwise organize themselves as a business entity.”

Meanwhile, small businesses are defined as those having up to 500 workers.  The difference between one lone consultant and a 500-employee company is huge.  Take it from me; I represent one of those categories.  Guess which one.

Read all about it.

*Last week, “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews took one poor Republican congressman to task for using the term Democrat party.  I’m not sure why this affectation started, but clearly it’s meant to insult the party of Andrew Jackson.  So until the practice stops, I’ll try to use either the term GOPers (rhymes with dopers) or Repugs, short for repugnant, to identify the party of Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover and, of course, W, or as he hates to be called, Junior.

Washington Nationals General Manager Jim Bowden resigned this morning, saying he felt he had become a distraction to the club.

The Nationals did not immediately name a successor or an interim GM.

Not surprising, of course.

Also, not surprising was that he blamed the media.

"I am disappointed by the media reports regarding investigations into any of my professional activities," Bowden said in a statement released by the team. "There have been no charges made, and there has been no indication that parties have found any wrongdoing on my part."

For the Nats, now comes the hard part.

The Bowden controversy has obscured many promising story lines of this spring and interfered with the run-up Washington needs for the 2009 regular season. Never have the Nationals seen a greater need to sell their on-field product. With their welcome-to-the-District grace period now over, and with the honeymoon benefits of the new stadium waning, the Nationals, more than ever, must attract fans with talent and with the potential to win.

I’ll see you at the ballpark.

Today on “Meet the Press” Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked what the difference was between working with Bush and Obama.

I think, probably, President Obama is more analytical [than President Bush] um, um, and, and, he, he makes sure he hears from anybody in the room on an issue, and if they don’t speak up, he calls on them.

Gates hesitancy is understandable.  Behind the “ums” I was able to mind read for you not having my special powers.  He was thinking, “My Irish Setter is more analytical than Bush.”

The Obama administration is planning to change the tax consequences of carried interest.  Carried interest is simply the profits of hedge funds, partnerships, real estate investment trusts, etc.  They pay taxes on that profit as if it were capital gains and not ordinary income.  Investment companies tax their earnings that way, too.

They argue that

"Venture capital investors put up some personal money, and then more importantly we put up our brains just like the entrepreneur does,” [said Mark G. Heesen, president of the National Venture Capital Association.]   “We don’t just put up money and walk away, and see you in a couple of years. We take an active role in growing these companies."

So if auto workers, hamburger flippers and just about anybody else who wants to lower their tax rates before the administration changes this rule, just tell the IRS that anybody can hold a wrench or a spatula, but that you “put up your brains” behind those modest implements to take “an active role in growing these companies." And while you’re at it, you can demand a portion of the profits.

Investment partnerships generally work this way: They are run by managers who use money from investors to buy and sell buildings, companies and other assets. When the investments are sold, the investors typically take 80 percent of the profits. The managers collect the remaining 20 percent (known as the carried interest).

You can’t make this stuff up.

I hesitated to post this, not wanting to appear even more ignorant than many think I am.  But I scanned the comments section of this story and found that at least I’m not alone in not getting this.  So if I’m stupid, there is at least one poor soul who is as dumb as I am.

Top brokers at Morgan Stanley and Citigroup‘s Smith Barney, which are to join forces in a joint venture later this year, learned last week that they will receive packages worth 105 percent of their annual revenue. That means a broker who brought in $2 million last year would get $2.1 million. Much of it will be awarded next year, and the remainder in 2012.

No wonder financial companies are losing money.  They pay their brokers more money than the brokers bring into the company.

Somebody enlighten me here.