The lead article in today’s New York Times, “President Looks to Broader Deal in Deficit Talks,” holds out a glimmer of hope for an arrangement that could put the United States on a firmer financial footing for a decade or more. Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and the President are reportedly considering a wide-ranging agreement to cut trillions more than planned, with revenues from letting the Bush cuts expire for the wealthy as well.

Meanwhile, both of them are facing troubles with their base. Eric Cantor, Majority Leader of the House, is demanding that any revenue increases from closing loopholes be offset by tax cuts elsewhere while Democrats are expressing fears about an agreement on Medicare that could weaken one of their major arguments for reelection, namely the draconian cuts to the program proposed by Paul Ryan.

Whether this massive deal can actually be struck and passed remains to be seen. Even publicity about it could evaporate any hope for its consummation as both sides head to their respective bunkers. Still, it could put our economy on a sounder footing, and provided the cuts do not fundamentally change any of the social programs, they could still receive support from Democrats. We shall see.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Democrats Force a Medicare Vote, Pressuring G.O.P.,” illustrates the real sentiment from everyday Americans against privatizing Medicare or making it into a voucher program.

Republicans, in a textbook example of overreach, thought somehow that their mandate in the mid-term elections, when they ran on jobs, extended to their entire anti-government philosophy. I was frankly surprised at the speed with which they adopted the Ryan budget plan because they did not need to go that far with national elections on the horizon.

The extent of the unhappiness with the Ryan plan surfaced at town hall meetings around the country when the Republicans, for a change, were confronted by angry voters. The special election in NY Congressional District 26 represented the first test case of this sentiment. This district was so Republican that it was one of only four in New York State to vote for Palladino for Governor. And one of the few to go for McCain in the last Presidential election.

If Republicans were wise, they would see a warning in the Democrats’ win and make modifications for their future elections. But based on yesterday’s test vote in the Senate, when the Democrats offered up the Ryan plan for Republicans to vote for like sheep going to the slaughter, they seemed to double down instead. Only four Republican senators voted against it.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Wall Street Sends Warning to U.S. on Debt Levels,” shows the impact credit reports can have on financial markets and should hopefully encourage rational Republicans and Democrats to collaborate on solving the nation’s deficit problem. The Tea Party, frankly, should be written off as extremists because they will never agree on any compromise, and any legislation will need to be passed by the same coalition of establishment Republicans and Democrats who enacted the compromise to avert a federal shutdown.

The ratings firm, Standard & Poor’s, created the selling spree on Wall Street yesterday when it lowered the United States credit outlook to negative even though it maintained the triple-A rating on the country’s debt. The organization said there was a one in three possibility that the political parties would be unable to agree on a path forward to solve the deficit crisis.

As a result, Wall Street and two other major stock indexes declined more than one percent. Treasury yields spiked with an immediate impact on consumer interest rates on loans, particularly for mortgages.

Meanwhile, President Obama is going on the road to tout his deficit reduction plan, one that puts military spending on the table as well as Medicare, thus saving the social program from the transformation into a voucher system envisioned by Republicans. One hopes the President will succeed in mobilizing public opinion for the sake of this valuable component of the social safety net.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “House Approves Republican Plan to Cut Trillions,” makes me sort of understand the phenomenon with lemmings, where these not-too-bright animals follow their leaders off a cliff. The House did something similar yesterday when they approved Paul Ryan’s plan to cut the budget and yet give even more tax breaks to the wealthy.

President Obama’s description of the plan is particularly appalling in its clarity: $200,000 tax cuts for millionaires will be paid for by $6,000 sacrifices by 33 seniors for each one. That’s the bottom line.

The plan to eviscerate Medicare and make it a voucher plan that would leave seniors at the mercy of the health insurance industry — and what company would find any profit in insuring 70- and 80-year-olds — is particularly galling. It represents a blatant attempt to break the social compact established over many decades and take us back to the days of Calvin Coolidge.

The attempt to assuage current seniors by telling them the plan does not apply to them ignores the fact that we will all be seniors one day and represents a blatant attempt to avoid losing their votes. But this cynical ploy will not work — seniors are smarter than that.

The most poignant part about this whole messy situation is that not one Democrat voted for the bill.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “2011 Budget Bill with Cuts is Approved by Congress,” describes an interesting development in the budget battle with implications for future, more serious skirmishes (or more aptly battles). House Leader John Boehner was only able to get the budget bill passed with the help of Democratic votes.

A total of 59 Republicans voted against the measure setting up a conflict between the hard-right conservatives in the House and the limitations of divided government with the Senate and White House controlled by Democrats. But the tide of public opinion, once solidly in favor of the Republican budget cutters, has begun to turn after the draconian and severe budget plan drafted by House Republican Paul Ryan. That plan, for want of any serious Republican alternative, will be passed by the Republicans in the House on Friday, and will be hung like millstones around their neck by the Democratic opposition.

The Ryan plan eviscerates Medicare, turning it into a voucher system, meaning seniors would be left to make up the difference in the private health insurance market. And not many insurance companies will make a profit by protecting the health of 70- and 80-year-olds. And the bill simultaneously provides gargantuan cuts to the very rich, meaning, as President Obama said in his speech, that a millionaire will receive a tax cut of $200,000 that will be paid for by cutting $6,000 from 33 seniors.

Meanwhile, the political dynamics of a new coalition between mainstream Republicans and Democrats may have implications for future legislation. The Tea Party, in effect, has shot itself in the foot by making itself marginal to actually passing bills. And as Henry Clay said, and was quoted by Steny Hoyer, “If you cannot compromise, you cannot govern.”

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Fight on Budget Poses Challenge for Two Leaders,” shows how President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner have become an odd couple during this traumatic time. Each is dealing with recalcitrant members of their own caucus — Tea Party activists for Mr. Boehner and liberal Democrats for President Obama — during a trying time for the federal government and the nation.

Yes, the conservative Republicans won in the most recent election, as they are tirelessly telling us, but they are misinterpreting and overreaching on their mandate, a fact the Democrats will drive home to their advantage in 2012. There was, to some degree, a reaction against overspending, but no one was demanding the dismantling of Medicare for senior citizens as Paul Ryan’s budget for next year (another upcoming fight) proposes. But first, we must pass a budget for this year, and the Tea Party should be happy with the progress they have made. However, the ability to compromise is a sign of maturity that many of them have failed to muster.

The late night meeting called by the President yesterday forced John Boehner and Harry Reid to sit in a room and confront the realities of the situation. While they did not come to a final agreement, it appears they are on the path to doing so. But then, each must fight with their own unruly caucus to secure the votes for passage.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Obama Weighing Broad Overhaul for Income Tax,” showcases both the President’s political talents and his policy genius.

At a time when it has become popular in Democratic circles to criticize the President, much of it justified, credit goes where credit is due. According to the article, he is considering a massive overhaul of the tax code, eliminating many deductions while simultaneously lowering rates.

Surprisingly, the overall effect from this effort is a net positive in fighting the debt. That shows just how much the complicated nature of today’s tax code is taken advantage of by the rich and corporations with their high-geared lawyers and accountants.

This effort simultaneously takes the initiative away from the Republicans by pre-empting one of their major issues. In some ways, it follows the policy of triangulation undertaken by the Clinton administration, after President Clinton lost the Congress in 1994. In fact, President Clinton has been summoned to the White House for a chat with President Obama today.

The overhaul of the tax code also follows the approach suggested by the fiscal commission, an approach that was supported by two very conservative Republicans on the panel.

Whether the Republicans are willing to cooperate with the President in these matters remains to be seen. But the good of the country would seem to demand it.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is a news analysis titled, “A Red-Ink Decade.” It describes the limited options for future Presidents in light of the size of the deficit and the necessity to address it.

Apparently, President Obama’s projections call for significant deficits for the next ten years. This makes it highly unlikely that future Presidents will have the opportunity for any domestic programs. It is compared in the article to homeowners whose mortgage is greater than the value of the house; in other words, the American government is “under water.”

The article also makes several astute political observations including the unwillingness of the Republicans to raise taxes and the unwillingness of the Democrats to cut programs, especially Social Security. In light of these limitations, the article paints a very pessimistic picture of their implications.

The article concludes on a somewhat optimistic note, citing Stein’s law. “If a trend cannot continue, it will stop.” In fact, the addressing of the problem on the front page of The New York Times means that even a so-called liberal newspaper is increasing awareness of the situation.

Ideally, President Obama will stimulate the economy in the short run, boosting jobs, and therefore revenue, and will ride that additional revenue to reduce the deficit. Sounds easy on paper …

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama to Seek Spending Freeze to Trim Deficits.” The article describes a topic to be covered by President Obama in tomorrow’s State of the Union address. He is plannng to call for a three-year freeze in programs in the domestic budget, but the Defense Department, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be exempt.

Most announcers are describes the impact as a drop in the ocean, though a White House adviser tried to defend it as a first step. However, the program may upset the Democratic base because of the military exemption and upset Republicans because it isn’t big enough.

This represents a continuing conundrum for President Obama. By trying to accommodate everyone, he ends up pleasing noone. The area of the budget he suggested for initial cuts represents only eight percent of the total budget.

I guess we’re now living post-national healthcare in terms of White House priorities. It seems like they’ve forgotten all their other big programs as well and are focusing on an incremental approach. This is profoundly disappointing, and one would hope that President Obama fights with the House to pass the Senate healthcare bill, with a promise of changes later. But that will require leadership and a willingness to take another major risk ….

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Deficit Rises to $1.4 Trillion, Biggest Since ’45.” It notes that our deficit for the past fiscal year (ending September 30) represents 10 percent of our economy compared to 21.5 percent after World War II.

The article notes that TARP and the two-year stimulus program account for only a quarter of the deficit, and one of the main culprits was the high jobless rate, a major factor in decreasing revenues. It also points out that President Obama was faced with a severe recession and financial crisis when he assumed office, and that dictated his need to provide large infusions of cash.

In my opinion, this topic distracts from the real problems facing this Administration, namely the need to get Americans back to work. Many people are suffering despite the relative boom on Wall Street, and they need immediate relief on humanitarian grounds. Of course, this will add even more to the deficit, but only in the short term.

President Obama has done what he had to do, and many have suggested that the stimulus was too small. In fact, some are suggesting it would be disastrous to try to balance the budget when the economy is still recovering.

Of course, Republicans will try to use this statistic to rally opposition against the health care bill, but this tactic smacks of political opportunism more than anything else.