Wrap-up and Links 1-26-10

-The big news today was that Obama will announce a spending freeze on non-military discretionary spending in tomorrow's state of the union tomorrow.  The move seems to serve two purposes: 1.) start to reduce the size of the deficit, and 2.) placate conservatives who are calling, loudly, for a reduced deficit.  The Economist's DiA blog is skeptical -- pointing out that the spending in question only accounts for 1/8 of the federal budget won't do much -- and goes on to argue the largest causes of the deficit are low taxes and high military spending (two items not affected by the spending freeze).

Conservatives don't seem too placated, with House minority leader John Boehner saying that "Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest".  And liberals are somewhere between skeptical and irate.  Nate Silver writes that this is a gaffe on the same scale as John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign, and Paul Krugman writes that "it's appalling on every level ".

-Reaction to last week's supreme court decision overturning part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform continues to trickle in.  The NY Times writes about John Paul Stevens' new-found outspokenness.  The liberal judge joined with Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to oppose the expansion of the ability of corporations and unions to contribute to political campaigns.  In his dissention opinion, Stephens said from the bench that the decision "represents a radical change in the law," and "is at war with the views of generations of Americans."  Writing the majority decision was swing vote Anthony Kennedy, who voted along with the conservative wing of the court: Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia.  And here's the Daily Show's comical criticism of the decision.

-Tom Schaller writes that this is, indeed, a center-right nation - not because the population leans conservative, but because the structure of our government makes it difficult to enact liberal reforms.

-Here's a mildly interesting picture of what the U.S. would look like if it were divided into 50 states with equal populations (which would dramatically re-shape the electoral college and the senate).