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

* Libya: "After a second night of American and European strikes by air and sea against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces, European nations on Monday rejected Libyan claims that civilians had been killed while struggling to present a united diplomatic front. On the ground in Libya, pro-Qaddafi forces were reported to be holding out against the allied campaign to break their grip. Pentagon officials said there were fewer American and coalition airstrikes in Libya Sunday night and Monday, and that the number was likely to decline further in coming days."

* Japan: "Efforts to stabilize the crippled nuclear power plant in Fukushima stalled on Monday when engineers found that crucial machinery at one reactor required repair, a process that will take two to three days, government officials said. A team of workers trying to repair another reactor, No. 3, was evacuated in the afternoon after gray smoke rose from it, said Tetsuro Fukuyama, the deputy chief cabinet secretary of the Japanese government. But no explosion was heard and the emission ended by 6 p.m., NHK, the national broadcaster, said."

* They're going to have quite a story to tell: "The Libyan government released four New York Times journalists on Monday, six days after they were captured while covering the conflict between government and rebel forces in the eastern city of Ajdabiya. They were released into the custody of Turkish diplomats and crossed safely into Tunisia in the late afternoon."

* In the nation's first-ever referendum, Egyptians approved constitutional changes that will bring national elections soon.

* House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefly hospitalized in Rome today, but has been released and is reportedly doing fine.

* A big court win for the ACLU: "Civil liberties advocates opposed to the government's expanded wiretapping powers can continue their fight after an appellate court on Monday reinstated a lawsuit challenging an eavesdropping law passed by Congress three years ago. The decision could put the Obama administration in the uncomfortable position of having to argue in support of broad executive authority to conduct surveillance operations -- a position that President Obama, as a presidential candidate, had once opposed."

* The cost of Operation Odyssey Dawn? The first day carried a price tag of well over $100 million in missiles alone.

* Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, a legendary diplomat, died over the weekend. He was 85.

* This guy really isn't all there: "Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) called for a showdown with "Senate liberals" Monday, saying the GOP must not retreat from its plan to slash $61 billion even if it means funding the government just one day at a time."

* Bill Kristol believes the U.S. has never "invaded" a Muslim country, because he has a new spin on the definition of "invade."

* While Georgia has gutted its successful HOPE scholarship program, state Republicans have suddenly discovered "a great deal of state money available for private colleges in Georgia."

* At one moment, Glenn Beck was outraged that President Obama hasn't done more in Libya. Literally 20 seconds later, Beck was outraged that President Obama has done too much in Libya

* And finally, Jonathan Rowe, a former editor and contributing editor here at the Washington Monthly, died unexpectedly yesterday. Our best wishes go out to his family and friends.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... As developments unfold in Libya, there's no shortage of opinions, analyses, warnings, and predictions. That's a good thing -- military interventions should be subjected to intense scrutiny and debate.

But when it comes criticism of the administration, I think Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) deserves some kind of award for offering the single dumbest commentary available to date.

"The world is going to hell. And I don't know any other way to say it. When you look at what's happening in Libya, I don't care what anyone says; you can't win away from 30,000 feet. I've been on the battle field before. I don't know why we're shooting $567,000 a piece Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya. You know, back two or three weeks ago, we could have taken care of this situation if we had done the exact same thing that Ronald Reagan did back in the early 80's to Muammar Gaddafi, when he dropped the bomb in his back yard. Muammar Gaddafi didn't say a word for the next 30 years."

Wow.

First, when West boasts about having been "on the battle field," it's worth noting that during his service in Iraq, he was forced to retire from the Army for engaging in abusive interrogation techniques. His military tenure scandalous, not the kind of record that lends a politician credibility.

Second, West says he doesn't know why U.S. forces are firing into Libya. He doesn't? It's really not complicated -- we're part of a coalition enforcing a United Nations Security Council resolution. There's ample reason to think it's a bad idea, but the reason for the offensive isn't exactly a mystery.

And as for the misplaced Reagan worship, in 1986 -- not "the early 80s" -- U.S. forces launched airstrikes against multiple targets in Libya after the Gadhafi regime was linked to a terrorist attack in Germany. Reagan did not drop "the bomb," but rather, used conventional weapons.

But the notion that Gadhafi, following the 1986 strikes, "didn't say a word for the next 30 years" is ridiculous. Walid Zafar explained, Gadhafi soon after declared his intention to become emperor of Africa; his government orchestrated the Lockerbie bombing two years later; and Gadhafi's interest in a nuclear program only grew in the wake of the Reagan administration's efforts.

In other words, Allen West has no idea what he's talking about, and he's addressing what he considers his area of expertise. Indeed, House Republicans recently put him on the House Armed Services Committee because of his knowledgeable background on military matters.

The mind reels.

CRITICISM THAT SOUNDS LIKE PRAISE.... The New York Times' Ross Douthat takes a closer look at the process the Obama administration followed in deciding to intervene in Libya, and offers what, at first glance, appears to be fairly reasonable praise.

Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya's civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.

That much his administration has achieved. In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention. It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton's State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates's Pentagon. Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic.

This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton's 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration's more unilateralist methods. There are no "coalitions of the willing" here, no dismissive references to "Old Europe," no "you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.

That sounds more or less right. As skeptical as I am about "Operation Odyssey Dawn," I take some solace in the way in which the decision was reached. The fact that there's been no White House grandstanding, no bullying, and no visions of an imposition of democracy is encouraging.

But Douthat apparently doesn't see it this way. His description of "the most multilateral, least cowboyish" national security/foreign policy strategy is intended as criticism. Indeed, Douthat believes the liberal interventionism of the 1990s -- in Bosnia, in Kosovo -- should serve as evidence of the general approach's shortcomings.

Two thoughts come to mind. First, Douthat's recollection of the efficacy of U.S. policy in Bosnia and Kosovo may need a refresher.

Second, it's a little jarring to see an op-ed touting the merits of a "cowboyish" unilaterialsm, that disregards international institutions and coalitions, without so much as a hint of an explanation as to why this policy failed so spectacularly in the Bush/Cheney era.

CLEAR MAJORITY SUPPORTS ADMINISTRATION LINE ON LIBYA.... International military efforts in Libya are still quite new -- intervention began in earnest just Saturday -- but so far, the policy appears to enjoy the support of most Americans.

Seven in ten Americans support military action by the U.S. and other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, a 14-point increase since last week, according to a new national poll.

But a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey also indicates there is less among the public for air strikes that directly target Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's troops who are fighting opposition forces, and only one in four want to send ground forces into the conflict.

A 70% majority support the establishment of a no-fly zone, up from 56% a week ago. A much smaller majority wants air strikes target Libyan troops,

Just as important, 70% also oppose the deployment of U.S. ground forces, a step President Obama has repeatedly ruled out.

Also of interest, the partisan divide -- about half the country supports the president's handling the situation in Libya, which seems low given the 70% who express support for the larger mission. So what's keeping Obama's numbers low? Republicans are the most likely to support the White House policy, but only 27% approve of the president for having a policy in line with their own preferences.

For the record, had the pollster called me as a participant, I'm not sure how I'd respond to the questions, and I find myself skeptical but generally unsure of the mission's value. Indeed, I found myself nodding quite bit while reading Matt Yglesias' item this afternoon: "I ... feel like this is just one of those weeks when it's really bad to be a general purpose political pundit who's supposed to write a high-volume blog. I can hardly just ignore Libya, but I don't have strong convictions one way or the other about it or a strong knowledge base. Had this not gotten UNSCR authorization, I'd be clearly opposed and I'd have lengthy and well-considered reasons for that opposition, but that's not the case."

I've already noted in previous posts the unanswered questions surrounding this policy, and those doubts remain. James Fallows offers a helpful summary of the relevant question marks: "But after this spectacular first stage of air war, what happens then? If the airstrikes persuade Qaddafi and his forces just to quit, great! But what if they don't? What happens when a bomb lands in the 'wrong' place? As one inevitably will. When Arab League supporters of the effort see emerging 'flaws' and 'abuses' in its execution? As they will. When the fighting goes on and the casualties mount up and a commitment meant to be 'days, not weeks' cannot 'decently' be abandoned, after mere days, with so many lives newly at stake? When the French, the Brits, and other allies reach the end of their military resources -- or their domestic support -- and more of the work naturally shifts to the country with more weapons than the rest of the world combined?"

But despite all of this, I'm hardly an expert on U.S. policy towards Libya, or even Libya itself. What would I have done had the decision fallen to me? It's unsatisfying in blogging/punditry, but I don't know.

TOO 'BROKE' FOR IMMUNIZATION PROGRAMS?.... Part of the problem with the budget plan approved by House Republicans is that it has too many problems. For critics, it's hard to even know where to start with all the spectacular flaws, and Democrats have struggled -- if they've even tried -- to narrow the focus to a handful of glaring, scandalous GOP decisions.

Should the focus be on cuts to Head Start? How about undercutting job training? And infrastructure? And homeland security? For those opposed to the GOP plan, the number of rhetorical targets makes criticism haphazard.

And that's a shame because each of the remarkable cuts Republicans voted for deserves considerable attention. Suzy Khimm highlights a doozy today, that's gone largely unnoticed. We knew the House GOP targeted the Centers for Disease Control, but it's worth emphasizing what that means for the agency's immunization funding.

In the past year, California has experienced the worst whopping cough outbreak in more than 50 years, an epidemic that has killed 10 infants and resulted in 6,400 reported cases. But even as the state's public health officials have struggled to curb the disease, Republicans in Congress have proposed slashing millions in federal funding for immunization programs. Public health advocates warn that these cuts threaten efforts across the country to prevent and contain infectious and sometimes fatal diseases. And they add that lower vaccination rates could eventually result in more outbreaks that endanger public health at a major cost to taxpayers.

The House GOP's 2011 budget would chop $156 million from the Centers for Disease Control's funding for immunization and respiratory diseases. The GOP reductions are likely to hit the CDC's support for state and local immunization programs, the agency's ability to evaluate which vaccines are working, and its work to educate the public about recommended vaccines for children, teenagers, and other susceptible populations. The CDC especially focuses on serving lower-income families who receive vaccines at state and local health offices and community health clinics, rather than a private doctor's office.

I sometimes get the sense the entire congressional Republican caucus is trying to do an imitation of C. Montgomery Burns.

Also note, we discussed the other day how some GOP spending cuts actually end up costing us more money, and this would very likely fall into the same category.

Health advocates tout vaccines as one of the most cost-effective preventive health strategies, warning that pinching pennies to achieve short-term cost savings could end up costing taxpayers plenty more down the road. [...]

Advocates warn that cutting back on vaccine education and availability could help increase the likelihood of future outbreaks of such diseases -- and reduce the government's ability to respond effectively to contain such outbreaks when they occur. "It's false savings," concludes APHA's Benjamin. While other public health experts argue the impact of such cutbacks might not be immediately apparent, there could be risks down the road if funding for vaccines is undermined. "In the short term, you're not going to see a difference, but [the question is] whether in three to five years, we're going to maintain our high immunization levels," says Dr. William Schaffner, chair of Vanderbilt University's preventive medicine department and an advisor to the CDC.

To date, Democrats have resisted Republican demands for these cuts. For all our sakes, here's hoping it's one of the many parts of the budget fight Dems win.

Postscript: I would assume that GOP leaders would defend these cuts with the same line they always use: "We're broke." But we're not, and if Republicans believe we can afford tax cuts and wars, but not immunizations for low-income children, that's pretty twisted.

PONDERING THE 'HOW DUMB ARE WE?' QUESTION.... Newsweek is the latest major outlet to poll Americans on some basics of American history and civics. As the headline suggests -- "How dumb are we?" -- the public didn't do especially well when tested. (thanks to R.K. for the tip)

They're the sort of scores that drive high-school history teachers to drink. When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America's official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn't name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn't correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn't even circle Independence Day on a calendar.

Going through the results, some of Newsweek's findings were more discouraging than others. An overwhelming majority, for example, can't name one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, but that's hardly surprising. Similar numbers don't know how many U.S. House members there are, who was president during World War I, or the precise number of amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

All things considered, though, these results don't strike me as especially outrageous, and even the questions don't seem especially relevant. I'm generally far more concerned about what Americans know about current events than historical events, though regrettably, we didn't do too well on these questions, either.

But the point here is not to just laugh at an uninformed electorate. Rather, the point is that this ignorance matters. Newsweek's report added that the world is "becoming more and more inhospitable to incurious know-nothings -- like us."

For more than two centuries, Americans have gotten away with not knowing much about the world around them. But times have changed -- and they've changed in ways that make civic ignorance a big problem going forward. While isolationism is fine in an isolated society, we can no longer afford to mind our own business. What happens in China and India (or at a Japanese nuclear plant) affects the autoworker in Detroit; what happens in the statehouse and the White House affects the competition in China and India. Before the Internet, brawn was enough; now the information economy demands brains instead. And where we once relied on political institutions (like organized labor) to school the middle classes and give them leverage, we now have nothing. "The issue isn't that people in the past knew a lot more and know less now," says [Jacob] Hacker. "It's that their ignorance was counterbalanced by denser political organizations."

And with that ignorance comes consequences, as uninformed and easily-fooled voters have a severely limited working understanding of current events, but at the same time, have enormous power over the nation's future.

The standard response is that people are busy, and I get that. But as Isaac Chotiner persuasively argued a while back, "[W]hen you live in a democracy, there are very few good excuses for not having minimal knowledge about what is going on in the world. How much newspaper reading would it have taken to realize that between 1992 and 1996 the deficit decreased? Or to realize that Saddam did not have a hand in 9/11? Now ask yourself how much time the average American spends watching mediocre television. Voters can choose to be ignorant or disinterested, but that choice is fundamentally their own."

The problem goes beyond voters rewarding the wrong candidates or parties; ignorance undermines the entire process. When voters are ignorant, candidates are more likely to lie, confident in their ability to get away with it. When the electorate is disengaged, policymakers feel less pressure to exercise good judgment, knowing they can just pull the wool over the public's eyes later.

I'm obviously engaged in politics, and if you're reading this, you are too. Not everyone shares our interests, and that's fine. But many Americans make time for the things they find important. They spent time watching sports, or keeping up on celebrities, or whatever. And while it would be the height of arrogance to suggest the public change its leisure habits, our political system -- and the country overall -- relies on a certain level of sophistication among the public, and there's ample evidence that we're just not at that level.

In human history, it's never been easier to get -- and stay -- well informed. Folks just have to take some responsibility.

WITH FOOD PRICES RISING, CONGRESS OFFERS THE WRONG ANSWER.... The price of food has gone up considerably, and a growing number of Americans -- nearly one in five -- have said they're struggling to feed their families.

Following up on an item from last week, Tim Fernholz reports that several House members, nearly all Republicans, are responding with the wrong answer.

The House Agriculture Committee endorsed a letter this week to Budget Chairman Paul Ryan arguing that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps low-income Americans purchase food, would make a better target for cuts than automatic subsidies to farms.

The move comes as food prices are rising -- the Department of Agriculture expects overall food prices to rise 3 percent to 4 percent this year -- making it harder for the beneficiaries of SNAP to stretch their existing benefits, even as farmers profit from the tightening market. Critics across the political spectrum have called agricultural subsidies wasteful and unnecessary, and they question the logic of maintaining them as lawmakers hunt for budget cuts.

Those critics from across the political spectrum are right.

The problem here is that the Agriculture Committee is dominated not only by a Republican majority, but farm-state lawmakers where constituents rely heavily on agriculture subsidies from the government. We're talking about folks who are desperate to cut spending, but are equally desperate to protect wasteful and unnecessary agricultural subsidies.

As a result, since slashing something is apparently mandatory, they're cutting SNAP, the program that helps struggling families eat, and which has become an even more important refuge for low-income Americans during a struggling economy with rising food prices.

What's more, as Pat Garofalo explained, making agriculture subsidies off limits is absurd: "At the moment, 61 percent of the subsidies that the U.S. provides for agriculture go to just ten percent of recipients. Though some restrictions on rich farmers receiving subsidies were placed into the 2008 farm bill, they were mostly ineffective. And entrenched lawmakers on the agriculture committee help to keep it that way."

MONDAY'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:

* The special election in New York's 26th congressional district is finally set, with Democrats nominating Erie County Clerk Kathy Hochul (D) over the weekend. She'll face Assemblywoman Jane Corwin (R) in the traditionally "red" district.

* A new poll from the Billings Gazette offers a reminder that Montana's U.S. Senate race is likely to be the closest in the country in 2012. The survey found incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D) leading Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) by just one point, 46% to 45%.

* Likely GOP presidential candidates are now still scrambling to hire top-tier staffers before their rivals do. Haley Barbour scored something of a coup over the weekend, picking up Sally Bradshaw, a veteran Republican strategist, who had worked for Mitt Romney.

* The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee narrowly outraised its Republican counterpart in February, $3.4 million to $3.3 million. The DSCC's total is the best off-year February either party's Senate committee has ever had.

* The Republican National Committee's debt problems continue in the wake of former Chairman Michael Steele's mismanagement. The RNC ended February more than $21 million in debt, following previously unreported expenses.

* In West Virginia's gubernatorial race, one of a handful of statewide contests in 2011, House Speaker Rick Thompson (D) is picking up major support from in-state unions, including the AFL-CIO and the West Virginia Education Association.

* States are facing such severe budget crunches that at least six are considering plans to scrap their 2012 presidential primaries.

* As foolish as this sounds, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) is once again making noises about another presidential campaign, but no one in New Hampshire seems to care.

THE LIMITS OF 'LEADERSHIP'.... For Republicans who've been clamoring for a military confrontation with Libya, the new challenge is coming up with a rationale for why they're still not happy.

With that in mind, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) went on quite a little tirade on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, complaining that President is acting as if "leading the free world is an inconvenience."

For the White House, one of the key points of emphasis is that the United States is only the "leading edge" of the coalition's effort, and the U.S. will gladly scale back its role quickly. For Graham, that's not good news at all -- the U.S., the senator argued, must take "a leadership role," not a "back seat." Indeed, as far as Graham is concerned, Obama's limited mission is itself a problem, since the senator wants to the U.S. to "replace a tyrannical leader."

Adam Serwer's take on this struck me as just right.

Most of the arguments for why the U.S. should be seen as "taking the lead" seem to hinge on little more than the fact that so doing would be emotionally satisfying to those who have been agitating for intervention in Libya since hostilities began. Ross Douthat, for instance, argues that the U.S. multilateral approach facilitates a "caution that shades into tactical incompetence." Since the U.S. is still extricating itself President George W. Bush's unilateral invasion of Iraq which didn't exactly amount to "tactical competence," this is less than persuasive.

There are several reasons why the U.S. shouldn't be seen as taking the lead. For one thing, the U.S. is already occupied with the aftermath of one war in Iraq and attempting to bring a more than decade-long operation in Afghanistan to its conclusion. The U.S. does not have unlimited military resources, and other countries that demanded intervention should take responsibility and offer contributions rather than free-riding off of the United States. The statements from the Arab League -- which asked for intervention but then wavered when operations started -- suggest that there really is a short shelf-life for the legitimacy for this operation in the Arab world, even though intervention initially had global support. If the operation goes badly, or takes far longer than advertised, it's frankly in the U.S. interest not to be seen as having led the attack on a third Muslim country.

For Graham and those who share his ideology, having the U.S. military "take the lead" is necessarily good, regardless of the costs or burdens, because "taking the lead" is good. Leaving heavy lifting to allies, who aren't overstretched with two other wars, is bad, because, well, it just is.

That's not a foreign policy, it's a chest-thumping bumper sticker.

AND THEN THERE WAS ONE.... We're about 10 months from Iowa's Republican presidential caucuses, and about two months from the first scheduled GOP debate for the 2012 presidential field. Now all we need is some candidates.

Yes, I realize former pizza company executive Herman Cain and former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer have already begun campaigning, but the field of credible, likely-to-be-competitive Republican hopefuls is surprisingly sparse. Which is to say, there is no field. Given all the GOP clamoring, it was hard to predict last year that we'd have exactly zero top-tier Republican candidates as late as March 21.

By all indications, that will change today.

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will file paperwork today to organize his bid for the White House, he told supporters on a conference call today.

The bid, to be announced on Facebook later today, will be headquartered in the Twin Cities.

An aide, Phil Musser, asked donors to wait until April 1 to contribute to Pawlenty's campaign, in order to avoid the impression that he'd tried and failed to raise much money in his first quarter.

The formal announcement will reportedly come on Facebook later this afternoon. Pawlenty won't formally launch a campaign, but will instead create an exploratory committee -- the move that comes before the actual campaign.

I suspect much of the punditry surrounding the news will focus on the fact that Pawlenty is a dull and uninspiring character, who'll enter the race with very little support in the polls. That analysis will be true. Others will likely note that Pawlenty has a very thin record for a two-term governor; he isn't well liked in his own state; he was a moderate who's now dressing up in right-wing clothing; he has no meaningful areas of expertise in any subject; and he's even begun pretending to have a Southern accent as part of a bizarre effort to appear folksy.

All of this will be true, too.

And yet, as hard as it may seem to take Tim Pawlenty seriously as a presidential candidate, the notion of him actually winning the GOP nomination is not, on its face, ridiculous. The rest of the likely field is so deeply flawed, it's plausible to think Pawlenty may simply find himself as the last one standing.

There are several Republicans contingents and constituencies, and Pawlenty may very well prove to be just inoffensive enough to satisfy all of them.

THE CONGRESSMAN FROM KOCH INDUSTRIES.... When we last checked in with Rep. Mike Pompeo (R) of Kansas, he was trying to kill a consumer-product-safety database, allowing Americans to go online and access free information about the safety records of household products. The measure was easily approved with bipartisan support, but the freshman Republican perceived it as anti-business.

After all, if consumers are made aware of potentially dangerous products, Americans might not buy them. How can the manufacturers of those products make a profit under conditions like that?

As it turned out, the Koch brothers were the ones who wanted the online consumer-product-safety database scuttled, and Pompeo was happy to do their bidding -- he represents the district where Koch Industries is located, and the Koch brothers and their political action committee were his most generous campaign contributors.

The Washington Post had an interesting piece over the weekend, noting that Pompeo is now also trying to gut an EPA registry of greenhouse-gas polluters -- another Koch Bros' goal -- and has hired a former Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff.

"It's the same old story -- a member of Congress carrying water for his biggest campaign contributor," said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, a liberal-leaning group that has spearheaded protests against the Kochs. "I don't know how you make the argument to your constituents that it's in their interests to defund the EPA or a consumer database."

Burdett Loomis, a University of Kansas political science professor, added, "I'm sure he would vigorously dispute this, but it's hard not to characterize him as the congressman from Koch."

That pretty much sums it up. We're talking about a dynamic in which a congressman appears to be an employee of the Koch brothers.

This just isn't healthy.

MANCHIN'S CONFUSION.... I can appreciate the fact that Sen. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia represents a conservative state. He won a special election late last year, but he'll be on the ballot again in 2012, and support for the Democratic president in this state will likely be pretty low.

But that's really not much of an excuse for silly grandstanding like this.

Saying that "we must get our fiscal house in order," Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia says he'll vote against raising the nation's debt ceiling unless it's married to a plan that addresses the nation's broader fiscal problems. [...]

"In the coming weeks, we will face many difficult budget decisions. I know it will not be easy. I know that it will take compromise. I know it will be partisan and difficult. I know that everyone will have to give up something and no one will want to relinquish anything. But we cannot ignore the fiscal Titanic of our national debt and deficit," Manchin will say.

According to the released text of the speech he'll deliver later today, Manchin will vow to "vote against raising the debt ceiling unless the vote is linked to a real budget plan that begins to fix our fiscal mess."

It's seems likely Manchin has no idea what he's talking about. There's no exact date just yet, but by some estimates, the federal government will reach its debt limit in less than a month. During that time, policymakers hope to strike some kind of compromise on a budget that will fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. Almost immediately once that gets done -- if it gets done -- those same policymakers will have to agree to extend the debt limit, or face potentially catastrophic economic consequences.

Manchin believes he should deliberately create a global economic catastrophe, unless, over the course of a few weeks, some remarkable plan somehow comes together.

In other words, the center-right Democrat wants to hold the full faith and credit of the United States government hostage until his vague concerns about a "fiscal mess" are addressed to his satisfaction.

Keep in mind, Manchin isn't making any specific recommendations about what he'd like to see in this budget plan, only that he'd like others to do the work that makes him happy. If not, he apparently has his infamous rifle pointed not only at cap-and-trade, but also at our entire economy.

Update: Of course, it's also worth noting that massive spending cuts, along the lines that would apparently make Manchin happy, wouldn't do any favors for his constituents. West Virginia is a fairly low-income state, and would be harder hit than most by the kind of reductions Manchin seems to want.

THE 'GANG OF 64' NEEDS SOME HELP.... Late Friday, shortly before the Senate recessed and its members left town, a group of 64 senators sent a letter to President Obama, seeking some help on fiscal issues.

The group was organized by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), and was deliberately perfect in its bipartisan qualities -- it was co-signed by 32 Democrats and 32 Republicans, all of whom want the White House to back a "comprehensive" package to tackle the "critical" issue of deficit reduction. (One can apparently only dream of such an interest in job creation.)

Keep in mind, the Gang of 64 didn't make any kind of policy recommendations. The letter seemed provocative by virtue of its endorsees, but the request of the president was itself bland and generic. The bipartisan senators want "a broad approach," which helps reach "consensus," and believes a White House endorsement of such an effort would send a "strong signal."

This reflects a group of powerful lawmakers who agree with some vague goal, but nothing more.

Ezra Klein had a good item on the "theory of legislative action" that underscores the letter, which necessarily makes it "odd."

In this letter, 64 senators manage to sound like an interest group begging the White House for support rather than a supermajority of the United States Senate -- which is to say, a coalition of men and women who could, on their own, draft and pass the very legislation they're talking about. Which raises the question: Why are they writing this letter rather than the legislation this letter claims to want?

If vague statements about "a broad approach to solving the problem" could solve the problem, the problem would be solved.... There are a lot of letters and statements about deficit reduction flying around, but precious little legislation. If the 64 senators who signed this letter wanted to write and vote for a bill, that'd be a pretty "strong signal."

We see this fairly often, and it's puzzling every time. I can appreciate the unique role the President of the United States plays as a sole chief executive, but Congress is its own branch of government. Senators, especially a massive, bipartisan group of 64, have the power to sit down, negotiate, and craft a policy that would achieve the goal these members ostensibly want to reach. If a consensus could be reached, it'd be filibuster-proof.

But instead of choosing to work on their desired outcome, they chose to write a letter, asking President Obama to endorse work on their desired outcome.

Presumably, the next step will be calls for additional "leadership," from those who aren't interested in demonstrating any leadership.

The president has already said he'd welcome progress on this issue, and is "prepared to work with Democrats and Republicans to start dealing with" with fiscal issues "in a serious way." So, what is it, exactly, these 64 are waiting for? The White House to do their homework for them? Obama to flash a thumbs-up at them, saying, "Sounds good; get to work"?

ARE WE STILL SUPPOSED TO CARE WHAT GREENSPAN THINKS?.... The last we heard from former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, he was acknowledging how spectacularly wrong he was about regulation of the financial industry, a mistake that nearly collapsed the global economy.

Apparently still working under the assumption that we should care what he thinks, Greenspan has weighed in on economic policy once more, with a fairly long document (pdf) condemning the Obama administration. "The current government activism is hampering what should be a broad- based robust economic recovery, driven in significant part by the positive wealth effect of a buoyant U.S. and global stock market," Greenspan writes.

After noting in passing Greenspan's "weak reasoning" and "shoddy econometrics," Paul Krugman offers a timely reminder why the former Fed chairman just isn't to be taken seriously.

Greenspan writes in characteristic form: other people may have their models, but he's the wise oracle who knows the deep mysteries of human behavior, who can discern patterns based on his ineffable knowledge of economic psychology and history.

Sorry, but he doesn't get to do that anymore. 2011 is not 2006. Greenspan is an ex-Maestro; his reputation is pushing up the daisies, it's gone to meet its maker, it's joined the choir invisible.

He's no longer the Man Who Knows; he's the man who presided over an economy careening to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression -- and who saw no evil, heard no evil, refused to do anything about subprime, insisted that derivatives made the financial system more stable, denied not only that there was a national housing bubble but that such a bubble was even possible.

(If that middle paragraph didn't connect with you, it's time to familiarize yourself with the Dead Parrot sketch.)

For a more detailed takedown of Greenspan's piece, Brad DeLong very patiently noted Greenspan's errors of fact and logic, but in the larger context, it's really the chutzpah that gets to me.

Greenspan played a rather direct role in creating the calamity that the Obama administration was tasked with fixing, and to a real extent, the president and his team have succeeded, at least to the extent the economy is back on its feet, showing signs of slow growth where there was none.

Greenspan should hope that the world simply ignores him, and chooses to forgive his role in a spectacular and historic failure. For him to pipe up now, whining about "activism" causing "uncertainty" and holding back the economy is truly ridiculous, and borders on delusional.

FROM THE WEEKEND.... We covered a fair amount of ground over the weekend. Here's a quick overview of what you may have missed.

On Sunday, we talked about:

* Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) reminds the political world that military operations actually do cost money. He's right.

* Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants Americans to support President Obama as military efforts in Libya get underway, but first McCain wants to whine about Obama just a little more.

* Congressional Republicans, at the behest of bank lobbyists, consider Elizabeth Warren part of the problem. That's backwards.

* Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) slammed U.S. leaders from foreign soil. That used to be a real no-no.

* Fox News is pretty worked up about the president visiting Latin America to promote trade and open markets. Despite the Republican rhetoric, this isn't a vacation.

* "Operation Odyssey Dawn" gets underway.

And on Saturday, we talked about:

* To look at Republican politics and assume there's a "transformation" underway, from a "fanatically anti-Obama" party to a "fanatically anti-spending" one, is to miss all of the relevant details.

* What do the governors of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan have in common? They're all rookie Republicans, with far-right agendas, who are struggling badly to impress voters.

* In "This Week in God," we covered the renewed GOP efforts to attack evolutionary biology at the state level.

* Defunding NPR won't save jobs. It won't even save money.

* Turning IRS agents into abortion cops through the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" is a horrifically bad idea.

* Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) is supposed to be the guy who offers intellectual firepower for Republicans on the national level. Given his latest remarks on Libya, that's pretty laughable.