The proposed tax deal is one of those classic bitter pills that we’re presented with in American politics. It’s a classic compromise. Democrats have to swallow the extension of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. Republicans have to agree to a 13-month extension of Unemployment benefits without paying for it. The two parties have agreed to split the difference on the Estate tax, with it coming back in 2011, however at a lower rate and a higher income threshhold. For me, the 13 month extension of Unemployment benefits really is a bit of a bridge too far/Adam's Blog. More here.

• That didn't take long/Fort Boise
• Portland sides with would-be bomber/Idaho Conservative Blogger
• 'Wolfer' tells inside story of wolf reintroduction to the West/Rocky Barker
• Press secretary to a good boss/Marc Johnson, The Johnson Report
• Q-&-A with Gonzaga beat writer Jim Meehan of SR/CougLink
  

Question: Doesn't the net benefit of this tax deal seem to be that we're taking in less money and spending more -- a lose-lose proposition?