Here is Polis on Hardball:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Fox News viewers are much more likely than others to believe false information about American politics, a new study concludes.

The study, conducted by the University of Maryland, judged how likely consumers of various news outlets and publications were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign.

Among the pearls of wisdom pedaled by FOX, the study notes that viewers were more likely to incorrectly believe that the stimulus package led to job loses, health care reform will worsen the deficit, there isn’t a scientific consensus on climate change, Republicans opposed the Wall Street bailouts, their own tax rates have gone up, and the stimulus didn’t include tax-cuts.  

The New York Times also covered the U of Maryland study here.

Watch the first twelve minutes of the filibuster below:

Reaction to the day-long spectacle has been mixed.  For example, Stan Collender at Capital Gains and Game was especially critical of the firebrand Senator:

What did Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) actually accomplish with his 9-hour speech against the tax deal this past Friday? Did he...

• Change any votes?
• Force the leadership to change the tax deal so that it was more to his liking?
• Demonstrate enough Democratic disagreement with the deal that the White House felt the need to revise it?
• Demonstrate a new coalition with Republicans that made it clear the deal in doubt?
• Stop the Senate from considering the deal?
• Stop the Senate from considering anything else?
• Make it clear that he was able and willing to stop the debate from occurring by using the tactic again?

The answer to all of the questions above is a resounding no.

What Sanders’ filibuster did achieve, however, was completely unrelated to the tax-cut debate.  He served as vivid reminder that perhaps the only real reform to the filibuster rule in the Senate that is needed is to require Senators to actually stand on the Senate floor and do it.  Almost without question, Senators would use the procedural delaying tactic more sparingly—and for shorter periods of time—if it required them to actually invest themselves, both physically and mentally, in the obstructionist act.

The common attack against Obama is that he is, at best, a weak leader and poor negotiator.  If only he had been more stubborn, the argument goes, he could have gotten everything the Democrats wanted—a roll-back of the tax-cuts on top income earners, an extension of unemployment benefits, and, oh yeah, the public option that liberals wanted so during during the health care debate. 

However, in a press conference about the tax deal on Tuesday, Obama defended himself against attacks from, what he calls, ‘liberal purists’:

“This notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public-option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans... But because there was a provision in there that they didn't get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.”

He continued, “Now, if that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people.”

Indeed, these purists often forget that the public option died in the Senate because only half the Democrats in that chamber supported it—even through reconciliation.

Megan McArdle, however, makes even a more forceful case against these purists.  In particular, she refutes the common attack that leveled against Obama that he failed to “shoot for the moon before settling for the stars.” That is, she attacked the tactic advocated by liberals that Obama could have taken an extreme negotiating position that  he didn’t realistically want so that he could negotiate it down to what he really wanted. 

During the health care debate, for example, Obama should have started with single-payer, which he knew he couldn’t get passed, but negotiated it down to a robust public-option.

According to McArdle, however, this criticism was just as inane for health care reform as it is now with the tax-deal:

While it is true that negotiators often ask for things that they don't want, this cartoon version is really, really stupid.  You can see how stupid it is by asking yourself what would have happened if Republicans had used this tactic?  They could have started by demanding the total abolition of Medicare, and wound up with a massive deregulation of the health care system, right?

Yeah, not so much.  If they'd started with abolishing Medicare, you know what they would have gotten? Nothing.  They would have faced a massive backlash from the public that would have strengthened the hand of their opponents, and given the Democrats a stronger hand in the negotiation that followed.

Similarly, starting with single-payer would have made the average American voter, who (rightly or wrongly) has all sorts of negative preconceptions about single-payer, freak out.  On the tax deal, signaling that you were prepared to veto any tax deal for those over $250,000 would have . . . well, maybe it would have made Republicans back down, as is now claimed.  On the other hand, maybe it would have seriously pissed them off, and made it impossible to pass any legislation at all for the rest of this Congress, including a tax cut for lower-income folks.  And it would have sent the message to average voters that you are willing to sacrifice the tax cuts for them on the altar of your ideology.  Sure, they might have been just as mad at Republicans--but the best case scenario is that you're both worse off.

In the end, this compromise is a huge political victory for Obama. In exchange for an extension of the tax-cuts for top earners, Obama effectively got a second stimulus package, which if successful at boosting the economy, could mean the difference between victory and defeat for him in 2012.  He also has the ancillary benefit of rising above the partisan fold by separating himself from Congressional Democrats, who currently have a lower approval rating than he does, and appealing to moderate and independent voters, who overwhelmingly support the deal.  

And as Charles Krauthammer, of all people, correctly notes in today’s Washington Post, “Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we're-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.”

Dems decide to fight and get nothing when the tax cuts expire at the end of the year. Then, on Jan. 6, the new GOP-led House “comes to the rescue” and passes legislation to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. So say the economy recovers a bit but not gangbusters. Well, the GOP will criticize Democrats for creating uncertainty at fragile time. Or say the economy recovers gangbusters in 2011-12, the GOP will have an argument to take much of the credit. Bottom line: If Democrats line up and try to kill the compromise, the political price they could pay might be much higher than they fathom as they'll be on the wrong side of the economic argument -- no matter the outcome. At least they can control the process for now.

This analysis is both prescient and absolutely correct.  In fact, I think this is going to be the GOP’s first and last line of attack two years from now if the deal does not go through.  However prudent the tax-cut deal may or may not be in terms of good policy (I am decidedly torn on whether it is good policy or not), the political calculus here could not be more clear:  The Democrats are going to have to vote for this compromise. 

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

Many of the members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus who requested millions in earmarks for their districts have taken the voluntary pledge to ban earmarks.

Okay, now everyone together: HYPO-CRITES!

The Huffington Post reports:

South Carolina's governor-elect Nikki Haley said in an interview later that she told Obama that South Carolina could not afford the health care mandate, and that it would cripple small businesses.

"I respectfully asked him to consider repealing the bill," she said, to which he clearly stated he would not. "I pushed him further and said if that's the case, because of states' rights would you at least consider South Carolina opting out of the program?"

Obama told her he would consider letting South Carolina opt out, Haley said, if South Carolina could find its own solution that included a state exchange, preventing companies from bumping people for preexisting conditions and allowing insurance pooling.

"I think it's something we go back to South Carolina and start crunching," she said. "This is about saying we're going to fight this every step of the way and use every option possible."

According to South Carolina’s home newspaper, The State, Obama gave three provisions that an opt-out plan must contain:

Obama’s conditions, Haley said, were that states would have to run exchange programs enabling uninsured residents to choose among different health plans; would have to ban coverage exclusions for treatment of pre-existing illness; and would have to create pools for large groups of individuals to get discounted coverage.

Haley said afterward that she would start working on Obama’s tentative proposals.

Haley’s exchange with the President has led many to comment that her “prominence at the high-level meeting and her confronting Obama over the signature legislative achievement of his White House tenure provides more evidence of her status as a rising star who is being eagerly promoted by GOP powerbrokers.”

Nevertheless, Obama’s apparent willingness to compromise on South Carolina’s opt-out is less significant than it appears because an opt-out provision is in the final version of the law.  Indeed, the provision was added in by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon as part of the “Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment.

Quite simply, the provision, whose language was taken directly from Wyden’s own health care reform bill, give states the “right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, ‘they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill.’"

In other words, the exchange between the Obama and Ms. Haley amounts to little more than political theater.  I wonder if Ms. Haley knows that?

Obama's straight approval ratings among rank-and-file Democrats are very high. According to Gallup’s latest weekly tracking poll, 81 percent of self-identified Democrats give Obama a positive job approval rating. Among liberal Democrats, who are supposedly the most likely to rebel, the number rises to 85 percent. Let's compare that to the last three Democratic presidents, two of whom faced serious primary challenges: At equivalent points in their presidencies, Bill Clinton had a positive job rating among Democrats of 74 percent; Jimmy Carter's rating was 63 percent; and Lyndon Johnson had a rating of 66 percent. And Carter's and LBJ's numbers had to fall by ten or twenty more points before either attracted another contender.

The racial politics of the Democratic Party also make a serious primary challenge less likely. Sure, some progressives have been raging at Obama as of late. But anyone credibly threatening to topple Obama would have to pry away a significant chunk of Obama's support among African Americans—and in case you haven't noticed, Obama is the first black president. His job approval rating among African Americans is currently 89 percent, and it has not gone below 85 percent at any point of his presidency. Can you conceive of a left-wing revolt that runs directly counter to the manifest wishes of the largest and most loyal segment of the Democratic base? Imagine Hillary Clinton launching her 2008 candidacy without any of the goodwill that her husband's presidency had engendered among African Americans.

I think Kilgore is right. He also notes that their isn’t a single galvanizing issue to draw support away from Obama, which is necessary for a successful challenger. In my mind, the more likely scenario is that there will be a third party candidate in 2012 who will split the Republican vote on the Right, especially if the GOP Congress fails to satisfy the Tea Party’s rapacious hunger for fiscal austerity. 

Harry Reid issued a release in November declaring his intention to bring it up for a vote before Congress convenes for the holidays.  In his statement, Reid stated, “If there is a bipartisan bill that makes sense for our country economically, from a national security perspective and one that reflects American values, it is the Dream Act. This bill will give children brought illegally to this country at no fault of their own the chance to earn legal status.”

Indeed, illegal immigrants who were brought to this country as young children—like Michelle Rodriguez, who was profiled in a recent Washington Post article—are the most sympathetic figures in the fight over immigration reform because, as Reid correctly notes, they are often brought to the United States through no fault of their own. Their entire lives are built in this country, they are as culturally American as native born children, and they often have little memory of their lives in Mexico. Nevertheless, they exist in this country without papers and become part of a growing class of marginalized and unprotected people.

Basic human decency dictates that at least this group of people should be given a path to live in this country legally and without fear of deportation from a place that is, in every sense, their home.  Nevertheless, conservatives have demagogue the DREAM act and propagandized the debate with misinformation and outright falsehoods. 

Last week, for example, David Frum opined in the pages of The Week that the DREAM Act amounted to “an appalling, deceptive piece of legislation with very sinister consequences.”  Using misleading terminology like ‘amnesty,’ which has become a new conservative litmus test, as well as the imagery of the pejorative term ‘anchor babies, ’ Frum outlines a nightmare scenario that would likely play out under DREAM:

You’re a 40-year-old illegal alien who entered the country as an adult. You have a third-grade education. You are barely literate even in Spanish. Your back is bothering you; you are not sure how long you can continue working. Quite frankly, no country on earth would regard you as a desirable immigrant. Don't despair. DREAM can offer you too an amnesty and gain you access to a lifetime of taxpayer-funded disability payments.

You have kids don't you? If they apply successfully under DREAM, they can sponsor you.

The problem, of course, is that flagrantly disregards the facts in favor of fear-mongering and demagoguery. Will Wilkinson offers a fabulous critique of Frum’s distorted analysis at The Economist blog, Democracy in America:

First, it's not quite right to think of DREAM, a narrowly tailored provision that offers a relatively small group of young people a path to citizenship only if they are able to clear a number or hurdles, as an "amnesty". Second, the process by which our notional 40-year-old undocumented immigrant can become a citizen is precisely the same as the process by which Mr Frum's Canadian father could become a citizen through Mr Frum's sponsorship. It's not amnesty, and Mr Frum is simply goading the nativist rabble by choosing to misuse language in this way. Moreover, Mr Frum effectively misrepresents his scenario by conveniently omitting the dispiriting timeline. Let's fix that….

Suppose DREAM becomes law in 2011. Your kid applies right away and earns status as a "conditional legal resident" (or "CLR"). Now, can you your kid sponsor you for legal permanent residency? No, she cannot. Only citizens can sponsor their parents. Suppose your kid goes to college and stays out of trouble. The earliest she can apply to become an "LPR" or "legal permanent resident" (ie, get a green card) is 5 1/2 years after approval for conditional permanent residency. That's some time in 2016 at the earliest. Now, a green card-holder can apply for citizenship after five years. Under DREAM, as I understand it, once a CLR is approved for a green card, the time spent as a CLR counts toward citizenship. So someone approved for a green card under the auspices of DREAM ought to be able to apply for citizenship right away.

So, thanks to DREAM, your daughter will be a citizen no sooner than 2016, at which point she can finally sponsor you (as long as she's over the age of 21). But don't get excited yet! You entered the country illegally, and were working illegally before applying for a green card, and that means you aren't eligible for a green card. ( See question 10 here.) So, sorry, DREAM can't help you.

Conservatives like Frum and the opinion are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.  Any reasoned analysis of the sorry state of our immigration system reveals that the United States cannot continue to use immigration as a political football, and the DREAM Act is a sensible first step in protecting the most vulnerable victims of our flawed system.

What follows is my plan, which can be characterized by a little entitlement reform,  modest cuts to our bloated defense budget, and tax increases on the rich and powerful.

In short, the goal is to close a 1.34 trillion shortfall by 2030.  Here is how I did it, making roughly equal proportions of spending cuts and tax increases:

1)  Defense: Reduce the our nuclear arsenal, bring troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013, and reduce the size of the military to pre-Iraq levels, reduce Naval and Air Force fleets. American spending on defense has more than doubled since 2001, and we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined.  Moreover, the United States has no peer military competitors.  We can afford to make these cuts, which nets $280 billion.

If you delay some new weapon systems, like the F-35 Lightning, you get an additional 18 billion in savings.

2) Health Care: I would increase the eligibility age for Medicare to 68 years old. Even though life-expectancy figures have inherent class biases that favor the affluent, people are living years longer on average than they did in the 1960s when Medicare was originally passed.  Nets $56 billion.

I would also reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance, which MIT professor, Jonathan Gruber, argues amounts to a regressive entitlement.  It favors the top-income earners—over three-quarters of the benefits goes to the top 50% of earners. Replace it with a flat tax credit. Nets $157 billion.

And just to satisfy conservatives, I would enact medical malpractice reform.  Nets only 13 billion.

3) Social Security: As with Medicare, I would raise the retirement age to 68. Then I would means test benefits to economic need, effectively capping benefits for top income earners.  Lastly, I would raise the tax raise the amount of income subject to the payroll tax above $106,000. The current ceiling regressively taxes about 83% of all income; I would raise the ceiling to cover 90%, which is what the percentage was when Social Security was created.  Saves $225 billion.

4) Taxes:  Reinstitute the Estate Tax to 2009 levels; roll back the Bush tax cuts on incomes above $250,000; and implement the Bowles-Simpson tax reform plan, which simplifies the tax code, eliminates loop-holes, and lowers rates across the board. These three things net $335 billion.

Next, I would eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction for high-income households.  According to Rutgers University economics professor, Rosanne Altshuler, the tax deduction favors wealthy homeowners, discourages investment for the sake of homeownership, and does little to actually encourage homeownership. Saves $54 billion.

Finally, I would implement a carbon tax, which nets 71 billion and helps save the planet. And I would institute a bank tax on big banks who have risky holdings. The idea would be to discourage the riskiest actions from the most highly leveraged banks and to help cover the cost of future financial crises if they fail.  Brings in $103 billion. 

AND…The budget deficit is solved! To see exactly what I did, click here.