Hastings, the hard-hitting journalist most widely known for the “Rolling Stone” magazine article that exposed General Stanley McChrystal’s lax management of his staffers and led to the general’s firing, died Tuesday morning in a car crash in the Hancock Park neighborhood of Los Angeles. He was 33.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow paid tribute to Hastings on her show Tuesday night. “Michael was angry,” Maddow remembers of him after the publishing of his first book, I Lost My Love In Baghdad, the tale of the loss of his fiancee to an Iraqi ambush. “He was also loving, and thoughtful, and constructive, and brilliant, but he was angry about things that weren’t right in the world. He was angry with things that weren’t right in the world, and with war, and with loss, and that drove his reporting and it made him fearless when he realized he had found something important that he could report.”

Watch Maddow’s tribute in the video, above.

The CBO estimated the Senate’s immigration bill currently under consideration would slash the federal deficit by $197 billion over the next 10 years, and an extra $700 billion in the following decade.

“This report is a huge momentum boost for immigration reform,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, a lead author of the Senate immigration bill, said in a written statement. “This debunks the idea that immigration reform is anything other than a boon to our economy, and robs the bill’s opponents of one of their last remaining arguments. Immigration reform is not only the right thing to do to stay true to our nation’s principles, it will also boost our economy, reduce the deficit and create jobs.”

Fellow supporter and Gang of Eight member Republican Sen. Marco Rubio also touted the CBO’s findings on Tuesday. “The CBO has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers,” said Rubio. He continued to press for some final tweaks to the bill, but highlighted the overall benefits: “There remain some key areas that need to be tightened up to prevent those who have violated our immigration laws from accessing federal benefit programs. But overall, the CBO report offers encouraging evidence that the status quo is unacceptable and we can end it without burdening our already burdened taxpayers and, in fact, reduce the deficit over the next 20 years.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the numbers offer “more proof that bipartisan commonsense immigration reform will be good for economic growth and deficit reduction.”

Another big headline from the report: enacting the bill would add roughly 10.4 million people to the U.S. population by 2023, which would have a mostly positive impact on the economy, according to the CBO. Direct spending on benefit programs would go up, but so would the tax revenue going to the government because of the increased size of the labor force. So if the bill gets passed, the CBO estimated a $262 billion increase in federal direct spending toward programs like Medicare and Obamacare. But the bill also increases federal revenues by $459 billion.

Opponents argue the measure would take away jobs from citizens who are already unemployed in a shaky economy.

New measures proposed in the Senate immigration bill include offering citizenship for millions of undocumented workers now living in the United States, provided there are improvements to border security. The bill also overhauls the legal immigration process and cracks down on illegal hiring practices.

“This interview transcript…debunks conspiracy theories about how the IRS first started reviewing these cases,” Cummings wrote in a letter to Issa. “Answering questions from Committee staff for more than five hours, this official—who identified himself as a ‘conservative Republican’—denied that he or anyone on his team was directed by the White House to take these actions or that they were politically motivated.”

The “conspiracy theories” Cummings mentions were disseminated by Issa himself. On May 14th, Issa said unequivocally, “This was the targeting of the president’s political enemies effectively and lies about it during the election year, so that it wasn’t discovered until afterwards.” But he had no evidence to support this claim.

After a bipartisan group of committee members interviewed workers at the Cincinnati IRS, Issa opted to release only suggestive excerpts of the transcripts. When CNN’s Candy Crowley pressed him to release the remainder on State of the Union earlier this month, Issa assured her that he would. When he did not, Cummings promised to release the interviews himself. “There’s nothing in those transcripts that I’m afraid of,” he said.

Issa, calling the promise to release the transcripts “reckless,” attacked Cummings directly: “Your decision to make that declaration in a very public way was irresponsible and emblematic of your general aversion to conducting meaningful oversight of the administration.”

This did not sway the Democratic congressman, who wrote back to the chairman on June 13th to find a way to release the rest of the interviews in a responsible, bipartisan way, with “appropriate deference [toward Issa] in conducting Committee investigations.” Cummings would’ve allowed Issa to redact anything he felt dangerous to the integrity of the investigation, but Issa wouldn’t bite.

So Cummings went ahead and released the screening manager’s full interview.

“I am deeply disappointed that ranking member Cummings has decided to broadly disseminate and post online a 205-page transcript that will serve as a road map for IRS officials to navigate investigative interviews with Congress,” Issa said in a statement Tuesday, adding: “After unsuccessfully trying to convince the American people that IRS officials in Washington did not play a role in inappropriate scrutiny of Tea Party groups and declaring on national television that the case of IRS targeting was ‘solved’ and Congress should ‘move on,’ this looks like flailing. Americans who think Congress should investigate IRS misconduct should be outraged by Mr. Cummings’ efforts to obstruct needed oversight.”

“I got sort of tired–transcripts being leaked, parts of them by our chairman but at the same time not [all of them]…All I want to do is that the American people have the complete story,” Cummings told Hardball’s Chris Matthews on Tuesday.

A Boston Globe/University of New Hampshire poll this weekend showed Democrat Ed Markey rising slightly to a double digit lead over Republican newcomer Gabriel Gomez, 54%-41%. The 13-point margin is larger than most public and private surveys, though both parties privately believed last week the race remained in the high single digits.

But while Republicans hoped Gomez–a young, Hispanic former Navy SEAL–could rekindle the energy Republican Scott Brown capitalized on two and a half years ago and pull an upset over Markey, whom even Democrats admit is an uninspiring campaigner, the political environment hasn’t recreated the conditions that helped Brown beat an uninspiring Martha Coakley in January 2010.

Gomez’s own consultants hoped a strong performance by the GOP nominee in the final debate could inspire Republican donors to help close the widening spending gap between the two.

An On Message Inc. polling memo released Tuesday by Gomez’s campaign showed the Republican down seven points, 47%-40%; campaign staffers argued that that there was still time to make up the gap–if Republicans believe the race is winnable. Public surveys last week showed a similar margin.

“It turns out that it really is hard to kill a Navy SEAL,” Gomez consultant Curt Anderson wrote in the memo, saying Gomez should be down even more after a barrage of negative attacks from Democratic groups and campaign visits by President Obama and former President Bill Clinton last week.

“Many of you have been complaining, grousing, and occasionally screaming about the fact that left wing interest groups from Washington are pouring money into this race on Cong. Markey’s behalf, while right of center groups sit on their hands and do nothing to help Gabriel,” wrote Anderson.

Anderson noted that Brown was down nine points just 10 days out before his win. But a key difference even many Republicans privately concede was that Brown was helped not just by Coakley stumbles but also by growing unrest about health care legislation and a worsening political climate for Democrats ahead of a disastrous midterm election that fall.

In a low turnout election, Democrats have worried that conditions could have been ripe for such another upset, and pulled out no stops to shore up Markey. Outside groups, including the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Senate Majority PAC, have hammered Gomez on air, hitting the former private equity investor’s business record and painting him as another GOP vote. But Democrats believe the millions are well spent–even for a seat that should be safely in their column.

While national Republicans have helped Gomez in coordinated spending, groups have made only small independent contributions: the Hispanic Leadership Fund and American Unity PAC paid for direct mail and voter contact, while the largest gift came from a new outside group, Americans for Progressive Action, which launched a $700,000 TV ad buy.

Gomez pounced on the attacks against during his final debate with Markey Tuesday evening. Gomez worked to paint Markey as a relic of Washington, asking voters to give him a chance for 17 months in the Senate compared to Markey’s 37 years in Congress. He highlighted his differences from his party on gay marriage and gun control, saying he could be a compromise vote in the Senate, working across the aisle to promote expanded background checks and comprehensive immigration reform.

“The only way we’re going to get anything done is if we have someone who will respect the other side,” said Gomez.

But Markey argued Gomez represented the “stalest” of “old Republican ideas,” pointing out he opposed an assault weapons ban and would vote for Supreme Court Justices that opposed Roe v. Wade.

The biggest flashpoint between the two came when Markey questioned whether Gomez, who has supported term-limits, told Arizona Sen. John McCain, the only big-name Republican to come campaign for the GOP nominee, he should have quit after his last term.

“No, you did not,” Markey said, challenging Gomez.

“Are you calling him a liar,” the moderator R.D. Sahl asked Markey.

“I’m saying that did not happen,” the Democrat pushed back.

As the Senate is set to vote on these amendments, some Senators are starting to feel the heat too. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has been wavering:  he supports the legislation that he co-authored, but  keeps threatening to vote it down if certain demands aren’t met.

“He is walking a tight line on this one. To a certain degree he is making the case that he has been out there pushing for conservative amendments to it as a way to bring conservatives to the final vote,” Washington Bureau Chief for Buzzfeed John Stanton said on Tuesday’s show. “Rubio is trying to make this case that he was opposed” to some of the bill so that “when he says look, we got some changes–I’m not totally happy with it but this is the best bill we can get…there is some legitimacy to that argument.”

2. Unlocking The Truth is a band out of the Flatbush neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York. They have been together since they were 5 years old. Now they are 12 and performing all around town. Some people make fun of them. That makes them sad but they have tough skin and believe in themselves. If “cuteness” is a barometer for success, then they’re winning big.

3. There is a rash of people doing their jobs badly. Recent grad Laura Gambrel did not want the fanfare and celebration that comes with graduating from college. But her mother had other plans: a cake with her daughter’s face and a cap atop her head. The cake maker misunderstood and drew a cat. The guys who did the late Ed Koch’s tombstone got his birth year wrong. And some air freight handlers in China couldn’t care less.

• First, the good news: The Congressional Budget Office says the Senate’s immigration bill actually cuts the deficit: (CBO)
• Total net savings: $175 billion over 10 years. (Mark Knoller)
• And just to be clear: That’s [$197 billion in deficit reduction] – [$22 billion in net discretionary costs] = no reason to oppose the bill on budgetary grounds (First Read)
• And just to throw more numbers at you: Deficit reduction over the next 20 years equals almost $700 billion. Not too shabby, Gang of 8. (Igor Volsky)
• Sen. Rubio: “The CBO has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers.” (The Associated Press)
• Of course, there are short-term problems: 1) The bill will “increase average wages in 2025 and later years (but decrease them before that)” and 2) It will “slightly raise the unemployment rate through 2020.” (CBO)
• Still, a win is a win for the Gang of 8. And they’re celebrating appropriately. (Roll Call)
• Mind you, one Republican naysayer is already going the “skewed” route on the CBO numbers. (Niels Lesniewski)
• “Of course, people who don’t trust CBO would be all over the score if it confirmed what they believe. CBO cuts a zillion ways.” (David Drucker)
• Other critics are taking their complaints a different route: “CBO: Senate immigration bill would expand Obamacare” Philip Klein)
• And while this bill could move a few Republicans off the fence, we should remember that the loudest drumbeat against this bill has always been “Amnesty!” (Twitter search, Amnesty)
• National Review, for one, called the bill an “amnesty-first, enforcement-maybe program.” (National Review)
• And the CBO’s report of 10 million more citizens over the next decade — and 16 million more over the next two decades — is only going to fuel the “Amnesty!” fire. (Fawn Johnson)
• To do that, of course, critics will have to ignore the part of the report that says that in addition to the $6.5 billion for border security, the “CBO estimates that the legislation would authorize the appropriation of an additional $15 billion to bolster the existing personnel.” (CBO)

The bill was recommended to the floor from the House Agriculture Committee last month with broad bipartisan approval. In a statement issued before the floor debate, the White House called such deep food stamp cuts “unacceptable” and threatened a presidential veto.

Should the bill pass, it will go into conference committee to be reconciled with the Senate farm bill. That piece of legislation, which was passed last week, mandates only $4.1 billion in cuts to food stamps, though it also includes an amendment which would bar those convicted of certain violent crimes from SNAP eligibility.

The farm bill is a piece of omnibus legislation which provides funds, regulations and subsidies for a variety of programs and industries related to agriculture and food production. Though a farm bill is generally signed into law once every five years, Congress failed to pass such legislation last year, instead extending the 2008 law. During floor debate, representatives from both sides of the aisle emphasized the importance of passing a new five-year plan instead of resorting to another an extension.

“It’s time to act on a bill that, although imperfect, should have been adopted a year ago,” said Rep. William Enyart, an Illinois Democrat.

Many Democrats said they were disappointed with the cuts to food stamps, but urged their colleagues to support the law anyway.

“I didn’t get everything I wanted, [House Agriculture Committee chair Frank Lucas] didn’t get everything he wanted, but that’s the way the legislative is supposed to work,” said Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson of Minnesota.

“I do not like the cuts to nutrition, but I do understand this is a process,” said Texas GOP Rep. Henry Cuellar. He suggested that the cuts to food stamps could be reduced in conference.

But a handful of Democrats, including minority whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, see the SNAP cuts as a deal breaker.

“It’s not worthy of our country,” he said. “It’s not worthy of the morals of this nation.”

Republicans who addressed the food stamp cuts denied that they would make it more difficult for the needy to feed themselves. Texas Rep. Randy Neugebauer said that claim was “simply not true,” while his fellow party members suggested that the cuts would only eliminate fraud and abuse.

By passing the farm bill, the House would be “eliminating abuse in the food stamp program,” said Rep. Rick Crawford, Arkansas Republican.

Cummings on Tuesday released more than 200 pages of transcripts of an interview the committee conducted with a Cincinnati-based IRS group manager, a self-described “conservative Republican.” In the interviews, the manager said the scrutiny was not directed by the White House.

The political drama between the two lawmakers began earlier this month when Issa asserted the IRS targeting of conservative groups began in Washington. Issa released cherry-picked transcripts of IRS officials, including one unnamed employee claiming to have taken “all my direction from Washington.”

Cummings immediately ripped Issa’s claims as “reckless” and released partial transcripts from the interview with the manager–who denied any Washington link—last week. Cummings warned Issa that if Republicans wouldn’t release the entire transcript, he would.

That brings us to today.

“I got sort of tired–transcripts being leaked, parts of them by our chairman but at the same time not [all of them]. “…All I want to do is that the American people have the complete story,” Cummings told Hardball’s Chris Matthews on Tuesday.

So what was in the transcript?

Cummings found the very first case was flagged in Cincinnati, the group manager centralized cases for consistency, the Cincinnati agent developed inappropriate screening criteria, the manager didn’t learn of the criteria until a year later, and perhaps most importantly, no witnesses have identified any White House involvement.

“To be clear, I am not suggesting that IRS employees in Washington D.C. played no role in these activities,” Cummings said in a letter to Issa. “…These facts are a far cry from accusations of a conspiracy orchestrated by the White House to target the president’s political enemies.”

Issa, who has previously accused Cummings of trying to sweep the issue under the rug, also released a statement saying he was “deeply disappointed” with Cummings. .

“After unsuccessfully trying to convince the American people that IRS officials in Washington did not play a role in inappropriate scrutiny of Tea Party groups and declaring on national television that the case of IRS targeting was ‘solved’ and Congress should ‘move on,’ this looks like flailing. Americans who think Congress should investigate IRS misconduct should be outraged by Mr. Cummings’ efforts to obstruct needed oversight.”

President Obama has said he was unaware of the IRS’s practice and has promised to hold other officials in the tax collection agency accountable. The disclosure of the targeting has led to the resignation of two top IRS officials.

Matthews asked Cummings why he won’t release all of the interview transcripts, not just the one with the IRS manager. The Democrat said he was trying to defer to Issa, but added, “I don’t see a reason not to do that.”

You can read the transcript Cummings released here.

Steve asks:

“Why do so many African-Americans refuse to acknowledge the similarity between the civil rights struggle and the LGBT struggle, when it’s so apparent that they are one and the same: a grand struggle for human rights?”

Rev’s response:

“I believe that there is no way to fight for some human rights without the others. Every struggle has its own distinct way of engagement and we’ve all gone through certain levels, and certain oppression, and certain bias or discrimination, so even though some have suffered differently or more than others, it’s one fight against all discrimination. And I think that we cannot distinguish between the two. One of the worst things in the world is to say ‘Did you suffer as much as I did? Do you hurt as much as I do?’ All of us need to not suffer, all of us need not to have pain, and you cannot have bragging rights on discrimination. We must have the bragging rights of saying, ‘We all must stand together against all bias, all wrong.’ And even if I may be different, for religious reasons, with others, I must defend their right to make their choice. There’s nothing that I see that [gives] me the right to impose my faith and belief on others, and in fact I must fight for their right, so that someone will protect and respect my rights.”

Sherry asks:

“Dear Rev. Al, I would like to know how much money and time that I and other taxpayers have spent on the attempted repeal of the [Affordable Care Act] after 37 times. If we are going to pay them, then they should be using their time and our money on issues that can be worked upon instead of this constant and only symbolic repeal process.”

Rev’s response:

“Taxpayers should know about this. The GOP has spent over 80 hours–two paid work weeks–trying to repeal the health care law and it has cost American tax payers $55 million dollars. And they know they will not be able to pass it through the Senate, they know the president won’t sign it. This is just to continue this kind of motion and symbolic gesture, playing to their base and harassing the president. That money could be used to help do some concrete things for vulnerable Americans.”