"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." (Thomas Jefferson)
The House of Representatives won't vote on any plans to avert the fiscal
cliff on Monday, leaders have told members.
President Barack Obama said earlier in the day that an agreement to avert
some of the automatic tax increases and spending cuts appeared to be "within
sight," and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said a deal was "very, very
close."
There would be little practical difference in settling the issue Monday
versus Tuesday, sources said. One exception: If lawmakers approve a bill on
Tuesday -- after tax rates have technically gone up -- they can argue they've
voted for a tax cut to bring rates back down, GOP sources said.
******
Today's House Republicans are proving they are the worst members of Congress in leadership ever as they obviously don't take their oaths seriously preferring to bow to big donors over the American people. Vote them all out in 2014! Never thought I would say that but the House Republicans are worthless and a drag on our economy.
Negotiations are ongoing in the US Senate after the House GOP abdicated their Constitutional responsibility to be the main force behind budget bills. Guess the Senate GOP didn't get the word from the Koch Brothers and other big donors that they could not negotiate like the House who lined up with the wealthy donors. In fact organizations from the Koch's like Americans for Prosperity are telling the House GOP to let the economy go over the cliff. How much have the Koch's invested in seeing our Government go over the cliff. They seem to be doing everything in their power to tank the economy and have a willing House to go along. IMHO the Koch Brothers and other major donors should be investigated along with members of Congress on exchange of votes for money. Am I accusing the Republicans in the House of selling out for donations? You could say that -- call it a hunch but the way they are acting they are not putting the American people first.
Now those poor babies in the House got their feelings hurt because President Obama dared to go after the lazy, good for nothing Republican Representatives who have the distinction of being the worst House in over 70 years. When you refuse as a House to pass a bill unless it has majority support in your Conference ignoring the Democrats as potential votes, then nothing should shock anyone out of these House Republicans except honesty which they have a problem with today.
President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks about the fiscal cliff, Monday, Dec. 31, 2012, in the South Court Auditorium at the White House in Washington.
Brian Beutler11834 Republicans reacted immediately and with tremendous hostility to President Obama’s remarks at the White House Monday afternoon, and accused him of jeopardizing a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden had been nearing agreement on legislation to avert broad tax increases and spending cuts next year, say aides with direct knowledge of the negotiations.
But the evolving framework is unsatisfactory to members of both parties, including members of Democratic leadership, and one Democratic aide described the whole process was “hanging by a thread.”
That was before Obama’s remarks, in which he boasted that the nascent plan would protect major progressive priorities, and attacked Congress for threatening to derail it before the end of the day when all of the Bush tax cuts expire. Obama also issued a key demand regarding an issue at the heart of the remaining differences between the parties.
“Revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester,” Obama said.
That may be a non-starter for Republicans.
As of early Monday afternoon, the Dems’ latest offer, which is still changing, would lock in the Bush era tax rates for income up to $400,000 per individual filer, ($450,000 per family). It would set identical thresholds for capital gains and dividends taxes, which would rise from 15 to 20 percent.
The estate tax would climb from 35 to 40 percent for estates worth $5 million or more. And two tax expenditure limitations — a personal exemption phase out and a limitation on itemized deductions — would be instated. The former would be set at $250,000. The deduction limit — called Pease, after the late Rep. Don Pease (D-OH) — would reduce the value of tax deductions above $250,000 in income ($300,000 for joint filers).
Altogether this would raise about $600 billion in revenue above the current policy baseline, according to another source familiar with the negotiations.
The key sticking point, however, is the sequester. Democrats have rejected a GOP offer to delay the sequester by three months. They want to extend that deadline by a full year. But Republicans have rejected Democrats’ request to defray the over $100 billion cost cost with revenue. President Obama, as he indicated at the White House, insists on at least splitting the difference and paying for part of the sequester delay with new revenue and the rest with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.
It’s not clear whether Republicans can accept that demand.
Negotiators hope to include a permanent patch to the alternative minimum tax, and extend a variety of business tax credits for a year. They also hope to extend emergency unemployment benefits — a $30 billion spending measure — and current Medicare physician reimbursement rates, but remain at odds over whether and how to pay for them.
But Biden’s latest offer does extend by five years expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit that were part of the 2009 recovery act.
Senate Democratic leaders will have the final say over any deal amenable to McConnell and the White House. But it’s hard to imagine them rejecting an offer amenable to the President. If Senate Republicans and Democrats come to terms on a deal Monday, the real question will be whether House Republicans allow it to come to a vote, and whether it would pass.
It is not going unnoticed even in Republicans circles that the House GOP are bought and paid for by rich donors with their continuing stubbornness in protecting the wealthy while at the same time could care less about the Middle Class who will face tax increases that would hurt much more including loss of unemployment benefits then tax hikes on the wealthy Republicans.
Are Republicans trying to tank the economy? It sure looks like it from where I sit. How much do the Koch Brothers stand to gain from this? Did they short stocks in expectation of going over the cliff to make money and make sure the GOP House was going to do their bidding. Shame on the spineless House GOP. They have zero credibility to go with their zero ethics. Only reason they are still in power is because of gerrymandering which was the worst over.
If you are a Republican, time to consider supporting a Democrat against them because this group of Republicans have proven they cannot govern and don't care about the majority of us. This is a perfect example of the Koch Brothers taking over the House with the Tea Party who refuse to follow rules or do what is best for America. They act like spoiled selfish brats instead as part of the 'my way or no way' crowd. Nothing else matters as long as they get their way!
Another reason for Global By Crisis (GBC) is the Tea Party GOP. No politician likes to raise taxes (or at least they don't want to be seen as liking to raise taxes). And it is true that tax cuts can stimulate the economy -- until they crush it with government borrowing. But the Tea Party has turned this fundamental truism into a fanatical, nihilistic dogma. Which means that the harder they are pressed, the harder they resist, because they think they are channeling Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams (the revolutionary, but perhaps also the beer), Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp all at the same time.
The Tea Partiers are giving checks and balances a bad name, but they can effectively use the Constitution and the rules of the House and Senate to gum up the works, which is another reason why we are now in a permanent state of "crisis" in D.C.
This perpetual state of crises needs to end and looks like it is going to have to wait until 2014 when maybe we can get some sensible people elected to the House instead of the spineless House GOP we have today who put donors over America. Going to be tough with gerrymandering but Republicans can help make a difference by ousting Republicans from their seats which they think they own with all the big money flowing. Tough job but it is worth a try and time to get started on identifying seats that can be picked up by Democrats as this group of Republicans have abdicated their right to govern by not governing and playing politics with the American people. They didn't learn one lesson from the election as they high five themselves. The House GOP risk the full faith and credit of the United States for their big donors like the Koch Brothers which should should label them traitors to the American people IMHO!
Will the Republican House Compromise?
Jury is still out. Back from vacation and ready to roll up the sleeves -- some things don't change and the GOP House being the Party of "NO" is one of those as witnessed with what we are seeing. They couldn't even find the votes to pass their own plan last week. Dysfunctional comes to mind along with a lot of other words to describe this House GOP membership.
As I looked around the net this morning following the President's interview with David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Press, I felt that Sam Stein of Huffington Post did the best job of recapping what happened in the interview about the fiscal cliff. The abject failure of House Republicans by abdicating their Congressional responsibility for the budget with their stubbornness reminds me of a mule mentality. As my brother said, someone needs to take a 2"x4" upside their head to get their attention.
Here is the video of the David Gregory interview with President Obama on Meet the Press uploaded by NBC on You Tube:
WASHINGTON -- In his first Sunday show interview since his reelection, President Barack Obama admonished congressional Republicans for their unwillingness to compromise over debt-reduction and implored the media to cast aside its pox-on-both-your-houses coverage.
With the deadline to negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff looming in the backdrop, the president took to "Meet the Press" to defend his efforts to try and find common ground. He noted that he had moved off his initial demands for revenue (once $1.6 trillion, now $1.2 trillion), agreed to entitlement reforms (reduced Social Security benefits) and already passed hefty spending cuts ($1 trillion as part of the Budget Control Act in 2011). And for that, he added, he was still waiting for Republicans to get closer to half-way.
“We have been talking to the Republicans ever since the election was over. They have had trouble saying yes to a number of repeated offers,” said the president, according to an advance transcript of the interview. He would add, later: “[S]o far, at least, Congress has not been able to get this stuff done. Not because Democrats in Congress don't want to go ahead and cooperate, but because I think it's been very hard for Speaker Boehner and Republican Leader McConnell to accept the fact that taxes on the wealthiest Americans should go up a little bit, as part of an overall deficit reduction package.”
The president's tone was tougher than usual. In the past, he’s been hesitant to directly rebuke congressional Republicans, choosing instead to attack the legislative body as a whole.
But the last few weeks of negotiations have clearly frustrated both him and his staff. White House aides were particularly piqued at Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for shelving negotiations over a larger fiscal cliff deal in pursuit of a tax-rate-only option. That ended the legislative progress in the House and forced the Senate to pick up talks. With just days before tax rates rise on all income rates and $1 trillion in decade-long spending cuts go into effect, Senate leaders met on Saturday to find a way through the impasse. One knowledgeable aide said a deal didn’t look likely as of Saturday afternoon. A Republican aide said it would be impossible to know for sure until Sunday afternoon when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) brief their respective caucuses.
Even as they talked, preparations were being made to manage the public relations fallout over the impending failure to meet the deadline. Part of that involved the president hitting the Sunday talk show circuit, where he urged the press to not resort to false equivalencies when assigning blame.
And to try to work with everybody involved to make sure that we've got an economy grows. Make sure that it works for everybody. Make sure that we're keeping the country safe. And does the Democratic party still have some knee jerk ideological positions and are there some folks in the Democratic party who sometimes aren't reasonable? Of course. That's true of every political party.
But generally if you look at how I've tried to govern over the last four years and how I'll continue to try to govern, I'm not driven by some ideological agenda. I am a pretty practical guy. And I just want to make sure that things work. And one of the nice things about never having another election again, I will never campaign again, is I think you can rest assured that all I care about is making sure that I leave behind an America that is stronger, more prosperous, more stable, more secure than it was when I came into office.
The only thing I would caution against, David, is I think this notion of, "Well, both sides are just kind of unwilling to cooperate." And that's just not true. I mean if you look at the facts, what you have is a situation here where the Democratic party, warts and all, and certainly me, warts and all, have consistently done our best to try to put country first.
When the President admonished the media for saying both sides were unwilling to cooperate, he was right. There is one party to blame for this whole debacle and that blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the Republican Party in Congress or as some have tabbed them, "Party of NO!" That is an apt description of a GOP who refuses to acknowledge the results of the election in November or understands the American people have spoken on what they want which is tax hikes on the wealthy. While the GOP continues to throw the middle class under the bus, they play up to their big donors, Tea Party, and lobbyists.
Despicable group of 'non-leaders; in the GOP House who seem to be scared of their own shadows so they placate the hard right. GOP only maintained control of the House because of some of the most corrupt gerrymandering that anyone has ever seen. If you add up the votes for House races, the Democrats actually had over 1 million more votes but because of the underhandedness and lack of ethics of GOP State Legislatures in drawing redistricting lines like in PA, they kept control. The GOP has a real problem in 2014 when Republicans like me decide to throw in with the Democrats to defeat GOP incumbents and candidates as we have had it with their arrogance and attacks on Obama and minorities bordering on racism, plus their war on the middle class, women, veterans, teachers, police, fire, and civil service for starters.
Most do-nothing Congress ever in modern times in the last two years since the GOP took over the House. Our Country would be much in much better shape and Americans even more back on our feet if not for the Republican Party in Congress where in the Senate they have filibustered bills before they even hit the floor for a vote. They are nothing but obstructionist who have a penchant for lying to the American people about this President and the Democrats in order to make themselves look good. Note to GOP -- American people are waking up and not liking what they are seeing out of the GOP. Will the GOP be blamed for putting us through this nonsense to keep tax cuts for the wealthy -- you betcha!
Republicans in Congress have not gotten that through their "pea size" brains based on their words and actions that they work for all their constituents not just the wealthy Republicans, Tea Party, and social issue types. The rest of us should be heard as well as we also have votes.
With that in mind, I sat down last night and wrote my Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK) which is probably a waste of time but since he has been speaking out for the GOP with trying to blame both sides, I decided to let you see what I had to say. I will be happy to post his response when I get it but not holding my breath because I said what I thought:
Having supported Republicans my whole adult life, find myself in the
position of being thoroughly disgusted with the HOUSE GOP obstructionists with
zero backbone. Putting wealthy donors over the middle class of this Country is
beyond disgusting. The lies that come out of the House members continually make
a lot of long-time Republicans want to scream. The war on women has not stopped
as witnessed with holding hearings concerning women's issues and not having
women testify. It is more of the white male dominated GOP House modus
operandi.
When you take off the blinders and realize we have been lied to by the GOP
over the last four years, you get madder. Do the research and you discover that
the gerrymandering to keep the House GOP was most likely the worst ever. Hope
Republicans in the House are all proud of of what you have become where wealthy
are put over the middle class.
A lot of long time Republicans are embarrassed at what we see out of the
GOP today. The filibusters in the Senate are a bad joke and the Republicans
have made a mockery out of governing in the House.
Don't know if I will ever vote for a Republican in the near future but do
know that I met a lot of honest people who want what is best for America when I
joined Republicans for Obama. Pretty bad when you trust Democrats to look out
for your well being more then Republicans.
Too many House GOP seem to agree with the 47% remark and it has not gone
unnoticed. Some of the comments coming out of the GOP and Preibus wanting to
remain Chair show nothing was learned from the election -- not one thing as
obstruction continues to the point of telling the Senate to act as the House
won't on the cliff. Way to go -- abdicate Constitutional responsibilities now.
The Tea Party can shove it in my book along with the wealthy donors. You
want an inclusive GOP, you may (not) be getting it. Not one member of my family voted
for Romney. Now most are considering leaving the GOP entirely which my youngest
daughter has already done in Colorado.
GOP in the House needs to take their blinders off and stand up to the Tea
Party or see the GOP relegated to the scrap heap. Seems being reelected trumps
what is best for the American people.
Am I disgusted? You can take that to the bank!
To put this into more perspective, when Cong Cole ran for the first time in 2002, I spent hours not only in his office but in my home working for his election. Some people here think he broke from leadership but if they really believe that I have swampland for sale in Arizona. It is plan to make some in the GOP seem more reasonable if I was a betting person. Cole has been a consultant for years and will try to play the odds IMHO which is why the Speaker and other leadership sent the Whip Cole out to talk to the media.
Not sure the GOP in the House or Senate could lead if their lives depended on it as they have one word in their vocabulary which is "NO" to tax hikes on the wealthy. They will gladly see tax hikes go up for everyone to preserve their 'we didn't vote for tax cuts on the wealthy' mantra. It seems to this bystander they (GOP) are adverse to anything that President Obama offers preferring to trash him at every turn with their lies and innuendos.
Today's GOP in the Congress in both Houses does not come to the table as honest brokers IMHO but to see what they can pull over on Obama and the Democrats to make sure only GOP ideas see the light of day. They have totally missed the significance of the results of the November election where President Obama received 53% of the vote and Romney ironically received 47%. You couldn't make that up -- poetic justice has been served. The GOP lost big time including in the Senate where they only had ten seats to defend and the Democrats 23 seats and yet the GOP lost two of those ten seats. The American people spoke and told the Republicans including in the House where 1 million more voted for Democrats that they wanted both parties to work together. Obviously the GOP did not get the message. Now the House GOP won't even do their Constitutional duty to be the home of the budget. Do you want to know why?
Ever heard of the 'Hastert Rule?' I didn't until recently -- talk about an idiotic and stupid rule out of the GOP Conference -- this one takes the cake -- guess it is their version of filibuster:
Themajority of the majority is a governing principle (not a legal procedure) used by Republican Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990's to effectively limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the house.[1 Under the majority of the majority doctrine the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a vote on a bill to take place unless the majority of the majority party supports the bill.[2] This is sometimes referred to as the “Hastert Rule”,[3] as its introduction is widely credited to former Speaker Dennis Hastert (1999-2007); however, Newt Gingrich, who directly preceded Hastert as Speaker (1995-1999), followed the same rule.[4] Hastert was vocal in his support of the rule stating that his job was "to please the majority of the majority."[5]
In practical terms this keeps the minority party from passing bills with the assistance of a small number of members of the majority party. It takes 218 votes to pass a bill. Even when there are 218 votes to pass a bill, the rule prevents votes from taking place when those 218 votes do not include the majority of the majority party. If the Democrats are the minority party and the Republicans are the majority party, under the majority of the majority rule it would not be possible for 170 Democrats and 50 Republicans together to pass a bill, because 50 Republicans votes is far short of a majority of the majority party, so the Speaker would not allow a vote to take place.[6] As an example, if the Republican Party is the majority party and has 234 seats in Congress, it would take 118 (117+1) Republican votes in support of legislation before a vote could take place. With less than 118 Republican votes the legislation would be blocked, even if 218 or more votes could be found between the two parties.
A discharge petition signed by 218 members (or more) from any party is the only way to force consideration of a bill or resolution that does not have support of a majority of the majority. However, discharge petitions are rarely successful, as a member of the majority party defying their party's leadership by signing a discharge petition can expect retribution from the leadership.
Dennis Hastert (Speaker from 1999 - 2007): "On occasion, a particular issue might excite a majority made up mostly of the minority. Campaign finance is a particularly good example of this phenomenon. [But] the job of speaker is not to expedite legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his majority."[5]
Nancy Pelosi (2007 - 2011): "I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."[7]
John Boehner (2011 -): "I’m not interested in passing something with mostly Democrat votes."[8]
Out of three Speakers only the Democrat Speaker Pelosi believes as Speaker she should represent everyone not just Democrats so she did not adhere to the so-called 'Hastert Rule' which Republican Speakers try to follow 100%. If Boehner strays from the rule, Hastert is there to take him on for ignoring the 'Hastert' Rule.
That is no way to govern the people's House of Representatives where the members are the House are elected and sent to DC to work for us the American people not the Republican Party.
The wealthy donors led by the Koch Brothers, Tea Party, and Social Conservatives are all totally opposed to anything the President offers and refuse to even consider compromise as they adhere to their 'my way or no way' rule which is destroying the very foundation of the Republican Party. When President Eisenhower integrated schools, it was the Democrats who opposed him. Today, it would be Republicans because that white, southern male racist mentality exists in a lot of today's Republican elected officials. They will toss a bone to a minority or woman but that is about it. It is a white male dominated party who have the respect of a gnat for women and their issues. Truly believe that if Hillary had been elected, she would have had the same problem as President Obama as some in the GOP consider women the lowest of the minorities.
Fox News has been the willing participant to trash this President and outright lie about him as we have been witnessing. Ethics in Journalism doesn't seem to apply to Fox News as well as some others. They wouldn't know what ethics was if it hit them in the face. Many members of the media along with the Republicans in the Congress and in the States will say and do anything to make this President look bad whether true or not the expense of the American people and the Country.
As a lifelong Republican I find this whole group of Republicans in the Congress beyond disgusting and frankly reprehensible that they put the Party over what is good for the Country because they want big donors, lobbyists, and hard right Tea Party on their side as they are afraid to be primaried and lose their job. They have the backbone of a wet noodle. Do they not understand that a lot of us would roll up our sleeves and open our checkbooks if they would just stand up and say no to the hard right taking the party back to center right where common sense prevails? A good start would be kicking out the Koch Brothers with the libertarian/John Birchers in toe, the Tea Party obstructionists who only know the word 'no' along the 2nd amendment militia types for starters but chances of that happening are zero, zip, nada as the GOP stays hard right IMHO.
If the Republican Party refuses to get some common sense, they will be relegated to the trash heap of history which will show they went too far hard right to where they could not govern. America is a diverse country but this bunch of Republicans cannot seem to grasp that very idea as they pander to the wealthy and the hard right.
Any Democrat wants help in a Congressional race in 2014, sign me up. This bunch of House Republicans needs to see the unemployment line as well as some in the Senate starting with Minority Leader McConnell. Can you say Ashley Judd?
Can the GOP be rebuilt? From what I am seeing, I have my doubts as they are doubling down on stupid. That leaves a viable new party to rise from the ashes. The GOP did it with the Whigs, but are there leaders out there today willing to put up with the garbage out of the mouths of Fox News talk people, Rush, Hannity, and the big donors like Koch in order to stand up for all Americans? Are they willing to go out of a limb to provide those of us who are long time Republicans a Party with common sense ideas on how to make America a better place for everyone not just the wealthy and the hard right? Are they willing to work and compromise with Democrats and Independents in order to make this Country better? If not, the Republican Party is going to start seeing an exodus after what we are seeing out of our elected officials in Congress.
Must admit that I am shocked that the Republican didn't learn one thing from the election when they were repudiated big time. Stubborn like a mule does describe this group in of Republicans in the House.
Ben Stein has some of the most rational comments I have seen on reasons for keeping the mortgage deduction. When the GOP first brought up eliminating the mortgage deduction from income tax, it didn't make sense. Then your realize that the majority of Republicans involved in the talks on the 'fiscal cliff' are millionaires themselves so the mortgage deduction means little to them.
The mortgage deduction may mean little to the wealthy but for the middle class who own their home, pay a mortgage, and have seen everything else rise, it means lower taxes which is money back in their pocket. It can also make a difference when people go to buy a house as the tax deduction means you can get more house for your money.
The war on the middle class continues today with Republicans talking about eliminating the mortgage deduction. Why not eliminate the loopholes that have allowed people like Romney, hedge funds, and oil and gas owners to pay less interest then then middle class in income taxes. Mortgage interest, medical, state taxes, and charitable donations need to stand at least for those making under $250,000. I actually have no problem with those standing for everyone for their main property.
Do Republicans want to send the housing marking into a tailspin by eliminating the mortgage deduction in order to make Obama look bad?. Note to Republican leadership: You lost and Obama is not running again. Middle class Republicans are starting to turn on House Republicans for bottling up the bill that would continue tax cuts on the middle class. They never had the Democrats support but now they are losing Republican support some of which they may never get back.
Republicans need to listen to Ben Stein and quit thinking like a millionaire and remember the roots a lot of them came from which was not millionaire status.
(CBS News) The battle over how to reduce the federal deficit continues
this week in Washington. One of the suggestions under consideration doesn't pass
muster with our contributor Ben Stein:
My late father, the economist Herbert Stein, had a few favorite quotations.
One of them was from a European thinker named Oxenstierna, if I have that
name right. The quote went simply, "Observe, my son, with what little wisdom the
world is governed."
This comes to mind as our nation is convulsed by fiscal problems, especially
a titanic budget deficit.
This bipartisan mess, caused by GOP tax cuts that went too far and Democrat
spending that went too far, is stirring talk of the need for tax increases and
spending cuts.
Some of this - tax increases on the very rich - makes perfect sense to
me. But one of the ideas getting noodled around is just plain foolish. That's the
idea of junking or severely limiting, the deduction for tax purposes of interest
on home mortgages.
Look, we are just barely limping off the bottom of a residential housing
catastrophe, and home buying and building are finally, after a genuine
nightmare, reviving.
If we could get housing roaring back, that would go a long way towards full
recovery for our economy.
Obviously, taking away the home mortgage interest deduction is the very last
thing the housing market needs.
I'm not saying it would hit every home buyer, but a home is an investment. If
we lower the return on an investment, well, you get the picture.
This bad idea is apparently meant to substitute for tax increases on the
wealthy.
But this is strange. The rich, by definition, are RICH. That's why they
are CALLED "rich." They can afford to pay more tax.
The middle income home buyers, or some of them, need that home mortgage
interest deduction to buy.
So we have the question: Do we want to clobber housing, hurting millions of
homebuyers, builders, construction workers and timber people? Or tax the people
who have two Cadillacs and a Bentley?
How can this even be an open question?
Observe, my friends, with what little wisdom the world is governed.
The last statement by Ben Stein is a keeper and describes the obstructionist Republicans we see today in the Congress. A few are waking up but a lot more need to see the light and realize they are heading down a path to defeat in 2014 because of their stubbornness in refusing to work with Democrats, The American people deserve better out of their elected representatives and the majority are disgusted with the Republicans putting Party over Country once again.
Most Congressional Republicans still don't get it as they are demanding to keep the tax cuts for the wealthy (who can afford the tax increase) while continuing their attacks on seniors, poor, and middle class taxpayers. This time they are going after social security and medicare to help balance the budget while at the same time refusing to pass the bill in the House to make the Bush Tax cuts permanent for the middle class. Not a way to win votes.
Are Republicans so scared of Grover Norquist that they will go off a cliff rather then vote to raise taxes on the wealthy? Today's GOP is pitting their wealthy donors against the middle class and poor. IMHO it is a dumb move to tie Social Security and Medicare to tax hikes on the wealthy because those two programs are not part of the budget as President Reagan said:
“Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once and for all… Social security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund or reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or raising or lowering the deficit.”
It is absurd and abject stupidity to try and convince voters programs like Social Security and Medicare programs are entitlement programs when every working person pays into those programs out of every paycheck. Look no further then Federal Civil Service who used to be exempt from Medicare and Social Security as to see the Congress spin on both of those programs as needing civil service to participate (translation = dollars) or they were going broke in ten years.
First one to fall was Medicare in 1983 to get more money from civil service to save Medicare. Later they split civil service into two groups in starting in 1986 -- current employees were offered a choice to stay with the regular CSRS or switch to FERS which included social security. FERS went into effect for all new hires starting in 1986. They gave the pitch in 80's on how much better FERS would be in the end but most long time civil service didn't buy the koolaid and kept the original CSRS. Have yet to hear anyone who stayed in CSRS complain about the program but have heard all kinds of complaints about FERS over the years. Then the Congress took one more step in making sure that if you retired on CSRS and worked to gain Social Security benefits that the Windfall Elimination Provision would take affect lowering your amount of Social Security benefits until you reach 30 years under Social Security.
What is it with members of Congress wanting to keep going after Social Security and Medicare like it is a giant pot of money for them in the general fund. The money out of every paycheck goes direct to Social Security and cannot be used to fund the Government today.
It hard for me to believe that these millionaires in Congress want to go after social security and medicare benefits to lower the deficit when they are not part of the budget. Why not go after the fraud in medicare like Obama has proposed? That doesn't seem to be something most GOP in Congress want to talk about. Why? Is it because they are beholding to their big donors who are involved in making profits from healthcare even if part of it comes from Medicare fraud? Always thought that was the reason they fought Obamacare as well -- wealthy donors involved in healthcare.
You are probably getting the idea that I am fed up with the current obstructionists Republicans in Congress and you would be correct. They are an insult to anyone who has the ability to think and reason. Perfect place for them is at the end of the unemployment line in 2014.
Don't know when I have seen a title that describes Speaker John Boehner and the House Republicans better than "Operation Rolling Tantrum." Last week, Boehner sent out the GOP Whip, Tom Cole (R-OK), to push for the House to pass the Bush Tax Cuts for those making less than $250,000. Being the skeptic I am, I told some good friends that I thought this was a set-up as Cole was not going to break with leadership. Lo and behold the truth came out yesterday:
"I don't think we need to put a formal proposal out on the table," Cole said on ABC's "This Week." "Speaker [John Boehner] has already said revenue is on the table. He has got an idea about how to get there in terms of not raises rates, but finding it in other ways through tax code reform. I think that makes a lot of sense, and that's a doable thing, but beyond that, you know, we'll wait and see how the negotiations go."
Cole also bashed the plan Geithner brought to congressional leaders this week. "I want to thank the president and Tim Geithner for re-uniting and re-energizing the Republican caucus," he said. "Because that offer -- they must think John Boehner is Santa Claus, because that is a Christmas wish list, not a real proposal."
The demeaning attitude of Cole and House Republicans toward the President and Treasury Secretary Geithner shows that the GOP did not learn one lesson from the November election -- they are as arrogant as ever.
While Republicans continue to promote the wealthy, the 3rd quarter has shown that Corporate Profits Hit Record High While Worker Wages Hit Record Low. Yet we are supposed to want the wealthy to keep the Bush Tax Cuts which have all the loopholes for them including hedge fund managers? The American people spoke in the recent Presidential election but seems Republicans in Congress have cotton balls in their ears as they didn't get the message. This article by Paul Krugman is classic on the tantrums being thrown by Republicans will probably continue until 2014 when the voters have a chance to send them to the unemployment line even in heavily gerrymandered districts and with voter suppression by the Republicans. American people are fed up with the obstructionist tactics of Republicans. It is not the Democrats this group of arrogant Republicans have to fear, it is Republicans like me who have had it with their obstructionist tactics, lies, and elitism.
Oh, boy. This isn’t going to end, even when or if a deal is reached on defusing the austerity bomb; John Boehner has just declared that he’s going to hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage every time we hit the debt limit. Nor will it be a case of holding the nation at gunpoint until it meets GOP demands; Republicans are signaling that they don’t intend to make any specific proposals, they’re just going to yell and stamp their feet until Obama soothes them somehow.
So this is going to be nightmarish, unless Obama surrenders — which I don’t think he will (because he shouldn’t).
And one thing to think about: if the next two years are, as they seem likely to be, one long Republican tantrum, the 2014 election is not going to be a normal midterm. It will instead be a referendum on GOP obstructionism, which may attract a lot more attention — and much higher turnout — than normal.
When the facts come out, McConnell is still the arrogant, underhanded Republican leader in the Senate. Any Senator whose wife serves in the cabinet like his wife did for Bush is not someone I would trust. Personally think that should be against the rules but even then it probably would have happened as this group of Republicans in leadership do not believe rules apply to them.
Rumor has McConnell offering a major aerospace company a safe haven from sequestering if they continue to build up their presence in Kentucky. How many sole source contracts is McConnell going to promise to the same company in exchange for bringing business to Kentucky? Inquiring minds want to know what the deal was to move company resources to Lexington which make no sense. If McConnell said the sky was blue it would pay to go check.
In his interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mitch McConnell finally mentioned a few sort-of specifics about what spending cuts the GOP wants: raising the Medicare age, charging higher premiums to affluent Medicare recipients, and changing the price indexing of Social Security. But how much does all this amount to?
I’ve already noted that the CBO has estimated the fiscal savings from raising the Medicare age at $113 billion over the next decade. A study of health care options (pdf) from a few years ago put the savings from expanded premiums at $20 billion (Option 91) – that number would be somewhat higher now, but still small.
I haven’t found a 10-year estimate of the Social Security indexing idea, but we can roll our own. The idea is to replace the CPI with a “chained” measure that typically rises about 0.3 percentage points less per year. Apply this to the CBO projections of Social Security spending under current policy and I get 10-year savings of $186 billion.
So, if we take all of McConnell’s ideas together, we get a bit more than $300 billion. Getting this would, by the way, impose substantial hardship – seniors would be forced into inferior private insurance, and there are good reasons to believe that the true inflation rate facing seniors is actually higher, not lower, than the CPI. Still, what we’re looking at overall is a saving equal to only about one-fifth of what Obama is proposing to raise by higher taxes.
And that’s it; has anyone heard even a peep from the GOP about what else they’d like to cut?
This is pathetic – and these people are definitely not serious.
Republican lies are catching up with them. Paul Krugman schools Republicans on the facts:
Just a thought: if you follow the pundit discussion of matters fiscal, you get the definite impression that some kinds of deficit reduction are considered “serious”, while others are not.
In particular, the Obama administration’s call for higher revenue through increased taxes on high incomes — which actually goes considerably beyond just letting the Bush tax cuts for the top end expire — gets treated with an unmistakable sneer in much political discussion, as if it were a trivial thing, more about staking out a populist position than it is about getting real on red ink.
On the other hand, the idea of raising the age of Medicare eligibility gets very respectful treatment — now that’s serious.So I thought I’d look at the dollars and cents — and even I am somewhat shocked. Those tax hikes would raise $1.6 trillion over the next decade; according to the CBO, raising the Medicare age would save $113 billion in federal funds over the next decade.
So, the non-serious proposal would reduce the deficit 14 times as much as the serious proposal.I guess we have to understand the definition of serious: a proposal is only serious if it punishes the poor and the middle class.
When I saw this article this morning, I burst out laughing. I have discovered that I am agreeing with Krugman more and more as Republicans and their economists aka lobbyists have gone hard left libertarian with their ideas in order to protect their wealthy donors while ignoring the middle class and poor.
Posted: 12/02/2012 11:08 am EST Updated: 12/02/2012 12:22 pm EST
Paul Krugman offered a harsh analysis of the Republican plan to deal with the "fiscal cliff."
"This is pathetic – and these people are definitely not serious," he wrote on Sunday.According to Krugman, specifics offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just aren't enough to balance the budget. They also put seniors at risk, he said.
"What we’re looking at overall is a saving equal to only about one-fifth of what Obama is proposing to raise by higher taxes," he wrote.
McConnell told the Wall Street Journal on Friday that Republicans are seeking to raise to the Medicare age and modify Social Security. In return, they'd agree to an increase in tax revenue-- but not from higher tax rates.
Republicans and Democrats are at odds over how to address the fiscal cliff. President Obama has repeatedlypushed for higher taxes on the rich. However, House Speaker John Boehner told 'Fox News Sunday' that negotiations are going "nowhere." Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told NBC's 'Meet The Press' that he expects Republicans to eventually agree to tax increases.
Here are the ten people most responsible for this so-called 'fiscal cliff' -- love the fact that Nutting from Market Watch went after both parties. He is bi-partisan in criticism but reserves the most blame for Republicans which is where it should be. He shows this all started with the Clinton years of excess money and the Bush years of tax cuts. Obama was left to clean up the mess and as he will admit, he could have done a better job.
Today Obama seems to understand what he is doing and will not be snowed again by Congress like he was in 2011. Most Republicans in the Congress do not have the best interests of the Country in mind but instead what will benefit their huge donors. Read the details on these people and then understand that greed is a powerful driving factor to where we are today as the wealthy have gotten richer with the Bush Tax Cuts and the Middle Class have taken a real hit with less spending power:
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — With our political leaders locked in
a fiscal struggle that threatens to throw the economy off a so-called cliff and
into recession, you might be wondering how we got to this place.
Remember that this supposed fiscal cliff is the direct result of two
contradictory impulses in American life: Greed and guilt. Greed for low taxes, a
strong military, a strong safety net and lots of government spending for
everyone. And guilt that we weren’t paying our way. Read “Stop calling it a
‘fiscal cliff’”
Arthur Laffer. Laffer was the economist who proved the existence of
the free lunch. His Laffer Curve showed, in theory, that cutting tax rates would
actually increase tax revenue. He gave intellectual cover to those conservatives
who wanted to cut taxes but who didn’t want to be seen as
contributing to a big deficit. He gave them a guilt-free way to cut
revenue.
There’s only one problem: Laffer’s ideas didn’t pan out in
practice: Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Tax cuts are a major cause of our
$16 trillion national debt.
Pete Peterson. If there’s one person who we can blame for making us
feel guilty about the federal deficit, it’s Peterson, a hedge-fund billionaire
who was a cabinet secretary in the Reagan administration. Peterson founded,
funded or supported most of the institutions in Washington devoted to
publicizing the problem of the deficit, including the Concord Coalition, the
Peterson Foundation, The Fiscal Times, and the anti-deficit documentary
“I.O.U.S.A.”
Without Peterson’s billions and the guilt it bought,
the deficit would be a fringe issue.
Bill Clinton. President Clinton made budget surpluses look
easy. The budget was in the black the last four years of his administration.
What’s worse, he made surpluses look like a sure thing.
Clinton’s surpluses were partly the result of Washington going on a serious
budget diet, with higher taxes paired with moderation in spending. But it was
the booming economy — and higher taxes on capital income — that turned the
modest deficits of the early Clinton years into surpluses.
By the time Clinton left office, politicians were beginning to talk about
perpetual surpluses, in exactly the same way that hucksters on Wall Street were
talking about a perpetual bull market. And with exactly the same outcome.
Alan Greenspan. Greenspan was a high priest of both guilt
and greed. He had always warned Congress about the dangers of the deficits, but
his biggest failure as Federal Reserve chairman was the day in 2001 he told
Congress that the worst thing it could do was pay down the debt because that
would destroy the Treasury market and the Fed’s power to control the economy.
That was the day he endorsed the Bush tax cuts. The Maestro’s endorsement
gave intellectual cover to the conservatives who wanted to cut taxes, but who
didn’t want to feel guilty.
Greenspan also catered to our greedy side as a serial bubble-blower. He
inflated the housing bubble in the 2000s by keeping interest rates low and by
refusing to regulate the shadow banking system.
George W. Bush . No one is more responsible for racking up
our debt than Bush. He campaigned in 2000 promising to cut taxes in order to
avoid paying down the national debt. And when the recession of 2001 arrived, he
said tax cuts would revive the economy. And when the economy didn’t revive, he
cut taxes some more. Tax cuts for all occasions. And it was all guilt-free.
Dick Cheney. While Bush was busy cutting taxes, Cheney was
busy planning the war on terror. For the first time in our history, we sent our
military into battle without raising taxes at home to help pay for it. It added
trillions to the debt.
David Lereah. Lereah was the chief economist for the
National Association of Realtors and was perhaps the most enthusiastic and
public cheerleader for the housing bubble. Even after the bubble began to
deflate, Lereah still insisted that real-estate investments would never lose
money.
Of course, Lereah didn’t cause the bubble all by himself, but he does embody
the greed that engulfed the real estate industry, the Wall Street banks that
profited from it, and the homeowners who took on more debt than they could ever
hope to repay.
The housing and credit bubble led to the collapse of the financial system in
2008 and was the direct cause of the Great Recession and the ensuing $1
trillion-a-year deficits.
Grover Norquist. As the head of a powerful lobbying and
campaign-finance organization, Norquist forced almost every Republican
officeholder to sign a pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstance. If
anyone declined to sign or dared to violate the pledge, Norquist would back a
primary challenger. The threat worked.
The Norquist pledge blocked any possibility of a budget deal between
Democrats and Republicans over the past two years. Democrats insisted that any
plan to balance the budget must include more revenue as well as spending cuts,
but Republicans held solid against any tax increase.
There are signs that Norquist could be losing his hold on the party. Several
Republicans won elections this year without signing his pledge, and several
incumbents have said they don’t feel bound by the pledge any more.
Barack Obama. Obama may be the perfect representative of our
age, because he encapsulates our national schizophrenia over the budget. He
honors both the greed and the guilt. He presided over the largest deficits in
history, including a large fiscal stimulus, bailouts of the auto industry, and
an expansion of the safety net.
But Obama also lectures us about the need for the government to tighten its
belt, even during a recession. He wants to raise taxes, if only on a few, and
he’s expressed willingness to cut into the great middle-class entitlements. It
was Obama’s administration that first suggested the bargain in 2011 that created
the fiscal cliff.
John Boehner. The House speaker is trapped in Grover
Norquist’s world. He’s a pragmatic legislator who accepts that the government
needs more revenue, but his caucus in the House doesn’t agree. In the summer of
2011, Boehner nearly forced the nation to default on its debt because he
couldn’t deliver the votes necessary to raise taxes.
In the end, Boehner was forced to punt the problem down the road. Today’s
fiscal cliff showdown is the result of Boehner’s inability to lead the House
Republicans to a deal.
Time for the American people to rise up with one voice and tell today's Republican Party to quit obstructing and put the American people first over their big donors. This is the most disgusting group of Republicans I have seen in Congress. They are in the hip pockets of the wealthy donors and lobbyists. How many Congressional Republicans have benefited from the deep pockets of these donors and lobbyists? It is the only explanation on how they can come to DC as middle to upper middle class and now are multi-millionaires. What is an insult to my intelligence that they only have to disclose a range of what they are worth? If we demand to see the income tax returns of our Presidential candidates, why not our members of Congress?
Now would be a good time for an investigative journalist to look into how members of Congress made their millions while saying they were serving the American people. All I know is that $1 today does not goes as far as it used to in the past. The cost of almost everything has continued to rise with corporate executives getting richer while the workers get little to no pay increases but the price for what we buy is continuing to go up. Greed has overtaken Corporate America and some members of Congress. When a member of Congress retires or is voted out of office, they should not be allowed to be lobbyists. A member of Congress should also not have his wife as a member of the President's cabinet like Sen McConnell's wife was in the Bush Administration.
Reform is needed from Campaign Finance Reform to reign in secret donations and multi-millionairs/billionairs trying to buy elections to the way members of Congress are paid including benefits to the huge increase in the number of staff in the Congress and last but not least, forbid lobbyists from writing the bills that members submit. Time for Congress to take the first action and show they are serious about the deficit by cutting their own Houses first starting with their salaries (no raises), their staffs, and benefits.
Remember what is happening right now in Congress by obstructionist Republicans -- start getting involved now in the 2014 electiona to send a message that the American people will not put up with obstructionists tactics and whichever party is in power must work for the American people. The way this group of Republicans has been acting in Congress, the Democrats deserve to take back the House and see if they can be more responsible. If they can't, then the American people will vote them out again. The grandstanding has to stop! The very idea that McCain, Graham, and Ayotte along with others run out to a microphone to spew their lies has to stop. The American people deserve better representation then what we have in Congress today. Time to vote out obstructionists in 2014!
Arrogance of NRA is simply stunning - for an organization who used to be about gun safety now the bottom line for gun/ammo manufacturers trumps all as the NRA lobbies for them.
According to Think Progress, “NRA: Practice Range” is billed as a “network of news, laws, facts, knowledge, safety tips, educational materials and online resource” for the organization.The National Rifle Association released a new app on Sunday that includes a gun range equipped with coffin-shaped targets, and the option for players to simulate using a military-grade sniper rifle.
The app includes what it calls “9 true to life firearms,” and allows players to download an MK-11 sniper rifle setting for 99 cents. The rifle can shoot 750 rounds per minute.
Dems/GOP Fighting -- Will they Finally Work Together for the Country? Will replace this image when they do. (11/07/2012)
Quotes
"We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this." President Barack Obama, Newtown, CT, 12/16/2012
******
"I don't think that the way to correct a spin from the left is to try to impart a spin from the right.... [A]n information flow distorted from the right would be just as much a disservice as distortion from the left. What we really should be after... is accurate information. And I don't see what any conservative or anybody else for that matter has to fear from accurate information." M. Stanton Evans
******
Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY)
“For heaven’s sake, you have Grover Norquist wandering the earth in his white robes saying that if you raise taxes one penny, he’ll defeat you,” he told CNN back in May. “He can’t murder you. He can’t burn your house. The only thing he can do to you, as an elected official, is defeat you for reelection. And if that means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress.”
******
"We are are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation.
John Stuart Mill was a 19th century political philosopher:
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill.
President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks about the fiscal cliff, Monday, Dec. 31, 2012, in the South Court Auditorium at the White House in Washington.
Raw Story 
Posts
