Alan Grayson is Back!

Nice to have Rep. Alan Grayson, R-Florida, back in Congress. He points out that the Republicans keeps dragging us towards these "cliff" situations, and it's all contrived by Congressional Republicans.

"This is completely unecessary. These are artificial crises manufactured by the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate in order to bring about cuts in Social Security, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid the country doesn't want and would never even consider except for these crises that they create. We're not talking about an earthquake, we're not talking about Hurricane Sandy, we're not talking about any natural disaster.

It's a disaster created by the Republican Party's Agenda, which is highly unpopular, and wouldn't ever be considered except that they keep dragging the country again and again into these "cliff" situations.

On Gun Control Reform:

There's a fundamental difference here between the two parties, and it crosses NRA lines, so to speak. . . . Over and Over again whether you're talking about guns, talking about employment, healthcare or any other problem that's facing the country, what the other side wants to do is very clear: Nothing. I pointed out three years ago, they're healthcare plan is don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly. And now we see the same thing is true with guns in the wake of a terrible national tragedy. A recurring national tragedy. Their answer is "Do Nothing."

They want to instill in us a kind of fatalism and nihilism that means we can't do anything to solve our problems.

PEW Poll ~ GOP was Big Loser in Fiscal Cliff Battle

PEW Research has found that a majority of Americans approve of Obama's handling and resolution of the Fiscal Cliff crisis.

That doesn't surprise me. I think that most well-informed people understand that the bitter and vindictive GOP wants Obama to fail and enjoys holding America hostage. But the Tea Party members of Congress have no intention of compromising, and John Boehner cannot control his own caucus.

The poll numbers give me hope that in spite of the scary predictions from the media and doomsayers from both side, Obama will win the next battle over the so-called "Debt Ceiling" as well.

Even Republicans in this Poll saw Obama as the winner, and gave their own Party dreadful marks.

Americans Approve Obama, Disapprove Congress

Overall, 48% approve of how Obama handled the negotiations over the tax legislation, while just 19% approve of the job GOP leaders did hammering out the legislation. While Republicans broadly disapprove of how Obama handled the tax measure (77% disapprove), they give GOP leaders only mixed approval ratings – 40% approve while 45% disapprove.

Just 14% of independents approve of the way Republican leaders handled the fiscal cliff talks while 69% disapprove. Independents are divided over how Obama handled the negotiations (41% approve, 42% disapprove). Democrats overwhelmingly approve of Obama’s handling of the negotiations (81% approve) and disapprove of GOP leaders (79% disapprove).

White House ~ 7 Things To Know about the Tax Deal

From the White House ~ a list of 7 important facts about the Fiscal Cliff tax deal:

Obama Speaks After Congress Votes on Fiscal Cliff

At the eleventh hour, with yet another display of "brinksmanship," and almost 24 hours after the U.S. technically went over the Fiscal Cliff which raised taxes on all Americans, the House GOP finally got themselves together, and with a special appeal to the Dems by Joe Biden, Congress passed a compromise that kept tax rates low for 98% of Americans, saved unemployment benefits, and raised taxes permanently on the top 2%.

What did Obama give away? Not much - he let them raise the "middle-class" tax cut-off to $400,000 (or #450,000 for married couples). That will limit revenue for sure, but the top 2% still have to go back to Clinton-Era tax levels of 39.6%, which the Tea Party vowed wouldn't happen. So this is a win for the President and the country, even though many purists on the Left would say "Obama Caved." I disagree - he compromised to get something done and it worked. That's the way it works, folks, whether you like it or not. Stonewalling will never get us anywhere - the Tea Party proves that!

More Glass-Half-Full or Half-Empty quotes:
Snark Amendment: Fiscal Cliff Compromise Makes Both Sides Unhappy

From Talking Points Memo

The final vote was 257-167. The bill passed thanks to an overwhelming display of Democratic support — 172 Dems voted for the bill, while only 16 opposed. By contrast, only 85 Republicans voted in support of the bill, compared to the 151 — including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) — who voted against.

This was not an easily foretold outcome. Though the legislation was the product of White House negotiations with the Senate’s top Republican, and though it passed the upper chamber overwhelmingly in the wee hours of New Year’s Day, House Republicans nearly submarined the bill and sent the country down an uncertain road toward economic contraction.

. . . They wanted cuts to federal spending. And, with a wink from Cantor, they were nearly prepared to sink the bill directly, or return it to the Senate amended and guarantee its demise.
In the end, a self-preservation instinct took over. Leaders suffocated the rebellion, and decided to place the bill on the floor unchanged, at the risk of alienating the majority of rank-and-file Republicans.

Complete Transcript of Obama's Comments:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release January 1, 2013

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

11:20 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Happy New Year, everybody.

AUDIENCE: Happy New Year, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: A central promise of my campaign for President was to change the tax code that was too skewed towards the wealthy at the expense of working middle-class Americans. Tonight we've done that. Thanks to the votes of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, I will sign a law that raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while preventing a middle-class tax hike that could have sent the economy back into recession and obviously had a severe impact on families all across America.

I want to thank all the leaders of the House and Senate. In particular, I want to thank the work that was done by my extraordinary Vice President Joe Biden, as well as Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell. Everybody worked very hard on this and I appreciate it. And, Joe, once again, I want to thank you for your great work.

Under this law, more than 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses will not see their income taxes go up. Millions of families will continue to receive tax credits to help raise their kids and send them to college. Companies will continue to receive tax credits for the research that they do, the investments they make, and the clean energy jobs that they create. And 2 million Americans who are out of work but out there looking, pounding the pavement every day, are going to continue to receive unemployment benefits as long as they're actively looking for a job.

But I think we all recognize this law is just one step in the broader effort to strengthen our economy and broaden opportunity for everybody. The fact is the deficit is still too high, and we're still investing too little in the things that we need for the economy to grow as fast as it should.

And that's why Speaker Boehner and I originally tried to negotiate a larger agreement that would put this country on a path to paying down its debt while also putting Americans back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges, and providing investments in areas like education and job training. Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough support or time for that kind of large agreement in a lame duck session of Congress. And that failure comes with a cost, as the messy nature of the process over the past several weeks has made business more uncertain and consumers less confident.

But we are continuing to chip away at this problem, step by step. Last year I signed into law $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction. Tonight's agreement further reduces the deficit by raising $620 billion in revenue from the wealthiest households in America. And there will be more deficit reduction as Congress decides what to do about the automatic spending cuts that we have now delayed for two months.

I want to make this point: As I've demonstrated throughout the past several weeks, I am very open to compromise. I agree with Democrats and Republicans that the aging population and the rising cost of health care makes Medicare the biggest contributor to our deficit. I believe we've got to find ways to reform that program without hurting seniors who count on it to survive. And I believe that there's further unnecessary spending in government that we can eliminate.

But we can't simply cut our way to prosperity. Cutting spending has to go hand-in-hand with further reforms to our tax code so that the wealthiest corporations and individuals can't take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren't available to most Americans. And we can't keep cutting things like basic research and new technology and still expect to succeed in a 21st century economy. So we're going to have to continue to move forward in deficit reduction, but we have to do it in a balanced way, making sure that we are growing even as we get a handle on our spending.

Now, one last point I want to make -- while I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they passed. Let me repeat: We can't not pay bills that we've already incurred. If Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic -- far worse than the impact of a fiscal cliff.

People will remember, back in 2011, the last time this course of action was threatened, our entire recovery was put at risk. Consumer confidence plunged. Business investment plunged. Growth dropped. We can't go down that path again.

And today's agreement enshrines, I think, a principle into law that will remain in place as long as I am President: The deficit needs to be reduced in a way that's balanced. Everyone pays their fair share. Everyone does their part. That's how our economy works best. That's how we grow.

The sum total of all the budget agreements we've reached so far proves that there is a path forward, that it is possible if we focus not on our politics but on what's right for the country. And the one thing that I think, hopefully, in the New Year we'll focus on is seeing if we can put a package like this together with a little bit less drama, a little less brinksmanship, not scare the heck out of folks quite as much.

We can come together as Democrats and Republicans to cut spending and raise revenue in a way that reduces our deficit, protects our middle class, provides ladders into the middle class for everybody who's willing to work hard. We can find a way to afford the investments that we need to grow and compete. We can settle this debate, or at the very least, not allow it to be so all-consuming all the time that it stops us from meeting a host of other challenges that we face -- creating jobs, boosting incomes, fixing our infrastructure, fixing our immigration system, protecting our planet from the harmful effects of climate change, boosting domestic energy production, protecting our kids from the horrors of gun violence.

It's not just possible to do these things; it's an obligation to ourselves and to future generations. And I look forward to working with every single member of Congress to meet this obligation in the New Year.

And I hope that everybody now gets at least a day off, I guess, or a few days off, so that people can refresh themselves, because we're going to have a lot of work to do in 2013.

Thanks, everybody. Happy New Year.

END 11:28 P.M. EST

President Obama: Don't Blame "Both Sides" for Fiscal Cliff

source: RawStory
Here's the President on Meet the Press today schooling David Gregory on why the press needs to give up the false equivalency meme. And I really loved that Obama used the phrase "country first" to describe his plans, since that was the McCain/Palin slogan in 2008. Ha.

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.

And to try to work with everybody involved to make sure that we've got an economy [that] 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.

More of the Transcript Here on PolicyMic

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

The House that Boehner Built

"You Built That"
We woke up today to the realization that while the world may have been spared an Apocalypse, Speaker of the House John Boehner actually didn't. In fact, karma went full-Mayan on him last night as the fickle finger of fate socked it to him in the form of his own GOP House members. You can't make this stuff up.

Last night John Boehner took his "Plan B" non-compromise with President Obama to the floor of the House. Rachel Maddow called it a "Republican Wish List." Everyone knew it wouldn't make any difference, since the Senate would never agree to it, and Obama wouldn't sign it because it has nothing to do with the negotiations on the Fiscal Cliff. But hey, it was something, right? It was all in the spirit of NOT going over the Fiscal Cliff on January 1st, which will raise taxes on everyone, including the poorest. So at least they were appearing to work overtime to fix things for the American people, even if misguided and unworkable with the Democrats. They would take a Friday night "purist" vote among Republicans who had signed on earlier in the day, no biggie french fry.

Except that it was. Because at some point, Boehner realized the Tea Party members wouldn't back Plan B after all, and they were pulling the rug out from under him. He was not in control of his people, and after weeks of talks with Obama, and hours of whipping his representatives in the house, the Speaker just didn't have the votes, and he gave up. He just announced he was giving up, and everyone could go home for Christmas, with no way to solve the Fiscal Cliff.

Twitter went nuts, of course, and Democrats and Republicans alike rushed to shame Boehner and House members:
Snark Amendment: Boehner Shambles as Plan B Fails
Snark Amendment: Boehner's Epic Fail in the House

Stunning. Rachel Maddow compared it to the curtain being pulled back on the Great and Powerful Oz, saying the Conservative Movement is "a complete mess." You could also say the Emperor has no Clothes, if Boehner ever did. But then he's dealing with a Tea Party that is run by a group of Mad Hatters.

Now the ball has been tossed back to Obama and Harry Reid in the Senate, and the Republicans have imploded and beclowned themselves again. The problem is, the rest of the country deserves better than the bewildering display last night in the House. They need Republicans to accept the results of the November election and learn to compromise with the sitting President. Once again we are left dangling while the Tea Party takes care of millionaires at the expense of everyone else, including their own constituents. What can stop the madness?

Rumor is the disgraced GOP will return to the House next week after Christmas to try once again to solve this AGAIN before Jan. 1, but don't hold your breath. Happy New Year!

Robert Costa on National Review

Inside the Meltdown
At a quarter to 8 p.m. on Thursday night, House Republicans gathered in the Capitol basement for an urgent, closed-door conference meeting. The scene was hushed and confused. Instead of huddling in a windowless room, members thought they’d spend the evening on the House floor, voting on “Plan B,” Speaker John Boehner’s fiscal-cliff proposal. But as they took their seats and looked at Boehner’s face, the reason for the gathering became clear: The speaker didn’t have the votes. The whipping was over. “Plan B” was dead.
. . . It was Boehner’s tone and body language that caught most Republicans off guard. The speaker looked defeated, unhappy, and exhausted after hours of wrangling. He didn’t want to fight. There was no name-calling. As a devout Roman Catholic, Boehner wanted to pray. “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,” he told the crowd, according to attendees.
. . . Boehner had spent weeks negotiating with his members and the president. But in this final hour, when he needed Republicans most, he had only a prayer.

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

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

More on the Fiscal Cliff, Medicare and Retirement Age

Over the weekend, Progressives were trying to come to terms with rumors reported by Ezra Klein and others of a deal involving raising retirement and therefore Medicare eligibility to age 67.

Here's my previous post for background:
Snark Lane: To President Obama and All the Smarmy Wonks in Washington

And here is my collection of quotes to give you an idea of the backlash towards Ezra Klein and Jonathan Chait over the weekend on Twitter and elsewhere:
Snark Amendment: Dems Pop Trial Balloon on Raising Retirement Age

I think my title on the second one is probably wishful thinking, since we don't really know whether this monstrosity is a fake trial balloon floated to make the "real" changes seem better to the base, or if it is nearly a done deal, as Klein and others seem to think. The course of action outlined by Jonathan Chait would be to raise the age, then move those under 67 to Obamacare to bolster the program. But why? To most people, Obamacare just took effect and isn't a tried and true program like Medicare. Life is confusing enough for the elderly new retirees without even more stress heaped on them by bureaucrats in Washington, and done just to make political points with a party that basically doesn't care . . . sorry, I seem to be ranting again - I'll stop.

There is some reason this bad idea keeps getting floated around. Most Democrats just hate the idea that we have to capitulate to the demands of the Republicans and the Tea Party after such a hard-fought campaign, especially to give them something they seem to desperately want in a sadistic way - to punish the elderly and the poor and the sick who need government assistance. *stops ranting again*

Here is a petition you can sign, if nothing else, to make you feel better:
Tell President Obama and Congressional Leadership: Don't accept any deal that raises the Medicare eligibility age or cuts benefits.

Joan Walsh has a great column summing up the whole mess:

Salon: Fiscal Cliff Cruelty

. . . it’s not just Chait who believes the deal is possible. Obama-doubting progressives like my friend Glenn Greenwald point to multiple reports that the president was willing to raise the Medicare eligibility age in order to reach a debt-ceiling “grand bargain” in 2011. And facing suggestions on Twitter (including from me) that the supposed Medicare proposal wasn’t genuine, Ezra Klein tweeted at me and Greenwald: “yes, given how widely reported that was, I’m baffled by the disbelief that age is in the negotiations.” He followed up, when people blamed the messenger (him) for the bad idea, by saying: “I don’t want to raise the Medicare age. I’m reporting that it may happen.”

There are so many things wrong with raising the eligibility age that I still can’t believe it’s under consideration. That’s not doubting Klein; it’s just a failure on my part to imagine that data-driven leaders — Republican or Democrat — would propose it. It doesn’t save money; it’s a shell game that just pushes costs around.

. . . Post-election polls find that two thirds of voters oppose increasing the Medicare eligibility age. Should this deal become reality, it would reinforce the cynicism Americans harbor about government – and about Democrats. Deservedly.
The truth is, Obama should be pushing to lower the Medicare eligibility age, to let those 55 and over opt to buy into the program with their own money. The premiums paid by a younger, healthier cohort would help stabilize the program, while the benefits of getting that population insured earlier would keep costs down later. That’ll never happen, you say? Well, we can make sure it’ll never happen if progressives never ask for it.
Honestly, the only real reason to throw seniors into the Obamacare pool is to put more people at the mercy of private insurance, and weaken both the economic and political basis for Medicare.

SNL Paints Boehner as Bullied by Tea Party

source: gifs from last night

Obama agrees to not raise taxes over the fiscal cliff because he takes pity on John Boehner, depantsed by GOP bullies in the ladies restroom, then pelted with rotten eggs in a burned-out warehouse.

The President: "Leave this poor orange man alone!"

Ha! :)

To President Obama and all the Smarmy Wonks in D.C.: No Grand Deal, Period

Some disturbing ideas are trickling out of Washington about Obama making a deal with Boehner to only tax the rich at 37%, while raising the retirement age to 67, with cuts to so-called "entitlements" still on the table. In other words, Obama and Pelosi are close to caving in negotiations instead of simply letting us go over the cliff in January.

I can't even express how made of fail this is. Please: Just. Don't. Do. It.

Ezra Klein writes on the Washington Post writes as if this is a done deal:

Talk to smart folks in Washington, and here’s what they think will happen: The final tax deal will raise rates a bit, giving Democrats a win, but not all the way back to 39.6 percent, giving Republicans a win. That won’t raise enough revenue on its own, so it will be combined with some policy to cap tax deductions, perhaps at $25,000 or $50,000, with a substantial phase-in and an exemption for charitable contributions.

The harder question is what Republicans will get on the spending side of the deal. But even that’s not such a mystery. There will be a variety of nips and tucks to Medicare, including more cost-sharing and decreases in provider payments, and the headline Democratic concession is likely to be that the Medicare eligibility age rises from 65 to 67.

That’s not a policy I like much, but New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait accurately conveys the White House thinking here: They see it as having “weirdly disproportionate symbolic power,” as it’s not a huge (or smart) cut to Medicare benefits, and most of the pain will be blunted by the Affordable Care Act.

Ezra Klein surely considers himself one of the "smart people" in Washington, and when in doubt, Rachel Maddow swoons in to tell him just how cute and nerdy he is. But the rest of us out in the real world don't have such a glowing opinion.

There's smart, then there's smart. I know Klein says he doesn't like the deal as he lays it out, but then he turns around and agrees with this hideous article by his fellow wonk Jonathan Chait which again takes the nerdy approach that all of this would somehow be "good" for the elderly and the Dems. Honestly?

Jonathan Chait in NYMag: Go Ahead, Raise the Medicare Retirement Age

Many of my liberal wonk friends have been making the case against raising the Medicare retirement age — see Sarah Kliff, Matthew Yglesias, and Jonathan Cohn. Their basic case is that raising the Medicare retirement age is a really stupid way to save money because it just forces people to stop buying health care through Medicare, which is relatively cheap, and start buying it through private insurance, which costs way more.

They’re all totally right about this. Still, when the question comes to what concessions the Democrats are going to have to accept, rather than what policy makes the most sense, raising the Medicare age seems like a sensible bone to throw the right.

. . . raising the Medicare retirement age would help strengthen the fight to preserve the Affordable Care Act.
. . . a side effect of raising the Medicare retirement age would be that a large cohort of 65- and 66-year-olds would suddenly find themselves needing the Affordable Care Act to buy their health insurance. Which is to say, Republicans attacking the Affordable Care Act would no longer be attacking the usual band of very poor or desperate people they can afford to ignore but a significant chunk of middle-class voters who have grown accustomed to the assumption that they will be able to afford health care.

Huh? Is Jonathan Chait serious? Turning Medicare into Obamacare for two years would be better somehow and would "prove" something to the Right, and then all will be well? Dream on, brother.

it strikes me as completely delusional, and almost evil, to imply that seniors should throw themselves on the sword so Obama can strike a Grand Bargain with Boehner, who after all belongs to a party who thinks the elderly (except their own mothers) are a bunch of takers and moochers. And Chait really expects this plan to win over Republicans? I just don't get the logic of any of this.

Save us from the "smart people," or as Paul Krugman calls them, the "Very Serious People."

Last night, Chait was getting plenty of flack for what he wrote:

FireDogLake: Jon Chait's Miserable Endorsement of Raising the Medicare Eligibility Age

David Dayen makes me wonder why someone as smart as Jon Chait would write such an idiotic column bit.ly/SLmIcm

— Dan Froomkin (@froomkin) December 7, 2012

I lack the words to describe how democratically perverse a deal that raises the Medicare eligibility age would be.

— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) December 7, 2012

Ezra Klein using Maddow guest host platform to blatantly shill for Chait "surrender on Medicare age" plan. Unbelievable. Wow, wow, wow.

— Ryan (@RTMcNeely) December 8, 2012

In my opinion, if this is a trial balloon, it's already lost altitude, crashed and deflated into an impotent pile, like Mitt Romney's Limp Blimp in Florida just before the election.

How many times do we have to reject an idea before Washington gets it?

Paul Krugman writes there is going to be a day of reckoning and hell to pay if Obama makes this deal.

Ezra Klein says that the shape of a fiscal cliff deal is clear: only a 37 percent rate on top incomes, and a rise in the Medicare eligibility age.
I’m going to cross my fingers and hope that this is just a case of creeping Broderism, that it’s a VSP fantasy about how we’re going to resolve this in a bipartisan way. Because if Obama really does make this deal, there will be hell to pay.
. . . this looks crazy to me; it looks like a deal that makes no sense either substantively or in terms of the actual bargaining strength of the parties. And if it does happen, the disillusionment on the Democratic side would be huge. All that effort to reelect Obama, and the first thing he does is give away two years of Medicare? How’s that going to play in future attempts to get out the vote?
If anyone in the White House is seriously thinking along these lines, please stop it right now.

Indeed, Mr. Krugman. This way lies insanity for the Dems. We would rather go off the flippin' cliff any day than capitulate to Boehner and the GOP.

I also saw a rather unbelievable twitter conversation in which someone wrote that Medicaid was more important than Medicare because one affects "poor children" while the other affects the "rich older people." What does that even mean? That the elderly have no value? Let's recall once again that in the population known as the 99% out here, or the 47% or whatever, most of us AREN'T Rich! Therefore, it is a myth that the elderly are rich people living on the backs of the young.

There are millions of lower middle class seniors dragging themselves to crap jobs for years, standing on legs with varicose veins, putting off procedures due to bad healthcare programs, putting off dental work, sacrificing everything BECAUSE they care so much for young people - their children and grandchildren. They have to keep going for them, not for some cushy retirement. With the state of 401K's these days, real retirement isn't even an option if you aren't Mitt Romney.

AARP know this - that's the same group that boo'd Paul Ryan off the stage just a few months ago. Do you folks in Washington think we are going to stay quiet now? God help you if you believe that.

To hear this damned message about a Machiavellian deal being blurped out by a bunch of smarmy wonks is an insult to all Democratic voters. It's even an insult to all Republican seniors because they are just as poor as anyone else! Red states are poor states, so this is a stupid deal for Boehner as well.

In fact, I keep trying to calm myself down with the idea that this trial balloon is floating in order to turn seniors against Boehner, but I'm not sure. We've seen Obama try to make friends with Boehner before,to win over the Republicans in an almost cringeworthy way, like casting pearls before swine. Jon Stewart told him "they will never be your friends, so stop trying so hard." And yet, President Obama is idealistic enough to think he can still do it.

But at what cost, Mr. President? How many times are you going to alienate the base and give the Republicans another victory they can chortle about in their all-white all-men meetings to which you will never be invited? And meanwhile, the base is up in arms over another bad deal in which we get the shaft and learn to like it.

No more. No more. No more. NO MORE.

This thing is no better than the Ryan plan to throw the working poor under the bus to protect the tax base of the young.

You know - it's like the Ayn Rand thing - Atlas Shrugged - Atlas didn't care - Atlas went home and had a martini and forgot all about the old lady in the checkout line and the man working the jackhammer and the nurse at the hospital and the guy washing dishes in the restaurant. Obama loves to tell these All-American stories on the campaign trail, so why not remember them while dealing with Boehner?

Voters rejected Ryan and his Randian ideas on November 6. If Washington has forgotten that, the voters are going to remind them soon big time, to the point that you'll never forget it again! I promise you. No more. No more.

Simpson's Mr. Burns Explains Fiscal Cliff

LOL - Check out the signs in front of Republican Party Headquarters, too, LOL.

White House Rejects Boehner's Lame Offer

House Speaker John Boehner sent President Obama a Counter-Offer for keeping the nation from going over the Fiscal Cliff - Slope - Curb - whatever. Needless to say it was lame and reminiscent of Romney's vague budget in which he wouldn't explain which tax deductions he would cut to balance the budget.

Therefore, Boehner's plan was a big fat zero, and the White House immediately rejected it with almost a yawn - nothing to see here.

PDF: Boehner and GOP Counter-Offer on Fiscal Cliff

Talking Points Memo: White House Rejection Letter

“The Republican letter released today does not meet the test of balance. In fact, it actually promises to lower rates for the wealthy and sticks the middle class with the bill. Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve.

Independent analysts who have looked at plans like this one have concluded that middle class taxes will have to go up to pay for lower rates for millionaires and billionaires.

While the President is willing to compromise to get a significant, balanced deal and believes that compromise is readily available to Congress, he is not willing to compromise on the principles of fairness and balance that include asking the wealthiest to pay higher rates. President Obama believes – and the American people agree – that the economy works best when it is grown from the middle out, not from the top down. Until the Republicans in Congress are willing to get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates, we won’t be able to achieve a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit our nation needs.”

To that, Boehner Then Replied, also via TPM:

“Republicans have once again offered a responsible, balanced plan to avoid the fiscal cliff, and the White House has once again demonstrated how unreasonable it has become," Boehner's spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement emailed to TPM. "If the President is rejecting this middle ground offer, it is now his obligation to present a plan that can pass both chambers of Congress."

So the drama will continue . . .

LA Times Story

Rejecting President Obama’s call to raise tax rates for the wealthy, House Republicans unveiled a counteroffer that would cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other federal programs while raising new revenue by overhauling the tax code.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his GOP leadership team sent the White House the three-page offer Monday afternoon as the administration turned up the volume on their complaints that Republicans have been unwilling to put a serious proposal on the table.

. . . Obama has been fighting to preserve the lower tax rates for all but the wealthiest households, those earning more than $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for singles. The president has said the nation can no longer afford tax breaks for the wealthy that would cost about $900 billion over the decade. But Republicans are fighting to keep the tax breaks for all.

Monday, Republicans proposed capturing nearly the same amount of revenue by closing loopholes and limiting itemized deductions on the wealthiest households, while also launching a broader tax-reform process that would lower all tax rates.

Boehner and his team also proposed $1.4 trillion in savings from spending cuts — including healthcare reforms that could include raising the Medicare retirement age and asking wealthier seniors to pay higher Medicare premiums. They also proposed limiting the cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients and others.

Snark in Pictures

Going Down the "Fiscal Slope" in January

What is the Fiscal Cliff?  Or is it more of a Gentle Slope?

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The term refers to the tax cuts that would expire and the automatic spending cuts that would take effect if Congress fails to act by year's end.

Why the deadline? Congress created it to compel action if a so-called supercommittee failed to find common ground on deficit reduction. It failed.

Tax increases: Expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, along with a scheduled increase in the payroll tax, would raise taxes on all Americans by several percentage points.

Spending cuts: Federal spending would be trimmed by $1.5 trillion over the next decade. The few exempted areas include Social Security, Medicaid, military pay and veterans benefits.

Unemployment: About 2 million Americans will lose jobless benefits if the extended safety net program expires on Dec. 29.

Source: The Economist

What has Obama offered the Republicans so far? 
He sent Tim Geitner to Capitol Hill with this plan:

From Huff Post

Geithner's offer would delay the sequester -- automatic spending cuts to the Pentagon and social programs -- for a year, and effectively eliminates the congressional requirement to lift the debt ceiling in perpetuity. The offer included an extension of unemployment insurance, the payroll tax and even money to help homeowners modify mortgages and invest in infrastructure. "I think there was a leprechaun in there somewhere, too," quipped one GOP aide.
The proposal is based on a two-step plan that would decouple the high-end tax and capital gains rates from the middle-class rates, extending only those for the middle class. It would revert estate taxes to their higher 2009 level, and raise an additional $600 billion in taxes elsewhere, according to the GOP summary. It then proposes tax reform required to raise at least as much as the tax hikes, and entitlement reform that would trim $400 billion from the programs.

Are Republicans really going to reject all offers to deal with Obama?
Will they remain loyal to the Tea Party and Grover Norquist?
Most sources behind the scenes say the smart people among them know taxes have to go up and they have to deal. Speaker Boehner seems to be holding to the Tea Party talking points, but interestingly his back-up team are getting the word out, so we can assume he is probably posturing for the camera.

Oklahoma Senator Tom Cole on NPR's All Things Considered:

SIEGEL: . . . a surprise from one of the top Republicans in the House. He broke ranks with his GOP colleagues. While they are holding out for an extension of all Bush-era tax cuts, Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole told members of the leadership team yesterday that they should hurry up and extend tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent of taxpayers.

BLOCK: As for the top 2 percent, Cole argues, Congress can worry about them later. NPR's David Welna caught up with Cole today and has this report.

DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole just got re-elected to a sixth term in the House. He serves there as the GOP majority's deputy whip, and he's a close friend of Speaker John Boehner, which is why a lot of his colleagues were surprised when Politico first reported that Cole urged his colleagues in a closed-door meeting to approve an extension this year of all the expiring tax cuts except those that affect only the top 2 percent.

REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS JEFFERY COLE: We have an opportunity to make sure that the tax rates for 98 percent of the American people don't go up. I think we should do that sooner rather than later.

WELNA: That's Cole this afternoon.

COLE: I'm not trying to persuade anybody. I was asked: In my opinion, what's the best position for us to take? You know, what's in the best interest of the American people? What's in the best interest politically? I think that position that I outlined - that is, making sure that 98 percent of the American people have tax security, so to speak, and then continuing to fight on the other issues, and it doesn't mean giving in to rate increases. I don't believe in that. That's the right thing to do.

Senator John Thune (R-SD) on Fox News via ThinkProgress

MARTHA MAcCALLUM (HOST): What I’m asking you is are Republicans willing to hold the line, to say to the President, I am sorry, we will never agree to a deal that involves an increase in taxes? Are they?

THUNE: I think any deal that passes up here that raises taxes and raises taxes as I mentioned earlier on small businesses, Martha, is not going to enjoy Republican support. Now, there may be enough Republicans who would vote for something like that to pass it in the House of Representatives, they need to get to 218 votes.

MAcCALLUM: Then it would be done, right?

THUNE: We’ll see about that. We don’t know what that. We don’t know what the contours of a final deal might look at this point. Everybody right now is sort of in their corners and doing the posturing.

What happens if Congress does nothing? 
This article has a good explanation of what would probably happen:

Guardian UK

. . . all this discussion about a fiscal cliff is a bit of a misnomer – a cliff suggests a precipitous fall to a likely demise. But in reality, this cliff is more of a slope, or a slow but steady decline, down the road of fiscal austerity. Yes, tax and spending policies will shift after 1 January: taxes will go up and spending cuts mandated by law will begin to go in effect. But these are changes that will unfold over many months, and even years. Indeed, the immediate impact of the "fiscal cliff" will be relatively minor. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities noted recently:

"A relatively brief implementation of the tax and spending changes required by current law should cause little short-term damage to the economy as a whole."

This isn't to say that markets won't have a collective freakout or that confidence in Congress to actually do its job will decline further, but those are manageable issues, particularly because, once Washington goes over the cliff, it becomes much easier to quickly reach a deal between Republicans and Democrats.

. . . Let the tax cuts expire on 1 January, with taxes going up on every American. Then, Congress can quickly pass a massive tax cut for those making less than $250,000, retroactive to 1 January. Neither side will want to wait long and force Americans to pay higher taxes, but especially Republicans won't – as they will likely be blamed if no deal is swiftly reached. To do so would mean that all sides are politically satisfied: President Obama can say he stuck to his word about raising taxes on rich Americans, and taxes will have gone up without Republicans having to cast a vote; and both parties can reap the political benefit and claim credit for having cut taxes for the middle class.

Obama Calms Progressive Fears on Tax Promise

Good work, Mr. President. Stand your ground with Boehner and the rest! You have a mandate from all of us and we want the wealthy to pay their share of taxes. It's a whole new world and they will have to deal.

Huffington Post

President Barack Obama will enter high-stakes budget negotiations firmly committed to seeing the tax rates for high-income earners rise to pre-George W. Bush levels, he assured a gathering of progressive and labor leaders on Tuesday.

"I am not going to budge," he told the group, according to an attendee who relayed material from the meeting on condition of anonymity. "I said in 2010 that I'm going to do this once, and I meant it."

. . . Several sources at the meeting said the president was, as one noted, "more nuanced than going off the cliff." Obama hopes to place "maximum pressure on House Republicans so at the end of the day he may be able to budge them," the source added.

"It seemed like he meant it," the first source said. "That suggests that they are ready to go over the ledge."

Following the meeting, a handful of attendees spoke briefly to the press, praising Obama for vowing to firmly oppose an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

"It was a very, very positive meeting," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. "We're very committed to making sure that the middle class and workers don't end up paying the tab for a party that we didn't get to go to, and the president is committed to that as well."

"The president was really standing firm on taxes," said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress. "Everyone in the room talked about how much they have the president's back in this fight."