Simpson's Mr. Burns Explains Fiscal Cliff

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

The Best Poll Ever - Grover Who?

Public Policy Polling did a poll which reveals some fun information about our country and the Republican Party. In fact, this is my favorite poll of 2012 so far, with a touch of Schadenfreude and a confirmation that the present-day GOP is out of touch with their own party, which in turn is out of step with the rest of America. And let's face it, some Repubs are just nutty as the proverbial Christmas Fruitcake.

For instance half of the Republicans polled - 49% - see the now-defunct and non-existent since 2010 ACORN group as the reason Obama won - "We Was Robbed by ACORN." OMG. AND they believe Secession is the answer to . . . well, everything. Secede to what, and to where, they seem to have no clue. That's what happens to a party who insists that the Civil War was no big deal, or that we should go back to those wonderful days of slavery, when women couldn't vote, and white men were in charge - oh, and they made a huge mess of things, but women and FREED slaves were there to help them rebuild society.

PPP: Republicans Not Handling Election Results Well

49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore.

Some GOP voters are so unhappy with the outcome that they no longer care to be a part of the United States. 25% of Republicans say they would like their state to secede from the union compared to 56% who want to stay and 19% who aren't sure.

More on ACORN dementia here:
Snark Amendment: GOP Nutters Can't Let Go of Imaginary ACORN

More on Secessionists Here:
Snark Lane: The Sound and the Fury of Secessionist Idiots Signifying Nothing
Snark Amendment: Secession Wars!
To Secede, or Merely "Succeed," that is the Question for Red States

But my favorite part is this gem about Grover Norquist, who seems to have so much power in Washington. In the rest of the country, not so much. Grover Who? Bahahahaha!

-Grover Norquist is largely unknown nationally, and among voters who are familiar with him he is generally disliked. Only 15% have a favorable opinion of him to 37% with a negative one, with 48% not holding an opinion one way or the other. Even among Republicans just 18% see him positively, while 23% have an unfavorable view. Only 23% of voters think it's important for politicians to follow Norquist's tax pledge to 39% who think it's not important and 38% who don't have an opinion.

So Grover is either viewed unfavorably, or indifferently - 38% don't even have an opinion!!!!!!!!!!  The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. So stick that "Pledge" where the sun never shines, Grover baby. You may be the boogey-man or a demigogue or a demon to certain spineless politicians who have signed over their souls to you, but the rank and file in the heartland basically don't give diddly squat!

In fact, Poppy Bush, ex-President and Republican elder-statesman, had his finger more on the pulse of America when he said last year: "Who the Hell is Grover Norquist?"

Elizabeth Warren Will Serve on Banking Committee

Sources told Huffington Post today that Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, has been tapped to serve on the Banking Committee. This is happy news and a coup for Democrats since Warren, a consumer advocate and economics expert, was blocked by Republicans from serving as head of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during Obama's first term.

From Wall Street Journal

Ms. Warren, who beat Republican Sen. Scott Brown for the Senate seat in November, emerged as a high-profile Wall Street critic after the financial crisis and hit on many of the same populist themes during her campaign. "Wall Street CEOs, the same ones who wrecked our economy...still strut around Congress...demanding favors," she said in her speech at the Democratic National Convention in September.

She embraced several policy positions that bankers dislike, including calling for a return to Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banks.

. . . Several financial industry officials admit they're concerned about Ms. Warren being on the panel, given her policy positions and industry criticisms, but they said they don't know of any banks or lobbyists working against her selection.

With Ms. Warren on the banking panel, it may be harder for Republican critics of that agency and the banking industry to win any changes, such as replacing its director with a bipartisan commission structure.

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.