Fiscal Cliff

[KHONDAHM]

The "Grand Bargain" Obama put on the table during his first term included such concessions. Nothing new there. Just a known re-hash of what he's been willing to do since then as part of a bigger and balanced deal. To his credit, he's willing to put Dem sacred cows on the chopping block, too.

The GOP's bargaining position is (since having LOST the election): Give us everything we want or no deal.

[bumper]

Hmm!!!!!!!!!! Looks like decension on the ranks. Reading this I cant tell if they passed a motion to fund th4e balance of the year or not?

You know it really reminds me of the T.V. series Game of Thrones

House GOP leaders blindsided by defections on spending vote
By Molly K. Hooper - 03/10/13 05:00 AM ET

House Republican leaders have a new problem. They can’t count on their members to support them on procedural votes.

Sixteen Republicans defected Wednesday in a vote on the rule governing consideration of a government-funding bill meant to prevent a government shutdown. The defections could have caused the rule to fail since most Democrats voted also voted against it.

Even more striking? Seven of the Republicans who voted against the rule then voted for the funding bill.

Votes on rules are supposed to be party-line and serve as tests of a caucus’s unity. So it was disconcerting for leaders to see so many Republicans vote against the rule they had crafted.

Worse, from a leadership perspective, is that some Republicans say they plan on doing it again if they feel leaders are limiting them from offering controversial amendments on the floor.

“I think that is something being discussed on a case by case basis,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (Kan.), one of the 16 no votes on the rule.

Depending on how many members vote, Republicans can afford to lose between 15 to 17 votes on the rule.

Republicans were saved Wednesday by the fact that 17 Democrats missed the vote, possibly because of the poor weather in Washington that day. If those Democrats had all voted against the rule, it would have been defeated.

Republican leaders are also worried by the fact that they didn’t see the defections coming.

Some of those who voted against the rule said they were going to support it when they were approached by the leadership’s whipping team.

One source close to the GOP’s operation, quoting the popular Netflix series “Game of Cards,” said the members broke the “deadliest sin” of “don’t surprise me.”

"There (was) a revolution afoot that people who whipped for (the Rule) this morning, changed their vote to 'no,'” the source said.

Several conservatives switched their positions on the rule under pressure from interest groups that on Wednesday morning announced they intended to score votes on the rule.

Freedom Works, for example, was livid that GOP leaders refused to allow a floor vote on an amendment to defund the implementation of President Obama’s healthcare law.

The conservative group sent out an action alert to its members on Wednesday under the heading “Demand Boehner Defund Obamacare.“

Several of the seven lawmakers who supported passage of the bill but opposed the rule vote cited the Obamacare exclusion in explaining their votes.

“Rep. (John) Fleming (R-La.) believes, as he stated in a letter to leadership last week, that the CR [continuing resolution] was a prime opportunity to move conscience legislation that would restore protections stripped away by Obamacare,” Fleming spokesman Doug Sachtleben explained in a statement to The Hill.

“The closed rule, that he opposed, served as a barrier to amending the CR with that important legislation,” Sachtleben said.

Along with Fleming and Huelskamp, and Reps. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.) and Ted Yoho (Fla.) voted against the rule but for the funding bill.

Huelskamp, the author of the healthcare amendment, told The Hill that he supported the funding measure after leadership “promised” him that they would allow a vote on his healthcare bill at a later date.

Following the vote, conservative thought-leader Erick Erickson of RedState.org distributed an email citing the creation of a so-called “Conservative Fight Club.” He lauded the lawmakers who opposed leadership.

“RedState and other conservatives and the media should take notice of the Conservative Fight Club shaping up in the House of Representatives,” he wrote. “There are ten members of the Conservative Fight Club. They are the nine members of the House Republican Conference who voted against the rule on the continuing resolution and voted against John Boehner for Speaker plus one guy who voted against today’s rule and was the ring leader the last time the GOP took out a Speaker.”

Huelskamp, who has a tempestuous relationship with GOP leaders after they stripped him of his committee assignment last year, said the vote shows the willingness of Republicans to take on their leaders — though he suggested the GOP class of 1994 was even more willing to do so.

“That is one thing that makes the class of 2010 different than the class of '94, they took down rules and we never did,” he said.

Huelskamp noted that garnering the two and a half dozen votes is “not that much,” especially when at least three GOP lawmakers have their sights set on running for the Senate in Georgia.

The election means those members will be under more press

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/28713 ... z2N8ZhMlg6
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[bumper]

You know as a norm I pay no attention to Politics. But, this group is so ridicules. It's really scary they are guiding a Nation.
Will it be five years with no budget?

If they worked for a private company how long do you think they could keep a job, I would think no long.

Senate Dems strain to get budget over finish line by Easter recess
By Erik Wasson and Bernie Becker - 03/11/13 05:00 AM ET

Senate Democrats say they will soon pass their first budget in four years, but it is proving a test.

Disputes over tax cuts, spending reductions and entitlement reform all present challenges to Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

The Democrats’ narrow 12-10 majority on the panel means one defection would mean failure, if Republicans stick together as expected.

There is more leeway on the Senate floor because budget resolutions cannot be filibustered and Democrats control 55 seats. Still, the party can afford to lose only five votes before Vice President Biden’s deciding ballot would likely become necessary.

Leaders also must steel their members against dozens of poison pill amendments the GOP is preparing to slip into the budget mix

Balancing interests on a budget

Murray, who took over the Budget panel this year, hopes to move legislation through the committee by Thursday. So this week is critical.

Senate Democrats are tired of the GOP taunts over their failure to pass a budget since 2009 — it is one of Congress’s primary duties — and are determined to get a 10-year measure through the Senate before the Easter recess starts on March 22.

They have signaled that their budget will do more to raise revenue than to cut spending and that it will not end deficits. In a memo, Murray adumbrated the justification for this by noting that Congress has already approved $1.8 trillion in spending cuts since 2010 but only $600 billion in new taxes.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a panel member, said he’s confident Murray will “secure the support of not just our committee, but our caucus.”

Confidence was boosted by the 2012 election in which Democrats gained seats and President Obama won a second term while promising higher tax rates on the wealthy.

In February, 52 Democrats supported their sequester-replacement bill, which also would have raised taxes on the wealthy, rather than the 60 that it needed to pass.

Aides argue that losing only three members on the sequester replacement, which also cut farm subsidies, bodes well for Democrats ability to rally around their budget.

One reason Senate Democrats did not pass a budget bill for the past four years was that they wanted to avoid unpopular votes to cut spending and hike taxes.

Leadership aides say Democrats from red states are less nervous now.

“The 2012 election showed that being in favor of revenue does not tar and feather you as a tax-and-spend liberal,” one aide said.

Another said: “We are on the offensive. A couple of years ago [we] may have felt more on the defensive about the budget.”

The first hurdle is a vote by the budget panel, where Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) plays a vital role.

Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, adamantly resists any entitlement benefit cuts and is pushing for big tax increases in the bill.

Yet even as Murray deals with him, she must also win over centrist Democrats such as Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).

In the last Congress, Warner wanted to lock cuts to Medicare and Social Security into a budget. He opposes cuts to the military, which is Sanders’s principal target.

Murray must somehow win over both sides.

“It’s hard. Very hard,” Sanders acknowledged between budget meetings on Thursday, shaking his head.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a committee member, elaborated, saying: “A Senate budget debate is never for the faint of heart and this year is going to be especially difficult.”

Wyden presents another problem for Murray: whether to include detailed tax instructions in the bill that would expedite tax reform through a process called reconciliation, which precludes a filibuster.

This is opposed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who told Murray he does not want his hands tied by the budget as he crafts a plan for tax reform.

Even if Murray gets her bill through committee, it will face more challenges on the Senate floor.

A bill that raises taxes but does not cut deeply enough into spending could run into opposition from conservative Democrats, especially those facing reelection in 2014.

Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.), a target for Senate Republicans in next year’s election, was one of three Democrats who opposed the sequester-replacement bill. He opposes establishing a minimum tax on millionaires unless it is part of a major deficit-reduction plan that also cuts entitlements.

“I think it’s going to be a difficult challenge for Sen. Murray and others to get a budget out of the committee that will get sufficient votes to pass the Senate,” Pryor said last week.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is also up for reelection, but unlike Pryor wants a budget heavily tilted toward raising taxes on those deemed wealthy. She wants more tax hikes and smaller cuts to discretionary spending.

“Not every member agrees with me but I think most of the members agree with me, and I think that many Democrats are willing to follow the president’s balanced approach,” she said.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) does not want to see discretionary spending cut heavily. He said he has a worry list “pretty damn long, quite frankly” about agency budgets.

Yet other senators are keen to see substantial spending cuts.

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), another facing an election in 2014, said he has “made it very clear to the leadership that I am looking very carefully at spending and I want to see it reduced.”

The specifics of tax policy create other landmines.

Murray is expected to target “tax loopholes,” some of which are supported by key Democrats.

Landrieu, for example, does not want energy tax breaks singled out for demolition. She voted against the sequester-replacement bill for that reason.

Aides say Murray will try to use vague language on taxes to win over senators outside the budget panel.

But that will not guarantee votes from senators such as Landrieu, who are being warned that vague language could camouflage an intent to hit the oil-and-gas industry.

As Senate Democrats slog forward, so will House Republicans, who face their own challenges in winning approval of Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget, which is expected out this week.

Reconciling the Senate and House budgets will be close to impossible. Ryan promises his will achieve balance in 10 years, while Senate Democrats include no date certain but say their budget would put the nation on a sustainable path.

“I’m anticipating that I’m going to be Goldilocks, and that the House is going to be way too hot,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who won reelection last year in her conservative-leaning state. “And the Senate is going to be too cold, and that I will want something in the middle.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/b ... z2NEMOEcnV
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[KHONDAHM]

When reading headline stories like this, you have to keep in mind that Republicans in the House will pass/have passed a budget they know has zero chance of passing the Senate or getting a POTUS signature, then they crow about their meaningless and time wasting effort. Dems have not been doing that. They want to pass something that will also pass the House.

Republicans are great at doing just enough for a sound bite but not actually doing anything at all other than obstruct progress and further break Congress.

[parrot]

bump, if you're losing sleep over the doom/gloom, fiscal cliff, EU imploding, apocalypse now news, try a weekly dose of Paul Krugman. All those bad things may in fact be happening, but at least with Paul Krugman, you'll get the impression they're not.
Another up day for the DOW.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opini ... er.html?hp

[bumper]

Not losing sleep over it. Just odd to watch. Explain this one to me. The U/S. Markets setting records and the dollar is still losing against the baht I know off topic just venting.

something is happening right in the States Real Estate is coming back according CNBC this morning. Both of my daughter have jobs again.

[KHONDAHM]

/beginvent

CNBC...morons all, IMHO. They've been embarrassingly wrong more times than I can recall, but still manage to stay on air. Boggles the mind. Bloomberg all the way!

For just a few examples, search CNBC and Peter Schiff on YouTube. 2000 to present, but especially just before, during, and after the 2008 crash. CNBC is HORRIBLE. Just a bunch of posers.

(Sorry for the hijack. CNBC ranks just barely above Republican leadership in my book.)
/endvent

[bumper]

Senate passed a budget, do we have budget? Or does it go back to the house?

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/b ... four-years

[KHONDAHM]

Ha! That made me giggle.

Unlike Boehner [the Republican Speaker of the House, for our foreign friends following along], I am sure Reid [the Democrat Senate Majority Leader, ibid] would not bring to the floor a budget which would not pass the other chamber of Congress. Reid will have checked and double checked, confirmed and reconfirmed that there are enough votes in the House of Representatives for the Senate budget to pass.

So, what will happen, you ask? Boehner will either never bring it to the House floor for a vote OR the Republican House votes Reid counted will renege under pressure from Republican leadership. Pick your poison.

I would be happy to be wrong, but I would not bet against me.

Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. "The only good news is that the fiscal path the Democrats laid out in their Budget Resolution won’t become law.”

[KHONDAHM]

Oops! Quick correction: The House passed a budget [with so much Leprechaun math in it, it should have a green clover - oops! - cover], so now the two passed budgets need only be reconciled. I doubt that will happen as it would be a "victory" for Obama. Republicans have time and again proven they would rather cause great harm to the Republic than allow for the perception that Obama gets a "victory".

[bumper]

I agree take out the Politics and we would have had a budge four years ago. That budget approved alone might have an effect on the dollar. Hope your right and everything was taken care of before the votes, it passed but by a very slim margin.

[parrot]

More good new for the U.S. economy.....http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eur ... ml?hpid=z1

Housing market up, stock market up, confidence levels up, the sequester deal didn't cause a calamity.......I have faith.

[WBU ALUM]

All spending is controlled by the House. Budget in the Senate only means that the Senate passed one. It won't mean much -- especially if there is increased spending in it -- and there is. House will probably not approve it. If they do approve it in the House, then it will mean that both parties are intent on financially destroying the country.

The debt is already more than 100% of GDP. No country has ever recovered from that number, and the US federal government doesn't even appear to be trying to backtrack.

Oh, and forgot to mention, Patty Murray has some huge tax increases in that budget. That will pretty much doom it on the House side.

[bumper]

Caught one of the talking heads today, said he thinks good chance the FED may raise interest rates in he fourth quarter.

Anyone heard if we actually have budget now?

[WBU ALUM]

Caught one of the talking heads today, said he thinks good chance the FED may raise interest rates in he fourth quarter.

Anyone heard if we actually have budget now?

If Fed raises rates, inflation is going to rise in a big way. Lending for homes and business expansion (what little there is) will slow even more.

No budget. The budget isn't important. Spending within the limits of the federal government's role and not spending more than revenues generated is what is important.

Something's going to give soon, and it isn't going to be pretty.

[bumper]

Nice deal if you can get it:

Sequester axe falls in Washington — but not on lawmaker salaries
By Pete Kasperowicz - 04/02/13 05:00 AM ET

One small group is curiously immune from the sequester and the related furloughs that are about to become a fact of life in Washington: Congress.

Hundreds of thousands of federal employees will take a pay cut because of this year's $85 billion in automatic spending cuts, including about 750,000 at the Pentagon alone. Air traffic control towers are being closed, unemployment benefits are being reduced and the White House has even cancelled tours.

Congressional offices aren't escaping the sequester. They've had to reduce office budgets, and some members have said they may have to lay off staff.

But lawmakers themselves won't take a pay cut because member pay is completely exempted from the sequester.

The mystery of why Congress is excluded can be explained by a close reading of the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act, which first introduced the concept of a sequester.

The Reagan-era law exempted some programs from the sequester, including elements of Social Security, interest on the debt and federal Pell grants. (The law also exempts the president’s pay, which is the reason President Obama’s pay won’t be hit by the sequester.)

Congressional salaries are not explicitly exempted, but according to experts familiar with the issue, the law was written in way that makes them exempt. For example, the law says federal “accounts” are subject to the sequester, and defines “accounts” as items that are appropriated by Congress.

Lawmaker salaries are not appropriated by Congress, so they don't get treated as an account for the purposes of sequestration. And while items found in presidential budgets are subject to the sequester, member salaries are not found in the presidential budget either.

For these reasons, the Office of Management and Budget has not applied any sequester to members of Congress since the law was put in place.

When the Budget Control Act (BCA) was passed in 2011, it called for the implementation of the sequester according to the 1985 law. As a result, the current sequester also won't affect member salaries.

There is something of an underground debate on how easily Congress could change current law so sequesters can apply to member pay.

Some say it could be difficult, since congressional pay is required by Article I of the Constitution, which to some makes these salaries "mandatory," not discretionary. Sequestration is aimed much more at discretionary spending items.

But others say it should be easy for Congress to amend the 1985 law to ensure that member pay is cut, and could have done so in the 2011 budget bill if it wanted.

Regardless, Congress did not appear to try to amend the way the sequester works when it passed the Budget Control Act, probably because few thought the sequester would happen.

There have been some efforts to address the discrepancy since then.

Reps. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and Ami Bera (D-Calif.) have proposed a bill that would apply an 8.2 percent cut to member pay, starting in the next Congress.

The delay reflects a hurdle posed by the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents lawmakers from changing their pay immediately. The amendment is widely seen as something meant to prevent Congress from moving too quickly to give itself a raise, but today, it prevents Congress from quickly cutting its pay.

Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.) has proposed legislation that would tweak the 27th Amendment so that only efforts to increase member pay would be delayed until the next Congress, while efforts to cut pay could take effect right away.

“The 27th Amendment to the Constitution was written to prevent members of Congress from giving themselves pay increases, but lately it's been used as a shield to prevent a congressional pay cut,” Barrow said in a March speech.

But Barrow's answer would take even longer to fix the problem than the DeSantis-Bera bill, given how long it takes to ratify amendments to the Constitution.

The 27th Amendment itself is a perfect example — it took more than 200 years before it was finally ratified.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/b ... z2PJ1eb3XD
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[bumper]

All this time and doesn't look like much has changed at all. No wonder the dollar is in the dumps all the time. If they would do there jobs and some progress was made. Things would probably be a little better for us here.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1 ... sh-on-debt

[WBU ALUM]

Borrowing. Printing money. Continuing to overspend. Expanding entitlement programs. Expanding big government. Taking more and more out of the private sector in the form of taxes and creating more and more regulations that cripple expansion and growth.

It's not rocket science. Those things have been happening in varying degrees for a long, long time. They've been on steroids since 2009.

[parrot]

For the record: Lifeline (free phones for the poor) was begun by Ronald Reagan. It expanded to include cellphone service during the presidency of another Republican, George W. Bush. Some like to refer to it as Obama phone. The program continues under Obama........House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) tweeted on Feb. 19: “Nobody should be talking about tax hikes when govt is spending taxpayer dollars on free cell phones"...........point is, the program isn't funded by taxpayer dollars.....most phone bills include a small surcharge to pay for the program.
Maybe time to turn that clock back to the 1980's.....or earlier.

[FrazeeDK]

the FCC web page on the "Lifeline" program http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and- ... -consumers

Cost of the program.. 2.2 billion last year.. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/20 ... -for-poor/

Parrot is indeed right that "taxes" don't pay for the Lifeline Program.. It's paid for out of the Universal Service Fund (USF) which all telephone providers must pay.. However, providers are allowed to charge back USF costs to their customers. IF, they do it, it shows up on your telephone bill as Unversal Service Charge.

The program was well intended. It paralells programs where the government mandated telephone providers put landlines out into rural areas which were subsidized through service charges. It also paralells the government providing subsidized rural electrical service.

The complaint these days are that as in many well-intended government programs it seems to have gotten out of control and is reiven with fraud. During the Bush administration it was costing about 800 million and went up during the recession to 2.2 billion.