GOP Aims To Change U.S.Constitution! Next Battle: Balanced Budget Amendment

Republicans Set Sights on Balanced Budget Amendment

House Republicans, feeling they have scored significant fiscal victories, are moving on to an even bigger challenge: persuading voters, state legislatures and Democrats to alter the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment.

In a meeting with his conference Monday, Speaker John A. Boehner told members that the best thing they could do during the August recess was to sell their constituents on the idea that the amendment — which essentially stipulates that government cannot spend more than it takes in — is necessary and good.

Republican leaders on the Hill have pivoted from railing against Democrats about tax increases to pressing for the amendment, which would require the acquiescence of two-thirds of each chamber of Congress, and three quarters of state legislatures. They point out that such a measure passed the House in 1995, but then failed in the Senate by a single vote.

And once Congress passes a proposed amendment, it bypasses the president, going straight to the states, where 26 legislatures are dominated by Republicans.

Getting Democrats to agree to such a measure now is likely to be an uphill battle. President Obama has previously rejected the idea of a balanced budget amendment. And, after the nasty debt-ceiling duel with Republicans, which left the country a cat’s whisker from default, most Congressional Democrats are bruised and cranky, with little incentive to work with the other side.

Further, of the roughly 10 bills filed by House Republicans to create such an amendment, most contain provisions, like setting a high bar for votes on future debt-ceiling increases, that few Democrats in either chamber would abide. The nation’s fiscal situation is far worse than in the 1990s, when a balanced budget would have required much less drastic cutting than what would be required today.

Opponents argue that an amendment could hamstring the government at times that it needs to run deficits, comparing it, for example, to a situation in which families who need to get mortgages to buy homes would be forbidden from doing so. Most of the versions being proposed this year in the House and Senate do contain a provision that the amendment would be waived when the country is in a declared time of war.

But for Democrats seeking to redefine themselves as careful fiscal stewards on the cusp of the 2012 campaign, the idea of a balanced budget amendment free of hard-line provisions is not an impossible sell. Several Senate Democrats have said in the past that they support such an amendment, and Senator Mark Udall of Colorado has already put forth his own measure.

“I think it is definitely achievable,” said Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, who has offered two balanced budget amendments, one far more conservative than the other. “I have been talking to dozens of Democrats in the House about this and there is a tremendous amount of interest in this issue.”

Under the agreement to lift the debt ceiling approved by Congress and signed by President Obama this week, a second $1.6 trillion increase is contingent upon either the adoption of deficit reductions recommended by a new Congressional “super committee” or Congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment. If neither is done, large cuts to military spending and some social programs would automatically be made. Nearly every state has some form of balanced budget provision, though most are more flexible than those proposed for the federal government. “It is almost so institutionalized now, though there is a variance in stringency” said Brian Sigritz, the director of state fiscal studies for the National Association of State Budget Officers. ”

In the House, the two measures that have gained the most traction are Mr. Goodlatte’s, which prohibit outlays exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year, other than interest payments, unless Congress says otherwise in a three-fifths vote of each chamber.

The more conservative version would require a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate to raise taxes and a spending cap of 18 percent of the gross domestic product, unless two-thirds of each chamber of Congress provides for a specific increase above this amount. The measures require a three-fifths roll call vote in each chamber to increase the public debt limit.

“The more tough version has broad Republican support,” Mr. Goodlatte said, “but it’s not going to get the 290 votes needed.”

The other measure, similar to the amendment that passed the House in 1995, enjoys support from even those members who offered their own right-leaning options, he said.

In the Senate, Mr. Udall’s amendment faces significant hurdles with Republicans, largely because it prohibits Congress from providing income-tax breaks for people earning over $1 million a year, except during years of budget surpluses. Another senator, Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, has his own measure, and the two men have been playing phone tag trying to set up a time to talk about their proposals.

Many Democrats, even moderates, have raised skepticism about any balanced budget amendment offered by a Republican.

“As someone who supported the 1995 balanced budget amendment, let me say that at this point in time I would not support it,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the Democratic whip, in a recent meeting with reporters. Mr. Hoyer added, “I don’t have any confidence that even at a time of great challenge, that there aren’t 40 percent-plus one in the House that would oppose doing something necessary to assure the country was on a sound footing.”

Republicans have also expressed their doubts. In a recent speech on the floor of the Senate, Senator John McCain of Arizona said: “I will take a backseat to none in my support of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have voted for it 13 times. I will vote for it tomorrow. What is amazing about this is, some members are believing we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in this body with its present representation, and that is foolish. That is worse than foolish.”

But none of this will likely stop Republican supporters from pushing the issue, as they have with all their fiscal policy hopes and dreams in the 112th Congress.

“House and Senate passage of the balanced budget amendment will make reckless borrowing a thing of the past and will ensure that our children enjoy futures full of opportunity,” Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the majority leader, said in a recent op-ed article. “Let Democrats and Republicans join together to do the right thing and make a real difference for the future.”


View Larger Map

Sources: NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Tax Cut Deal To Include Unemployment Benefits Extension: Gop & Dems Compromise

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

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

U.S. Senators Say Deal Likely On Extending Tax Cuts, Jobless Benefits


Top U.S. Senators from both parties indicated Sunday that a deal was likely soon on temporarily extending Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans, along with unemployment benefits that have expired.

However, Republican senators made clear they are unlikely to budge in their opposition to other Democratic priorities in the final weeks of the lame-duck session of Congress that ends in early January.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, told the NBC program "Meet the Press" he was "optimistic" about an agreement on the tax rates and jobless benefits, but added there likely wasn't time for the Senate to ratify a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia or complete work on a major defense bill that includes repeal of the "don't ask, don' tell" policy banning openly gay and lesbian soldiers.

Democrats, stymied by the ability of Senate Republicans to filibuster their agenda, shot back with angry words.

"I hope Americans will understand how craven and empty and hollow and contradictory the Republican position is," veteran Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, told CNN.

The posturing and rhetoric reflects the changed political equation in Washington in the aftermath of the November congressional elections described by President Barack Obama as a "shellacking" for Democrats, with Republican recapturing control of the House and narrowing the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Congressional Democrats have tried but failed to push through their preferred proposals in the lame-duck session, while they still have majorities in both chambers.

The House approved Obama's proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts only for people earning up to $200,000 a year as individuals or $250,000 a year for families, with income above those levels increasing to levels from the 1990s. In the Senate, Republicans on Saturday successfully blocked debate on the proposal, as well as a similar one that the income threshold for higher tax rates at anything over $1 million.

Democrats contend the nation must prevent working-class Americans from facing higher taxes, as promised by Obama in his 2008 election campaign, but can't afford the extra hundreds of billions of dollars it would cost to maintain the tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans argue that the economy remains too fragile to allow anyone's taxes to increase.

For now, compromise appears to include a temporary extension of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, probably for a year or two, while Congress works on a long-term plan to reduce the nation's debt.

"I've said that neither side has the votes to get what they want, so I think we're going to have to kick it over for two years," Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah told CNN's "State of the Union" program, adding that the deal also will have to include extending unemployment benefits, as demanded by Democrats. "If you want to go beyond that then I think things break down."

On the same program, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon called for a one-year extension of the tax cuts for everyone to buy time for Congress to work out a total tax overhaul. He said the key was to get a deal quickly and move forward.

"This is a town driven by a culture of procrastination," Wyden said. "If you don't force fast action, what you'll end up doing is just kicking the can down the road, and the only thing those jobless Americans will be is a kicked can."

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chamber's second ranking Democrat, told the CBS program "Face the Nation" that the tax cut and jobless benefits issues must be linked.

"The notion that we would give tax cuts to those making over $1 million a year, which is the Republican position, and then turn our backs on 2 million Americans who will lose unemployment benefits before Christmas, 127,000 in the state of Illinois, is unconscionable," Durbin said.

On the same program, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl acknowledged that an agreement would include both the extended tax cuts and the unemployment benefits.

"There are other items that both the president and Republicans would like to see a part of this package as well," Kyl said. "As one of the six negotiators, I can tell you there have been a lot of discussions about a lot of the other elements as well. But at least in theory I think an agreement could be reached in the relatively near future."

Asked if Congress could break at the end of the year without acting on the measures, requiring a restart of the process when the new Congress convenes in early January, Hatch told CNN: "I don't think we can. I think that would be disastrous."

Kyl echoed that on CBS, saying: "It's almost Christmas Eve. I don't think anybody thinks that we can leave this thing hanging."

Or as Durbin put it: "There's nothing that motivates members of Congress more than the thought of a recess or going home."

The biggest challenge for Democrats may be getting their House caucus to accept a compromise, a senior Democratic aide told CNN on Sunday.

According to the source, House Democratic leaders met Saturday night with Vice President Joe Biden, White House Chief of Staff Pete Rouse, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House budget chief Jack Lew to discuss the negotiations, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid visited the White House to meet with Obama.

"There's going to be a deal," the senior Democratic aide said on condition of not being identified by name, adding: "the folks who are going to have the toughest time agreeing to that are House Democrats."

McConnell and the rest of the Senate Republican caucus have refused to consider any other issues until Congress acts on the tax-cut extension and spending authorization plans for the rest of the fiscal year.

That leaves little time for more proposals being pushed by Democrats, McConnell said on NBC. In particular, he questioned if the Senate would have time to take up a major defense authorization bill that includes the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal, and the New START treaty with Russia that resumes mutual inspections of nuclear arsenals and limits the number of warheads.

The START treaty has some GOP support, including former Secretaries of State George Schultz, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, as well as the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Lugar told CNN's "State of the Union" that "the votes are there" to ratify the treaty now in the Senate, if it can be brought up for a vote. However, Kyl told reporters that "I don't think we're going to have time to do the treaty in the lame-duck session."

On NBC, McConnell offered a limited view of possible compromises with Obama and Democratic leaders, saying: "To the extent that the president wants to do things that I and my members are comfortable with, we want to do that for the country."

Kerry responded on NBC that the Republicans were using their filibuster power to hold Democratic proposals hostage.

"What we've seen is a Republican Party that's absolutely prepared to deny unemployment insurance to people who have been laid off, who can't pay their bills, who want to, you know, put food on the table for their families," Kerry said. "They (Republicans) have said, "No, we're willing to hold that hostage so we can give the wealthiest people in the country a bonus tax cut."

He called such politics hypocritical, and said of McConnell: "All he talked about was if they could do something that makes (them) comfortable. That's not how you compromise. They need to have a little discomfort, just as we have a little discomfort."


Sources: CNN, MSNBC

Hillary Clinton On SCOTUS Nominee Short List? WH Says No

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

Hillary Clinton On SCOTUS Short List, White House Responds



With President Obama being pulled every which way on criteria for his next Supreme Court nominee, some unusual names are starting to surface that -- if chosen -- would make the rest of the summer a lot more interesting on Capitol Hill.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined the crowd Monday morning when Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he'd heard her name discussed.

"I heard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's name today and that would be an interesting person in the mix," Hatch said on NBC's "Today" show.

He wouldn't say whether he'd support her, but he said he likes Clinton. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., added that "she's done a good job for the country, not just for Democrats."

Tea leaves, anyone?

The White House splashed cold water on the Clinton idea Monday afternoon. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama plans to keep Clinton as secretary of state, and that she's doing a fine job in that post.

But Leahy is among several top senators pressing the Obama administration, at least in television interviews, to steer away from the conventional pool and look at candidates who are not sitting judges. The last Supreme Court justice confirmed to the high court without a judicial background was William Rehnquist in 1971.

"I wish we could have some more people outside the judicial monastery," Leahy said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

Picking a wild-card Supreme Court justice in an election year might not be the president's modus operandi, but he's facing considerable pressure at least to look at the edges of the box, if not outside it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., told "Fox News Sunday" that he was "encouraged" by the possibility that Obama could choose someone "who is not a sitting judge at this time."

Perhaps Clinton would fill the bill. Plus the Supreme Court would give her a place to cool her heels for, say, the rest of her life, ensuring Obama doesn't endure a Ted Kennedy-esque Democratic challenge from within in 2012.

But the scuttlebutt was rejected at the highest levels Monday. In addition to the White House denial, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Monday morning that Clinton probably doesn't even know she's been mentioned.

"I'm sure she appreciates Senator Hatch's comments, but right now she is focused on her current job," he told Fox News.

Clinton is not the only Cabinet member who's popped up on the list of possibles. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano continues to be floated -- she was considered a candidate last year before Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter -- though Napolitano could be the Republicans' least favorite Cabinet official because of her perceived understatements about the threat of Islamic terrorism. Attorney General Eric Holder is also inevitably a backburner possibility -- though he's a bit tied up figuring out what to do with the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Diane Wood, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, are the two names most commonly mentioned as successors to Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced on Friday that he will retire at the end of this term. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland has also emerged as a top-tier candidate. Obama is said to have about 10 names on his short list.

But Lieberman on Sunday suggested Obama look way outside the box.

"Maybe we need somebody who's been a law professor, or a lawyer, a practicing lawyer, or a person in public office like a governor or a senator," he said.

In terms of elected officials, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick -- who is close to Obama -- are on the not-so-short list.

And several professors, some more inflammatory than others, have been mentioned.

Among the most controversial would be Cass Sunstein, the former University of Chicago and Harvard law professor who leads Obama's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Sunstein has taken some unusual positions, such as arguing that people should be able to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases.

Obama could also try to make history again by nominating an openly gay candidate to the high court. Former Stanford Law School professor and dean Kathleen Sullivan and Stanford Law professor Pam Karlan have been mentioned as possibilities. Both are also known for their liberal-leaning writings, legal work and commentary. Karlan, for instance, co-authored the 2009 book, "Keeping Faith with the Constitution," with appellate court nominee Goodwin Liu -- who has met resistance from Republicans in part over the contents of that book, which says constitutional principles must be "open to adaptation" as society changes.

Another history-making choice would be Leah Ward Sears, the former chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. If chosen, she would be the first black woman on the Supreme Court.

Kagan also has an academic background -- she was the dean of Harvard Law School. But Kagan is not considered a highly controversial choice. She was well-regarded for her performance at Harvard and for reaching out to conservatives. She has a thin paper trail on past positions, but that's because she has never been a judge -- something that would likely please several senators who, like Leahy, say they're looking for a change.

If Obama is spoiling for a fight, though, but doesn't wish to pull out an exotic resume, Wood would set up an explosive confirmation battle -- Wood has dissented against bans on partial-birth abortion and is known for her strong opinions on the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"He's got a lot of picks ... there's no doubt about it," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice. He said a Republican-led filibuster on the Supreme Court nominee is unlikely, but a nominee like Wood would generate at least "serious talk" of mounting one.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, warned Sunday that Republicans aren't looking for any surprises.

"If the president picks someone from the fringe instead of from the middle, or if he picks someone who will apply their feelings instead of applying the law, then that might be an extraordinary case" which could warrant a filibuster, he said on "Fox News Sunday."


Sources: Fox News, MSNBC

Schumer & Hatch Introduce Bi-Partisan Payroll Tax, Jobs Bill...No Cheaters

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

A Payroll Tax Break for Jobs


With the national unemployment rate at 10 percent, and more than 15 million Americans looking for work, ideas to spur job creation are at the forefront of everyone’s minds. While we may represent different political philosophies, we recognize that high unemployment — particularly long-term unemployment — is not a liberal problem or a conservative problem; it’s a national problem that takes a huge toll on families.

The idea for some sort of jobs tax credit is percolating again, but the jobs credit that existed in the late 1970s was of limited success, and it was excruciatingly complicated. Recalling this experience, members of Congress from both parties have been lukewarm to such a credit, and the idea was dropped from the stimulus package last year.

We have an idea that is simple, straightforward and easy to explain and administer. In fact, it is so simple that the legislative text of the proposal is only a few pages long — a rarity when it comes to tax policy.

Here’s the idea: Starting immediately after enactment, any private-sector employer that hires a worker who had been unemployed for at least 60 days will not have to pay its 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on that employee for the duration of 2010. The Social Security trust fund will then be made whole with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget between now and 2015. That’s it. Simple to understand, and easy to explain.

The beauty of this proposal goes beyond its simplicity. Unlike a jobs tax credit of a specific dollar amount, this credit is “front-loaded” in that it provides an incentive for businesses to hire workers earlier in the year — because the tax benefit will be greater. A $60,000 worker hired on Feb. 1 will save a business about $3,400 in taxes, while that same worker hired on May 1 will save it about $2,500.

Unlike some versions of a payroll-tax holiday, which provide a much bigger benefit for higher-paid workers, this proposal is not biased toward either low-wage or high-wage workers. Yes, if you pay people more, you save more in taxes — but the savings as a percentage of pay remains constant. Under this plan, a business saves 6.2 percent on both a $40,000 worker and a $90,000 worker.

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

In the current environment, no business wants to wait until 2011 to receive a tax credit for someone it hires today. Another obvious benefit of this proposal to forgive payroll taxes is that it keeps money in a business’s pockets, since the tax is simply not collected in the first place.

In addition, because the benefit starts on the date of hiring and does not have an arbitrary cap, more businesses will want to use it. And since it is an elimination of the employer’s share of the Social Security tax for these workers — rather than a fixed or capped dollar amount — the complexities of making the incentive work with a firm’s payroll software are greatly reduced because employers will know simply to zero out the tax for these workers.

To promote long-term employment as the recovery gains steam, we would also add the following bonus: For any eligible employee kept on payroll for a continuous 52 weeks, the employer would receive an additional $1,000 credit on its 2011 tax return. (This would apply to any worker hired in 2010.)

Our two-pronged approach would be a far more efficient use of taxpayer dollars than other proposals under discussion, all of which could cost many times more with very little guaranteed improvement in unemployment.

Imagine that three million unemployed workers were to be hired this year under our plan. If they all worked an average of six months in 2010 at a salary of $50,000, and every single one stayed on payroll for 52 consecutive weeks into 2011, the gross cost of the Social Security tax cut and the additional credit would be only $7.6 billion. And that’s before we consider the offsets from income and payroll taxes paid by these workers.

There are some additional rules that would have to be put in place. For example, eligible workers would have to be hired for a minimum of 30 hours per week, and workers who are family members of the employer would not be eligible. The payroll tax reduction would be for private-sector jobs only; new jobs that are created by tax dollars in the first place would not be eligible. And any employer with a lower total payroll in 2010 than it had in 2009 would have to forfeit the benefit — businesses shouldn’t be allowed to shed jobs and still receive a tax benefit.

We urge Congress and President Obama to consider this idea to help jumpstart hiring and turn our focus back on jobs.

Charles E. Schumer is a Democratic senator from New York. Orrin G. Hatch is a Republican senator from Utah.



View Larger Map

Sources: NY Times, MSNBC, Google Maps