HILLARY CLINTON SLAMS GOP TAX REFORM BILL (2020)

HILLARY CLINTON SLAMS GOP TAX REFORM BILL (2020):

I UNDERSTAND HILLARY'S ANGER ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE SHE REALLY CARES.

BUT WHAT IS HILLARY'S POSITION ON MEN SEXUALLY HARASSING WOMEN & ABUSING WOMEN??

AND YES SHE SHOULD RUN AGAIN IN 2020.


Sources: HuffPost, CBS News, Fox News, Youtube


***** Hillary Clinton Calls Senate Tax Bill 'Insulting Attack' On Americans


Hillary Clinton condemned the Republican tax bill that passed the Senate early Saturday morning during her appearance at a conference for young political activists later in the day.

“This could not be a more blatant and insulting attack on working Americans,” she reportedly told the audience at the Teen Vogue Summit in Playa Vista, California, where she was interviewed by “Black-ish” actress Yara Shahidi.

Clinton also criticized the bill for benefitting billionaires while eliminating cuts for teachers who buy school supplies for their students, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Shortly afterward, the former Democratic presidential candidate urged her social media followers to take an active role in the 2018 midterm election.

“This tax bill is only going to get worse as people learn more about it,” she said over Twitter. “There are 6 GOP Senators that have to run on it & 2 open seats in 2018.

We all need to get to work..”

Although President Donald Trump campaigned in part on a platform of tax cuts for the middle class, the GOP bill reserves its biggest benefits for the wealthiest Americans.

Republicans approved adding $1.5 trillion in national debt over 10 years on the belief it would be offset by economic growth. While many Americans will see some tax cuts, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the richest 20 percent of households will reap 90 percent of the benefit of the tax cuts over those 10 years.

Senators voted 51-49 to narrowly pass the measure, with just one Republican, Bob Corker of Tennessee, joining Democrats to oppose it. The Senate legislation will likely be combined with the tax bill passed by the House last month; both chambers would need to approve the new version before it crossed Trump’s desk.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the bill’s passage marked “a great day for the country,” while Trump thanked Republicans for their “hard work and commitment.”

------------------------------------------



****** Tax bill: Senate passes sweeping tax overhaul in early morning vote


The Senate narrowly passed Republicans' tax reform legislation early Saturday morning with no Democratic support, following a marathon voting session overnight.

The bill, approved just before 2 a.m. in a 51-49 vote, next heads to conference, where House and Senate negotiators will work out the differences in their bills. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) was the only Republican to vote no on the measure. The House bill also passed with no Democratic support last month.

The legislation was officially released shortly before the vote, giving the public little time to examine the final details. Democrats were outraged, asking for more time to review the measure. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) claimed she was handed the amendments to be included in the bill not by any of her colleagues, but by a lobbyist. Lobbyists, her comment implied, saw the bill before Democratic members.

"Not a single member of this chamber has read the bill," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor before the bill passed. "It would be impossible."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who held a press conference after the bill's passage, suggested Democrats were only concerned about the legislative process because they were losing.

"You complain about process when you're losing," McConnell said. "And that's what you heard on the floor tonight."

McConnell also said he believes the bill will be revenue neutral, despite analyses suggesting it will add to the deficit.

"This is a great day for the country, it's been 31 years since we've done comprehensive tax reform," McConnell said.

President Trump hailed the bill's passage in a tweet Saturday morning, thanking Republicans for approving the measure.

Biggest Tax Bill and Tax Cuts in history just passed in the Senate. Now these great Republicans will be going for final passage. Thank you to House and Senate Republicans for your hard work and commitment!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2017
The Senate bill permanently lowers the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. Tax rates will also be cut for individuals, though their tax cuts will expire after a decade. The Senate bill keeps the same number of individual tax brackets, although it changes what those brackets are.

The Senate bill also repeals the individual mandate under Obamacare, something conservatives in Congress have long wanted. The House version does not touch the individual mandate.

The Senate bill, like the House bill, limits state and local income tax deductions to property taxes, with a cap of $10,000. The Senate bill increases the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000.

Republicans -- with the help of a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence -- approved a provision from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that expands a tax break for 529 contributions to K-12 schools. The Senate shot down an amendment From Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, to further expand the child tax credit in exchange for a corporate tax rate increase from 20 percent to just under 21 percent.

The Senate bill is expected to add more than $1 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation analysis. Republicans had hoped the bill would pay for itself, and there was some concern late Thursday the bill would be held up for fiscal reasons.

The bill's passage is a major accomplishment for Republicans, who have been unable to pass significant or complex legislation since they took control of the House, Senate and White House in January.

GOP VOTES TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS (2018 & 2020)

GOP WORKS TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS:

IS THIS HOW THE GOP PLANS TO WIN IN 2020?


Sources: NY Times, Bloomberg Politics, Youtube


****** Senate Weighs Changes to Tax Bill on the Same Day They Could Vote


• The Senate will convene at 10 a.m. Friday to continue the debate on taxes, ahead of a possible final vote later in the day.

• Republicans seemed to be inching toward victory on Thursday and picked up the support of Senator John McCain of Arizona.

• But they faced a setback late in the day when they were left scrambling to find hundreds of billions of dollars in extra revenue to satisfy concerns about the bill’s deficit effects.

• Lawmakers are now mulling options that would result in a tax increase down the road, including a possible increase in the corporate tax rate and the revival of the alternative minimum tax on wealthy individuals and some companies.

Republican leaders ended Thursday with the same problem they started with: They still need to secure 50 votes to be able to pass their tax bill.

Their effort appeared to be gaining momentum on Thursday, with talk of a final vote later that night or early Friday.

But by the end of the day, they were contending with twin setbacks, both involving how the bill would affect federal budget deficits.

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said in an analysis released on Thursday afternoon that the legislation would add $1 trillion to federal budget deficits over a decade, even after accounting for economic growth.

In addition, a provision meant to prevent ballooning deficits ran into parliamentary problems. The provision would have increased taxes if economic growth fell short of expectations, but it was deemed by the Senate parliamentarian to run afoul of budget rules that must be followed if the bill is to be shielded from a Democratic filibuster.

Without the so-called trigger, the votes of a handful of Republicans, including Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, appeared at risk.

“Senator Corker has been pretty clear he doesn’t want any deficit spending,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said on Thursday, adding that he did not agree with the Joint Committee on Taxation’s assessment.

To pass the tax bill in the Senate, Republican leaders can lose only two of their members, assuming Democrats are unified against the measure.

The Senate will convene on Friday morning and the debate on taxes will continue. At some point, the Senate will undertake a marathon of amendment votes known as a vote-a-rama. Eventually, there would be a final vote on the legislation.

But in the meantime, Republicans need to decide how they want to change their bill. To satisfy Mr. Corker, for example, Republicans were discussing putting in place tax increases that would take effect some years from now, a step that would soften the deficit effects of the legislation.

Will they decide to raise taxes?

The options under discussion to satisfy the deficit hawks could essentially result in a tax increase down the road. Lawmakers have talked about raising the corporate tax rate above 20 percent after a period of years. There’s also discussion about reviving the alternative minimum tax, or A.M.T., on high-net individuals and some companies.

Both of those ideas are unlikely to sit well with some Republicans, including those in the House, who could be criticized for essentially voting to increase taxes.

Lawmakers may decide that’s a risk worth taking or they could ultimately decide to jettison the deficit hawks’ concerns and lose their votes.

Several senators are worth watching.

As Republicans mull changes to their tax plan, the spotlight will focus on several senators with varying concerns.

Republican leaders do not need to win over all of these lawmakers. In fact, they could decide that some demands are simply not worth meeting — assuming they can satisfy other Republicans and therefore get the 50 votes they need. Vice President Mike Pence can also provide a tiebreaking vote.

At least a handful of senators have expressed concerns about the deficit, including Mr. Corker and Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and James Lankford of Oklahoma. Now that the trigger is dead, Republicans may need to come up with another idea to protect against piling up debt as a result of the tax overhaul.

Two Republicans, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Steve Daines of Montana, have objected to how the bill treats pass-through businesses, whose profits are distributed to owners and taxed at individual rates. In light of their concerns, Republicans plan to sweeten the tax treatment of these businesses.

Finally, there is Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican who has her own concerns about the tax overhaul. She wants the bill to allow individuals to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes, and adding that provision could help win her over.

DONALD TRUMP'S APPEAL: OPPORTUNITY, GREATNESS, BUSINESS GROWTH & SUCCESS (STEPHEN COLBERT)

View More: Live News|More News Videos

DONALD TRUMP'S APPEAL - OPPORTUNITY, GREATNESS, BUSINESS GROWTH & SUCCESS FOR ALL:

STEPHEN COLBERT AGREES.

2016 GOP Frontrunner Donald Trump's appeal represents more than his Bold personality and Fame.

For American voters, Vets, the U.S. Military and Wall Street Trump's appeal actually represents Opportunity, Greatness, Business Growth & Success for all.

Comedian and Political Commentator Stephen Colbert agrees with this analysis.

~ Stephen Colbert: Donald Trump's Populism 'Very Appealing'

"There is something really hopeful about the fact that, well, 36 percent of the likely voters want him so the people in the machine don't get to say otherwise," late-night host says

Over the past few months, Stephen Colbert has had some fun with Donald Trump's headlines-grabbing presidential campaign, from overdosing on Trump jokes to daring the GOP frontrunner to donate $1 million to charity to disguising Jon Stewart as the mogul. However, in a new interview with Face the Nation set to air Sunday, Colbert admitted that he admires how Trump's campaign has shifted the balance of power in the Republican party.

"There's a populism to Trump that I found very appealing," Colbert said. "The party elders would like him to go away but the people have decided that he is not going to. I may disagree with anything that he's saying and think that his proposals are a little ... well, more than a little shocking. But there is something really hopeful about the fact that, well, 36 percent of the likely voters want him so the people in the machine don't get to say otherwise. That's the one saving grace, I think, of his candidacy."

As 2016 approaches and Trump's GOP lead continues to swell, Colbert also confessed that his earlier boast that there was no way Trump could ever win the White House was shortsighted. "What I do respect is that he knows that it is an emotional appeal, and it might be emotional appeals that I can't respect, but he knows that you have to appeal to the voter. And that's why, I may be wrong - I made a big deal about there's no way he's gonna win," Colbert said before conceding, "I don't know anything about politics."

At a press event before Colbert took the helm of The Late Show, the former Colbert Report host was asked about Trump's presidential odds. "Honestly, he could, and that's not an opinion of Trump. That's my opinion of our nation," Colbert said. "You know what, there have been some great presidents and there have been some bad presidents. Having a giant swinging set of balls isn't the worst thing in the world."

Sources: CBS News, Rolling Stone, NY Times, Face The Nation, YouTube

ONE WORLD ORDER CLIMATE CHANGE PACT APPROVED BY 200 NATIONS: (AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH)

#‎parisagreement‬

ONE WORLD ORDER CLIMATE CHANGE PACT APPROVED BY 200 NATIONS: (AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH)

"PARIS AGREEMENT" IS NOT REALLY ABOUT REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS.

GOOD-BYE FOREVER TO THE MIDDLE CLASS.

~ Climate change pact adopted by delegates of nearly 200 nations

LE BOURGET, France -

Nearly 200 nations adopted the first global pact to fight climate change on Saturday, calling on the world to collectively cut and then eliminate greenhouse gas pollution but imposing no sanctions on countries that don't.

The "Paris agreement" aims to keep global temperatures from rising another degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) between now and 2100, a key demand of poor countries ravaged by rising sea levels and other effects of climate change.

The countries pledge to limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100.

Achieving such a reduction in emissions would involve a complete transformation of how people get energy, and many activists worry that despite the pledges, countries are not ready to make such profound and costly changes.

The deal now needs to be ratified by individual governments - at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions - before taking effect.

The White House is calling the Paris accord "the most ambitious climate change agreement in history" and says it establishes "a long-term, durable global framework" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is praising the new accord on global warming as a deal that will save the world for generations to come, saying "it's a victory for all of the planet and for future generations."

Kerry told fellow negotiators Saturday in Paris that "it will help the world prepare for the impacts of climate change that are already here and also for those that we already know are on our way inevitably." He added the pact would "prevent the worst most devastating consequences of climate change from ever happening."

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore says "years from now, our grandchildren will reflect on humanity's moral courage to solve the climate crisis. And they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when the community of nations finally made the decision to act."

Nicaragua's U.S.-born climate envoy, Paul Oquist, told climate negotiators that his country is "not able to support the consensus." He said the agreement does not go far enough and leads to twice as much global warming as the stated goals.

South African environment minister Edna Molewa calls the pact "the best we can get at this historic moment."

She says it "can map a turning point to a better and safer world" but she added that developed countries still have to cut emissions more and help poorer nations to counter the effects of global warming.

Post Sources: AP, WTHR, PBS, YouTube

CLIMATE CHANGE LAWS WILL DESTROY MIDDLE CLASS ON PLANET EARTH (MORE INCONVENIENT TAXES & REGULATIONS)

Global CLIMATE CHANGE Laws (new TAXES) being pushed by Pres OBAMA and other Elite world leaders will not "Save the Planet", nor "Protect the Future of our Children".

So what is the real "INCONVENIENT TRUTH" about CLIMATE CHANGE??

Is it only about reducing CARBON EMISSIONS?

These new set of Global CLIMATE CHANGE Taxes and Regulations being pushed by the Wealthy Elite, will in fact help to reconfigure Mankind on planet Earth via destroying the current Middle Class and eliminating people stuck in Poverty.

It is really all about making the Super RICH more Wealthy by creating only two Economic groups:

~ The Elite, Super Wealthy & Big Banks - LEADERS

~ A New Lower Class - WORKING SERVANTS

~ NO MORE MIDDLE CLASS



~ Climate Change Laws Hurt The Poor And Benefit No One: Why Are Political Elites Pushing So Hard?

August 21, 2015 by Bob Loewen
Bob Loewen is the chairman of the California Policy Center.

I was eighteen years old in 1966 when my plane circled the tiny airport in Ontario, California. I was traveling from the Bay Area to Claremont to begin my freshman year in college. Looking down from my window seat, the overcast cloud cover prevented me from seeing the freeways and buildings on the ground. When we landed, however, I looked up and saw a hazy blue sky. Then I realized that I was looking up through the cloud cover that I had observed from above. To my horror, what I had seen below me from the sky was not cloud cover at all; it was thick, brown smog, and I was breathing it.

That was the day I became an environmentalist. Although I have a libertarian’s skepticism of government, many times I have supported government programs to clean up the air, water, forests and beaches. In this way, I am like other Californians. Because all of us love and defend the natural resources of our state, the brand “environmentalist” is almost as popular as Santa Claus.

George Orwell warned, however, “political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” [1] California’s climate change laws have nothing to do with removing smog or keeping California’s beaches clean. They hurt the poor and benefit no one. Yet a political elite has managed to impose its will on the California economy without having to explain why it has chosen to hurt the poor for no benefit to the public largely because they use the label “environmentalist”. It is time to hold them accountable.

Orwell’s warning also applies to the substance of the climate change conversation. The climate change elites do not discuss climate change issues in the manner of scientists; they collapse multiple distinct issues into demonizing rhetoric: “The science is settled,” they say in response to every argument that is made; this means that the opponent is a “science denier”. Seldom is this rhetoric even arguably responsive.

While science is one of the principal subjects of the discussion about predicting earth’s climate future through scientific computer modeling, it is no more than political rhetoric to argue that one scientist is so completely wrong in his opinion, and the other so clearly correct, that the first is “denying” the very principles of science. And this is not even the main point of this essay…

Opponents who have other reasons for their opposition to climate change laws usually do not challenge the science. Assuming the climate change outcomes have been predicted accurately by proponents, for example, opponents nevertheless contend that enforcement of climate change laws will not eliminate or delay the predicted harmful effects of climate change because reductions in GHG emissions required by California (or EPA) are more than offset by increased emissions from new power generation plants in China and India.

Opponents who make this point do not deny the science; they embrace it.

The climate change elites do not respond to this point as a distinct argument for which they are accountable; at most, they pretend that the issue does not exist, a slick move worthy of Orwell’s admonition about “political speech”.

California has the most aggressive climate change laws of any state in the nation and is the only state imposing a cap and trade protocol on emitters. It requires that GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels no later than 2020.

This year, new laws have been proposed to tighten that standard, requiring that 2020 emissions be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels. Other restrictions include specific requirements that specified minimum levels of wind and solar power be included in the mix of power sources.

All of this makes power in California the most expensive in the nation.

According to the Manhattan Institute, “California’s renewable energy mandates and climate change policies . . . are having a disproportionate economic impact on the poor.” [2] The report found that “in 2012, about 1 million California households were living in energy poverty, a term that applies to households that spend 10 percent, or more, of their income on household energy costs.”

There is a considerable disparity between wealthy areas, such as Mill Valley in Marin County, whose monthly energy costs were only $200 per home because of mild weather conditions, and middle-income areas, such as the town of Hanford in the San Joaquin Valley, where harsher average weather leads to average monthly energy costs of about $500 per home.

The climate change elite is leaving the poor and middle class behind in other ways too.

The Manhattan Institute study found that because of the high cost of compliance (estimated $115 billion to meet renewable requirements alone), California’s climate change laws are forcing businesses out of the state, resulting in job losses. There are also collateral effects from the general hostility of climate change elites to any business involved with fossil fuels. Take fracking, for example. Two years ago, Californians were excited about the potential for thousands of jobs when we learned that California’s shale formations are even richer than those in boom states like North Dakota. [3] A USC study predicted that fossil fuels from shale would provide “up to 2.8 million jobs, increasing the state’s total economic output by up to 14.3 percent . . . boosting personal income by up to 10 percent.” [4] Due to actions in Sacramento, nothing has happened. Why not? A public official who wants to help the poor and middle class close the economic gap has enough information to allow fracking to proceed, but for now, the political elites prefer to keep fossil fuels right where they are, embedded deep in California’s shale.

Most troubling is that the goals of climate change laws are not achieved even when they are strictly enforced. For example, the EPA is pressuring American utilities to stop using coal because it generates more GHGs than other fuel sources. India and China, however, both build coal-fired power plants faster than the United States can remove its own. [5] Eric Roston, writing for Bloomberg Business, observes “’The U.S. is dropping coal plants at an unprecedented rate, but still nowhere as quickly as India is adding them,” and “By 2020 India may have built about 2.5 times as much capacity [in coal] as the U.S. is about to lose.” [6]

China, “the world’s biggest coal addict by far,” has a plan to build hundreds of coal plants, which negates the efficacy of emissions limits imposed by political elites in this country. Eric Lawson of Princeton University, known for his strong stance in favor of the science of climate change, is quoted by Stephen Moore in Investors Business Daily: “From 2010 through 2013, (China) added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week for seven straight years. [7] And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.”

California’s climate change laws are particularly vulnerable to the criticism that they will not change the predicted outcome of man-made warming because, according to the Manhattan Institute study, all of California’s emissions are only 1% of GHG emissions worldwide and 6% of total U.S. emissions. There are no climate models that support the idea that reduction of some or all of those amounts will affect global climate change given increases of emissions in China and India.
Instead of responding directly to these criticisms, some have argued that China and India will change; if the U.S. sticks with its stringent emission reduction policies, they contend, our example will encourage them to reverse the increases in emissions that represent their recent history and turn those into reductions in emissions.

This is pure Utopian fantasy.

About 900 coal plants are currently planned in China and India.

Where is the evidence that India or China have made any plans to change these to lower-emission energy plants? What plans have been made to tear down the existing coal plants and replace them? Absent concrete plans, the follow-my-lead theory is far-fetched.

There is no precedent to suggest that follow-my-lead will succeed. There is, however, precedent suggesting it will not succeed. In California, proponents of AB32 sold the most aggressive state law on climate change in America partly on the follow-my-lead theory. They told Californians that when AB32 was enacted, other states would follow California’s example by adopting statutes similar to AB32.

This effort failed; not one state has adopted a climate change law like California’s. Since it should have been easier to convince another state, like Oregon, to join California on climate change law than to convince a sovereign nation like China, California’s experience disproves the follow-my-lead theory.

Proponents of climate change laws point to the “Joint Announcement” on climate change dated November 12, 2014 signed during President Obama’s visit to China as supposed proof that China is willing to reconsider its policy of increasing emissions.

The Joint Agreement, however, confirms that China will continue to increase its emissions through at least 2030. Much false information has been implied about this nonbinding statement. But it is available on line, and its meaning is pretty clear.

[8] China does not commit anywhere in the document to reduce its emissions; it only states, without agreeing, that it might reach a peak in its increases by 2030. By signing the Joint Agreement, President Obama effectively acknowledges that current conditions will not change before 2030 at the earliest. This means that the heavy burdens created by California’s emissions limits cannot achieve the intended benefits until sometime after that date.

These critical problems with climate change laws have been known for a long time.

Yet climate change elites do not respond to them, making it clear that they have no response that makes sense. This does not mean that nothing should be done about climate change.

But it does mean we need to change the laws that are hurting the poor and middle class, examine what is possible in the area of adaptation, and hold the political elites accountable. The future of California depends on it.

FOOTNOTES

(1) “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell, 1946
(2) “Renewable Energy Mandates Same As A Tax On The Poor,” by Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute, 7/26/2015
(3) “Fixing California: Will Fracking Bonanza Be Allowed?,” Chris Reed, CPC Prosperity Forum, 9/30/2013
(4) “The Monterey Shale & California’s Economic Future,” USC Price School of Public Policy, March 2013
(5) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(6) “The Grim Promise of India’s Coal-Powered Future,” Eric Roston, Bloomberg Business, 5/21/2015
(7) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(8) U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change, 11/12/2014


Sources: California Policy Center, Manhattan Institute, Fox News, YouTube, CPC Prosperity, USC Price School of Public Policy

Bernanke Warns Banks Of Another Pending Recession: More Middle Class Decline

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke recently warned Bank Chiefs to hold onto to their Profits. Translation: U.S. is headed for another Recession.





Fed proposal would boost bank safety cushions

The Federal Reserve on Thursday proposed tough new rules to require banks to hold even more in reserves as a capital buffer to better withstand future financial crises.

Wall Street has been watching the rulemaking on capital buffers closely. Requirements about capital cushions can directly impact banks' ability to lend, make financial bets and profit off those loans or bets.

Tougher capital cushions are also a key step toward making banks safer and avoiding future taxpayer bailouts.

"Pre-crisis capital requirements were too low in general," said Federal Board Reserve Board governor Daniel Tarullo at a meeting Thursday.

The rules would require banks to keep 7% of risk-weighted assets -- the loans banks make judged by the degree of risk involved -- aside. Banks would have until 2019 to meet the new rules.

For 20 banks with more than $250 billion in total assets, the rules would be a little tougher -- 3% of all assets, including "off-balance sheet exposures" such as derivatives, would have to be kept off limits as a leverage ratio.

The provision would affect all the major megabanks, including JP Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) and Citibank (C, Fortune 500), among others.

Derivatives are the risky bets that helped lead to the financial crisis of 2008.

The new rules are drawn from a 2010 deal negotiated with foreign nations, part of the so-called Basel III accords, requiring all banks to put more capital aside for emergencies.

Capital cushions have come under scrutiny again, in light of revelations that JPMorgan Chase lost $2 billion in bad bets made earlier this year and disclosed last month.

"This should improve the overall resiliency of the banking system," according to a memo on the new capital cushion rules released by the Fed.

Additionally, the Fed released new details on what qualifies as capital -- guidelines that are tougher than current standards -- the central bank notes.

Federal Reserve staff said that roughly 80% of banks already meet the tougher buffer of 7% of risk-weighted assets. They calculated that $3.6 billion would need to be raised to meet the new criteria.

The proposed rule will be voted on by the Federal Reserve Board and then faces 90 days of public comment.

Then the Fed and other federal regulatory agencies would officially approve it later this year. The rules would be phased in starting in January 2013.

During a Senate Banking Committee hearing Wednesday, bank regulators said that all U.S. banks were safer than they were three years ago.

JPMorgan Chase has a capital cushion of $101 billion, compared to $1.8 trillion in assets, said its regulator, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry. That's about 5.6% of all assets.
But JPMorgan will likely have to set even more capital aside under the new rules.

That's because the proposed rules do not address an additional and controversial capital cushion that the largest U.S. banks may also have to meet.

That rule could raise the required buffer at some banks from the new standard of 7% to as high as 9.5% of risk-weighted assets.

The Federal Reserve is expected to tackle that issue later.


Sources: CNBC, CNN

Bill Clinton Endorses Temporary Extension Of Bush Tax Cuts To Help Middle Class

View more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.

Yes Bill Clinton recently told the Media that Pres. Obama & Congress should Temporarily Extend the Bush Tax Cuts in 2013.
Why?
Because ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts are Connected to the U.S. Tax Code for Middle Class and Low Income Citizens.
In other words if those Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to Expire Immediately, Middle Class & Low Income Voters would be Financially Ambushed!
Another reason for Congress to STOP Playing & Fix the U.S. Tax Code!


Bill Clinton: Bush Tax Cuts Should Be Extended Temporarily

Former president Bill Clinton caused additional headaches for the Obama campaign on Tuesday when he told CNBC that he wouldn't have a problem with Congress temporarily extending all the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of the year.

Clinton went on to insist that President Obama should not sign off on legislation that would extend the top end tax cut rates permanently, a concession that Republicans have demanded. In that regard both he and Obama are on the same page: They both believe the high-end Bush tax cuts need to be de-coupled, extended for the middle and lower classes and ended for the upper earners. But Clinton's insistence that he would have "no problem" extending all of the tax cuts for some amount of time puts the Obama campaign in an awkward position. In this hyper-political climate, Republicans were quick to pounce on the daylight between the current and former Democratic president.

The White House is readying for a tax cut showdown this summer. House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) indicated the House will vote on extending tax cuts before its August recess.

A Congressional Budget Office report released last month warned that the country may be thrown into a recession if the Bush tax cuts expired and scheduled spending cuts took effect as planned.

Clinton emphasized his opposition to the permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, but conceded they might need to be temporarily renewed until the country gets out of what he called a recession.

"What I think we need to do is find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what's necessary in the long term debt-reduction plans as soon as they can, which presumably would be after the election," he said.

"I don't have any problem with extending all of it now, including the current spending levels." But the tax cuts are already set to be in place through the end of the year -- after the election -- and so Clinton's extension would take them further.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, Michael Steel, quickly pounced on Clinton's comments. "The fact that former President Clinton supports stopping all of the tax hikes scheduled for January 1 is very, very big news," he said, according to Politico.

This is not the first comment by Clinton that could pose problems for the Obama campaign. During a CNN appearance last week, Clinton praised Romney's work at Bain as "sterling," and questioned the strategy of criticizing private equity. Clinton himself dabbled in private equity.

In a sign of the new media landscape, Mitt Romney's campaign launched a parody Bill Clinton twitter account, highlighting comments by the former president that seemed to undercut Obama.

A full transcript of Clinton's remarks on the Bush tax cuts are included below, via CNBC:

MARIA BARTIROMO: So what about this upcoming fiscal cliff? Because a lot of people are worried and the markets certainly have been reacting to the-- to the idea that these Bush tax cuts will expire at year end along with the spending programs that will expire. Should those programs and those tax cuts be extended?
PRES. BILL CLINTON: What I think they should do is find a way to keep the expansion going. And I think the-- as weak as it is here, you know, unemployment in the euro zone I think is 11%. And-- Germany's doing well but the-- and a lot of the smaller countries are doing extremely well, many of which are not in the euro.

But they're trying to figure out a way to promote growth. And what I think we need to do is to-- find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what's necessary in the long-term debt reduction plan as soon as they can, which presumably will be after the election.

MARIA BARTIROMO: So does that mean extending the tax cuts?

PRES. BILL CLINTON: Well, I think what it means is they will have extend-- they will probably have to put everything off until early next year. That's probably the best thing to do right now. But the Republicans don't want to do that unless he agrees to extend the tax cuts permanently, including for upper income people.

And I don't think the president should do that. That's going to-- that's what they're fighting about. I don't have any problem with extending all of it now, including the current spending level. They're still pretty low, the government spending levels. But I think they look high because there's a recession. So the taxes look lower than they really would be if we had two and a half, 3% growth. And the spending is higher than it would be if we had two and a half, 3% growth because there are so many people getting food stamps, so many people getting unemployment, so many people are Medicaid.

But-- the real issue is not whether they should be extended for another few months. The real issue is whether the price the Republican House will put on that extension is the permanent extension of the tax cuts, which I think is an error.

UPDATE (9:05 p.m. ET): Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna released a statement on the former president's CNBC appearance.

Two questions have been raised regarding President Clinton's interview on CNBC today. First, on extending the Bush tax cuts, as President Clinton has said many times before, he supported extending all of the cuts in 2010 as part of the budget agreement, but does not believe the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be extended again. In the interview, he simply said that he doubted that a long-term agreement on spending cuts and revenues would be reached until after the election.

Second, on the current condition of the economy, he said at the top of the interview that the main goal for those in Washington was "to keep the expansion going." Later, in the interview, he said government spending levels were higher and revenues were lower than they would normally be because there was a recession and we're still living with the aftermath of it.

It's obvious since we've had 4.3 million new private sector jobs in the last 27 months that we're not in a recession, even though we'd all like growth to be higher.


View Larger Map


Sources: AOL, CNBC, Huffington Post, NBC New York, Google Maps

Paul Ryan Introduces Tax Code Reform Proposal: Eliminating The AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax)

House GOP budget chief aims at tax code


In a year when political stalemate is expected to block any real progress on fiscal reforms, House Republicans will take a swing at tax reform in their fiscal year 2013 budget proposal due out on Tuesday morning.

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, the lead writer on the budget, and his caucus will call for a reduction in individual tax rates and brackets.

Instead of today's six brackets, with rates from 10% to 35%, they are calling for just two -- 10% and 25%. It's not clear how much income would fall under each bracket. (Washington's $5 trillion interest bill)

The Republican proposal would also eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax altogether.
Although originally intended to ensure that the very wealthy pay taxes, the AMT was never structured to keep pace with inflation.

So on paper the AMT is scheduled to bring in trillions of dollars in revenue over the coming years because it would capture more and more taxpayers who are not wealthy.

But every year Congress passes costly "patches" to protect the middle class from having to pay the AMT, and adds the cost of those patches to the deficit.

Quiz: What the rich really pay in taxes

It was not immediately clear whether the House GOP plans to replace that forecasted revenue, but it seems unlikely since it is proposing to keep revenues as a share of the economy on par with the 40-year average of 18.1% of the economy's GDP.

Since the financial crisis in 2008, revenues as a share of GDP have hit 60-year lows, coming in at around 15%. And going forward, independent budget experts have said the country may need to bring in more revenue than the historical average to meet entitlement benefit promises and adequately fund programs without slashing too deeply in any one area of the budget.

On the corporate tax side, the House GOP would lower the top tax rate to 25% from 35% and switch the United States to territorial system of taxation, meaning that U.S. multinational companies would only owe tax on foreign-made profits to the government of the country in which the profits were made.

Ryan's new manifesto on health care

Currently, a U.S. company owes U.S. taxes on foreign profits once the money is brought home, and they can subtract from their Washington tax bill taxes they have already paid to the country where the profits were made. Some estimate that U.S. companies may be parking as much as $1 trillion abroad.

The House GOP proposal on corporate taxes differs from President Obama's. He would lower the corporate tax rate to 28% and impose a minimum tax on foreign-made profits the year they were made to discourage companies from parking money abroad.

And as they have at every turn, House Republicans will reject outright most of Obama's tax proposals for individuals, particularly those on the wealthy, including his proposed Buffett Rule to ensure millionaires pay at least 30% of their income in federal tax.

The emphasis on tax reform in advance of the formal release of the House Republican budget may indicate the GOP's desire to turn the conversation away from their anticipated and polarizing proposals to reform Medicare and to cap discretionary spending at levels lower than the top cap agreed to by both parties last summer.
Democrats have expressed opposition to both prospects.

House Republicans are expected to propose a spending level that is about $20 billion less than that specified by the Budget Control Act, the deal that ended the bitter fight over the debt ceiling in August. If that's the case, that could set off a battle with the Democratic-controlled Senate on federal spending just weeks before the November election.

Meanwhile, the most conservative factions in the House have been pushing for the GOP to propose spending levels lower than those likely to be proposed on Tuesday.


Sources: CNN, Fox News, Youtube

Jeb Bush: Will He Or Won't He Enter 2012 Election? Latino & Middle Class Voters!

Word on the street is that both Political Parties are eyeing former Florida Governor Jeb Bush as a Strong Contender against Pres. Obama this Fall.
The Bush Family has begged Jeb to run because GOP Leaders fear Mitt Romney is just too "Flip Floppy" to Beat Pres. Obama.

Many GOP Supporters are Hoping & Praying for Jeb Bush to step in during the Tampa Convention this Summer.

In the meantime Democrat Leaders are also keeping their Radars on Jeb Bush.

Considering how Crazy this 2012 GOP Presidential Primary has been Democrats would be foolish to take their eyes off of Jeb Bush.

Why?

Jeb Bush has a Strong Latino & Middle Class Voter following.

So will he or won't he enter the 2012 Elections?
Stay Tuned.





Despite Mitt Romney wins, both sides keep eying Jeb Bush

Mitt Romney’s tortured triumph in Michigan put him back in the GOP driver’s seat — but that hasn’t quelled the desire among some Republicans to trade up.
Yes, Republicans are still pining for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush despite his repeated and vehement refusal to be sucked into the 2012 Republican vortex.

And Democrats continue to cast a wary eye on a guy they see as more dangerous — and capable of connecting with middle-class and Latino voters — than Romney.

The Bush murmurs persist, even as a resilient Romney marches toward Super Tuesday with a commanding lead in cash, delegates and momentum over a sagging Rick Santorum.

“I have the perfect candidate — Jeb Bush. But he’s not running,” former George W. Bush chief of staff Andy Card told Charlie Rose on CBS on Wednesday, echoing the sentiments of many in his party.

“What Democrat would not worry about a popular leader from a critical state who sounds pretty moderate and can rescue the GOP from its anti-Latino death grip?” asked former Bill Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry, who said he’s yet to find a Democratic elder who thinks the GOP is truly “unhinged” enough to consider ditching Romney for Bush.

Bush — who has refused to endorse Romney in 2012 as he did in 2008 and whose son endorsed Jon Huntsman — has fanned the flames himself, possibly to whet his party’s appetite for a 2016 run. After keeping a low profile during the hotly contested Florida primary in January, he popped up last week at the height of the Romney-Santorum duel in Michigan to declare his problems with the GOP presidential field.

“I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I’m wondering, I don’t think I’ve changed but it’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective,” Bush told a gathering in Dallas last Thursday, according to FOX News.

“I think that changes when we get to the general election — I hope,” added Bush, who has personally urged Romney to moderate his rhetoric on illegal immigration for fear of completely alienating Hispanic voters in states like Florida, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.

That got the attention of conservatives including Ann Coulter, who slammed him of prepping for a campaign, and Obama campaign officials who found his timing curious.
Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and a friend of Bush, said she saw the former governor last Sunday and he laughed off any idea that he’ll jump in the game.

But even Navarro couldn’t resist indulging in a little starry-eyed speculation of what might have been.

“Why is he a fearful figure? You know, anybody who knows Jeb Bush and who’s heard Jeb Bush understands there’s a certain inspirational quality to him,” she said in an interview.

“He is smart, he is scary smart, and he has got a national network of supporters that he could turn on with the flip of a switch. And nobody could hold Obama’s feet to the fire in the Latino community like Jeb Bush.”

That opinion has considerable bipartisan support. “Don’t buy the bulls—- about us not being worried about Jeb,” added a veteran Democratic operative. “He’s a tough matchup even if his last name is Bush.”

Bush has said repeatedly that he isn’t running and the people around him say he couldn’t pull it off at this late date even if he wanted to. (“If Jeb had any intention of competing for the Republican nomination, he would have been at it from day one,” Navarro said. “Jeb does not play games.”)

Karl Rove, another Bush fan, recently wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed declaring the possibility of a brokered convention — a scenario that could theoretically result in a Bush candidacy — comparable to finding life on Pluto, although he didn’t rule out a contested convention where delegates shift their votes.

But Bush has said no to anyone who asked whether he’s interested, including his son George P. Bush.

Operatives in both parties say he’d be crazy to jump in now instead of waiting four years, when his Democratic opponent won’t have the benefits of incumbency.

But if 2012 has proven anything, it’s that logic isn’t always the most important thing. Republican operatives, speaking to POLITICO on condition of anonymity, talk about Bush in the glowing tones of a potential spouse who got away — and seems perfect in comparison to the person they stare at across their coffee every morning.

Likewise, Democrats have been gaming out the possibility of an Obama-Bush face-off, just as they have with other no-thanks Republicans, including Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels.

One third-party Democratic group was so concerned about Bush that it recently paid for a poll to gauge his performance in a head-to-head matchup against Obama, according to a Democrat briefed on the poll.

The survey revealed nothing that public polling hasn’t already covered — that Obama enjoys a substantial lead and that the Bush surname is still toxic.

That it was undertaken at all shows the extent of the concern over a possible Bush candidacy and, more important, a lingering uncertainty — even a touch of anxiety — in Democratic circles about Romney’s ability to make it over the finish line.

The Obama campaign loves watching Mitt Romney squirm in the spotlight — but they don’t want to see him so irretrievably damaged that it draws better candidates into the fray.

And while many inside the Obama campaign are itching to see the race resolved — so they can target Romney exclusively and hone their fighting skills — the prevailing sentiment is that the GOP infighting is a gift from the political gods.

“On some level, I’d love to get this thing going,” said a senior party official, quickly adding, “I know that sounds crazy, but it would be nice to lock Romney in.”
Obama’s brain trust was rooting for a Santorum victory in Michigan and were disappointed that efforts by unions and local Democrats to coax party members into cross-registering to vote for Santorum fell short.

But they were pleased with the way the Michigan primary went down — Romney’s two-Cadillacs-and-just-right-trees speech to an empty football stadium, the embrace of the polarizing immigration crusader Gov. Jan Brewer in Arizona, the $4.2 million burn to win his home state.

And they have watched gleefully as Obama’s approval rating in the state has ballooned to 16 points in the latest Public Policy Polling survey — in part because of Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout.

“In 2008, the protracted primary allowed us to build our organization across the country and lay out an affirmative vision,” said Obama 2012 communications director Ben LaBolt.

“That’s not what the Republicans have done — they haven’t invested in organization and they’re leapfrogging to the right of each other on issues from Medicare to immigration,” he added. “Their primary has been an echo chamber where they have debated who is the most committed to tea party orthodoxy rather than laying out a plan to create jobs and restore economic security for the middle class, the issues most Americans are focused on.”

Romney, for his part, cast Tuesday’s 3-point win in Michigan as a narrow but important benchmark, another brick in the road to inevitability.

Despite a recent spate of good polls and encouraging economic data, Obama remains vulnerable, especially if Republicans get past their intraparty food fight to focus on the president’s inability to bring unemployment below 8 percent and a widely held belief that he pushed through health reform in lieu of working on the economy.

But Democrats, including those who sense Obama’s weakness, watched Romney’s speech Tuesday night with a sense of relief that Bush wasn’t the man at the podium.

“I think anybody who’s legitimate would make it a race with Obama at this point,” said a former adviser to Hillary Clinton in 2008. “If they did get someone who was reasonably grown-up now and — poof — we got a race. … And Jeb’s not just anybody, he’s got damned good skills, he can raise money and even people who hated his brother concede he’s the smartest Bush.”




Jeb Bush calls GOP Rhetoric "Troubling"

In the wake of Wednesday night's Republican presidential debate in Arizona - the 20th of the season - former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is expressing concerns about the nature of Republican discourse in the current election cycle.
Bush, the son and brother of former presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush respectively, said he found the GOP debates "a little troubling" because the candidates are appealing to voters' emotions rather than more overarching political concerns.

"I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I'm wondering, I don't think I've changed, but it's a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people's fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that's kind of where we are," Bush said after a speech in Dallas on Thursday.

"I think it changes when we get to the general election," he added. "I hope."

Bush said that appealing to the less moderate voters in the Republican party could hurt the GOP nominee in the general election.

"I think it's important for the candidates to recognize though they have to appeal to primary voters, and not turn off independent voters that will be part of a winning coalition," he said the same day, according to a CBS affiliate in Dallas.

The influential Florida politician has declined to endorse a candidate in this election cycle, and has even been cited as a possible last-minute Republican alternative to the current slate of GOP contenders.

Rick Santorum took a hit in Wednesday's GOP debate over his having supported the controversial education policy "No Child Left Behind" put forth by Jeb Bush's brother George W. Bush, a measure Santorum said he voted for only out of loyalty to the then-president.

"It was against the principles I believed in, but, you know, when you're part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader," Santorum said, calling his support a "mistake."


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Politico, Univision, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

New York City's 2013 Mayoral Candidates: Quinn & Thompson (I Endorse Thompson!)

In 2009 Billionaire Michael Bloomberg Spent more than $100 Million of his OWN Money to keep his BLACK Opponent, Democrat & Former NYC Comptroller William C. Thompson from Capturing the Mayor's Seat.

Yes Bloomberg was so Opposed to a BLACK Man becoming the Next Mayor of NYC, he even "Convinced" City Council Members to change the rules making it possible for him to Bid for a Third Term.
And after much Schmoozing & Spending of his Cash, Bloomberg Mysteriously eked out a Win.
In fact he barely defeated William C. Thompson.

Well.....
Bloomberg's Third Term ends in 2013.
Thank You Jesus!
Sorry but at this point that's how I feel.

So who will New York City's Next Mayor be?

Here are the likely Candidates:

Christine C. Quinn (D): NYC Politician (She has some of the LGBT Vote)

William C. Thompson Jr. (D): Bed-Stuy Native & Former NYC Comptroller (He has the BLACK, Latino, LGBT, Educated, Middle Class Vote)

Bill De Blasio (D): NYC Politician

Scott M. Stringer (D): Manhattan Borough President (He has the Wealthy Manhattan Voters)

And...

John C. Liu (D): Current NYC Comptroller (He has the Asian Vote. i.e, China Town)

Which Candidate do you think Democrats & the Obama White House will throw their Weight behind?

Will it be the Well-Qualified BLACK Candidate: William C. Thomspon?

Or....

The WHITE LGBT Candidate Christine C. Quinn?
Stay Tuned.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CUNY-TV, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Takes Payroll Tax Cut Battle With Congress To Public (Part 2)

GOP, Democrats near payroll tax cut deal, aides say


Congressional leaders are close to a deal that would extend the payroll tax cut through the end of the year, top Democratic and Republican aides told CNN Tuesday.

Under the terms of the agreement, the nearly $100 billion tax cut would not be paid for -- a consequence of the parties' inability to agree on either new taxes or compensating spending cuts.

It would be coupled, however, with measures extending unemployment benefits and preventing a fee cut to Medicare doctors -- known in Washington as the "doc fix." The latter two measures -- costing a combined $50 billion -- would be paid for, though exactly how was not immediately clear.

Aides said last-minute negotiations were focused on how many weeks of unemployment a person would be eligible for and what -- if any -- additional restrictions might be placed on aid recipients. Some Republicans want unemployed individuals to pass drug tests and meet certain education standards before getting benefits -- an idea generally opposed by Democrats.

News of the likely deal came hours after President Barack Obama publicly urged Congress to extend the payroll tax cut, which is currently set to expire at the end of February. Failure to do so, Obama warned, could derail the economic recovery.

"This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class," the president said. "The last thing we need is for Washington to stand in the way of America's comeback."

The payroll tax cut, a key part of Obama's economic recovery plan, has reduced how much 160 million American workers pay into Social Security on their first $110,100 in wages. Instead of paying in 6.2%, they've been paying 4.2% for the past year and two months. The break is worth about $83 a month for someone making $50,000.

On Monday, House GOP leaders dropped their demand that any extension of the tax cut be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. The decision was a sharp turnaround for House Republicans, who previously argued that a failure to fully pay for the tax break would be financially reckless.

The debate over whether and how to extend the tax cut has been a political loser so far for the Republicans, who publicly questioned its value last year.

Democrats have gleefully highlighted the GOP's reluctance, using the issue to portray Republicans as defenders of the rich who are indifferent to the plight of the middle class.

Political analysts believe the showdown over the payroll holiday has eroded GOP strength on the party's core issue of lower taxes. Fearing negative repercussions, Republican leaders have now backtracked on the issue twice: dropping their opposition to a two-month extension last December and dropping their insistence on paying for a longer extension this week.

"I think the GOP has read the writing on the wall when it comes to the payroll tax cut," said Brown University political scientist Wendy Schiller. "Americans are benefiting from it, and to take it away at this juncture leaves them open to charges of raising taxes. ... It would severely hamper the GOP presidential nominee's effort to defeat Obama."

Johns Hopkins University political scientist Adam Sheingate called the GOP's latest move "a subtle shift in strategy precipitated by the improving economic outlook of the past few weeks."

"By agreeing to a deal, the GOP can claim some credit for extending the holiday," Sheingate said. "Failing to extend the payroll tax would not only be unpopular, it would shift some of the responsibility for the economy back on the Republicans.

This is to be avoided at all costs since the GOP (election) strategy rests almost entirely on Obama's handling of the economy."

In a new twist, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and two other top House GOP leaders said Monday they wanted separate the payroll tax cut extension from legislation dealing with unemployment benefits and the doc fix.

Doing so would "protect small businesses and our economy from the consequences of Washington Democrats' political games," said Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-California.

Schiller told CNN the idea of divorcing the payroll tax cut from an unemployment benefits extension and the doc fix was a "clever" idea on the part of the House GOP leadership.
Doing so would have removed the Democrats' "leverage on the other issues of unemployment and Medicare payments," she said. "Also, as the unemployment numbers get better, the rationale for a lengthy extension of benefits diminishes.

The longer the GOP can stall on the unemployment extension, the more likely it is they win in terms of authorizing a much shorter extension than the Democrats would like."
Democrats, however, quickly pushed back hard against the idea.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, both urged the Republicans Tuesday to allow Congress to quickly complete its work on all three issues -- the payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance, and the doc fix.

Pelosi said Congress should cancel a recess currently scheduled for next week if it fails to complete work on all of them by Friday.

"These crucial policies affect millions of middle class families and seniors and must not expire at the end of this month," Pelosi said.

It remains unclear if the increasingly conservative House GOP caucus will be willing to go along with the likely deal. House Republican freshmen, elected on a tidal wave of tea party support in 2010, have made deficit reduction their top priority and repeatedly insisted that any new initiatives be fully paid for.

Veteran political analyst Norm Ornstein warned that the GOP leadership's repeated maneuvering on the issue could end up backfiring.

House Republican leaders have been looking "in the face of a complete loser" and "trying to make the best of crummy situation," Ornstein told CNN. But tea party Republicans "don't care" if fighting the tax cut extension is "a political loser.

They don't like the payroll tax cut and now the (leadership's) sin is being compounded by saying they won't pay for it."

This "could play out in ways that make the life of Boehner (and other Republican leaders) a little less comfortable," he predicted.

One key conservative, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, indicated Tuesday he's prepared to back Boehner and the other House GOP leaders.

Jordan's "view is anytime we're letting people keep more of their money, that's a good thing," said Brian Straessle, a spokesman for the Republican congressman.
The entire House Republican caucus met in closed session late Tuesday afternoon to discuss the matter.


Sources: Associated Press, CNN, Youtube

Jim DeMint To Mitt Romney On Poor People: "Backtrack Mitt!"

DeMint Calls on Romney to Reframe Comments on Poor

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said today that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney needs to “backtrack” and reframe comments in which the former Massachusetts governor said he was worried about the middle class and “not concerned about the very poor.”

DeMint defended Romney against any suggestion that he doesn’t care about the poor and lauded the former governor’s focus on the middle class.

But the Senator indicated that Romney’s comments, made during a CNN interview this morning, were problematic because Democrats might easily use them against him.

Romney, explaining his position, said the poor have access to government “safety net” programs that aren’t available to the middle class.

DeMint said that portion of Romney’s comments also need to be reframed.

While Democrats have been using Romney’s comments to argue he is callous toward the poor, conservatives have expressed concern that the former governor might be OK with having Americans who are dependent on government-subsidized social programs.

“He needs to address it,” DeMint told Roll Call.

“Because I know he does care about the poor. But I think he was trying to make a case that they’re taken care of. But, in fact, I would say I’m worried about the poor because many are trapped in dependency, they need a good job; they don’t need to be on social welfare programs.

I think he needs to turn that around because — the middle class is key, and we have to focus on that. And, really, the problem with the middle class is not successful people, it’s politicians — but the key to making our country successful it to get everyone on that economic ladder.

“I think all of this is a teachable moment for America,” DeMint continued.

“I think Bain Capital was, and I think he finally turned that around and showed some confidence in his success, and we need to do that here.

We do worry about the poor when they’re trapped in government dependency programs and the education system’s not producing the skills [and] character for them to succeed, and I think it is an important thing for him to backtrack on that.

I don’t think anyone thinks he doesn’t care about the poor, but I think he’s trying to say they’re taken care of right now with these programs. Those are the programs that are hurting, not just the poor, but our country. We need to address it at every level.”

Romney told CNN today, “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine.

I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”

DeMint has not endorsed a candidate in the 2012 GOP presidential primary, but he did back Romney in 2008.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Robocall, Google Maps

Mitt Romney vs Soledad O'Brien: He Checks Her & Slams Poor People! "Safety Net"

Soledad O’Brien v. Mitt Romney: Gotta be toughter than that


CNN’s Soledad O’Brien had a gift fall in her lap this morning. She was interviewing Mitt Romney on camera, and the now-prohibitive front-runner made news of the highest order.

The words from Romney:

“By the way, I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich — they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling. I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”


To her credit, O’Brien stopped Romney, even though she was in a rush. She said: “You just said I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net. And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, ‘That sounds odd.’ ”


Romney parried well.


“Finish the sentence, Soledad,” said the candidate in perhaps the most Anglo pronunciation of “Soledad” ever heard on CNN.

“I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.”


With that, the CNN host appeared appeased, instead of perturbed. A moment like this is precisely when we expect O’Brien to flip her bulldog switch, bashing her interviewee with tough question after tough question. Here are just a few examples that I expected to hear from O’Brien:

“OK — you say that if there are holes, you’ll fix them. But are there holes in the safety net?”

“Would you say a homeless person is struggling less than a middle-income person?”

“You and your party have complained that President Obama is practicing class warfare in this country. How is this any different?”

Instead of putting such questions to Romney — or just interrupting him and saying, “Really? Really?” — O’Brien allowed Romney to drone on with his talking points for almost another minute.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, TMZ, Washington Post, Google Maps