Repeal Obamacare! Ignore SCOTUS Ruling! GOP Leaders Launch 2012 Repeal Campaign (What About The People?)

On June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court historically ruled Pres. Barack Obama's Affordable Health Care Act i.e., "Obamacare" to be Constitutional.

This includes the Mandatory Coverage provision which allows the Federal Government to Penalize Citizens who Refuse to purchase Health Care Insurance or who Refuse to Enroll in any kind of Health Care Insurance program, not excluding Medicaid & Medicare.

Many U.S. Presidents have tried however only one Truly Succeeded in Reforming our nation's Health Care Insurance System FOREVER.

Is it a Perfect Law?

Of Course Not!

However Perfect should NEVER be the enemy of what is Good.

Thus the Affordable Health Care Act is a Good Law which not only allows Children/ Dependents to remain on their Parents' Health Care Insurance plans until the age of 26, but also prohibits Health Care Insurance Companies from Denying Citizens the right for Coverage due to Pre-Existing Conditions.

The Affordable Health Care Act will Also help Create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs in the Health Care Industry.

And......

Most Importantly it will ultimately within the next 3 years Lower Health Care Insurance Premiums, allowing more Uninsured people to have Health Care Insurance Coverage versus using Hospital Emergency Rooms to receive Medical Care.

This is GREAT!!!

Absolutely GREAT!!!

Even Skeptics like myself agree that the SCOTUS decision to Uphold the Affordable Health Care was a Wonderful Decision!

Hold it!

Because Not everyone is celebrating.

Not everyone is happy to see Millions of Uninsured American Citizens have Affordable Access to Quality Health Care.

NOT Everyone!

Who isn't happy about this landmark legal decision?

Most GOP Leaders!

That's right!

Most GOP Leaders are Angry & Unhappy to see Millions of American Citizens have Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care in this Country.

Instead of celebrating & agreeing with the SCOTUS Decision on this ruling, they are plotting and scheming to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.

How Selfish & Stupid!

What about the PEOPLE who Elected them into Public Office?

What about the Millions of Uninsured, Underinsured, Sick people who will benefit from this ruling?

Don't they matter?

Apparently NOT!

Because Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, John Boehner & Michelle Bachmann are planning to use ALL of their Political Capital and more Taxpayer Money to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act i.e,., "Obamacare".

GOP Leaders have now launched a Tax Mandate/ Repeal "Obamacare" Campaign to Defeat Pres. Obama this Fall and Completely Ignore the recent SCOTUS ruling of his Affordable Health Care Act.

This is So Sad!

Thus Regardless of whom this GOP Repeal Effort will harm (American Voters), GOP Leaders are Hell-bent on making the Affordable Health Care Act Obsolete.

Regardless of the fact that Mitt Romney created the Original Blue Print for the Affordable Health Care Act via "Romneycare", GOP Leaders are Laser-Focused on Obliterating "Obamacare".

By the way "Romneycare" has been Very Successful in the State of Massachusetts, with more than 98% of the Population in that State being Properly Insured and the Health Care Insurance Premiums more Affordable than in other states.

Regardless of the Hundreds of Thousands of Health Care Industry JOBS that will be
Destroyed, GOP Leaders are Determined to wipe the Affordable Health Care Act off the Face of this Earth.

Why?

Because Most GOP Leaders are using the Affordable Health Care Act to hide behind RACISM.

They HATE Pres. Obama and Everything he stands for due to him being a BLACK Leader.

If Mitt Romney or George W. Bush had Passed Comprehensive Health Care Legislation, everyone of those GOP Leaders currently Opposing the Affordable Health Care Act would be 100% on board with Romney or Bush.

However because a BLACK Man passed this Important, Necessary Legislation (FOR THE PEOPLE), GOP Leaders are now Wroth with HATE.

And since the Affordable Health Care Act is Pres. Obama's Signature Legislation, the ONLY way those GOP Leaders can Eliminate his Complete Existence & Legacy is to Repeal that Law.

Please correct me if I'm Wrong but since the SCOTUS has already ruled the Affordable Health Care Act to be Constitutional and LEGAL, I don't see how GOP Leaders can Ignore this Law or Repeal it.

Any effort by Congress to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act would simply be Symbolic at best because the Law can NEVER legally be completely Repealed. EVER!

I believe GOP Leaders are LYING to the American People just to raise Money for Mitt Romney's Campaign.

Those GOP Leaders in Congress know good & well that they can NOT easily Repeal a Comprehensive Health Care Insurance Act that was Passed by Congress and Ruled Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

They know this!

So they have instead decided to LIE to Voters for Political Gain by attacking Justice John Roberts a Republican, launch a Massive Repeal "Obamacare" Campaign & Encourage Hospitals and Doctors to Largely Ignore the SCOTUS Health Care Law Ruling.

This is CRAZY!

I've often said that Racism makes people STUPID & Crazy, now I know its True.

It doesn't matter if Pres. Obama attempts to pass Financial Industry Reform, Comprehensive Education Reform, Student Loan Reform, Health Care Insurance Reform, Criminal Justice System Reform, Comprehensive Tax Reform, Affordable Housing Reform, Small Business Reform, Elderly Care Reform, Wall Street Reform, Tort Reform, Employment Discrimination Reform, etc.,

Whatever type of Meaningful Legislation Pres. Obama attempts to Pass, he will ALWAYS be blind-sided by Severe Political Opposition from some RACIST GOP & Democrat Leaders.

So what can the Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team do to Diminish what GOP Leaders are plotting against the Affordable Health Care Act?

Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team Need to Launch a Major Campaign to Educate the American People on ALL the Good, Effective Components & Provisions included within "Obamacare".

Educate the American VOTERS about why Justice John Roberts a True Conservative, decided to cast his Vote with the Court's so-called "Liberal" Justices.

Justice Roberts cast his Vote alongside Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor because the Affordable Health Care Act is Effective, Constitutional Legislation that will HELP All American Citizens including Many Children, have Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care without being Denied Coverage by Greedy Health Insurance Monopolies who previously used Pre-Existing Conditions to NOT Provide Insurance.

Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team MUST Broadcast the Benefits of the Affordable Health Care Act from all 4 Corners of American Soil.

NORTH, SOUTH, EAST & WEST!!!!

Broadcast those Benefits Non-Stop from Now until the November Election!!

On June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Health Care Act to be CONSTITUTIONAL.

Thank You Pres. Obama!

Thank You Justice Roberts!!!

The American People Thank You Immensely!!!!








Roberts Hits the Reset Button

The Supreme Court’s decision upholding virtually all of the health care reform law (with the exception of a provision on Medicaid that does not really have much practical impact) is a great development, first of all, for Americans. The Affordable Care Act will provide insurance for tens of millions of working people and it will eventually help rationalize and bring down the costs of health care for everyone. This is a huge victory for President Obama at a critical time and a big loss for the right.

The decision also says a lot about Chief Justice John Roberts, who was on the verge of writing himself a reputation after seven years in office as a highly partisan player who was using see-saw majorities to further not just a conservative judicial philosophy but also the broad aims of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party.

This week began, however, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the majority in striking down most of Arizona’s immigration law and strongly reaffirming the power of the federal government to make immigration policy as part of its overall power to make foreign and national security policy.

Today, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, including the individual mandate to buy health insurance. It’s true that he rejected the government’s commerce clause defense—that it can impose a mandate under its power to regulate interstate commerce. With this reasoning, he arguably weakened the Commerce Clause itself, which has been the foundation of so many important laws and court rulings in the modern era, including those guaranteeing all Americans’ civil rights.

The Chief Justice made it clear from the start, in his testimony at his confirmation hearing, that he would apply a rigorous test for Commerce Clause arguments. “It’s not a question of abstract fact,” he said, “does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate.”

That part of the ruling could, in the long run, prove even more significant than upholding the health care reform law. But the health care ruling still was momentous, and it’s clear that Chief Justice Roberts was instrumental in making that happen. He did so by taking a relatively refined view: The requirement that all Americans buy health insurance is not really a mandate at all, but a tax, and is therefore constitutional since Congress clearly has the power to tax and spend.

As Scotusblog noted this morning, “That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form.”

Chief Justice Roberts could have chosen to ignore that narrow way out and joined the four right-wing judges in striking down the entire law – an act of judicial recklessness that would have been read as an endorsement of Mr. Romney’s presidential candidacy. As it is, the Chief justice could hardly be accused of throwing his support to Mr. Obama.

This is going to be hard for right-wingers to swallow, since Chief Justice Roberts was their great standard bearer for conservative judicial and political thought and against “judicial activism.” But he has enhanced, in no small way, the reputation of a court whose standing has suffered greatly since Bush v Gore.

The next step for the right is to try to repeal the health care law through the legislative process. Only about an hour after the Court’s decision was announced, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor scheduled a vote for July 11.





Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law, 5-4, in Victory for Obama

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld President Obama’s health care overhaul law, saying its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by Congress’s power to levy taxes. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members.

The decision was a victory for Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats, affirming the central legislative achievement of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

At the same time, the court rejected the argument that the administration had pressed most vigorously in support of the law, that its individual mandate was justified by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The vote was again 5 to 4, but in this instance Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s four more conservative members were in agreement.

The court also substantially limited the law’s expansion of Medicaid, the joint federal-state program that provides health care to poor and disabled people. Seven justices agreed that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority by coercing states into participating in the expansion by threatening them with the loss of existing federal payments.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who had been thought to be the administration’s best hope to provide a fifth vote to uphold the law, joined three more conservative members in an unusual jointly written dissent that said the court should have struck down the entire law. The majority’s approach, he said from the bench, “amounts to a vast judicial overreaching.”

The court’s ruling was the most significant federalism decision since the New Deal and the most closely watched case since Bush v. Gore in 2000. It was a crucial milestone for the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, allowing almost all — and perhaps, in the end, all — of its far-reaching changes to roll forward.

Mr. Obama welcomed the court’s decision on the health care law, which has inspired fierce protests, legal challenges and vows of repeal since it was passed. “Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives are more secure because of this law,” he said at the White House.

Republicans, though, used the occasion to attack it again.

“Obamacare was bad policy yesterday; it’s bad policy today,” Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said in remarks near the Capitol. “Obamacare was bad law yesterday; it’s bad law today.” He, like Congressional Republicans, renewed his pledge to undo the law.

The historic decision, coming after three days of lively oral arguments in March and in the midst of a presidential campaign, drew intense attention across the nation. Outside the court, more than 1,000 people gathered — packing the sidewalk, playing music, chanting slogans — and a loud cheer went up as word spread that the law had been largely upheld. Chants of “Yes we can!” rang out, but the ruling also provoked disappointment among Tea Party supporters.

In Loudoun County, Va., Angela Laws, 58, the owner of a cleaning service, said she and her fiancé were relieved at the news. “We laughed, and we shouted with joy and hugged each other,” she said, explaining that she had been unable to get insurance because of her diabetes and back problems until a provision in the health care law went into effect.

After months of uncertainty about the law’s fate, the court’s ruling provides some clarity — and perhaps an alert — to states, insurers, employers and consumers about what they are required to do by 2014, when much of the law comes into force.

The Obama administration had argued that the mandate was necessary because it allowed other provisions of the law to function: those overhauling the way insurance is sold and those preventing sick people from being denied or charged extra for insurance. The mandate’s supporters had said it was necessary to ensure that not only sick people but also healthy individuals would sign up for coverage, keeping insurance premiums more affordable.

Conservatives took comfort from two parts of the decision: the new limits it placed on federal regulation of commerce and on the conditions the federal government may impose on money it gives the states.

Five justices accepted the argument that had been at the heart of the challenges brought by 26 states and other plaintiffs: that the federal government is not permitted to force individuals not engaged in commercial activities to buy services they do not want. That was a stunning victory for a theory pressed by a small band of conservative and libertarian lawyers. Most members of the legal academy view the theory as misguided,if not frivolous.

“To an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “But the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the framers, who were practical statesmen, not metaphysical philosophers.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an opinion joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented on this point, calling the view “stunningly retrogressive.” She wondered why Chief Justice Roberts had seen fit to address it at all in light of his vote to uphold the mandate under the tax power.

Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor and a champion of the health care law, said that it was “important to look at the dark cloud behind the silver lining.”

“Federal power has more restrictions on it,” he said, referring to the new limits on regulating commerce. “Going forward, there may even be laws on the books that have to be re-examined.”

The restrictions placed on the Medicaid expansion may also have significant ripple effects. A splintered group of justices effectively revised the law to allow states to choose between participating in the expansion while receiving additional payments or forgoing the expansion and retaining the existing payments. The law had called for an all-or-nothing choice.

The expansion had been designed to provide coverage to 17 million Americans. While some states have indicated that they will participate in the expansion, others may be resistant, leaving more people outside the safety net than the Obama administration had intended.

Although the decision did not turn on it, the back-and-forth between Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the four liberals and the joint opinion by the four conservatives — Justice Kennedy and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — revisited the by-now-familiar arguments. Broccoli made a dozen appearances.

“Although an individual might buy a car or a crown of broccoli one day, there is no certainty she will ever do so,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “And if she eventually wants a car or has a craving for broccoli, she will be obliged to pay at the counter before receiving the vehicle or nourishment. She will get no free ride or food, at the expense of another consumer forced to pay an inflated price.”

The conservative dissenters responded that “one day the failure of some of the public to purchase American cars may endanger the existence of domestic automobile manufacturers; or the failure of some to eat broccoli may be found to deprive them of a newly discovered cancer-fighting chemical which only that food contains, producing health care costs that are a burden on the rest of us.”

All of the justices agreed that their review of the health care law was not barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, which allows suits over some sorts of taxes only after they become due. That could have delayed the health care challenge to 2015. The conservative dissenters said that the majority could not have it both ways by calling the mandate a tax for some purposes but not others.

“That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of sophists,” they said.

As a general matter, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the decision in the case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393, offered no endorsement of the law’s wisdom.

Some decisions, the chief justice said, “are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.”

Justice Ginsburg, speaking to a crowded courtroom that sat rapt for the better part of an hour, drew a different conclusion.

“In the end,” she said, “the Affordable Care Act survives largely unscathed.”


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, AP, Boston Globe, CNN, Forbes, McClatchy Newspapers, Mediaite, NBC Politics, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Fights To Protect Tax Breaks For Rich As Unemployment Rises (Warren Buffett: "Raise My Taxes!")

Tax the rich: How Obama will pay for his stimulus package

President Obama proposed Monday to pay for his $447 billion stimulus package largely by taxing the rich more.

Obama's largest proposed pay-for -- which the White House estimates would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years -- would limit itemized deductions and certain other exemptions for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more ($250,000 and up for married couples).

The tax measure would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013, when the White House assumes the top two income tax rates would revert to 36% and 39.6%, up from the current 33% and 35% as a result of the Bush-era tax cuts.

Obama's proposal would cap itemized deductions at 28%. That would mean for every $100 in deductions the rich claim in 2013, they would be able to reduce their tax bill by only $28. That would be less than the $36 or $39.60 they would get if they are in the top two tax brackets.

Relative to other federal tax filers, high-income households benefit disproportionately from itemized deductions -- including those for mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

What's in Obama's stimulus package

Obama's plan is similar to one he offered in each of his three budgets. But the proposal has gone nowhere in Congress.

The president put forth other repeat proposals on Monday to pay for the stimulus package.

So-called carried interest -- a portion of the money paid to managers of hedge funds and other investments partnerships -- would be taxed as ordinary income under Obama. Translation: It would be subject to rates as high as 39.6%, up from the current preferential rate of 15%. The White House estimates this change could raise $18 billion over 10 years.

Obama also wants to repeal various oil subsidies for an estimated savings of $40 billion. And he would impose a less-generous depreciation rule for the purchase of corporate jets. That measure would raise an estimated $3 billion.

All told, the pay-for proposals would raise roughly $467 billion, White House budget director Jacob Lew told reporters.

Lew noted that the White House measures "intentionally overachieve" on savings to compensate for likely differences in estimates that will be made by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the official cost-and-savings arbiter for Congress.

"We've built in a cushion for the differences that happen," Lew said.

The president's pay-for proposals will likely meet with stiff opposition from Republicans. Many GOP lawmakers don't want to raise taxes on anyone and aren't keen on the president's jobs plan to begin with, even though it contains more than $200 billion in tax cuts.

And at a time when Congress' debt super committee is working to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years, Obama's pay-for plan would reduce the committee's revenue-raising options.

On the other hand, many career deficit hawks support measures to spur the economy now, so long as they are paid for eventually and paired with a long-term debt reduction plan.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps

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

GOP's 2012 Jobs Strategy? Kill Jobs Via Fake Debt Crisis & Union Busting

White House explores options on FAA shutdown

The White House said on Wednesday it was looking at ways to end a partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration that has halted airport construction projects employing thousands of people and extended the summer's political battles.

But transportation experts said the Obama administration has little room to maneuver, and instead officials pressured Congress for emergency action to break a deadlock that has held up full funding of the FAA for 12 days so far.



Obama said he had called key congressional leaders and a White House official confirmed one call was to House Speaker John Boehner.

"I'm urging them to get this done," Obama said in remarks before a Cabinet meeting.

It was unclear whether Obama's discussions had any impact on the partisan standoff mainly over demands by the Republican-led House that Congress cut certain heavy subsidies for airlines that operate flights to under served rural areas.



Obama spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that the White House was looking at steps that it could take to end the shutdown affecting more than 74,000 airport-related construction jobs and certain FAA personnel.

Lawmakers left town this week for their summer recess with the matter in limbo and are not due back until early September. The Obama administration said, however, that certain procedures would permit emergency action without bringing lawmakers back to Washington.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman, said such action was not likely although he did not dismiss it entirely.

"They can still do it," LaHood said.

The shutdown has added to acrimony that has defined Washington during the summer's political brawl over raising the U.S. debt ceiling.



Reid, in a letter to Boehner, said there was room for compromise on the FAA later but that it was "not honorable for the House" to attach the subsidy rider to what otherwise was a routine funding extension. Similar short-term budget extensions for the FAA had passed 20 times previously.

Boehner said in a statement that the House had "done its job" and the burden was on the Senate to act.

The administration's hands were mostly tied over the funding quagmire, and would find it difficult to take the kind of money at stake in the shutdown -- $360 million so far -- from one agency budget source and apply it to FAA airport construction.

Further angering Obama and his administration is the decision by airlines to capitalize on the congressional inaction to legally not collect ticket taxes, and raise fares by a commensurate amount.

The windfall totaled more than $360 million so far and could top $1.2 billion if the standoff lasts until Congress returns in September.

"And we don't anticipate it's going to be easy to get that money back," Obama said, "Even though the airlines are collecting it, they're keeping it."

The trade group representing Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), United Airlines (UAL.N), US Airways (LCC.N) and Southwest Airlines (LUV.N) say carriers are justified in boosting revenue to try to cover costs, which they cannot do now.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, Fox News, MSNBC, Reuters, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Harry Reid Vs. GOP's Debt Ceiling Filibuster: Obama Urges Compromise

It’s Up to the Senate

It was hard to imagine that the House bill to raise the debt limit, and slash and burn the economy, could get any worse. But on Friday it did.

The bill, which narrowly passed the House with 218 Republican votes and none from Democrats, would allow the government to keep borrowing only until November or December and then require both the Senate and the House to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before the limit could be raised again.

That’s right, in a bid to win over his recalcitrant caucus, Speaker John Boehner agreed to go through all of this again in just a few months — and then hold the country hostage to passing an amendment that will never get the two-thirds of each chamber that it would need. The bill was, as it should have been, promptly dismissed by the Senate.

Now the only hope left for avoiding default on Tuesday is for the Senate to piece together a compromise that can pass with bipartisan majorities in both chambers. It will undoubtedly cut far too much, at a time when the economy can’t afford it. It will contain no needed revenue increases and could still trigger a downgrade. But it would eliminate the imminent threat of financial chaos.

For six months, House leaders catered to their Tea Party members, perhaps hoping that they could turn them to a reasonable path, or at least count on their votes in a clinch. That wish crumbled on Thursday night. At least two dozen Republicans, mostly freshmen, adamantly refused Mr. Boehner’s pleas to support his bill — his last shot at keeping the House’s positions relevant.

Instead of worsening the bill, Mr. Boehner could have negotiated with Democrats to construct one with a chance of resolving the standoff and passing in the Senate. But concerned largely with preserving his position, he gave in to the very lawmakers who have been insisting for weeks that the Obama administration is lying about the coming default. That argument alone should have given him pause about giving in to their demands.

The Senate quickly tabled the revised House bill. The legislation being prepared by Harry Reid, the majority leader, would raise the debt ceiling through March 2013. That avoids another showdown, and potential meltdown, in the middle of the crucial retail shopping period and at the start of the presidential campaign cycle, when Washington will be even less open to rational compromise.

The bill would cut the deficit by about $2.4 trillion over the next decade. Unlike the House bill, it spares Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from benefit cuts, and counts the drawdown of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as part of its savings, easing the burden on domestic programs. Unfortunately, it surrenders to the unrealistic Republican demand of no new revenues, cutting too much spending at a time when the economy is still in serious need of government help.

Mr. Reid is negotiating with Republicans on their demands for an enforcement mechanism to make sure the deficit cuts take place in the later years of the deal. Both parties envision a bipartisan panel that could recommend cuts; if those are not adopted, some kind of automatic cuts would go into effect. This automatic knife can be dangerous, arbitrarily cutting without regard to economic circumstances. Democrats should insist that taxes and revenues are not ruled out as a way to lower the deficit.

The House planned a deliberately obstructionist vote on Saturday against the Reid bill, but some Senate Republicans are signaling they are willing to agree to this more reasonable framework. If enough of them can join the Democrats and ignore the bleats of the Tea Party, it may still be possible to avert calamity.


View Larger Map

Sources: Boston.com, Huffington Post, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Boehner Battles To Save U.S. Economy & Tame Tea Party Radicals: Decision 2012

GOP House Speaker John Boehner & His RADICAL Tea Party "Henchmen" Insists On Trying To Force Their 21st Century Poverty Creation Debt Ceiling Bill Through Congress.

Thank God Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Has Vowed It Won't Make It!

Pres. Obama Has Also Vowed To Veto Boehner's Bill Even If It Does Make It Through Congress.

Smells Like Doomsday For Bachmann, Boehner & Cantor.

You See Bachmann, Boehner & Cantor Are Career Politicians But The Tea Party Politicians Don't Seem To Really Care About Being Re-elected.

No, They ONLY Seem To Be Concerned With Destroying Pres. Obama's Presidency.

How Sad!

Pres. Obama Didn't Take Tea Party People Seriously Until After The November 2010 Elections When Democrats Lost The House.

Boehner & Cantor Didn't Take The Tea Party People Seriously Either.

Nevertheless Looks Like The Tea Party Movement Has Come Back To Haunt Them.

Boehner & Cantor Just Thought That Tea Party Populist Anger Would Propel Boehner & Cantor Into Leadership Positions, Then All Would Be Well.

WRONG!!

Now Look At The Huge Mess Our Country Is Facing.

The Entire World Is Watching As Bachmann & Palin's Tea Party Movement Is Destroying Our Nation!

How Sad!

By The Way Tea Party Politicians "WHERE ARE THE JOBS?"

IN 2012 ITS OBAMA OR THE TEA PARTY.....

I SAY CHOOSE OBAMA & REHIRE PELOSI IN 2012!!




Boehner Sees Passage of Debt Plan; Reid Vows to Kill It


The House and Senate headed for a pivotal showdown on Thursday evening over how to cut spending and increase the debt limit before the federal government loses its ability to borrow.

The House began debate and a vote was expected early this evening, with Republican leaders confident of winning over enough holdouts to pass their plan, which would make $900 billion in cuts, raise the debt ceiling for a few months, and come back for more of the same later. But Senate Democratic leaders said that if that happened they would waste no time rejecting the legislation.

Leaders of both parties and in both chambers said that it was essential to avoid a default on the federal debt, but that was practically all they agreed on.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said Senate Democrats would move immediately Thursday night to set aside the House proposal if it wins passage and then take steps to force a vote on Mr. Reid’s own proposal to raise the debt limit through 2012 in exchange for more than $2 trillion in cuts.

“No Democrat will vote for a short-term Band-Aid that would put our economy at risk and put the nation back in this untenable situation a few short months from now,” Mr. Reid said.

But the House Republican leaders, all but declaring that they now had the votes in hand, said that would put blame for the continuing crisis on the Senate Democrats.

“When the house takes action, the United States Senate will have no more excuses for inaction,” said the House speaker, John A. Boehner, just before taking his bill to the floor for debate.



As they prepared to open debate, he and his fellow Republican leaders seemed confident that they would indeed pass the bill soon and send it to the Senate.

Lawmakers and top aides expressed confidence that they could win over enough members to prevent a humiliating defeat on the House floor for the speaker and the party. Even as they pushed for the plan, the leadership said the proposal fell short of their desires.

“Is this as much as I want? No,” Mr. Boehner told them. “But it advances our goals and doesn’t violate our principles.”

The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said that a successful compromise would ultimately have to include not only significant spending cuts, but also a commitment to revamp the tax code and entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, and a debt ceiling increase generous enough to last through next year without a reprise of the standoff. He conceded that the chances were “not great” for a grand compromise before Aug. 2, which the White House has insisted is the deadline for extending the debt ceiling for paying the nation’s bills.

On the House floor, there were some Democrats who continued to call for including some kind of tax increase, like letting the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans lapse, but no matter how events unfold in the days ahead, that seems the unlikeliest of outcomes.

After the Republican caucus broke up, more than a dozen freshmen Republicans held a news conference Thursday morning outside the Capitol to voice support for Mr. Boehner’s plan. Several members interviewed said they would support the bill in an effort to avoid a possible federal default after the government’s borrowing power runs out next week.

“This is heartbreak, for a lot of us,” said Representative Sean P. Duffy, a freshman from Wisconsin. “We didn’t come here for this. But you know what? We’re going to swallow it and get the job done.”

Representative Nan Hayworth, Republican of New York, said the bill had been tweaked enough to gain her support, and she felt the mood in the party’s caucus to be moving in Mr. Boehner’s direction.

“This is what you’d expect thoughtful people to do,” Ms. Hayworth said. “People with passionately held beliefs can evaluate the evidence, and there has been a coalescence that is developing around the idea that the speaker has presented and an appropriately amended bill that represents a very productive and constructive approach to the challenge we face.”

As their leaders got a sense of exactly how many Republicans they could count on — they need at least 217 — there would be interesting decisions in the cloakroom about which members would be given a pass to go against the leadership, and which would have their arms twisted, despite the political consequences back home, where some freshmen may have a weak grip on their seats and some members may face intense primary challenges.

Democrats, too, huddled behind closed doors, preparing for the debate in the afternoon.

On the House floor, Democrats said that not just the economic uncertainty already brought on by the prolonged impasse, but also the short duration of the debt ceiling relief in Mr. Boehner’s bill, were hurting the economy and costing jobs.

Markets rose after a nervous opening, but the chief executives of the nation’s leading financial institutions warned of a “tremendous blow to business and investor confidence” if the votes in the House and the Senate this week, which are unlikely to produce an immediate agreement between the entrenched opponents controlling the two chambers, lead to a default once the government’s borrowing powers expire on Aug. 2.

As the House headed for its vote on Thursday, Congressional officials suggested that Senate leaders from both parties were keeping an open line for a potential compromise they could both brook. So far no such agreement appeared likely, and the Senate moved toward its own series of votes that could run through the weekend and perhaps into Monday, just one day short of Aug. 2.

At a House hearing on Wednesday, the president of Standard & Poor’s, one of the country’s largest credit rating agencies, said that while the United States was unlikely to default on its obligations, its credit rating could still be cut if Congress failed to come up with a plan to reduce spending sufficiently. In the markets, investors sought alternatives to Treasury bonds and pushed down American stock prices for the fourth straight day as reverberations from the legislative impasse appeared to take a toll. After closing down 198.75 points, or 1.59 percent, on Wednesday, the Dow Jones industrial average rose on Thursday and then fell back a bit..

Mr. Reid’s package would cut roughly $2.2 trillion in spending over 10 years and raise the debt limit through 2012, according to an analysis from the budget office. That allows him to raise the debt ceiling for much longer, past the elections of November 2012.

Assuming that the House is able to pass its bill on Thursday, the Senate has several options. Mr. Reid is expected to simply call for a vote to table the House measure, effectively killing it and depriving Republican senators of a chance to have a substantial debate on it.

Then he would call up his own proposal for debate. This weekend he would try to get the 60 votes needed — including at least a few Republicans — to cut off debate and have an up-or-down vote, which the Democrats would win but could not pass the House. Alternatively, while the debate dragged on in the Senate, he and the rest of the leaders of Congress would look for some kind of compromise.




House to vote on GOP debt plan; Senate Democrats promise to defeat it

House Republicans struggled Thursday to secure the votes necessary to pass Speaker John Boehner's plan to raise the nation's debt ceiling while enacting sweeping cuts in government spending -- the latest attempt to avoid an unprecedented national default and stave off potential economic catastrophe.

Boehner declared to reporters that the measure would pass in a vote set for later Thursday, but Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-California, only would say progress was being made in rounding up the votes.

Another speaker at the news conference, Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina, let slip there's more work to be done, calling on House colleagues "who may not be there yet" but were "moving forward on those votes."

The vote in the House is scheduled for roughly 6 p.m. ET. Few if any Democrats are expected to back the measure. Assuming House Democrats remain united against the bill, Boehner will need the support of at least 216 of the House's 240 Republicans.

Whether Boehner can push the measure through remains an open question. Tea party-backed conservatives staged a virtual revolt against the bill over the past two days, complaining that it doesn't do enough to shrink the size of government and stem the tide of Washington's red ink.

"We don't have the votes yet, (but) we're going to get it passed," Boehner declared Thursday morning to his caucus, according to one Republican source who spoke on condition of not being identified.

Some Republicans have said this will be their last, best proposal. Senate Democrats, however, have warned the plan is dead on arrival on their side of Capitol Hill even if it passes the House.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, declared that the Senate is prepared to immediately vote on -- and defeat -- the speaker's plan Thursday night, assuming the House approves it.

"There are things that either side cannot get," Reid said Thursday morning, adding that Republicans need to "accept that and move on." Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, called Boehner's proposal "a futile gesture."

GOP leaders responded by accusing the Democrats of playing political games.

"When is somebody on the other side of the aisle going to say yes?" Boehner asked. "We have a reasonable, responsible (plan). Let's pass this bill and end this crisis."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, warned that "Democrats are playing with fire here."

"It's hard to conclude that they're doing it for any other reason than politics," he said.

As the political maneuvering continues, the clock continues to tick down. If Congress fails to raise the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by August 2, Americans could face rising interest rates and a declining dollar, among other problems.

Some financial experts have warned of a downgrade of America's triple-A credit rating and a potential stock market plunge. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 200 points on Wednesday, but opened positively on Thursday on the basis of encouraging news from job and house markets.

Without an increase in the debt limit, the federal government will not be able to pay all its bills next month. President Barack Obama recently indicated he can't guarantee Social Security checks will be mailed out on time.

Regardless, some conservatives insist they won't back the Boehner plan or anything short of deep spending cuts, caps on future spending and a balanced budget to the U.S. Constitution. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Georgia, told CNN on Thursday morning that he's not on board.

"I love my speaker (but) we just keep spending," Gingrey complained. A balanced budget amendment is "the only way we can constrain ourselves," he insisted.

However, one of the GOP's party elders, Arizona Sen. John McCain, argued Wednesday that it's "worse than foolish" to suggest the current Congress will pass such an amendment by August 2. It's "bizarro," McCain said.

Leaders of both parties now agree that any deal to raise the debt ceiling should include long-term spending reductions to help control spiraling deficits. But they differ sharply on both the nature and timetable of the cuts. Republicans are seeking another vote on the debt ceiling before the 2012 election; Democrats call the demand a political nonstarter and economically destabilizing.

The Boehner and Reid plans both suffered setbacks earlier this week when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released reports concluding that they fell short of their stated deficit reduction goals.

Specifically, the CBO concluded that Boehner's plan would cut spending by $850 billion rather than the $1.2 trillion proponents claimed it would save, which was below the $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling included in the measure.

Boehner has since revised his plan, and the CBO now estimates it would generate a total of $917 billion in savings over the next decade, an increase of about $65 billion over the initial version.

With the revisions, Boehner's proposal now meets his pledge to match any debt ceiling hike with dollar-for-dollar spending cuts.

Boehner's plan would require two separate votes by Congress, allowing for a combined debt ceiling increase of up to $2.5 trillion. In addition to imposing nearly $1 trillion in spending reductions, it would create a special congressional committee to recommend additional savings of $1.6 trillion or more.

Any failure on the part of Congress to enact mandated spending reductions or abide by new spending caps would trigger automatic across-the-board budget cuts.

The plan also calls for a congressional vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by the end of the year.

Boehner has promised anxious conservatives votes on two versions of a balanced budget amendment on Friday, according to GOP leadership sources.

One version, if adopted by the states, would require Washington to maintain a balanced budget. The other version, one that conservatives have long been pushing, would also require a super-majority vote in both chambers to approve any tax increases.

As for Reid's plan, a CBO analysis released Wednesday concluded it would reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.2 trillion -- $500 billion short of promised savings of $2.7 trillion. Democrats had been claiming their plan would meet the GOP's demand that total savings should at least match any debt ceiling hike through 2012.

Michael Steel, spokesman for Boehner, said Wednesday that the CBO analysis of Reid's proposal "shows the Senate plan for what it is: A grab-bag of gimmicks that gives the president a blank check."

Democrats responded by arguing that Reid's plan has more guaranteed savings than Boehner's. They also promised that the final version of Reid's bill will include more savings.

Reid's plan would cut spending by $1.8 trillion as part of the total $2.2 trillion in savings, according to the CBO. Roughly $1 trillion in the savings are based on the planned U.S. withdrawals from military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Limiting future discretionary spending would save another $751 billion, and an estimated $375 billion would be saved in interest payments due to reduced borrowing because of the spending cuts.

Reid's plan also would establish a congressional committee made up of 12 House and Senate members to consider additional options for debt reduction. The committee's proposals would be guaranteed by a Senate vote with no amendments by the end of the year.

Among other things, Reid has stressed that his plan meets the key GOP demand for no additional taxes. Boehner, however, argued this week that Reid's plan fails to tackle popular entitlement programs such as Medicare, which are among the biggest drivers of the debt.

Beneath the harsh partisan rhetoric, there have been signs of a growing recognition of a need for further compromise. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, called Tuesday for renewed negotiations with Obama, and indicated that his party must be willing to move away from some of its demands.

Sources close to the negotiations have told CNN that Vice President Joe Biden is very much in the mix of the back-channel conversations that are occurring on a possible fallback position.

Obama made a nationally televised plea for compromise Monday night.

A CNN/ORC International Poll reveals a growing public exasperation and demand for compromise. Sixty-four percent of respondents to a July 18-20 survey preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions.

According to the poll, the public is sharply divided along partisan lines; Democrats and independents are open to a number of different approaches because they think a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a major crisis for the country. Republicans, however, draw the line at tax increases, and a narrow majority of them oppose raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.


Sources: AP, CNN, NY Times, Young Turks, Youtube, Google Maps