Pentagon Recommends Combat Zone Pay Cut For Enlisted Troops! Are You Kidding Me? That Is Wrong!

Choosing to cut Combat Zone Pay for Enlisted Soldiers who already earn way too little for their Duty, is just plain WRONG!

Such a Pay cut will cause many Military Families to be Financially Deprived, go Hungry & some to be Evicted or Suffer Foreclosures.

Congress Needs to get its Act together because America's Enlisted Troops deserve a Pay Increase NOT a Severe Pay Cut.

Especially NOT a Pay Cut that will Adversely Impact the Families of Enlisted Troops.

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

Review recommends combat pay be based on level of danger

The days of American troops living on luxurious bases, hanging out at the coffee shop, attending dance parties and still earning full combat pay may be coming to an end.

The Pentagon is considering changes to combat pay that could result in a tiered system, based on how much danger the service member is actually in.

The new recommendations come from an independent review ordered by President Barack Obama in 2010, the Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation.

The review concluded that "the relationship between combat compensation and the degree of danger to which a member is exposed has eroded."

In fact, the reviewers found evidence that troops exposed to the most danger in many cases were receiving the smallest benefit.

"Linking reward to risk is the principal justification for combat compensation," the review stated.

A major problem with the current combat pay system is its relationship to the IRS tax code.

Service members in combat zones are allowed to exclude income for tax purposes. The report found that junior members, especially those with with families, have little income and pay little in income taxes. Therefore, income exclusion gives them very little benefit.

More senior enlisted troops can exclude their income and receive a greater tax benefit. Officers can exclude nearly $7,800 a month during the time they are deployed to a combat zone.

The report concluded that this exclusion gives the greatest benefit to more highly ranked service members, even though they may be much farther from actual danger than lower-ranking troops.

The report recommends that combat pay be restructured "so that those who are exposed to the greatest danger receive higher compensation, regardless of grade." It recommends replacing the income exclusion with a tax credit.

The reviewers also recommend increasing "hostile fire pay" so that it surpasses "imminent danger pay." Both award troops $225 a month, but "hostile fire" indicates an area where troops could be exposed to enemy fire, whereas "imminent danger" is simply presence in a combat zone.

As part of its findings, the report cited a 2011 opinion piece in the Washington Post in which Capt. Michael Cummings wrote, "I didn't deserve my combat pay."

Cummings described the living conditions at Victory Base Complex in Iraq, "The water was always warm. The chow hall had a Caesar salad bar, a sandwich bar, an ice cream freezer, and shrimp & steak Fridays. My personal room had a working air conditioning unit and internet connection.

VBC hosted multiple PXs, coffee shops and nightly dance parties. I could buy pillows, microwaves, televisions or any video game."

Defense Department officials are still reviewing the results and have yet to make final decisions on whether to adopt the changes.

Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said, "We'll review the QRMC recommendations. The recommendations do not convey the department's official position but rather provide alternatives for the department to consider."

Nations such as Japan, Germany and Australia already have a risk-based tier system of pay.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Won't Win In 2012 Due To Tea Party's Furor & Unrealistic Ideology

The Angry Tea Party Will Destroy the GOP

The Tea Party does protesting quite well. Governing, not so much.

The firestorm that is building on the budget, and down the road on the debt limit, will sow the seeds of their destruction.

They don’t get that Americans don’t want a government shutdown; Americans don’t want to eviscerate Head Start and slash Pell Grants and cut the heart out of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The American people care about jobs and the economy. They want something done. They are not railing against government that works and performs. They are tired of the hard right ideology of the Tea Party, nationally and in the states. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the Tea Party.]

Read the polls in those states where Republican governors are drinking the Kool Aid tea. They are tanking—in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida. In the five short months since their elections, Governors Walker, Kasich, and Scott are in the mid or low 30s with their favorable ratings. They lose hypothetical matchups to the Democrats they beat last November.

Things are even worse in Washington where the new crop of first year members of Congress are acting like spoiled children, even with their leader, House Speaker John Boehner.

Republicans had proposed cuts in this fiscal year in the neighborhood of $30 billion until the Tea Party folks ratcheted it up to $61 billion. Efforts at compromise have hit a wall.

According to CBS, here are some comments on any budget compromise that were reported yesterday:

“If Boehner fails to cut enough from the budget, Mark Meckler of the Tea Party Patriots told the Associated Press, Tea Partyers could mount a primary challenge against the Speaker. Meckler said 'you're going to see massive amounts' of primary challenges against Republican lawmakers, including Boehner, next year if Republicans go along with the plan to cut $33 billion." [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the federal budget and deficit.]

Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation already said in a message to his organization today that "Boehner must go."

"The Tea Party must unite and make sure Boehner is replaced in the next election," he wrote. "We need people in leadership who are committed to cutting spending and eliminating these programs."

Rep. Joe Walsh, who spoke at Thursday’s Tea Party rally, was quoted on a government shutdown: “Might it be a good thing? Hopefully it won’t happen, but who knows, maybe America needs to be jolted a bit. I think the American people are ready for this.”

No, Joe, we are not ready to see our servicemen and women denied pay checks, we are not ready to see employees sent home, we are not ready to see a “food fight” in Washington, as one other member referred to it, result in chaos. [Read the U.S. News debate: Should Congress raise the debt limit?]

For some reason, the Tea Party members think they are driving the bus—they are barely passengers. Their extreme views now are hurting Republicans. The latest CNN poll has 47 percent of Americans disapproving of them, the highest unfavorable that they have recorded.

Five-thirty-eight.com has examined the trend line over the past year and half and found a fairly steady increase in the Tea Party’s unfavorables, from less than 20 percent in November of 2009 to mid and upper 40s now. Interestingly, the favorable rating has always hovered in the low 30s. The undecideds and those who could not rate the Tea Party are almost all going into the negative category.

So, the more likely they are to wreak havoc, the more extreme their rhetoric, and, of course, the more the economy improves, the more their support will wilt.

In the meantime, Speaker Boehner is pulling his hair out as he hears the loud sound of hooves from the angry riders echoing in his ears. The angrier and more vocal the Tea Party gets, the more they will hurt the Republicans.

Sources: CBS News, CNS News, Fox News, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Newsweek, US News, Youtube, Google Maps

Warren Buffett Urges Congress To Raise Taxes On Rich & Reform Tax Code

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.





A Closer Look at Taxes on the Rich

With the budget deficit growing and tax rates at a 60-year low, one question will remain near the center of the political debate in the coming months: Should the federal government raise taxes on the rich?

Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor known as the Oracle of Omaha, pushed the issue to the forefront this week by urging members of the new Congressional supercommittee on deficit reduction to stop “coddling” him and other affluent Americans and raise their taxes.

In an opinion article in The New York Times on Monday, Mr. Buffett said he paid just under $7 million in federal payroll and income taxes last year, about 17 percent of his income, a lower percentage than anyone else in his office.

Echoing comments he has made in the past, he called on Congress to make the tax system more fair by rolling back the so-called Bush tax cuts on people who earn more than $1 million a year and on income from capital gains and dividends. He would also close the loophole allowing hedge fund managers to be taxed at a lower rate.

Whatever the political viability, his proposal would put a significant dent in the nation’s budget shortfall. Based on projections by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury, the tax increase on all three fronts would generate as much as $500 billion in new revenue over the next decade — about a third of what the Congressional committee is supposed to cut from the deficit.

“It’s not going to solve the long-term budget shortfall all by itself,” said Eric Toder, an economist at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “The only way to do that is to have broader tax increases or reduce entitlements. But it could be an important piece of the puzzle.”

Because of Mr. Buffett’s high visibility and wealth — Forbes estimates his net worth at $50 billion, making him the world’s third-richest person — his comments brought a torrent of reaction. President Obama, who has fought unsuccessfully to increase taxes on the nation’s highest earners, cheered Mr. Buffett’s remarks during his Midwestern bus tour on Monday, saying that it was only fair that the spending cuts be balanced by tax increases on the wealthy.

Conservative bloggers and commentators brushed aside the proposals as grandstanding or as a gimmick to usher in a middle-class tax increase, and Pat Buchanan, a commentator on CNN, suggested that Mr. Buffett visit the section of the Internal Revenue Service Web site that accepts donations.

Republicans have been united in their opposition to tax increases, and gave Mr. Buffett’s proposals a chilly reception. All six Republican members on the committee have taken a no-tax pledge. Representative Kevin Brady, a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a Texas Republican, flatly rejected Mr. Buffett’s ideas.

“This is not a serious solution for deficit control or getting this dismal economy on its feet,” Mr. Brady said. “Economic growth does not follow a tax increase. So as much as I respect Mr. Buffett, his proposal fails on virtually every level.”

Despite the intense antitax sentiment that has helped the rise of the Tea Party movement since Mr. Obama took office, tax rates in the United States are at their lowest level since Harry Truman was president.

In 1950, the top income bracket had a 91 percent rate; today it is 35 percent. Mr. Buffett called for two new tax brackets for high earners — for income above $1 million a year and another above $10 million. While Mr. Buffett’s proposal did not suggest a rate, the Tax Policy Center has estimated that a 50 percent tax rate on income over $1 million would raise $48 billion over the next decade.

But one of the biggest factors reducing the comparatively low tax rates on investment income is the 15 percent for dividends, capital gains and “carried interest,” the money paid to hedge fund managers and private equity investors. Eliminating the carried interest provision alone would raise $21 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And restoring capital gains and dividend rates to the levels before the Bush tax cuts — when capital gains were taxed at a top rate of 20 percent and dividends were treated as ordinary income — would bring the Treasury an additional $340 billion over the next decade.

Any of those measures would face intense lobbying and a battle in Congress. Indeed, Democrats were unable to roll back the carried interest tax break or the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy even when they controlled both houses of Congress. But with the prospect of severe spending cuts and another round of bitter deficit negotiations in Washington, proposals like Mr. Buffett’s call to raise taxes on the affluent are likely to become an increasingly urgent part of the discussion.


View Larger Map

Sources: ABC News, CBS News, CNN, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Harassed & Heckled By Tea Party Plants At Iowa Town Hall (Videos)

Obama takes heat from Tea Partiers at Iowa town hall

President Obama got a little dose of Tea Party town hall anger on Monday during his three-day tour of the Midwest.

At a town hall event in Decorah, Iowa, local Tea Party activist Ryan Rhodes stood up and shouted a question at the president regarding reports that Vice President Joe Biden had called the members of the Tea Party "terrorists," USA Today reports. Rhodes questioned how the president can talk about civility when Biden was accused of using that kind of rhetoric.

After taking a question from another town hall attendee, Mr. Obama said he agrees that everyone should tone down their political rhetoric.

"Now, in fairness, since I've been called a socialist who wasn't born in this country, who is destroying America and taking away its freedoms because I passed a health care bill, I'm all for lowering the rhetoric," he said.

Earlier this month, Biden told CBS News that published reports that he compared Tea Party-linked lawmakers to "terrorists" were "absolutely not true." Instead, the vice president explained, "What happened was there were some people who said they felt like they were being held hostage by terrorists. I never said that they were terrorists or weren't terrorists, I just let them vent."

Though Mr. Obama addressed the question during the town hall, Rhodes and another critical town hall attendee pressed the president on the issue after the event.

"When you're talking about civility, how is your vice president calling us terrorists?" Rhodes asked.

Referring to the debt ceiling debate, Mr. Obama responded, "For us to be willing to take the economy to the brink was irresponsible."

A woman next to Rhodes reminded the president that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano once warned that right-wing extremists should be monitored. Mr. Obama responded, "That's true, Timothy McVeigh should be -- you would agree with that."

After a bit more back-and-forth, the president told Rhodes, "It doesn't sound like you are interested in listening," and continued shaking hands with other Iowans in attendance.

The president hit the road this week to talk with voters about reviving the economy. As unemployment continues to hover around 9 percent, the president's poll numbers have dropped recently, and Republican presidential candidates are ratcheting up their political attacks against him.

During his two stops yesterday, Mr. Obama pointed to a number of initiatives he has proposed to create jobs and spur economic growth - including renewing payroll tax cuts, building up infrastructure programs and giving tax breaks to companies that are hiring veterans - but said "Congress needs to move."


View Larger Map

Sources: CBS News, Fox News, Huffington Post, Telegraph.co.uk, Youtube, Google Maps

Ron Paul Could Upset 2011 Ames Iowa Straw Poll By Winning!

Paul packs 'em in at Ames Straw Poll

Texas Rep. Ron Paul proved that he is a leading contender to win Ames straw poll on Saturday by packing the venue with his rowdy sign-waving supporters.

“We have lost our enthusiasm for freedom!” said Paul, who donned a short-sleeved plaid shirt for the occasion.

The audience boomed with applause when the libertarian-leaning candidate blasted the size of the federal government, touted his opposition to abortion and called on government to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Paul said the country functions better "without the federal government down our backs and in our wallets."

The straw poll outcome hinges on how well each campaign can turn out their supporters to the ballot box.

Judging by the size of Paul’s crowd inside the Hilton Coliseum in Ames, which was nearly twice as big as the one that turned out to watch former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, he appears to be on track for a top finish.

Most observers believe Paul will finish in the top three, and could pull off an upset by winning the whole thing.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Fox News, PBS News, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

Bachmann's Refusal To Raise Debt Ceiling Perceived As Anti-Business (Tea Party Extremism)

Bachmann Claims ‘S&P Essentially Proved Me Right’ — S&P Really Disagrees

Last night, during both the GOP presidential primary debate and a post-debate interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) claimed that S&P’s downgrade of the United States creditworthiness vindicated her position that the debt ceiling should not have been raised. “Standard & Poor’s essentially proved me right,” she told Hannity, after telling the debate audience that the S&P downgrade came about because the agency said “we don’t have an ability to repay our debt”:

We just heard from Standard & Poor’s, when they dropped our credit rating and what they said is we don’t have an ability to repay our debt. That’s what the final word was from them. I was proved right in my position. We should not have raised the debt ceiling.

After this performance, it’s blatantly clear that Bachmann has no idea what S&P said, because just about every word out of her mouth regarding the agency’s decision was incorrect. For starters, S&P never said “we don’t have an ability to pay our debt.” After all, the agency still rates the U.S. as AA+, meaning it has a “very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.” One S&P analyst characterized the difference between AA+ and AAA as just “degrees of excellence.”

Furthermore, the reasons that S&P issued the downgrade — as it clearly laid out in its release on the subject — were the use of the debt ceiling as a political football and GOP intransigence on taxes. As National Journal put it, “It’s hard to read the S&P analysis as anything other than a blast at Republicans.”

A Standard & Poor’s director added one more justification to the mix yesterday, saying “that one reason the United States lost its triple-A credit rating was that several lawmakers expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default”:

Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said.

“That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.”

Of course, one of those people expressing skepticism about the severe consequences of not raising the debt ceiling was none other than Michele Bachmann.


View Larger Map

Sources: Fox News, Newsweek, Standard & Poor's, Think Progress, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Liberal Supporters Need To Grow Up? Fareed Zakaria Defends (Decision 2012)

Fareed's Take: Defending Obama's pragmatism

Over the last week, liberal politicians and commentators took to the airwaves and op-ed pages to criticize the debt deal that Congress reached. But their ire was directed not at the Tea Party or even the Republicans but rather at Barack Obama, who they concluded had failed as a President because of his persistent tendency to compromise. This has been a running theme ever since Obama took office.

I think that liberals need to grow up.

As the New Republic's Jonathan Chait brilliantly points out, there is a recurring liberal fantasy that if only the President would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry. In this view, writes Chait, "Every known impediment to the legislative process - special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion-are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech."

This does happen - if your watching the American president - but not if your actually watching what goes in in Washington.

The disappointment over the debt deal is just the latest episode of liberal bewilderment about Obama. "I have no idea what Barack Obama ... believes on virtually any issue," Drew Westen writes in the New York Times, confused over Obama's tendency to take "balanced" positions. Westen hints that his professional experience - he is a psychologist - suggests deep, traumatic causes for Obama's disease.



Let me offer a simpler explanation: Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist who understands that in a country divided over core issues, you cannot make the best the enemy of the good.

Obama passed a large stimulus package within weeks of taking office. Perhaps it should have been bigger, but despite a Democratic House and Senate, it passed by just one vote. He signed into law an unprecedented expansion of regulations in the financial-services industry, though one that did not break up the large banks. He enacted universal health care, through a complex program modeled after Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts. And he has advocated a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines tax increases with spending cuts.

Maybe he believes in all these things. Maybe he understands that with a budget deficit of 10% of GDP, the second highest in the industrialized world, and a debt that will rise to almost 100% of GDP in a few years, we cannot cavalierly spend another few trillion dollars hoping that will jump-start the economy.



Perhaps he believes that while banks need better regulations, America also needs a vibrant banking system, and that in a globalized economy, constraining American banks will only ensure that the world's largest global financial institutions will be British, German, Swiss and Chinese.

He might understand that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are smart people who, in long careers in public service, got some things wrong but also got many things right. Perhaps he understands that getting entitlement costs under control is in fact a crucial part of stabilizing our fiscal situation, and that you do need both tax increases and spending cuts-cuts that are smaller than they appear because they all start with the 2010 budget, which was boosted by the stimulus.

Is all this dangerous weakness, incoherence and appeasement, or is it common sense?




View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Democracy Now, GPS, Youtube, Google Maps

Pawlenty Slams Bachmann's Poor Public Service Record & False Statements (2011 Ames Iowa Debate)

Tim Pawlenty keeps the heat on Michele Bachmann

Tim Pawlenty didn’t back off his new Minnesota mean tack Friday morning, doubling down on the criticisms of Michele Bachmann he lobbed during Thursday night’s presidential debate.

“She says, ‘I led the charge against Obamacare.’ Well, we ended up with Obamacare. ‘I led the charge against TARP;’ we ended up with TARP. ‘I led the charge against more government spending;’ we ended up with more government spending,” Pawlenty told POLITICO’s Mike Allen at a Playbook Breakfast in Des Moines.

“Everything she’s led the charge against, she failed to accomplish,” Pawlenty said. “Nobody’s questioning her spine, we’re questioning her lack of results.”

Pawlenty said that regardless of the fact that Bachmann is the only woman in the GOP field, it’s not about gender. It’s about the issues, results, and leading and saving our country.”

The exchange came just hours after Pawlenty and Bachmann engaged in their fiercest and most direct confrontations of the campaign so far, and a day before the critical Ames straw poll that could ultimately make or break Pawlenty’s candidacy.

Pawlenty’s more sharp-edged approach was a break from the June debate, when he awkwardly backed away from earlier criticisms of front-runner Mitt Romney. But Pawlenty said Friday that he’s just answering the questions asked of him.

“No matter which way you calibrate that, a bunch of people are upset one way or the other,” he said. “So you just gotta answer the question.”

He played down a joke he made during the debate that jabbed at Romney’s considerable wealth.

“I was just having some fun with that and pulling Mitt’s chain,” he said.

Pawlenty insisted there’s no personal bad blood between him and Romney.

“I like Mitt,” he said. “We don’t have any personal tension or animosity.”

Asked by POLITICO’s Jonathan Martin whether he’s prepared to slim down his campaign if Ames doesn’t go well and a state-by-state slog emerges, Pawlenty expressed confidence that he’ll make a strong showing at Ames but acknowledged that he may be forced to pare down his campaign if he doesn’t. “We may not have any choice if it went that way.”

“We’re seeing some nice movement in the numbers. I can’t tell you that we’re gonna win it tomorrow or that we need to win it,” he said. “I think it’ll be a good result.”

Pawlenty had harsh words for the so-called congressional super committee charged with finding more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction.

“I think it’s super stupid,” he said to laughter. “We have a Congress and we have a president, do your job.”

Pawlenty dodged several questions about what he thought would have happened if the debt ceiling hadn’t been lifted by the Aug. 2 deadline, but pressed repeatedly, he came down somewhere between the conservative debt-ceiling skeptics and economists who say it would have been disastrous.

“It probably would have been very negative for a while, but it’s very negative right now anyway,” he said.

Pawlenty said his news diet includes The Economist, USA Today while he’s on the road, the Star Tribune in Minnesota and clips from other outlets his campaign staff sends him. But his news consumption habits have changed of late: Pawlenty said he lost his iPad a couple weeks in San Francisco and still hasn’t bought a new one.


View Larger Map


Sources: Fox News, Newsweek, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

James Clyburn Selected For Super Committee: South Carolina's 2012 Game Changer

Last Three Democrats Named to Debt Committee>

Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, on Thursday announced her three appointees to the special Congressional committee tasked with finding ways to reduce federal budget deficits, as a Republican member of the newly formed panel expressed an openness to consider possible tax increases.

Ms. Pelosi’s choices complete the 12-member panel, which is evenly divided between the two parties and the two houses of Congress.

All three members named by Ms. Pelosi hold leading roles in the party: Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 House Democrat; Representative Xavier Becerra of California, vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus; and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

Ms. Pelosi said in a statement that the committee “has a golden opportunity to take its discussions to the higher ground of America’s greatness and its values.”

Created as part of the agreement to raise the federal debt ceiling, the panel is supposed to recommend ways to reduce federal budget deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If the panel fails to do so by its Nov. 23 deadline, or if its ideas are not enacted, the agreement calls for the government to automatically cut spending across the board.

If even a single panel member crosses party lines to provide a majority vote, the committee can forward its proposals to the floor of the House and the Senate for up-or-down votes without amendments.

One Republican member of the committee, Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, said Thursday that he would not rule out possible tax increases –- a central point of contention in the recent debt talks and something many economists contend will be a necessary element to any successful bipartisan proposal.

“I don’t want to rule anything in or out,” Mr. Camp told Reuters. “I am willing to discuss all issues that might help us reduce our short and long-term debt and grow our economy.”

“Everything is on the table, until we as a group rule it out,” he said.

Ms. Pelosi, in her statement, described Mr. Clyburn as a consensus builder with experience on the Appropriations Committee; Mr. Becerra as a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee who “placed the interests of America’s working families first”; and Mr. Van Hollen as a Democratic leader in the deficit-reduction talks led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The three Democratic members will join three House Republicans, Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Mr. Camp and Fred Upton, both of Michigan, on the committee. The Senate will be represented by three Republicans, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio, along with the Democrats Patty Murray of Washington, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Max Baucus of Montana.




Pelosi names three House Democrats to complete debt panel selection

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday appointed Reps. James Clyburn, Xavier Becerra and Chris Van Hollen to the special congressional committee on deficit reduction, completing selection of the 12-member bipartisan panel created under last week's debt ceiling agreement.

The three choices bring strong party voices from the House to the new "super committee" charged with crafting a plan to reduce the country's mounting deficits. They join three Senate Democrats -- Patty Murray, Max Baucus and John Kerry -- previously appointed to the committee, as well as six GOP fiscal conservatives from the House and Senate named by Republican leaders.

"We must achieve a 'grand bargain' that reduces the deficit by addressing our entire budget, while strengthening Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security," Pelosi said in a statement announcing her choices. "Our entire caucus will work closely with these three appointees toward this goal, which is the goal of the American people."

Clyburn, of South Carolina, is the No. 3 House Democrat, while Becerra, of California, is vice chairman of the House Democratic caucus. Van Hollen, of Maryland, is the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

In separate announcements Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner and chose Reps. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Dave Camp of Michigan and Fred Upton of Michigan as the House Republican picks, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell picked Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio.

All six Republicans are known for conservative stances on economic issues. Hensarling is the Republican Conference chairman and will be co-chair of the panel with Murray of Washington state, who was appointed Tuesday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"The debt crisis is a legitimate threat to our nation's future, and the American people cannot afford to wait any longer," Hensarling said in a statement after his appointment. "Everyone can agree that we must stop spending money we don't have, and the time to act is now."

He added that the committee "will not be able to solve the crisis in a matter of months, but we can work together to tackle these challenges in order to bring back jobs, hope and opportunity for the American people."

Toomey, despite his credentials of fiscal conservatism, noted Wednesday that he recently voted to eliminate the ethanol tax subsidy and believed there were other subsidies or loopholes that could be ended as part of broad tax reform. Many conservative Republicans oppose any moves that could increase tax revenue.

"The goal should be to broaden the base and lower rates so that we can create an environment that's more conducive to economic growth," he said.

The committee will follow up on negotiations that started last year with the bipartisan debt commission appointed by President Barack Obama, then continued in Congress, including work by the so-called Gang of Six senators -- three Democrats and three Republicans. Both the debt commission and the other group recommended comprehensive packages that included tax reform, changes to politically sensitive entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and spending cuts.

Obama will bring "very specific ideas about" how "the committee could come together in a balanced way to significantly reduce the deficit," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday.

Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who co-chaired Obama's debt commission, told CNN on Wednesday that the new special committee has plenty of information to work with and shouldn't need a lot of time for further collecting or analyzing of issues.

Committee members "don't need to sit around here and gather more information," Simpson said, adding that the actual negotiating is "going to be tough."

Among the GOP choices, Camp is the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, while Upton chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Upton has taken some moderate positions in the past, including attempts to decrease tax cuts in the George W. Bush administration that remain contentious today.

In a statement Wednesday, Upton said that "much more needs to be done to bring down health care costs, promote economic growth and begin to tame runaway government."

"No one believes this is going to be easy," he added.

On the Senate side, Kyl, the No. 2 Republican behind McConnell, is a staunch advocate for the military, which is targeted for deep spending cuts if the special committee fails to come up with an agreement that passes Congress by the end of the year.

Portman is a former White House budget director in the Bush administration with a reputation for working with Democrats. His fellow Ohio senator, Democrat Sherrod Brown, said Wednesday that Portman "has shown a willingness to find common ground by looking at both tax reform and spending cuts in order to reduce the deficit."

Toomey, elected to his first Senate term last year with the support of tea party conservatives, sits on the Senate Budget and Banking Committee. He told reporters Wednesday that he expected the special committee to begin its work soon, and that it would require Republicans working with Democrats to succeed.

"It has to be an exercise in finding common ground between Republicans and Democrats, but it also has to be constructive with respect to reducing our deficit and it has to be pro-growth as well," he said.

Reid went with veteran legislators including a former Democratic presidential candidate in Kerry, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman and the more moderate Baucus, who chairs the Finance Committee and has fought Republican efforts to privatize Social Security.

Reid named Murray, a war critic and champion of benefits for military veterans, the co-chair of the special committee.

In a joint statement after their appointments, the three Democratic senators said that Americans want the committee to operate without "the red-hot partisanship and brinkmanship of the last months."

"This is not going to be easy. Our challenge is to find common ground without damaging anyone's principles. We believe we can get there. This committee was designed to require bipartisanship, and we are going to work hard with our Republican colleagues to attain it," their statement said.

The committee will try to work out $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, after an initial round of more than $900 billion in spending cuts in the debt ceiling agreement. It is required to complete its work by November 23. Congress then has until December 23 to vote on the proposal, with no amendments permitted.

A simple majority on the panel -- seven of 12 members -- is needed to approve whatever package it comes up with, meaning that it will take a lone member of either party to push something through by voting with the other side. The committee's proposal would then need a simple majority in each chamber of Congress to make it to Obama's desk.

If the committee fails to reach agreement or Congress fails to pass whatever package it recommends, a trigger mechanism will enact further across-the-board cuts in government spending, including for the military.

Carney said Wednesday that Obama continued to call for a balanced approach that includes increased tax revenue, entitlement reforms and spending cuts.

"And we are not alone," Carney said. "The American people overwhelmingly support the balanced approach that the president supports."

According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday, 63% of respondents say the so-called super committee should recommend increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36% disagreeing. By a 57-40% margin, respondents say the committee's deficit reduction proposal should include major cuts in domestic spending.

However, further cuts in defense spending get a mixed review, with 47% favoring them and 53% opposed.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents oppose major changes to Social Security and Medicare, while nearly nine in 10 don't want any increase in taxes on middle-class and lower-income Americans.

Months of rancorous negotiations on deficit reduction have failed to resolve a fundamental dispute between Republicans and Democrats involving the size of government and whether to raise revenue while cutting spending. Obama is pushing for a comprehensive plan that includes spending cuts, increased tax revenue and entitlement reforms, while Republicans seek to shrink government by proposing spending cuts and entitlement reforms without increased revenue.

An impasse over the tax revenue issue led to the debt ceiling agreement, which imposed the initial round of spending cuts and set up the special committee to work out further deficit reduction. The agreement also enables the federal debt ceiling to be increased through 2012, allowing the government to borrow what it needs to meet its obligations.

The brinkmanship of the negotiations, with uncertainty over whether the government might default if no deal was reached, was one reason why Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+ on Friday.

One of the main Republican arguments against tax increases for the wealthy is that they would inhibit job creation. The poll results showed that only a third of respondents agree with that stance, while 62% say taxes on the wealthy should be high so the government can use the money for programs to help lower-income Americans.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International from Friday through Sunday, with 1,008 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey was conducted both before and after Friday night's announcement of the S&P downgrade. The poll's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, C-Span, Democracy Now, Fox News, LA Times, MSNBC, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Selects 6 Staunch, Anti-Tax Increase Members For Super Committe: Stalemate Guaranteed!

Republicans name fiscal conservatives to debt committee

Republican leaders on Wednesday named fiscal conservatives for their six picks for a new congressional "super" committee charged with crafting a plan to cut the country's deficit.

In separate announcements, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell filled out the GOP spots on the 12-member bipartisan panel created in last week's debt ceiling deal that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Boehner, R-Ohio, chose Reps. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Dave Camp of Michigan and Fred Upton of Michigan, while McConnell, R-Kentucky, picked Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio.

All six are known for conservative stances on economic issues. Hensarling is the Republican Conference chairman and will be co-chair of the so-called "super" committee with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, who was appointed Tuesday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"The debt crisis is a legitimate threat to our nation's future, and the American people cannot afford to wait any longer," Hensarling said in a statement after his appointment. "Everyone can agree that we must stop spending money we don't have, and the time to act is now."

He added that the committee "will not be able to solve the crisis in a matter of months, but we can work together to tackle these challenges in order to bring back jobs, hope, and opportunity for the American people."

The committee will follow up on negotiations that started last year with the bipartisan debt commission appointed by Obama, then continued in Congress including work by the so-called "Gang of Six" senators -- three Democrats and three Republicans. Both debt commission and the Gang of Six recommended comprehensive packages that included tax reform, changes to politically sensitive entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and spending cuts.

Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who co-chaired Obama's debt commission, told CNN on Wednesday that the new special committee has plenty of information to work with and shouldn't need a lot of time for further collecting or analyzing of issues.

Committee members "don't need to sit around here and gather more information," Simpson said, adding that the actual negotiating is "going to be tough."

Among the choices announced Wednesday, Camp is the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, while Upton chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Upton has taken some moderate positions in the past, including attempts to decrease tax cuts in the George W. Bush administration that remain contentious today.

In a statement Wednesday, Upton said "much more needs to be done to bring down health care costs, promote economic growth, and begin to tame runaway government."

"No one believes this is going to be easy," he added.

On the Senate side, Kyl is the No. 2 Republican behind McConnell, while Portman is a former White House budget director in the Bush administration. Toomey, who joined the Senate in January, sits on the Senate Budget and Banking committees. Kyl is a staunch advocate for the military, which is targeted for deep spending cuts if the special committee fails to come up with an agreement that passes Congress by the end of the year.

A day earlier, Reid appointed Murray, Max Baucus of Montana and John Kerry of Massachusetts with his three Senate Democrat picks.

In a joint statement after their appointments, the three Democratic senators said that Americans want the committee to operate without "the red hot partisanship and brinkmanship of the last months."

"This is not going to be easy. Our challenge is to find common ground without damaging anyone's principles. We believe we can get there. This committee was designed to require bipartisanship, and we are going to work hard with our Republican colleagues to attain it," their statement said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, has yet to announce her three House Democrat choices.

She has until August 16 to complete the committee that will have six Democrats and six Republicans, equally divided between the House and Senate.

The committee will try to work out $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, after an initial round of more than $900 billion in spending cuts in the debt ceiling agreement. It is required to complete its work by November 23, and Congress then has until December 23 to vote on the proposal, with no amendments permitted.

A simple majority on the panel -- seven of 12 members -- is needed to approve whatever package it comes up with, meaning that it will take a lone member of either party to push something through by voting with the other side. The committee's proposal would then need a simple majority in each chamber of Congress to make it to Obama's desk.

If the committee fails to reach agreement or Congress fails to pass whatever package it recommends, a trigger mechanism will enact further across-the-board cuts in government spending, including for the military.

According to a new CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday, 63% of respondents say the so-called "super committee" should recommend increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36% disagreeing. By a 57-40% margin, respondents say the committee's deficit reduction proposal should include major cuts in domestic spending.

However, further cuts in defense spending get a mixed review, with 47% favoring them and 53% opposed.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents oppose major changes to Social Security and Medicare, while nearly nine in 10 don't want any increase in taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans.

Months of rancorous negotiations on deficit reduction have failed to resolve a fundamental dispute between Republicans and Democrats involving the size of government and whether to raise revenue while cutting spending. Obama is pushing for a comprehensive plan that included spending cuts, increased tax revenue and entitlement reforms, while Republicans seek to shrink government by proposing spending cuts and entitlement reforms without increased revenue.

An impasse over the tax revenue issue led to the debt ceiling agreement, which imposed the initial round of spending cuts and set up the special committee to work out further deficit reduction. The agreement also enables the federal debt ceiling to be increased through 2012, allowing the government to borrow what it needs to meet its obligations.

The brinkmanship of the negotiations, with uncertainty over whether the government might default if no deal was reached, was one reason why Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+ on Friday.

One of the main Republican arguments against tax increases on the wealthy is that they would inhibit job creation. The poll results showed that only a third of respondents agree with that stance, while 62% say taxes on the wealthy should be high so the government can use the money for programs to help lower-income Americans.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International from August 5-7, with 1,008 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey was conducted both before and after Friday night's announcement of the S&P downgrade. The poll's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In announcing his choices for the special committee, Reid said in a statement that Murray would be a co-chair.

"As the events of the past week have made clear, the world is watching the work of this committee," Reid's statement said.

Late Tuesday, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus slammed Reid's choice of Murray and asked the Senate leader to withdraw her appointment.

"Harry Reid's appointment of Patty Murray to co-chair the Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is absolute proof that Democrats are not serious about deficit reduction," Priebus said in a statement. "As chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Murray is the Senate Democrats' fundraiser-in-chief. The Select Committee is no place for someone whose top priority is fundraising and politics."


View Larger Map

Sources: ABC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps