MITCH MCCONNELLSAYS THE UNTHINKABLE

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and appointed with the advice and consent of the National Rifle Association, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 

McConnell offered this unusual view of the confirmation process during an interview with Fox News Sunday. In response to a question from host Chris Wallace, who asked if Senate Republicans would consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court after the election if Hillary Clinton prevails, McConnell responded that he “can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses.”

The Majority Leader’s statement is significant for several reasons. For one thing, it suggests that his previously stated position that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” is a sham. Simply put, it’s unlikely that the NRA or the NFIB will change their position on a nominee just because Hillary Clinton is president and not Barack Obama.

But it’s also worth examining exactly who McConnell would give a veto power over nominees. The NFIB, of course, was a plaintiff in NFIB v. Sebelius, the first Supreme Court case seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That lawsuit called upon the justices to impose limits on federal power that even the late Justice Antonin Scalia refused to impose in previous cases (although it’s worth noting that Scalia abandoned his previous principled stance when given the opportunity to cast a vote against Obamacare). When the NFIB isn’t fighting to take health care away from millions of Americans, it fights equally hard against raising the minimum wage.

The NRA, meanwhile, is known for its increasingly absolutist opposition to gun safety laws. Though Garland’s record on guns is fairly thin, the NRA opposes Garland’s nomination based on two cases he considered as a judge.

In the first of these two cases, Parker v. District of Columbia, Garland played a very limited role. InParker, two conservative members of a three judge panel struck down the District of Columbia’s strict handgun laws, over the dissent of another conservative, George H.W. Bush appointee Judge Karen Henderson. The District then asked the full appeals court to reconsider this decision in a process known as en banc review. Garland was one of four judges who voted to rehear the case, as was Judge A. Raymond Randolph, an extraordinarily conservative H.W. Bush appointee.

A 5-4 Supreme Court eventually agreed with the three-judge panel in District of Columbia v. Heller, the first decision in American history to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

The second case cited by the NRA is National Rifle Association v. Reno, where Garland joined a decision by Judge David Tatel upholding a database the FBI uses to audit the background check system used to screen potential firearm buyers. The FBI retained information regarding individuals who sought to purchase firearms for six months after they attempted to make this purchase, and used this information to perform “quality control checks on the [background check] system’s operation by reviewing the accuracy of the responses given by the NICS record examiners to gun dealers,” among other things.

After six months, information in this database was destroyed. Nevertheless, the NRA claimed that the FBI was required to destroy this information much sooner.

Judge Tatel’s opinion rejecting the NRA’s argument relies on several interlocking provisions of federal law, as well as longstanding Supreme Court doctrines calling for deference to federal agencies, so it is not easily summarized in just a few paragraphs. You can read his opinion and assess his reasoning here. It’s worth noting, however, that NRA v. Reno is a classic case of gun groups seeking to win a victory in the courts that they repeatedly lost in Congress.

A provision of federal law requires the government to “destroy all records . . . relating to the person” who seeks to purchase a firearm — something the FBI did after six months — but does not order the government to do so within a specific time frame. As Judge Tatel notes in the opinion joined by Garland, members of Congress attempted multiple times to change this law to require the government to “immediately” destroy records produced by the background check system, and these efforts repeatedly failed. Thus, having failed to write the word “immediately” into the statute, the NRA asked the courts to do it for them. Tatel and Garland refused to take up this invitation.

So McConnell isn’t simply delegating his duty to evaluate potential Supreme Court nominees to the NRA, he’s deferring to the NRA despite the fact that the gun lobby group’s case against Garland is very thin. It consists of Garland’s single vote to rehear a case that one of his court’s most conservative members also voted to rehear, along with a decision to allow the FBI to continue to perform audits on the background check system after lawmakers sympathetic to the NRA tried and failed to shut those audits down.

[Cross posted from thinkprogress]




NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief
Roger West

SO MUCH FOR A HARVARD LAW DEGREE

TEHRAN TOM, TODAY'S DUMBASS OF THE DAY

Sen. Tom Cotton stood by his decision Sunday to send a letter on a burgeoning nuclear deal directly to Iranian leaders. He insisted on Face the Nation that “Iran’s leaders need to hear the message loud and clear” that an Obama-brokered deal might not last past the end of his administration without congressional approval, despite a stern letter from the White House Sunday night urging senators to hold off on congressional intervention.

But when asked by Face the Nation’s Bob Schieffer what better outcome Cotton expects if a White House-led deal falls through, Cotton seemed to make a key geographic mistake, suggesting that Tehran, the capital of Iran, might be controlled by anyone other than Iranian leaders:

Schieffer: What do you want to happen here? What is your alternative here? Let’s say that the deal falls through, then what?

Cotton: Well as Prime Minister Netanyahu said, the alternative to a bad deal is a better deal. The Iranians frequently bluff to walk away from the table. if they bluff this week, call their bluff. The Congress stands ready to impose much more severe sanctions. Moreover we have to stand up to Iran’s attempts to drive for regional dominance. They already control Tehran increasingly they control Damascus and Beirut and Baghdad and now Sana’a as well. They do all that without a nuclear weapon. imagine what they would do with a nuclear weapon.

Schieffer went on to ask Cotton whether he had any regrets at all about the letter. So he didn’t clarify with Cotton what he meant by his comment that Iran has “control” of its own capital.

But several on Twitter noticed the gaffe and questioned Cotton’s Harvard credentials[See photo above].

Cotton was the lead author of the letter by 47 senators that key officials have since called unprecedented, embarrassing, and dangerous for asserting their concerns over U.S. leaders’ handling of the nuclear deal directly to the Iranian government.

Critics questioned how Cotton, a freshman senator and the youngest in the Senate, came to persuade 46 of his colleagues into such a politically risky effort. Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson has pointed out that the letter was sent quickly without even the vetting of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, who was one of seven Senate Republicans not to sign the letter. And Sen. John McCain , who did sign the letter, said senators rushed to sign it without considering the blowback because of an impending snowstorm.

Legal experts quickly poked holes in his description of the constitutional requirements for treaties.

Cotton and several others including Sen. Mitch McConnell stood by the letter on Sunday show appearances. But at least a few letter-signers have expressed some regret over the past few days for sending their message to Iranian officials rather than another less hostile audience.

Call me paranoid, but I have a different concern: since, for instance, both Cotton and Cruz have degrees from Harvard, I have to assume that they are capable of graduating from Harvard. This is no mean feat. Why am I worried? Because they behave in ways that give lie to this fact. To be so harsh, insensitive and calculating, is beyond most humans comprehension. They are truly Machiavellian.


[H/t thinkprogess]

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

Democalypse 2014 - The Battle Hymn of the Republicans

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

ZOMBIE LIES

Bill Maher asks why the liars club, [NECONS about Obamacare] why they have not been held accountable for their bullshit.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

AS ONLY MITCH MCCONNELL CAN

MITCH "THE TURTLE" MCCONNELL

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch "The Turtle" McConnell honored Equal Pay Day — a day that symbolizes the amount of time it takes women to earn what men make in a year — by accusing Democrats and President Obama of a “never-ending political road show” that merely blows “a few kisses” to their voter base.

“Instead of focusing on jobs, he launched into another confusing attack on the left’s latest bizarre obsession,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “Just think about that. The percentage of Americans in the workforce is at an almost four-decade low, and Democrats chose to ignore serious job-creation ideas so they could blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left.”

McConnell argued the fact that women still earn 77 percent of what men make should take a backseat to more serious Republican priorities. These priorities typically include building Keystone XL pipeline and repealing Obamacare (which Republicans have attempted more than 50 times).

Leading up to Democrats’ latest push for equal pay, Republicans have claimed that the gender wage gap is a “myth” and that it is “condescending” to discuss. But the reality is that women still earn less even when they achieve the same education and job level, with gender discrimination accounting for as much as much as 40 percent of their pay gap.

In the past, McConnell’s voting record against women has not stopped him from taking credit anyway. He once touted the Violence Against Women Act to women voters, although he opposed it in both 1993 and 2012. McConnell has also opposed both the Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. And the very health care law that McConnell wants to repeal prevents insurance companies from charging women more and ensures contraception coverage.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

THE MENTALITY OF THE TURTLE

Despite agreeing to a budget this month, it seems Congressional Republicans are not yet done holding the economic fate of the country hostage in order to pass aspects of its agenda. In an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told host Chris Wallace that it would be “irresponsible” for Republicans not to try to add amendments to a bill raising the debt ceiling, which they may need to pass as early late February. Failure to pass a debt ceiling increase would be catastrophic for the economy, forcing the country to default on its obligations:

WALLACE: So are you saying right here, “We are going to attach something to the debt ceiling”? And if so, what? 

MCCONNELL: What I’m saying is we ought to attach something significant for the country to [President Obama's] request to increase the debt ceiling. That’s been the pattern for 50 years, going back to the Eisenhower administration. I think it’s the responsible thing to do for the country. 

We’re never going to default — the Speaker and I have made that clear. We’ve never done that. But, it’s irresponsible not to use the discussion — the request of the President to raise the debt ceiling — to try to accomplish something for the country.

THE TURTLE





Asked for a “good example” of what Republicans could demand in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, McConnell cited the Keystone XL pipeline because it would “create jobs.” In truth, though the project would create nearly 4,000 temporary construction jobs, it would ultimately only create 35 permanent jobs, resulting in “negligible socioeconomic impacts." Upgrading existing pipelines instead would both create more jobs and help protect the country’s drinking water supply from contamination from leaks.

Since 2011 — motivated in part by the growing influence of the Tea Party — Republicans have viewed the debt ceiling as what McConnell called “a hostage worth ransoming.” It was because of that very brinkmanship that Standard & Poor’s lowered the country’s credit rating, which cost taxpayers $19 billion and lost the country over a million jobs.

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

THE TURTLE NEVER BATS AN EYE AS HE HONES HIS HOSTAGE TAKING SKILLS

MITCH "THE TURTLE" MCCONNELL

As Congress is attempting to negotiate a deal to extend unemployment benefits to the 1.3 million Americans who lost them at the end of December, Senate Minority Leader Mitch "the turtle" McConnell is seizing the opportunity to refocus attention on Obamacare. On the Senate floor on Tuesday, McConnell suggested that Democrats should agree to a one-year delay in Obamacare’s individual mandate in order to offset the cost of reinstating unemployment benefits for one year.

“I’d like to propose that… my side be allowed to offer an amendment to pay for these benefits by lifting the burden of Obamacare’s individual mandate for one year, and take care of our veterans who were harmed by the recently agreed to budget deal while we are at it, in the same amendment,” the Kentucky lawmaker said.

The GOP has repeatedly pushed to delay Obamacare’s individual mandate, a proposal that would ultimately increase the number of uninsured Americans and raise premiums in the individual market. Health policy experts agree that it’s too late to make such a major change to the structure of the health reform law, since the individual mandate — which incentives people to purchase health care — is a central component of Obamacare. On January 1, the health law’s coverage expansion officially took effect.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that delaying this Obamacare provision could saving the U.S. $35 billion over the next 10 years. But that’s because it would prevent millions of low-income people from accessing Medicaid coverage, so fewer taxpayer dollars would be spent on extending health care to that population.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid has already rejected McConnell’s request.

Quickly reaching a deal on unemployment benefits, rather than haggling over proposals to attack the health law, could actually end up benefiting the economy. In the week immediately following Congress’ failure to extend unemployment benefits, states lost out on $400 million. According to the CBO, if these federal benefits aren't restored, the U.S. could lose about 200,000 jobs this year due to reduced consumer spending.

If this Einstein and his band of tin foil hat society members had not held us hostage last year to the tune of 24 billion dollars, maybe helping those in need wouldn't be such a problem. The turtle is happy to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the needy, the unemployed, and especially the middle class - anybody except for the filthy rich.

Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor. The turtle believes in stealing from the poor to give to the poor.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

AMERICAN TALIBAN PLAYS A GAME OF CHESS, AND YOU ARE THE PAWN

There's always something special about hot-mic incidents. Most political figures, by the time they've risen to a certain level of prominence, tend to be guarded, scripted, and careful to stay on-message. When there's a live microphone picking up their unvarnished comments, it offers the rest of us a peek behind the curtain.

A local Kentucky TV news station caught Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul Wednesday morning discussing some congressional Republican messaging strategy regarding the showdown with Democrats over the government shutdown.

Senator McConnell and Senator Paul show how the teahadists are playing a game with the American people, their lives, and the economy. To them it is just a matter of poll testing phrases, not governing honestly.

LOOSE LIPS SINKS SHIPS

"I just did CNN and I just go over and over again 'We're willing to compromise. We're willing to negotiate," Paul is seen on-camera telling McConnell, who is standing by for his own interview remote from D.C. "I don't think they (Democrats) poll tested 'we won't negotiate.' I think it's awful for them to say that over and over again." 

"Yeah, I do too and I — and I just came back from that two hour meeting with them and that, and that was basically the same view privately as it was publicly," McConnell said back. 

Paul continued, saying he believed Republicans are in a good position. "I think if we keep saying, 'We wanted to defund it (Obamacare), we fought for that' and that we're willing to compromise on this, I think... We're gonna win this, I think."

For their part, Democrats and President Barack Obama have maintained that any deal to end the current federal government shutdown cannot include any defunding or delaying of the implementation of "Obamacare."

The American Taliban is saying something publicly that they don’t believe privately. Publicly, the domestic terrorists are talking tough. Privately, they are desperate for a way out of the shutdown that allows them to claim some little symbolic or token victory.

Take the quote from [asshat] Congressman Marlin Stutzman, R-IN who said, “We’re not going to be disrespected… We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

Rand Paul is delusional if he thinks that the domestic terrorists are going to win this. They've already lost. The only things left to be determined are the size of the loss, and whether or not this will cost them control of the House in 2014.

Rand Paul basically admitted that the teahadists tough talk is empty. This open mic faux pas is the smoking gun needed to - to put the last nail in the coffin of these terrorists.

This is a figment of American politics circa 2013. It is incredibly convoluted beyond redemption. Facts don't seem to impress these domestic terrorists. Beliefs become so ingrained they turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Teahadists want to perpetuate this because it serves their purpose to control and dominate the ignorant that is their base and their districts. [See yesterdays blog on gerrymandering]

When you think about this, it all makes perfect sense, when you realize that the billionaire financiers that fund the tin foil hat society - that they aren't really interested in defunding the ACA. It's really just a straw man exercise.

Their goal is to render the federal government impotent - unable to prevent them from enacting their own radical agenda, which is the complete privatization of all functions of government.

This current government shutdown, the debt ceiling from last year, the sequester this, and the upcoming debt ceiling fight are all designed to cast government as dysfunctional, and detrimental to the country as a whole. Their hope is to get the citizenry so exasperated with bullshit of dysfunctional government, that most people would welcome the right wing nut jobs paradigm shift, even if it means turning control of basic government function over to the faction that is the teahadists/American Taliban/US Domestic Terrorists.

Congratulations US GOP Domestic Terrorists: The Osama Bin Laden Foundation has announced that you've been chosen as winner of this year's Destroy America Award.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

MITCH "THE TURTLE" MCCONNELL THINKS WOMEN ARE STUPID

A press release distributed by Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) campaign at a “Women for Team Mitch” event on Friday brags about the Senate Minority Leader’s support for the Violence Against Women Act, even though McConnell voted against the measure in 1994, 2012, and 2013.

“Mitch was the co-sponsor of the original Violence Against Women Act — and continues to advocate for stronger polices to protect women. I am proud to call him my senator,” the document quotes a voter as saying.

Joe Sonka, a staff writer for Louisville’s Alt-Weekly first tweeted a copy of the release, hinting at the contradiction and noting that McConnell didn't address women’s issues at the event or take any questions from women. Former Congresswoman Anne Northup, a spokesperson for the campaign, also told Sonka that McConnell supported bills like the Lilly Ledbetter Act and Paycheck Fairness Act — both of which McConnell voted against — “make the workplace more difficult for women.”

McConnell has embellished often on his voting record in the past, insisting that he voted against VAWA because he sought a stronger version. During the event, McConnell’s wife, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, also claimed that her husband supports increasing cancer screenings and check-ups for women, even though he is campaigning on repealing the Affordable Care Act, which specifically increases women’s access to preventive medicine.

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, SCREWING THE USA SINCE 1980

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, SCREWING THE USA SINCE 1980

CAUTION ADULT LANGUAGE


Video Courtesy of Veracity Stew:





If you are offended by this video, yet not offended by what the American Taliban is doing to this country, you  need to open your eyes and look beyond Fox News.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

MITCH "TURTLE" MCCONNEL, NO KENTUCKY GENTLEMAN

MITCH "TURTLE" MCCONNELL, TODAY'S WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD

To often is the case, that we find - that there is no pale beyond the GOP. Mitch McConnell is another tea bagger that can be added to this list!

On February 2, Mitch McConnell, the teapublican leader in the US Senate, opened up his 2014 reelection campaign headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky, and in front of several dozen supporters vowed to "point out" the weaknesses of any opponent fielded by the Democrats. "They want to fight? We're ready," he declared. McConnell was serious:

Later that day, he was huddling with aides in a private meeting to discuss how to attack his possible Democratic foes, including actor/activist Ashley Judd, who was then contemplating challenging the minority leader. During this strategy session—a recording of which was obtained by Mother Jones—McConnell and his aides considered assaulting Judd for her past struggles with depression and for her religious views.

I was thinking, don’t you hate that awkward moment when you turn on CSPAN-2 and you can’t tell if you’re watching the Senate minority leader or a sea turtle? We know the feeling.

We first noticed the similarities while witnessing Sen. Mitch McConnell stick his neck out in the Senate. We’re just going to be blunt about this: the guy looks like a turtle.

Let's be real readers, mental instability is a prerequisite for the American Taliban. Mitch "turtle" [aptly named turtle for his unique resemblance to a turtle] McConnell is as deviant as they come. The turtle has never won a legitimate race without demolishing his opponent and is accustomed to the nasty politics of the rabid right! 

As for mental health care, at least Judd got some help - something the turtle never has done [but in much need of the services]. The turtle is a self-loathing GOP troll - and these type of GOPers are the most vicious and destructive people to ever hold office in our country.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.

Obama, however, continued to insist on Republicans first ensuring no tax hike for anyone but the top 2% of Americans as a first step toward a broader agreement on tackling the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt.

The statements reflected how negotiations on the automatic spending cuts and tax hikes set to occur on January 1 -- the fiscal cliff -- have evolved since Obama's re-election last month.



Republicans once opposed to any new revenue in their quest to shrink government now realize Obama's victory and public support for the president's campaign theme of higher taxes on the wealthy leave them with little negotiating leverage.

Less than four weeks from the fiscal cliff, GOP leaders face a choice: Agreeing to Obama's demand to hold down tax rates on most Americans while allowing higher rates on top earners, or being blamed for everyone's taxes going up in 2013.

The major unresolved question of negotiations involving the White House and congressional leaders is whether eliminating tax deductions and loopholes -- as proposed by House Republicans -- can raise enough revenue without hitting middle-class Americans too hard.

"We have got to cut spending and I believe it is appropriate to put revenues on the table," Boehner told reporters on Wednesday. "Now, the revenues that we are putting on the table are going to come from guess who? The rich."

He continued by saying "there are ways to limit deductions, close loopholes and have the same people pay more of their money to the federal government without raising tax rates, which we believe will harm our economy."

In remarks to business leaders on Wednesday, Obama said Boehner and Republicans have to take the first step.

"I think there is recognition that maybe they can accept some rate increases as long as it is combined with serious entitlement reform and additional spending cuts," the president said. "And if we can get the leadership on the Republican side to take that framework, to acknowledge that reality, then the numbers actually aren't that far apart."

He added that "we can probably solve this in about a week -- it's not that tough."

At the same time, Obama rejected tying the negotiations to the need to raise the federal debt ceiling, like the brinksmanship last year that led to an unprecedented downgrade in the U.S. credit rating.

Boehner has said a debt ceiling increase would require an equal amount of spending cuts or other deficit reduction.

"If Congress, in any way, suggests that they are going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes and take us to the brink of default once again as part of a budget negotiation, which by the way we have never done in our history until we did it last year, I will not play that game," Obama said. "Because we've got to break that habit before it starts."

Economists warn that the fiscal cliff's automatic tax hikes and spending cuts would invite recession.

Polls show that more Americans will blame Republicans, instead of Obama and Democrats, if there is no deal and the nation goes over the fiscal cliff.

A Washington Post/Pew Research Center survey released Tuesday put the margin at 53%-27% in citing Republicans or Obama. A CNN/ORC International poll released last week showed 45% would blame congressional Republicans compared to 34% who would hold Obama responsible.

Republican Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho acknowledged Wednesday that his side was losing the messaging battle.

"We continue to talk about tax rate increases instead of how tax rate increases actually affect individuals," Labrador said, adding: "We're identified as a party that only cares about business. We should care about individuals."

All signs point to a continuing standoff, at least for now. No formal negotiating sessions are known to be scheduled, and congressional aides say no back-channel discussions are taking place.

The House is scheduled to adjourn for the year on December 14, but House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Wednesday the chamber would remain in session until a fiscal cliff deal gets reached.

Boehner and other Republican leaders implored through the media for Obama to talk to them about the deficit-reduction plan they offered earlier this week, which the White House rejected as unrealistic.

Asked about Congress scheduling no further business this week with GOP members going home, Boehner said: "I'll be here and I'll be available at any moment to sit down with the president to get serious about solving this problem

Rep. Kevin McCarthy added a dramatic flair, calling the next 72 hours "critical" for the negotiations.

If Obama "sits back and continue to play politics, that'll give your answer of where we're going," he said, calling the moment "an opportunity for the president to lead."

At issue are competing proposals by Obama and House Republicans that coincide in some areas but differ on the tax-rate question.

Obama demands that the House immediately pass a measure already approved by the Senate to extend tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year while allowing rates to return to higher Clinton-era levels for wealthier households.

Both sides agree that the 98% of Americans making less than $250,000 a year should avoid a tax hike when the tax cuts from the Bush administration expire on December 31, Obama and Democrats argue. They call for the House to guarantee that outcome by passing the Senate measure now.

Once that happens, Obama and Democratic leaders promise, they will work out compromises on other deficit reduction steps sought by Republicans, such as reforms to the Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs as part of further spending cuts.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV aired on Tuesday, Obama said Republicans need to accept the reality that deficit reduction requires higher tax rates on the wealthy.

"The issue right now, that is relevant, is the acknowledgment that if we're going to raise revenues that are sufficient to balance with the very tough cuts that we have already made and the future reforms in entitlements that I'm prepared to make, then we are going to have to see the rates on the top 2% go up, " the president said. "We will not be able to get a deal without it."

At the same time, Obama said negotiations next year on broader tax reform could bring lower rates.

House Republicans led by Boehner made a major proposal on Monday by offering a series of steps to reduce the nation's chronic federal deficits by $2.2 trillion over 10 years.

The GOP proposal includes $800 billion from tax reform, $600 billion from Medicare reforms and other health savings and $600 billion in other spending cuts, House Republican leadership aides said. It also pledges $200 billion in savings by revising the consumer price index, a measure of inflation.

While the Republicans gave ground by calling for more revenue through tax reform, the plan only mentioned unspecified elimination of some deductions and loopholes.

At the same time, they rejected the Democratic call for higher tax rates on wealthier Americans, contending the move would inhibit economic growth by raising taxes on small business owners, many of whom declare business profits on their personal income tax returns.

The White House and Democratic leaders immediately rejected the Republican approach, saying it lacked specifics and would require middle-class taxpayers to assume a greater burden while easing rates on the rich.

Jason Furman, an assistant to Obama on economic policy, told reporters Wednesday that the president wants to ensure additional revenue from higher taxes on the wealthy now to help avoid the fiscal cliff. He described the Republican proposal for more revenue as lacking specifics.

"Tell us what it is. Show us a score," Furman said. "Tell us how it locks in revenue because you're trying to actually pass a bill this year, not engage in some long process around tax reform, which we don't have time to do by the end of this year. "

On Tuesday, leading conservatives blasted the House Republican proposal that breaks with years of GOP orthodoxy by calling for more taxes to be paid by wealthier Americans.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, said the "offer of an $800 billion tax hike will destroy jobs and allow politicians in Washington to spend even more." Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said it would be "a huge mistake to raise taxes. It will cripple the economy."

However, some top Senate Republicans -- many of them conservatives -- withheld harsh criticism of the plan even as they refused to embrace it.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell sidestepped the question when asked directly if he backed the plan.

"I commend the House Republican leadership for trying to move the process along and getting to a point where, hopefully, we can have a real discussion," McConnell said.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, a senior Republican on the Finance Committee, said he would support Boehner's plan to raise revenue, but only if there is a "willingness on the part of Democrats to accept spending cuts that are three-to-one or four-to-one."

The current negotiations take place amid the lame-duck session of Congress before the newly elected legislators arrive in January. Possible outcomes include an agreement now to avoid the fiscal cliff and devise a framework for further negotiations in the new Congress on a broader deficit reduction deal.

While the White House has made clear Obama will veto any measure that fails to increase tax rates on the wealthy, aides have signaled a possible willingness to negotiate the specific rate increase.

Asked repeatedly Tuesday about whether Obama insisted on a return to the 1990s rates on income over $250,000 for families or $200,000 for individuals, White House spokesman Jay Carney responded by saying the president would refuse to sign any measure extending the current lower rates.

In the interview with Bloomberg TV, Obama said lower tax rates for the wealthy could be negotiated as part of broader tax reform in 2013, but only after those rates increase now.

Obama's deficit-reduction plan would increase taxes by almost $1 trillion over 10 years, a significant portion of a $4 trillion overall deficit-reduction goal.

It also would close loopholes, limit deductions, raise the estate tax rate to 2009 levels and increases tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

The Obama plan includes $50 billion in stimulus spending for programs intended to create jobs, such as repairing roads and bridges.

Experts have said failing to reach a fiscal cliff deal and devise a framework for a broader deficit reduction package to be negotiated when the new Congress is seated in January will cause economic turmoil.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that middle-class families would pay about $2,000 a year more in taxes without action.

For now, the debate has the business community perplexed, said Fred Smith, the chief executive officer of FedEx Corp., considered a bellwether on the economy.

Smith told CNN Tuesday that he and other top business leaders "look at the situation in Washington with complete amazement and dismay."

"The problem is the ideological pinnings on both sides of this argument are so difficult to bridge," Smith said, adding it will "be hard for them to get a deal."

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West