As Steve Benen did such a wonderful job of explaining in his post this Monday, Republicans continually claim to be the anti-tax party, but that label should come with an asterisk, because they really don't mind raising taxes on the poor. Those moochers had better get "some skin in the game" or else.

Case in point, one Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.) who apparently decided that Mitt Romney didn't piss off quite enough Americans during the last election with his 47 percent remarks.

When Republicans endorse tax increases:

But as those who watch Republican politics closely know, the anti-tax rule needs an asterisk. The party hates tax increases with every fiber of its being, unless you're poor. Luke Johnson flagged this quote from Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.).

"You know, folks mock Mitt Romney for what he said, but he's right. Forty-seven percent of American citizens pay zero in income taxes. It's just true," Woodall said, according to remarks recorded by Georgia Fair Share. [...]

"In fact, the bottom 30% of American citizens profit from the tax code because they're getting refundable tax credits back," Woodall says in the video. "I don't care if you're paying a dollar. You need to believe that you are involved in the process, and you need to have skin in the game."

There are a couple of relevant angles to this. First, Romney's "47 percent" thesis wasn't just the percentage of Americans who don't pay income taxes; it was also about characterizing nearly half the country, including seniors and veterans, as lazy parasites.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (216)

PLAYS: (1582)

Embed

As Chris Hayes noted at the end of his segment above, "Welcome, America, to the new Republican party." Which of course is exactly the same as the old Republican party before their ridiculous rebranding effort. This is the third time they've introduced legislation like this, only to have it fail time and again. Maybe they're hoping the third time's the charm.

Overtime pay vs. comp time: Will House bill benefit workers or their bosses?

On Thursday morning, the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing regarding the innocuously titled Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013, which would allow workers to choose between receiving overtime pay or additional time off in exchange for extra hours on the job. While supporters of the legislation say it would give employees the freedom to decide on their own how to use their overtime, critics argue that the power would really be in the hands of the boss.

“This legislation is based on smoke and mirrors,” said National Partnership for Women and Families senior adviser Judith Lichtman in her testimony before the committee. “It pretends to offer the time off people need, when they need it, but in fact, it is a pay cut for workers without any attendant guarantee of time.”

Speaking to MSNBC.com later that day, she described the legislation as an “Employers Flexibility Bill.”

“It’s the employer that gets to decide when and under what circumstances you can take this comp time,” she said. She also expressed concern that employers could pressure employees into taking comp time rather than pay. These employers could then also decide who to give overtime hours on the basis of who they would have to grant overtime pay or comp time.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (127)

PLAYS: (446)

Embed

From this Sunday's Meet the Press, despite all of his rhetoric attempting to help the Republican party with their so-called rebranding effort, Eric Cantor didn't do a very good job of hiding just who his party is looking out for, and it sure as hell isn't the average worker out there: Cantor: We Can’t Raise Taxes ‘Every Three Months’:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said Sunday that he does not support bringing in new revenue by closing tax loopholes in order to avoid sequestration, during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"We can't be raising taxes every three months in this town," Cantor said, referring to the tax increases that went into effect in early January.

Cantor added that he doesn't want the sequester to go into effect and said it's up to President Obama to make a move now on avoiding it.

Politicususa has more on Cantor's interview here: Eric Cantor Embarrasses Himself Playing Sequester Blame Game and here: Hypocrisy Alert: Eric Cantor Added $3.4 Trillion to Debt But Blames Obama for His Debt. NBC has the full transcript up here, but for this segment, I think I prefer the Bobblespeak version.

Meet The Press - February 10, 2012 :

Gregory: the sequester automatic
spending cuts could happen in a
few days and would cripple
Virginia's economy

Audience: yes Virginia there
is a Sequester Clause

Cantor: these are horrible
indiscriminate cuts I supported

Gregory: so why can't you make
a deal with Obama?

Cantor: because Obama wants to raise taxes

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (87)

PLAYS: (510)

Embed

On this Sunday's Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor if he was shifting his stance on immigration and the Dream Act after he said this at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute:

In a wide-ranging speech at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, Cantor said that when it comes to immigration reform, "A good place to start is with the kids."

"One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents," he said. " It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children and who know no other home."

When David Gregory tried to pin him down about whether he would actually be supportive of the Dream Act which would create a path to citizenship for these children, Cantor refused to answer him and claimed he didn't know what the Dream Act was. And despite the fact that Gregory pressed him for a yes or no answer specifically on the path to citizenship, Gregory eventually allowed Cantor to get away with punting on the question and moved on to the next topic.

CANTOR: David, it's been over ten years now where this problem has not been dealt with and we've been unable to find any common ground and what I said this week at the American Enterprise Institute was that I thought the best way to start was with children. […]

GREGORY: So you would support the Dream Act?

CANTOR: I have put out a proposal. I don't know what the Dream Act at this point is. What I say is we've got a place, I think all of us can come together and that is for the kids. Now...

GREGORY: Can you bring conservatives along to supporting a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are here without having to first leave the country?

CANTOR: There is a lot of movement right now in the House and the Senate and both sides of the aisle, with both having a lot of different ideas. I think...

GREGORY: But yes or no to that question, because you could really do it if you went all in, you could bring along the right in the House, couldn't you?

CANTOR: I think that a good place to start is with children and listen, we've got some... look, here's the difficulty in this issue I think, and it is because we've got families that are here that become part of the fabric of our country, right? And we want to make sure that we're compassionate and sensitive to their plight, I mean, these kids know no other place as home. On the other hand, we are a country of laws. You know, we have a situation with the border security that we've got to get straight. We have to secure our borders and there is this balance that needs to take place. But the best place to begin I think is with the children. Let's go ahead and get that under our belt, put a win on the board and so we can promise a better life for those kids who are here due to no fault of their own.

Sounds like a lot of weasel words to me. As Think Progress noted, Rep. Raul Labrador has proposed legislation that would create a permanent underclass of undocumented immigrants. Who want to take dibs that his legislation is what we'll see Cantor and his fellow House members end up supporting? I don't think we'll ever see Republicans support a path to citizenship, because allowing these immigrants to become citizens means allowing them to vote and we all know they don't want that. Right now their so-called "rebranding" effort just looks like smearing a whole lot of lipstick on the same old pig.

DOWNLOADS: (141)

PLAYS: (1109)

Embed

Someone needs to explain the definition of insanity to Bloody Bill Kristol. During a discussion on Fox' Special Report With Bret Baier, Kristol was asked about the Republicans and their recent efforts to "rebrand" the party, and it seems Kristol believes if they just start obstructing President Obama again and vote for things like repealing "Obamacare," they won't have to worry about how they look!

Of course, no one on the panel pointed out to him that that is exactly what they've been doing already for the last four years and it hasn't gone so well. Not that what the others want to do -- keep the same policies but just try to make them sound more palatable to the public -- is going to work, either.

And note to Kristol: Your party doesn't care about doing anything to improve access to health care, making it more affordable or regulating the banks. We don't need to hear their words or yours to know that. All we have to do is look at their voting records to see what their priorities are. The notion that the GOP has any alternatives to fixing anything that is not more of the same is laughable.

Here's more from Real Clear Politics: Kristol: GOP Should Worry Less About Looks; Act On Conservative Principles:

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: If I hear another politician talking about rebranding the party or changing the image, why don't they just advance policies? Republicans control the House of Representatives, right? They very much dislike Obamacare. Fine, pass a bill repealing Obamacare or delaying it and then pass a replacement. It's not going to pass the Senate, President Obama's not going to sign it, but it will show how Republican policies help.

Republicans dislike the financial regulations in Dodd-Frank, pass different regulations that help community banks. If you can't pass the whole thing, pass bite-sized pieces of legislation that would help the country. I mean, I really think they should talk less about rebranding themselves and actually pass some legislation, either big legislation or medium-sized bites that which embody conservative principals.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS: Why have they been losing so badly on messaging, Bill?

KRISTOL: They haven't been losing that badly on messaging. They lost the presidential election by 3 points, they held the House of Representatives, the Democrats got 1 million more votes for the complete House out of 110 million cast, or something like that. And if they simply govern effectively, if they do their best in the House and they oppose President Obama, they'll do fine. They should worry less about how they look and they should just act according to conservative principles.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (125)

PLAYS: (881)

Embed

What is it with these Republicans who just can't stop themselves from coming just a hair shy of calling the President of the United States "uppity?" Last week, Bill-O was calling him "cocky" during his Talking Points Memo segment on Fox. Now we've got Lady McCheney Mary Matalin on Mrs. Greenspan's show calling him too "self-reverential" and "self-righteous" and that he wants Republicans to go along with him and pretend they care about doing their jobs and legislating, he'd better start acting nicer to them.

Andrea Mitchell reminded her that he didn't exactly have much good will from the other side, what with them immediately plotting on how to obstruct everything he tried to do from the day he got elected --during that now-famous meeting with Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich. We also had Mitch McConnell out there just stating openly that his "single most important" goal was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Matalin feigned ignorance and pretended she had no idea what Mitchell was talking about. She said the GOP leadership didn't attend meetings and the last time she checked, neither Luntz nor Gingrich were in office at the time of that meeting.

Thankfully, Mitchell did remind her that a good deal of the leadership was there, but that didn't stop her from going right back after President Obama and complaining that he wasn't talking nicely enough to those poor sensitive Republicans.

Here's a little reminder of just what went on during that meeting from James Wolcott: The Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation:

In a scene reminiscent of the summit meeting of mob bosses in The Godfather, Republican House leaders were summoned by evil marshmallow and message-crafter Frank Luntz to hash out a strategy to cope with the defeat of their party in 2008 and the election of the newly inaugurated President Obama, according to Robert Draper's just published book Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives.

From a report on Draper's revelation by Ewen MacAskill in the Guardian UK (the bolding is mine):

During a lengthy discussion, the senior GOP members worked out a plan to repeatedly block Obama over the coming four years to try to ensure he would not be re-elected.

In his book, Draper opens with the heady atmosphere in Washington on the days running up to the inauguration and the day itself, which attracted 1.8 million to the mall to witness Obama being sworn in as America's first black president.

Those numbers contributed to a growing sense of unease among Republicans as much the defeat in the White House race the previous November. The 15 Republicans were in a sombre mood as they gathered at the Caucus Room in Washington, an upscale restaurant where a New York strip steak costs $51.

Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations.

The dinner table was set in a square at Luntz's request so everyone could see one another and talk freely. The session lasted four hours and by the end the sombre mood had lifted: they had conceived a plan. They would take back the House in November 2010, which they did, and use it as a spear to mortally wound Obama in 2011 and take back the Senate and White House in 2012, Draper writes.

"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority," said Keven McCarthy, quoted by Draper. "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."

The Republicans have done that, bringing Washington to a near standstill several times during Obama's first term over debt and other issues.

Their locked-shut buttocks will unclench of course should Mitt Romney be elected, at which point they'll be passing legislation like street hawkers handing out strip-club flyers. Every bill will be named after Reagan or some other sentimental favorite.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've about had it up to here with these Republicans and their supposed hurt feelings as an excuse for obstruction when they've disrespected President Obama and called him every name in the book for years. Matalin's pearl clutching is growing tiresome --to put it mildly.

DOWNLOADS: (62)

PLAYS: (128)

Embed

It seems the House Republicans finally woke to the fact that their demands to amend the bill that just made it through the Senate to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff" were going nowhere: New Year’s on the ‘cliff’ _ House to vote on Senate bill as GOP backs off demands for changes:

Maneuvered into a political corner, House Republicans abandoned demands for changes in emergency legislation to prevent widespread tax increases and painful across-the-board spending cuts and cleared the way for a final, climactic New Year’s night vote.

The decision capped a day of intense political calculations for conservatives who control the House. They had to weigh their desire to cut spending against the fear that the Senate would refuse to consider any changes they made in the “fiscal cliff” bill, sending it into limbo and saddling Republicans with the blame for a whopping middle class tax increase.

Adding to the GOP discomfort, one Senate Democratic leadership aide said Majority Leader Harry Reid would “absolutely not take up the bill” if the House changed it. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a requirement to keep internal deliberations private.

The legislation cleared the Senate hours earlier on a lopsided pre-dawn vote of 89-8. Administration officials met at the White House to monitor its progress.

“I do not support the bill. We are looking, though, for the best path forward,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., declared after one meeting of the party’s rank-and-file.

Despite Cantor’s remarks, Speaker John Boehner took no public position on the bill as he sought to negotiate a conclusion to the final crisis of a two-year term full of them. Read on...

DOWNLOADS: (134)

PLAYS: (694)

Embed

House Republicans are pushing to amend the "fiscal cliff" deal that just passed in the Senate, but as Rep. Barney Frank told TPM, "if House Republicans amend the Senate bill to include spending cuts, they'll effectively kill the deal.":

"If they do, that'll kill the package," he said after a Democratic caucus meeting.

"I would not predict what these people will try to do because they are in thrall to extremists," Frank said. "But if they amend this I don't know how they think they -- an amendment basically says, our ideology is too rigid and we're not really trying to really [reach a deal]."

Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) office said his members have expressed "universal concern" with the agreement's lack of spending cuts. Rumors on Capitol Hill are that the House GOP is considering amending the legislation and sending it back to the Senate.

House Democratic leaders demanded an up-or-down vote on the Senate deal on Tuesday afternoon.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) declined to discuss whether a GOP amendment to include spending cuts would threaten the bill.

"Look, the country deserves an up or down vote on the compromise bipartisan bill that passed the Senate," he told TPM. "What we're calling for is an up or down vote. Let democracy work its will. ... Let's just take this step by step."

Here's more from The Hill: Senate-passed 'fiscal cliff' agreement in trouble in House:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (57)

PLAYS: (132)

Embed

The House Democrats took a page out of Bill Frist's playbook, calling for an up or down vote on the legislation that passed in the Senate on New Years Eve: House Dem Leaders Call For Vote On Senate Fiscal Cliff Deal:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called on GOP leadership to hold a "straight up or down vote" on the Senate-passed legislation to avert the fiscal cliff.

Flanked by Democratic leaders, she told reporters in the Capitol that Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has a duty to permit a floor vote in order to prevent middle class taxes from rising.

And we're hearing noise on the other side about killing the deal with Eric Cantor saying he's against it: Cantor Opposes Fiscal Cliff Deal:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) came out against the fiscal cliff deal passed by the Senate, according to Republican members in attendance at a closed-door meeting of the House GOP conference Tuesday afternoon.

And his fellow House members aren't happy about the spending in the bill: Boehner Aide: GOP Members Concerned With Lack Of Spending Cuts In Senate Bill:

House Republicans expressed "universal concern" with the lack of spending cuts in the fiscal cliff deal passed overwhelmingly by the Senate, said Speaker John Boehner's spokesman Brendan Buck.

"The Speaker and Leader laid out options to the members and listened to feedback," Buck said in an emailed statement. "The lack of spending cuts in the Senate bill was a universal concern amongst members in today’s meeting. Conversations with members will continue throughout the afternoon on the path forward."

They're still saying they may vote on the bill tonight. I wonder how long they're going to obstruct the deal if the markets start opening and reacting to what's happened.

DOWNLOADS: (245)

PLAYS: (2061)

Embed

I expect the talking heads over at Fox to be attacking President Obama during these negotiations on the upcoming "fiscal cliff" or as some have called it, the "fiscal curb," but how bad are things for John Boehner and the House Republicans when even Bill Kristol and Laura Ingraham can't manage to come to your defense? We had an agreement among the panel on Fox News Sunday this week, and they all believe that Republicans refusing to negotiate with President Obama is just going to lead to them getting a worse deal later.

Which is good news as far as a lot progressives are concerned, since Republicans think a good deal is destroying our social safety nets and sadly there are too many Democrats happy to help them chip away at them with this talk of a "grand bargain." It seems a lot of us should be grateful that John Boehner is really bad at his job.

And of course there was no mention of just who is responsible for that debt that has been run up since President Obama has been in office. As we've noted here before on too many occasions to count, most of that deficit was due to Bush's policies.

You're not going to hear anyone say that over at Fox though. Quite the opposite as we saw with how Wallace opened the segment.

Continue reading »