DOWNLOADS: (125)

PLAYS: (531)

Embed

It seems Republicans are ready to die on their sword of protecting tax cuts for the rich and are going to do their best to blame President Obama for their unwillingness to negotiate on anything in good faith. They've been wanting to take a pound of flesh from the working class by slashing our social safety nets and it looks like they might use this sequester to finally get their way: GOP Eager For The Sequester To Go Into Effect So They Can Blame Obama For Its Devastating Consequences:

With the sequester deadline looming just two weeks away, Republicans have adopted the public posture of cheerleading for the anticipated spending reductions to social programs, while preparing to blame President Obama for their devastating impact on middle class Americans and national security.

Republicans have yet to offer a proposal that would offset the cuts in the 113th Congress and have categorically rejected the Senate’s balanced approach of higher revenues and spending cuts. Instead they’re sitting on their hands until the March 1 deadline, informing Obama that they will not act to head off the automatic reductions. [...]

Pressed by Crowley on the consequences of the across-the-board cuts, Barrasso initially dismissed their impact before blaming Obama for any deleterious effects. “I believe the president has a lot of authority that he can decide how this works, and, yeah, he can make it very uncomfortable, which i think would be a mistake on the part of the president, but when you take a look at the total dollars there are better ways to do this, but the cuts are going to occur,” he said.

Here's more from them on the damage the cuts would do: How The Sequester’s Budget Cuts Will Devastate Already-Battered Programs:

Federal spending is scheduled to reach historic lows thanks to the Budget Control Act, which placed caps on spending as part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011. Non-defense spending is already 14 percent lower than it has been at any time in the last half-century, and it could go even lower if the so-called “sequester,” a series of automatic budget cuts that will begin to take effect at the beginning of March, is allowed to occur.

The drop in domestic spending has already devastated many programs on which Americans depend. But on March 1, those cuts will get even deeper when the first $85 billion of sequester cuts take effect.

That will have a substantial impact on food safety, education, law enforcement, and safety net programs, according to estimates from Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee. And if the sequester is left in place for the full year, it will cut $1.5 trillion and those effects will only get worse: Read on...

Here's a reminder from Greg Sargent on the right's decision to use the sequester as "leverage" against President Obama: We all agree that spending cuts hurt the economy. Right? Right.:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (161)

PLAYS: (2321)

Embed

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) on Sunday called out Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) for complaining about drastic cuts in the so-called "sequester" after Republicans forced it by refusing to raise the debt ceiling and risking default for the first time in the nation's history.

"This was a presidential suggestion back in 2011 -- an idea -- and, yet, the president himself hasn't put out any alternative," Cole said during a panel segment on ABC. "Republicans twice in the House have passed legislation to deal with it, once as early as last May, again after the election in December. The Senate has never picked up either of those bills, never offered their own thing."

"Now, we're three weeks out [from the sequester deadline] and folks are worried," he continued. "They ought to be worried. On the other hand, these cuts are going to occur. The real choice here is do you want cuts to be redistributed in other ways, which is the sensible thing to do, or do you want to let this happen?"

Ellison, however, pointed out that Republicans couldn't place all the blame on President Barack Obama after they voted for the sequester created by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

"Well, Tom, the problem with saying that this is the president's idea is you voted for the Budget Control Act, I voted against it," Ellison noted. "We wouldn't ever have been talking about the Budget Control Act but for your party refused to negotiate on the debt ceiling, something that has been routinely increased as the country needed it."

"You used that occasion in 2011 -- August -- to basically say, we're going to default the country's obligations or you're going to give us dramatic spending cuts. That's how we got to the Budget Control Act."

The Minnesota Democrat added that the sequester was projected to increase both unemployment and the deficit.

"It's going to do everything opposite to what your party says they want," he told Cole. "It's going to create uncertainty, it's going to increase the deficit, it's going to increase unemployment, it's going to be a problem."

"We don't have a presidential proposal," Cole opined. "I don't think you speak for the president."

DOWNLOADS: (137)

PLAYS: (617)

Embed

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) vowed on Sunday that Republicans would force significant spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling even if President Barack Obama had to be "dragged kicking and screaming."

"What we're saying is that the biggest problem facing the country is our excessive spending," McConnell told NBC's David Gregory. "We've watched the government explode over the last four years. We've dealt with the revenue issue, and now the question is will the president lead? Why should we have to be bringing him to the table?"

Gregory pointed out that trillions of dollars in spending cuts had been part of last year's Budget Control Act and Republicans had refused to accept significant cuts in entitlement programs as a part of a larger deals offered by Democrats going back to debt ceiling negotiations in 2011.

"You can re-litigate the past if you want to," McConnell laughed. "I wish the president would lead us on the discussion rather than putting himself in the position of having to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the single biggest issue facing our future. You know, until we adjust the entitlements so that they meet the demographics of our country, we can't ever solve this problem. The time to solve it is now."

"The president proposed significant entitlement cuts, Simpson-Bowles said he did it, though they would have like him to have gone farther," Gregory observed. "But Republicans would not agree on revenues going back to last summer... You can't say he's been dragged kicking and screaming when he has proposed those entitlement cuts."

"No, he has not!" McConnell shot back. "He hasn't embraced any significant proposal here in public to deal with significant entitlement changes."

The Kentucky Republican also insisted that any additional revenue through tax reform would be off the table going forward.

"That's over," he explained. "I'm in favor of doing tax reform but I think tax reform ought to be revenue neutral as it was back during the Reagan years. We've resolved this issue."

DOWNLOADS: (116)

PLAYS: (418)

Embed

I guess we'll see if the House follows suit now that their Republican members can safely vote yes on a deal and not feel like they're beholden to St. Grover and his no-tax pledge. Senate approves Biden-McConnell fiscal cliff deal in easy 89-8 vote:

The Senate early on New Year's Day voted overwhelmingly in favor of a fiscal cliff deal that would extend tax rates on annual household income under $450,000 and postpones automatic spending cuts for two months.

The bill was approved in an 89-8 vote that came after only 10 minutes of formal floor debate and no official score from the Congressional Budget Office. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated it would reduce federal revenue by $3.93 trillion over the next decade compared to current law.

Five Republicans and three Democrats voted against the bill: Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).

Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) missed the vote.

The 89-8 vote puts pressure on the GOP-led House to approve the legislation, though it remains to be seen if most House Republicans will back a bill that would add to the deficit and lacks the deep spending cuts that conservatives have been calling for.

A 90-minute meeting of Senate Democrats ending shortly before midnight sealed the deal negotiated between Vice President Biden and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). The passage of the bill is a significant victory for Biden, who might run for president in 2016, and McConnell, who is up for reelection next year.

The legislation would permanently extend the Bush-era income tax rates on individual income up to $400,000 and family income up to $450,000. It permanently sets the estate tax rate at 40 percent, up from 35 percent, and exempts inheritances below $5 million. Read on...

Lots of more detail in The Hill post above. I'm sure we'll have it too, once we learn more about the bill that just passed, and updates if the House approves it. Stay tuned.