E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS“When President Obama sits down with the new Republican congressional leaders for their first face-to-face meeting on Tuesday, the stated mission will be to make progress on ratifying an arms agreement with Russia and reaching a deal on soon-to-expire tax cuts,” the Washington Post reports. “But with the White House session scheduled to last just one hour, neither side anticipates emerging with a grand compromise. Instead, the goal will be to set a course for the weeks ahead - and to try to determine whether either side is serious about making concessions necessary to reach a deal.”
The Wall Street Journal previews today’s meeting this way: “The first debate of the 2012 presidential election cycle will occur Tuesday, and taxes will be the subject. It's quite possible that, in the end, the tax cuts simply will be extended for everyone temporarily, punting the debate into next year and beyond. Meanwhile, there likely will be lots of maneuvers and test votes, all designed to probe the underlying question: What is the real balance of power in Washington in the wake of the midterm elections?”
Politico: “It won’t be the relaxed dinner-and-drinks working session President Barack Obama wanted, but the White House still hopes Tuesday’s delayed and abbreviated summit with Republicans will start to bridge the bipartisan divide. The problem for Obama is that GOP leaders have little incentive to cut any deals in the lame-duck congressional session -- the better to capitalize on their new House majority in January -- and have no appetite for major compromise on the extension of Bush-era tax cuts or their deficit-cutting platform.”
The Boston Globe: “In the first test of Washington’s new political alignment, President Obama will meet with Republican leaders today with the nation’s tax rates and a nuclear arms treaty in doubt. Neither side expects final deals from the meeting, but the sparring could have major short- and long-term consequences.”
It appears John McCain is more optimistic that the Senate can ratify the new START treaty than Jon Kyl is. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said on ABC that he hopes START can get done by the end of this year, per The Hill. "I believe that we could move forward with the START treaty and satisfy Sen. Kyl's concerns and mine about missile defense and others, and I would hope that we can do that," McCain said. When asked if negotiations had advanced to the extent that a vote could be held by the end of the year, McCain said, "I would hope so. But Sen. Kyl's concerns are very legitimate, and I think that attempts are being made to address them … What I would hope that we could do is we could do is agree to the extension of tax cuts at all levels and also reach some agreement on moving forward with the START treaty as well," he said. "I think that is a serious result that could ensue from the meeting today."
The AP writes on today’s release of the military’s report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:: “Officials familiar with the 10-month study's results have said a clear majority of respondents don't care if gays serve openly, with 70 percent predicting that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings hadn't been released.”
The Hill: “President Obama on Monday proposed a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers, stealing a play from the Republican handbook in the process.”
The AP adds, “Obama’s move was an attempt to get in front of Republican plans to slash federal pay and the workforce next year, when they will flex more legislative muscle than now. It came a day ahead of Obama’s meeting at the White House with both Republican and Democratic leaders -- his first with Republicans since the midterm elections -- and two days before the deadline for recommendations by his deficit-reduction commission.”
Leave a Comment:
Mr Boehnoer is your window open? Are listenimg? Where are the jobs?
A time to build up,a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ga_M5Zdn4
Bev, you still haven't explained to us why term limits are bad.
What's wrong "mediamatters" and "thinkprogress" couldn't come up with an answer for you?
You're against term limits for congress and the senate, but you are OK with term limits for the office of president...do I have that right?
What do you know, another double standard from the pee gallery
I'LL decide when they go, thank you very much!! Yes, the presidency IS different! There's already a constitutional amendment in place covering the President's tenure. Placed there by people who weren't about to see another FDR if THEY could help it! I'm ambivalent about it. The presidency tends to wear out the officeholder and modern communications aren't easing that process.
Auntie Fascist (kinda says it all)
There is a constitutional amendment in place for the office of presdent, so why again shouldn't there be one in place for other elected officials? You think 50 years in congress is a good thing?
Why is that your calling for the republican leadership to have already created jobs and fixed things a month after the election, before any of the new Congressmen and Senators have taken office.... It's really hard to do anything before that happens. I guess this really shows how much of a chance you are really going to give this new leadership and how open your mind really is.
True (?) American, I said I"LL make that decision! It's not bad on its face! By the way, Auntie Fascist is a play on words. Not that I'd expect you to understand!
The President has done everything possible to try to work with the republicans, they have zero interest
The republicans have two priorities. The first is tax breaks for millionaires, the second is to defeat Obama.
I think you have those backwards...
The one major republican priority was laid out right after Obama was elected. Rush stated they needed to do what ever it would take to make Obama Fail.
The oxymoron for today is : Rational Republican
No, its: Productive Liberal
Obama's a liberal. And HE'S been WAY more productive than his idiot predecessor.
"reality check"? Me thinks you gots your name way wrong here.....
Yea, he's been productive alright, SPEND, SPEND, SPEND!!!
Leave Mr Bush out of this......
John Boner: "Hey, dude- stop me if you've heard this one before...."
PRESIDENT Obama: "OK- let's hear it"
John Boner: "N O ! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha- izzat a riot, or what?"
Neither party has addressed the real issue facing our country, which is the housing market. Thanks to Slick Willy and his low income housing scheme, America is faced with watching their biggest investment deteriorate right before their eyes. Houses today are about as good as an investment as a Hummer. Tax-breaks and small-business loans are all well and good, but do little to nothing to address the real issue. Since, banks now have money and the market is somewhat stable, it needs to become our highest priority. People aren't spending because they are upside down on their houses! It isn't rocket science, but it seems to be beyond the intellect of the current administration. If people were able to refinance their houses at the current market value and at 4% interest, then the economy would recover almost overnight. The banks would still make a profit and the housing market would push the economy towards recovery because people would now have more money to spend.
People aren't spending, because THEIR JOBS ARE NOW IN CHINA!
And the CEO's don't care, because they can sell to the emerging markets. To hell with the American citizens, they say. What the hell are we supposed to buy houses WITH??
I'm not gonna hire someone just because my house appreciated in value!
Yeah right. It was Clinton that forced all those developers to build and towns to demand only homes that were at least 2,600 sq feet with 3 car garages, that no one really needed, and most really couldn't afford. It wasn't the poor buying homes that ate up the supply. There was more than enough supply of homes. It was the unrealistic belief that a home was an investment, one that you drew upon every 2-3 years to eat up all the equity, or to sell every 2-3 years as you moved into a larger and larger home that you didn't need.
I do not understand the Dems thinking about a compromise on the tax extension. It does not improve their bargaining position in the future - they are never going to win the argument that we need to raise taxes, when the GOP will only counter that spending has to be cut first. Passing it off for two more years only worsens the dynamic before an election. If the rates are unfair, they were unfair in '01, they are unfair today and will be unfair in two years. Call the GOP's bluff now! They passed the rates with 51 votes, demand an up or down vote on the same terms, now - no filibuster. Challenge the GOP to campaign against the Senators who support only the middle class extension. Obama and especially the Senate Dems will lose all credibility in the new Congress if they don't call the bluff now. Otherwise allow all the rates to go up and demand that tax reform be debated in the new Congress. On the START Treaty, don't wait for McCain to become satisfied, or Susan Collins to seek political cover from the Bushes. Demand the vote, say I'm the president who negotiated this. Marginalize Kyl and DeMint by bringing Sen. Lugar before the cameras. Force the GOP to break ranks or to look foolish.
The tax rates were unfair in 2001. The lower class had their rates dropped from 15% to 10% - that is a huge cut when you compare it to the top 2% who just had their's dropped from 39.6% to 35%. The poor got a 33% reduction whereas the rich only got 12 - 14%. You liberals don't want to be anywhere around if you raise taxes on everyone. There will also be a lot of people who get added back to the tax rolls that pay no Fed Income taxes right now. Do you want to be the one who tells them that. Do you liberals not understand what the electorate was saying on Nov 2nd?
It's called disposable income. 15 or 10 percent of nothing is still nothing. Looks good on paper, but since their incomes (if they even have jobs) stagnated or fell over the last decade - it's all just one big whoop to them.
For those who think the right has all of the answers, why do they feel that they must ignore the American People when discussing the tax issues? The Republicans created the Bush tax cuts with a termination date as they knew there was no way to continue them when they had no funding for them and at the same time knew that they would result in a huge deficit. Now they want to "solve" our problems on the backs of those least able to afford it while giving breaks to the top 2%.
From Moody's-
"Tax cuts cost the economy more than they return. Every dollar spent on infrastructure projects will yield back $1.59 to the economy. Every dollar spent on aid to the states returns $1.38. Every dollar spent on a temporary increase in food stamps yields back $1.73 to our economy. Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits returns $1.63 to our economy as an economic stimulus.
By contrast, extending the Bush Tax Cuts will return $0.31; cutting the corporate tax rate will return $0.30; and, making dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent will return $0.38. In terms of economic stimulation, all these tax cuts actually cost more than they return to the overall economy. "
So which American People do they represent?
It's the Republican and now the T-party mantra, as well as their reality: We only want to help those poor downtrodden super rich people, you know, the only ones that count and can throw some money into our pockets during campaign time....screw you middle class, you have no power, heh heh heh heh heh. Don't you just love their reality - coming to a foreclosure, or closed small business, or free clinic, or church handout, or starving family near you!