E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe GOP makes its counteroffer… And it (as well as the White House’s proposal last week) seems more geared to playing to the base… But if you split the difference between the two offers, you see the outline of a pretty serious deal… Boehner’s power move… Obama meets with governors at 10:10 am ET and then conducts an interview with Bloomberg News… And Team Romney’s regret -- immigration.
The fiscal cliff counter-offer issued by House Republicans has one thing in common with last week's White House proposal – neither was designed to win any bipartisan support. The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports.
*** Playing to the base: Congressional Republicans yesterday unveiled their counteroffer to the White House in the budget negotiations to resolve the looming tax increases and spending cuts that will automatically begin at the beginning of the year. That counteroffer, per NBC’s Luke Russert and Mike O’Brien: $800 billion in new revenue (through closing loopholes), $600 billion in cuts to federal health-care programs (so Medicare and Medicaid), $200 billion in savings by adjusting the cost-of-living increases in Social Security and Medicare, $300 billion in discretionary cuts, and another $300 billion in mandatory cuts. Given that the GOP proposal raises revenues -- but not rates on the wealthy -- the White House and Democrats immediately rejected it. "The Republican letter released today does not meet the test of balance,” said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. “Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve.” But let’s be honest: Just like the White House’s proposal last week, this GOP move is largely playing to the base rather than being a serious offer.
Roger L. Wollenberg / Getty Images
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) speak to the media at the White House on Nov. 16, 2012 in Washington, DC.
*** Splitting the difference: While the two proposals seem far apart -- and they are -- look at them when you split the difference between the two. You get $1.2 trillion in revenue and about $450 to $500 billion in savings to Medicare and Medicaid. And then say you throw in some stimulus for the Democrats (unemployment insurance, transportation spending), as well as the cost-of-living adjustments on Social Security for Republicans. That sounds like a pretty serious deal that both sides could live with, though it would look more like a “win” for the White House. Of course, Republicans would have to relent (in some form or fashion) on rates going up, while Democrats would have to acquiesce (one way or another) on the Social Security. In the New York Times, David Brooks sees a similar middle ground. “Republicans have to realize that they are going to cave on tax rates. The only question is what they get in return. What they should demand is this: That the year 2013 will be spent putting together a pro-growth tax and entitlement reform package that will put this country on a sound financial footing through 2040.” Folks, there’s definitely a way to resolve this. The only question is if there’s the will.
*** Boehner’s power move: Speaking of will, check out this other news from Capitol Hill: “Four House Republicans have been stripped of their committee seats after it was determined by the Republican conference that they were ‘not team players,’” NBC’s Frank Thorp reports. More: “The decision made Monday during a meeting of the Republican Steering Committee strips Reps. David Schweikert (R-AZ) and Walter Jones (R-NC) of their seats on the Financial Services Committee, and Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI) and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) of their seats on the House Budget Committee.” Pure and simple, this is a power move by House Speaker John Boehner and the GOP leadership to signal to their members that they’re in charge. Our question: Does the move enforce party discipline (especially in forging a fiscal-cliff deal), or does it backfire?
*** Obama’s day: Today at the White House, President Obama and Vice President Biden meet with governors from across the country to discuss the fiscal/budget negotiations at 10:10 am ET. USA Today: “The president's guests include three Republican governors -- one of them Scott Walker of Wisconsin, whose battles with public employee unions made headlines throughout the recent election season. Gov. Jack Markell, D-Del., chairman of the National Governors Association, will also be in the meeting with Obama. So will the NGA Vice Chair, Gov. Mary Fallin, R-Okl. The other attendees: Gov. Mike Beebe, D-Ark., Gov. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., and Gov. Gary Herbert, R-Utah.” In addition, Obama sits down for his first TV interview since the election with Bloomberg News at 12:30 pm ET.
*** Team Romney’s regret -- immigration: Out of all the dispatches and news from Harvard’s campaign-manager recap of the 2012 presidential election, this might be the most interesting: Romney Campaign Manager Matt Rhoades said he regretted Romney’s hard right turn on immigration. Per the New York Times, “When asked directly whether Mr. Romney regretted tacking to the right on immigration to appeal to conservative primary voters, the room fell silent. Stuart Stevens, a senior strategist to Mr. Romney, shook his head no. But after pausing for several seconds, Mr. Rhoades said, ‘I regret that.’ He went on to explain that the campaign, in hindsight, had been too worried about a potential threat from Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who jumped into the race to challenge Mr. Romney as the jobs-and-economy candidate. For weeks in fall 2011, Mr. Romney hammered Mr. Perry on Social Security, particularly his calling the program a ‘Ponzi scheme’ that should be overtaken by state governments. In retrospect,” Mr. Rhoades said, ‘I believe that we could have probably just beaten Governor Perry with the Social Security hit.’”
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
Haha hehe hoho
Its over the cliff we go,,all,will,be better in the longmterm
Mary xmas.
Hey gop
Grow up
Let's not underestimate John Boehner. Last week he sent one of his mininions, Tom Cole, out to pronounce that Republicans would have to raise taxes on the rich. He was not rebuffed, nor silenced by the Majority Leader.
If you think Cole said this without Boehner's implicit approval, then you don't know how D.C. actually works.
Yesterday, three Tea Partiers were removed from their committee seats because they're not "team players." John Boehner sent a message. Start cooperating or pay the consequences. Which translates into "We are going to raise taxes on the rich, so get used to it."
His bet is the Tea Party element of his party will back down. And in congress, if you're not on a committee you're nothing. It's a good bet.
Higher tax rates on the rich are coming and John Boehner knows it.
the removal of these congressmen from high profile positions is the first indication Bohner is growing up and it enables the adults to sit at the table. Whether this translates into a deal with regards to the fiscal cliff remains to be seen. Tea partiers are losing ground, so is Norquist, these traitors are being marginalized as we speak there may be some light at the end of the tunnel
Take the cliff now cap the debt ceiling all will be fine. You can balance a budget really easy when there is no money to worry about.cap the ceiling and no more money can be created that will lift the dollar back. Pay off the national debt with inflated money then when the dollar comeback we will have 10 times the money in our pockets to buy stuff.
Obama won
The retarded gop lost
Do,the math
We are doing the math The math says that if we keep spending like drunken democrats, we will go off said cliff.
sonmanvb that Cliff has past already the government knows the dollar is lost unless we go over the cliff raise taxes on everyone including the takers. Cap the deficit were no more dollars can be created from thin air. Eventually we can pay this debt off with the inflated dollar then take those inflated dollars and burn them out of circulation. lower taxes after the debt is paid off. You talk about the good times will roll with a valued dollar. Jobs will be bountiful spending will be at a all time high.
son where do you get this misguided and completely fabricated stance that Democrats are the spenders? Republicans spending money for two wars and then turning around and having give aways to the taxpayers caused this deficit. Obama wanted to cut almost 2 trillion from the budget last year and the Reps showed him the door, Clinton cut spending dramatically so your logic is rediculous
Joe, House voted 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 not voting and the senate vote 98 Ayes, 0 Nays and 2 present not voting for Afghanistan. The Iraq war was a little more bi-partisan but you had 82 dems in the House and 29 in the Senate that voted for that war so the spending on wars is bi-partisan.
ozzie ... no argument there... however it was Bush's total committment to not raising taxes for these wars that caused part of the deficit. The economic downturn caused the rest of the defecit. Just ask yourself would we be in this position if in 2002 Bush raised taxes back to Clinton levels to help pay for the wars . the answer: probably..... but we would not have been in such a deep hole. increasing taxes is the norm when financing a war and during good productive times
Joe from the cape12 would congress and the house have something to say about raising taxes for wars? Why hadn't either party brought that up for a vote?
not too sure what you are asking metoo, but I'll try my best to answer. Congress does hold the purse strings as far as I know the President can propose the congress will act. If bush propsed tax inccreases to help pay for the war in 2002 with his popularity through the roof at that time Congress would have went along. bush was banking on business growth to pay for the wars but it was too little to compensate for the enormous cost. A good theory on Bush's part but I blame him for not acting when he found out it was not enough.
A “balanced approach to reduce our deficit”? Obama’s initial bid proposed cutting nothing, raising taxes $1.6 trillion and giving himself unlimited authority to raise the debt ceiling. At least if we go off the cliff they’re seeing to it that there will be plenty to laugh at.
Obama: Just give me every thing I want and shut up. I can not have any restrictions on my spending spree. We need to remove the cap on the debt ceiling until a repub is in office, then we need to cap it again.
son... simple economics of having a significant amount of taxpayers still out of work ,the ending of the wars require the debt limit to be expanded. Obama proposes 3 dollars worth of cuts to 1 dollar worth of spending , there is a plan for getting us out of this mess and you do not see it.
Joe where is the other 1.5 dollars because I haven't seen those cuts mentioned yet.
ozzie ... review the intiatives of the Boweles Simpson proposal which the republicans rejected despite its bipartisan roots. it proposes what I mentioned, Obama stated he would agree to it if Congress would have acted like grown ups and passed it, the credit rating would never have been cut and we would be on our way to reducing real defecits. people would have an argument agfainst the president if he vetoed the bowels simpson act but it never got out of committee so dont blame the president for this when it never got close to his desk for signing.
Joe, If I remeber correctly President Obama did not embrace the simpson-boweles plan when it came out is he evovling again?
Ozzie....it is interesting the presidents critics will make a statement like "evolving" instead of looking at his efforts at reaching across the aisle and including his oppositions positions in the final product. Obama has said repeatedl;y that he would approve the Simpson Bowels act if presented to him the only thing he will not compromise on is the tax cuts not being extended for the 2% . This is the very thing that the republicans cannot bring themselves to go along with much to the disatisfaction of two- thirds of the American people.
Please, the republicans. lead by Paul Ryan tanked Simpson bowles. Now suddenly they are all for it. Not done with the flip flopping I see. Carry on, after all it's worked well for you guys. Just as Romney! lol
Eliminating the Fereral Reserve would greatly fix out financial problems. The Gov't issues bonds in exchange for cash it pays interest on. If the bonds are good then cash printed by the government should be just as good. Why pay interest on our own money? Most people have no clue on how our financial system works, or where cash/money comes from. It is almost like a ponsi scheme, one we cannot win.
Where are the cuts to DOD?
Where are the cuts to the entitlements paid to big oil, wall street, mega corporations, company owned farms?
Where are the cuts to the billions of dollars we send to other countries each years, several of those countries hate America, yet we continue to support them?
And neither party has told us what "loopholes" will be closed....my thinking is they won't be enough to stop the wealthy, the corporations from avoiding paying the tax rates they should be paying.
Time to recall all themtea billies,,
Thats,a good start.
The gop needs to,take back their partie
Indeed, do the math.
Obama ran on raising tax rates on the rich. Romney and the GOP were against it. They lost, Obama won. The American people spoke loud and clear.
And now the Tea Party element of the GOP simply says, "We could care less what the American people voted for." Unless of course, they vote the Tea Party agenda.
In that case all we hear from the Tea Party is, "The American people have spoken. We are here to do the work the American sent us here to do."
What a bunch of malarkey. If this continues the Republican Party will be irrelevant in six years.
The repubs in the house won also. Just because 51% of americans are now takers, does not give obama a blank check. The house STILL controls the purse strings id10t!
sonmanvb
"The repubs in the house won also. Just because 51% of americans are now takers, does not give obama a blank check. The house STILL controls the purse strings id10t!"
And they wonder why they lost the election.
Sorry buck, but it does.
Rich, if you mean the House still controls the purse strings, I agree.
But back when Ronald Reagan won the presidency Tip O'Neill was the leader of the House and with a larger majority than Boehner enjoys today. After the election O'Neill did not obstuct, no, he said the American people have voted, it's our job to try and understand what they want and then implement that.
That's called a working goverment. O'Neill and Reagan actually became friends. What we have today is a Tea Party congress that simply refuses to acknowlege a national election and the wishes of the American people.
They won't change, and therefor they'll become irrellevant in six years or less.
Its really time for all to grow up
Obama won,the will of the people are at stake
The repubs in the house won also. Just because 51% of americans are now takers, does not give obama a blank check. The house STILL controls the purse strings id10t!
son.... once again your hatred for most of America is pretty evident and you fuel this hatred with your own paranoia and just wrong facts..... how can anyone look at your posts as being credible. Where do you get this stupid idea that 51% are "takers" (whatever that means)
sonmanvbsooo true. :) Money talks bull s hit walks. Actually its 47% but you have to take out the ones that deserve to take, the elderly, the truly disabled and widowed children. so its more into the 30% takers or free loaders...
And ironically enough, the republicans aka Mitt Romney recieved 47% of the vote. LMAO
Ever wounder why the gop never want the economy to fully recover
Sharky- spot on. I think they are so hell bent on not raising the top rate that they will go to any extreme to protect it. The practical approach would be to either add a new rate for over 500K or tie the top rate to budget goals. If the deficit drops by 25%, the rate returns to the Bush rate. But no one ever accused the repubs of being practical.
I would let the fiscal bump hit. First off, you have a year before tax time anyhow so the rates are not that important short term. Then we can get a real military cut that won't happen any other way. It will be interesting to see what is more precious to the trust fund crowd- loosing military contracts or having an unnoticeable increase in the top tax rate. I also believe that people live longer and some increase in benefit ages are logical on safety nets. Last, welfare should be tied to a job. Even if you pick up litter, you should have to report to some type of job for the check. The infrastructure jobs can be tied in to jobless benefits, thus eliminating most unemployment. Single moms could do daycare, just a win win all the way around. Repubs would never allow this, they would rather have a check sent so they can demagogue the issue and full employment would make Obama look good.
The 2010 mistake,called the tea partie will hunt the gop for,years.
don't be so sure....The GOP didn't vote in the tea party last I saw was the voters voted in the tea party. Most tea party members don't associate with the GOP there more independent. There are Democrat tea party members too. So to associate tea party to GOP is quite foolish.
Not to mention STUPID!
Means test all programs,cut out cut out the lazy at
it seems perfectly logical to means test those making over 250,000 a year for medicare and social security. It is almost a necessity. It is foolish to apply these means tests to those who are poor and just getting by or the middle class for that matter. Why should someone who can pay for their own insurance be given medicare from the government when so many others could truely benefit. Those with saturated pensions need to give up their social security benefit pure and simple that is the right course of action
How hypocritical. Why should someone who can pay for it be given Medicare? How about BECAUSE THEY PAID FOR IT!!!!
All of you lefties say it isn't an entitlement, but then you come up with crap like this that says those who are better off should have what they paid for taken away.
HOUSTON....WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE! It's called Class Warfare, plain and simple. And if you want it that way, just remember its a double edged sword. The "rich" have the economic means to make life very hard on the "non-rich". All they need do is cut back on spending and investment and the rest of us will start seeing our jobs go away.
There can be no 1-sided solution. The golden rule has always applied, and it always will.
enough ...then fine let the rich opt out of medicare and not pay for it however if you do that it does nothing toward the solvency of both programs. Another interesting argument is people like you have no problems cutting the working poor off the medicare roles
If the cap were lifted and EVERYONE paid into SS on EVERY dime of income (like anyone who makes under 103K does) then EVERYONE could draw SS and there wouldn't be a problem at all. As for medicare, the more you are worth, the more you have to pay when you sign up. Problem solved.
The tea partie as a collective isent any longer doing the work of its partie,,time for them to go
Time for all taxes and all spending on the table
Remember,the unfunded bush wars,tax cuts ect.
I'll just repost this:
ozzie please refer to my older post.
Joe, will do. Just saying I'm tired of people blaming everything on Bush.
I get that Ozzie however there is no short supply of right wingers blaming Obama for the entire mess. The key is to go beyond the blame game and fix it. That is what the average American voter wants. enough political posturing and just get the job done whatever it looks like. This is not the time for another round of ideological pissing contests.
And tell grover to go over the cliff with the tea partie as holes. Theres another jack off we can all do without
Dam people are fawking stupid,,,George Carlin.
MRABILITY, Dude have you been drinking?
I'm for falling off the cliff - the country needs a painful dose of reality - there are no "free lunches" just an illusion that seems to keep over half of us comatose.
tanstaffl
The Republican party is nothing but a cover for professional scam artists. Remeber that Romney fudged his taxes so it looked like he paid 13%. Guess he didn't need that extra $225,000. He will file an amended return though and invest that money in the Cayman Islands or some other foreign country. So much for trickle down. Paul 'the numbersman' Ryan couldn't even report his proper income. Missed by $60,000. And he says he can balance our trillion dollar budget? More than the majority of our deficit has been created by the Bush tax cuts and two unnecessary wars. Maybe the american people need to reconsider who the real terrorist threat to our country comes from....THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! PLEASE QUIT SABOTAGING OUR ECONOMY!
Really because "Hope and Change" wasn't a scam? Now "Forward" may be appropriate considering the President will likely move us forward down the path of bankruptcy.
I saw someone on MSNBC say that they were fair n balance I f en laughted so hard. Its a must not see tv on MSNBC unless of course you need a laugh...
You laughted? WTF is laughted? Me thinks you would be better served studying English than watching TV.
Shellie go FYS
Just two words .... you may, if you want, read my lips ..... FLAT TAX
Wishful thinking!
Flat Tax??? been there done that. During Bush sr's election bid that was proposed by one of the republican candidates and it died on the vine.
I'm tired of the this crap from Tea Partiers, "The Republicans in the House won too!"
Americans at large don't vote for House members, very small populations in regional areas vote for House members.
Americans at large vote for the President. This past election those Americans spoke loud and clear about what they wanted for our country and what they didn't want for our country.
If the the Tea Party element continues to ignore national elections and the voice of the people then they and the Republican Party will become irrelevant in less than six years.
Fine by me.
Question to Tea Partiers:
How dumb can you get?
Your party is about to become a permanent minority party and you'll be the ones to blame.
No you can pretty much blame the takers who are voting themselves money. Nice try though.
Yep, those takers are sure a greedy bunch! Big Oil, health insurers, pharmaceuticals, corporate agriculture, defense contractors, Wall Street, mega banks . . . yep, takers all of them.
Yeah and repubs are the only politicians with their hands out.....PLEASE!
Buck Garcia 5 my question is how can you blame the tea party members they only been in for two years as a fraction minority in government. Why cant you just blame all those who have had majority in the past 20 years that own this fiscal mess. Borrowing more money is not the solution. Lets raise taxes for all even those that are not paying taxes by imposing a 1% national debt tax. Cap the debt ceiling now no more money from our children and grand kids... STOP Blaming start solving.
Bruce -848280
Bruce you forgot to mention union bosses, green energy sector, and farm subsidies for rich people too, don't forget the Hollywood people getting farm subsidies...
MeeTooBoo,
I'm not against the GOP. That is, what used to be the GOP. To have two responsible parties is good for the nation. Unfortunately, the GOP is no long a responsible party, and I'm not talking about the John Boehners and the like.
I'm talking about the Tea Partiers. They are obstuctionist, for the sake of being obstuctionists. In two years they have taken over the GOP and by so doing have virtually stopped governement. They've also guaranteed the GOP will not win a majority in the Senate.
Don't blame? I'll blame. I'll blame the Tea Party for being know-nothings who wish to instill their will, ideology and agenda on all Americans, whether those Americans agree with them or not.
That kind of behavior is called something, but it ain't democracy.
Question to Dumbocrats:
How dumb can you get?
Your party is about to become the party of BIG taxes that will destroy our economy. But, that is the general plan, right, then remake it into the socialst utopia of europe?
Yawn. Followed by another yawan.
Dumbocrats? Socialist utopia...?
And they wonder why they lost the election.
Sheesh.