E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFarewell to the 112th Congress, regardless of what happens today… But are Biden and McConnell close to a deal?... Why we are still possibly headed off the cliff… Why that would be a missed opportunity for both sides… The blame game… Obama lays out second-term agenda on “Meet the Press”… Hillary Clinton in the hospital… And Happy New Year.
*** Farewell to the 112th Congress: With just hours to go before reaching the midnight deadline of the so-called fiscal cliff, are we on the cusp of a last-minute deal? Or will things, once again, fall apart? Regardless of what happens today, the 112th Congress is going to wind up as the least popular and least productive Congress (in terms of legislation becoming law) in the modern era. For starters, Congress’ approval rating the last time the NBC/WSJ poll measured it (in August 2012) was just 12%, and a whopping 82% disapproved of Congress -- the highest percentage in the history of our NBC/WSJ poll. In addition, just 219 bills have been passed into law -- the lowest number since Congress began tracking this number in the 1940s. (And many of these bills were naming courthouses or post offices.) The previous low was 333 in the 104th Congress (1995-1996). Throughout its history, of course, Congress has always been a dysfunctional place; in fact, the Founding Fathers ensured it that way (with the federal government’s checks and balances). But this particular Congress, which comes to an end on Jan. 3, has been uniquely dysfunctional. Just consider: the current fiscal-cliff debate, the debt-ceiling standoff of 2011 that resulted in an S&P credit downgrade, the Super Committee’s failure, the near government shutdown in the spring of 2011, the defeat of the U.N. Disabilities treaty, etc. With the debt ceiling, the fiscal cliff, and the near government shutdown, it’s hard not to conclude that Congress has been an active player in the sluggishness of the U.S. economy.
*** But are we close to a deal? All that said, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Biden are very close to a deal. According to a source with knowledge of the negotiations, Biden is offering McConnell raising tax rates on income above $400,000-plus and an up-or-down vote on the estate tax in return for unemployment insurance and having the sequester offset by some of the increased revenues. (Folks, this is VERY similar to deal that President Obama offered House Speaker John Boehner, but from which Boehner walked away.) From what we understand, McConnell wants a deal -- he wants to get this tax issue off the table. So they are close. The question is whether Boehner would bring such a deal to the floor and whether it could pass in time. But if a Biden-McConnell deal gets 70 or more votes in the Senate, Boehner might not have no choice but to bring the legislation to the House floor.
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
Vice President Joe Biden looks on during a White House event in which President Barack Obama announced the nomination of Senator John Kerry as Secretary of State, Dec. 21, 2012.
Related: Deficit reduction becomes key sticking point on fiscal cliff
*** Why we are possibly headed off the cliff: So it’s possible Congress could still come to some kind of agreement, but it's always been a likely outcome that we're headed to go off the so-called fiscal cliff. The reason: It's become the easiest -- and safest -- path for both sides; NBC's Mike Viqueira has called it the "inertia scenario." For Democrats, going over the cliff ensures the elimination of the Bush tax cuts, and it gets them the tax revenue they've been demanding without having to give up a thing. What's more, Democrats probably hold the upper hand if we go off the cliff, given all the polling suggesting that the American public would blame Republicans more than Democrats. For Republicans, having the Bush tax cuts expire means they don't have to vote to raise taxes and thus break any tax pledge. Instead, beginning in the New Year, they get to vote to lower them for the middle class (the income threshold TBD).
*** Why that would be missed opportunities for both sides: But if we go over the cliff -- the combination of tax increases and spending cuts set to commence after today -- it will be a missed opportunity for both sides, too. For President Obama, it will be evidence that the GOP "fever" that he said would break after his re-election hasn't come close to ending yet. In addition, it would signal that the second-term agenda he's pursuing (immigration, energy) probably isn't going anywhere. For Republicans, going over the cliff means that they're giving up revenue without getting anything in return like spending cuts and entitlement reform, both of which Obama was willing to offer. Republicans believe that they'll be able to extract those things in a future showdown of the debt ceiling, but we're unsure that the White House or, more importantly, the business community is willing to play that game in 2013.
*** What happens if we go over the cliff: But here’s an important reminder if we go over the fiscal cliff: The financial/economic world won’t come to an end, at least in the short run. While some things will take place immediately, others (including rising tax rates and government cuts) will be spread out over the year, and Congress has the ability to fix them retroactively. As the New York Times wrote last week, “Some hits — like a two percentage point increase in payroll taxes and the end of unemployment benefits for more than two million jobless Americans — would be felt right away. But other effects, like tens of billions in automatic spending cuts, to include both military and other programs, would be spread out between now and the end of the 2013 fiscal year in September. These could quickly be reversed if a compromise is found. Similarly, the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts on Jan. 1 would not have a major impact on consumers if Congress quickly agreed to extend them for all but the wealthiest Americans in early 2013, as is widely expected. Other probable changes, like a jump in taxes on capital gains and dividends, would most likely be felt over a broader period rather than as an immediate blow to the economy.” Yet one thing is for certain if we go over the cliff: The financial markets won’t like it.
*** The blame game: In his interview on “Meet the Press,” President Obama said congressional Republicans would get the blame if the country goes over the fiscal cliff. “Congress has not been able to get this stuff done. Not because Democrats in Congress don't want to go ahead and cooperate, but because I think it's been very hard for Speaker Boehner and Republican Leader McConnell to accept the fact that taxes on the wealthiest Americans should go up a little bit, as part of an overall deficit reduction package.” When NBC’s David Gregory asked Obama if he would deserve any blame, the president replied, “I negotiated with Speaker Boehner in good faith and moved more than halfway in order to achieve a grand bargain. I offered over a trillion dollars in additional spending cuts so that we would have $2 of spending cuts for every $1 of increased revenue. I think anybody objectively who's looked at this would say that we have put forward not only a sensible deal but one that has the support of the majority of the American people, including close to half of Republicans.”
*** Obama’s second-term agenda -- immigration, stabilizing the economy, energy: Also on “Meet,” Obama laid out his second-term agenda. “I've said that fixing our broken immigration system is a top priority. I will introduce legislation in the first year to get that done… The second thing that we've got to do is to stabilize the economy and make sure it's growing. Part of that is deficit reduction. Part of it is also making sure that we're investing, for example, in rebuilding our infrastructure, which is broken… Number three. We've got a huge opportunity around energy. We are producing more energy and America can become an energy exporter. How do we do that in a way that also deals with some of the environmental challenges that we have at the same time? So that's going to be a third thing.” But what Obama DID NOT bring up on his own -- guns. Indeed, he didn’t sound like a guy ready to go after guns, unless the public is clearly behind it. “Ultimately, the way this is going to happen is because the American people say, ‘That's right. We are willing to make different choices for the country and we support those in Congress who are willing to take those actions.’”
*** Hillary Clinton checks into hospital: Beyond the fiscal cliff, the other big news is the health of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported on “TODAY” this morning, Clinton is now in a hospital in New York. Her spokesman released this statement last night: “In the course of a follow-up exam today, Secretary Clinton's doctors discovered a blood clot had formed, stemming from the concussion she sustained several weeks ago. She is being treated with anti-coagulants and is at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital so that they can monitor the medication over the next 48 hours. Her doctors will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion. They will determine if any further action is required.” Bottom line: This clearly is more serious than we originally thought.
*** Happy New Year! Finally, to all of our readers – have a safe and happy New Year. And thanks for reading us throughout 2012. Your morning First Read note will return on Thursday, Jan. 3.
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:
Congress may have done little, but that's the way we want. There is basically nothing "united" about the United States anymore. The far left and the far right seemingly speak for all of us. As for the fiscal cliff you had Republicans saying they'd let us go over the cliff rather than raise taxes one dollar. Democrats said if one dollar was cut from entitlements (of course they don't care if all entitlements are cut for those they deem unworthy aka rich) we'd go over the cliff. And over the cliff we go. This is the new normal folks. No party will ever have a plurality in both Houses and the White House, and subsequently nothing will get done. Ain't democracy grand?!
TERM LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!!!These long term @!$%#s are responsible for the mess this country is in. As long as they remain, nothing will change. I am proud to say that no one I voted for is in office.
As someone who resides in a state with term limits, be careful what you ask for....
A productivity rate that is two-thirds of the lowest of record?
You and I would lose our jobs for that.
Politics is the art of negotiation and compromise.
This congress (lower case c) couldn't spell, much less exercise compromise. Civil words fail to describe my disappointment and chagrin.
If 82% of the American people disapprove of Congress, then everyone of the 82% should vote against any incumbent in the next complete cycle of elections. If the current Senate and House incumbents get re-elected through the next cycle of elections then 82% of the American people have proven to be afraid of change, addicted to complaining or just plain stupid.
OneTao.com
no its 91% that don't approve of the boehner gop led house....40 approved of the pelosi led dem house during rougher time 2008 till 2010 then the yahoo's teaparty got voted in because pelosi sucked and they got 9% approval....if pelosi suck at 40% what adjective does boehner get...and what about the a holes that voted in the teaparty me party gop....wow there got proved wrong.
Congress may have done little this session, but it was still too much, about $1.6 trillion too much. Congress needs to stop voting for more and more spending year after year.
When the money is no longer worth the paper it`s printed on then we can all wring our hands one last time and wonder what went wrong...blaming each other of course.
Happy new year Baloney! Hope you had a wonderful xmas...
Good riddance to bad rubbish. What a worthless pack of human trash these guys were. Too bad more of them didn't get fired like they ought to have. Economists are starting to reposition the Great Depression as two major recessions in tandem. Guess what we're headed for if these bozos don't get their * together.
In a democracy, you get what the majority of people who bother to vote, vote for. I'll say one thing for the teabaggers: Anti-intellectual nativist yahoos they may be, but it's not like they hid anything.
News articles for the two years have all been saying that this past Congress has been the most dysfunctional in our history. Well, OF COURSE it is. It's because the American people are divided. There are so many Americans that cannot come to any sort of middle ground with other Americans. All Congress is is a representation of how Americans are unable to agree with one another. They are doing what their constituents want them to do. This has not been any surprise to me.
Look, just because you Democrats can't have your cake and eat it too... just because you can't have a Democrat president AND a fully Democrat Congress. Just because almost half of this country disagrees with the Democrats, does not mean you Dems should be so bitter.
You DO realize (hopefully) that the day this country becomes a ONE PARTY political system it will also cease to be free.....
Get over it.
It is NOT just the Republicans fault for this failed financial accord, it takes TWO to tango and in this case BOTH need dancing lessons!
Biden and McConnell are the dancing pair that might get it done.
Dear Brian. Your wrong.
No.. I'm not.
But your spelling is...
It's "You're" or "You Are", not "Your". (a possessive).
brian you're a DICK we're not being graded on spelling or grammar...did i spell dick right....hahahha
Yes you did, and you have been reported to the vine for a direct personal attack that is against the COH...
And I am still not wrong regardless of vulgarities from liberals....
grand bargain brian offered by the president fixed everything...so why you guys vote it down...oh that increase in taxes on the 2% WHICH by the way is going into effect anyway in a couple hours... the gop really snatched defeat from the jaws of victory or is this just about taxes on the rich oh my...yes you ask about the president plan that was his and is still the only one that fixes the problem....
Have you even read my starting comment up there? Or you just talking out the side of your neck as usual. I mentioned nothing about what you just typed about.
Oh and I didn't VOTE anything down.
Go away troll...
Like you would vote for Democrats if it meant keeping this from happening. Most of you guys woke up on Election Day believing that you would go to bed that night with a Republican president and Republican Congress. Did you see that as a threat to freedom?
It is a great danger to the country when a significant faction believes that its politics and only its politics represent the one true meaning of America and the Constitution. It is a greater danger when that faction controls a house of Congress.
Put it this way: The prospect of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi guiding the country worries me a lot less than what we have now.
Let's step on the gas and get this thing over the cliff. I'm so sick of this that if will get the politicians to shut up, let's do it. Let the taxes resume to pre Bush rates and let the automatic spending cuts kick in. Why do half the Americans that don't have anything, and never will under the current economic conditions really care. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer could not be more true than it is today. The game is fixed, so what the hell.
You mean "pre-Clinton" rates right?
That's what you SHOULD mean....
Brian, "pre-Clinton" tax rates would be Bush #1 tax rates. Don't think so as Clinton cut tax rates put in place during 41's administration. The expiration of the 2001 Bush tax cuts would mean going back to tax rates in effect during the Clinton administration.
Review your logic again....
The Bush 2001 tax cuts were started up by Clinton... it was a carry over from his office.
Everyone KNOWS this.. well except maybe you. Many people, even conservatives, agree that these were too much of a cut but the blame FOR the cuts being started rests squarely on the shoulders of CLINTON. The blame rests on BUSH for letting them live on.....especially during a time of WAR.
As I said before it takes TWO to tango, although this particular tango looks more like mud wrestling....
I've come to an epiphany today...
I used to not bother discussing politics at all. In fact, I considered myself to be one of the least political people I eve knew. I didn't get angry or disgruntled with Obama until he tried that trick with disabled veterans insurance... My father called me that day and told me about it and it was a sensitive topic as I had just been medically discharged after 15 years of service and 3 combat tours in the Army with a disability. My exact words to him when he told me our president was messing around with my future well earned benefits was "BS dad, there is no way he would try anything like that!" I didn't hate Obama, in fact I was kind of interested in what he was about. I disbelieved my own father before doubting our president. But... as it turned out.. my father was RIGHT! It rather politicized me, to say the least. I voted for the first time in my life this past election at the age of 42!
After discussing things here in newsvine for the past couple of years or so I have come to remember why I was so anti-political in my previous life...none of it makes a damn bit of difference! All this rambling with others, quite a few of which I wouldn't even give the time of day in real life much less talk to them does nothing but raise ones blood pressure and breed anger where in the past there was none. In the past I could chill out with this person or that person, of this color or that color, or this religion or that religion, of this view or that view and not give a damn about their political ideology. I want those days back.
One thing that I have learned without a shadow of a doubt during this brief stint with politics, all politicians SUCK! There isn't a good one out there and they all have their own selfish reasons for what they do. You can see it in Biden's smug smile, you can hear it is Obama's arrogance, you can feel it in Romney's lies, you can smell it in Ryan's posturing.
I am actually ashamed of myself for resorting to arguing with other people in these forums about any political figure, it amounts to arguing about which pathological liar and egotistical bastard is the best pathological liar and egotistical bastard.
What's the point?
Brian,
Bush #1 raised taxes in 1991, Clinton raised taxes on the wealthest in 1993, cut capital gains taxes and dropped the lowest rate to 10% in 1997, Bush #2 cut marginal tax rates in 2001 and 2003.
So, by allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire, the rates would go back to those in effect when Clinton left office. Hence, Clinton era tax rates.
LAKid
Yes and the 2001 tax cuts were Clinton's Idea as well. Bush just happened to be in office when they were implemented.
I understand and agree with what you said but it seems like you are not even understanding what I am saying.
Also, your own statement proves that vehement Democrats cannot blame Republicans for everything wrong under the sun. As you said Bush SR. raised taxes across the board.
Isn't that what Democrats are all about, raising taxes and making oodles of new laws to control us all?
The 2001 Economic Growth & Tax Relief Act was Bush #2 legislation, not Clinton's. Towards the end of his administration, Clinton pushed for spending cuts, not changes in the marginal tax rates.
The 1997 tax relief act (1) lowered the 15% rate to 10%, (2) lowered capital gains from 28% to 20%, (3) increased the exemption on profit from sale of your home and (4) gradually increased the estate tax exemption.
Bush, having promised tax reform during the 200 election, push through Congress in 2001 a 10 year, $1.35 trillon tax cut. All the marginal rates were lowered from the rates in effect when Clinton left office, including an additional reduction in estate taxes, with a one year repeal. These cuts were to expire in 2010 unless Congress extended them.
The 2003 tax bill cut capital gains from 20% to 15% and the top rate on dividends from 35% to 15% (which is why Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary as most of his income in a tax year is from earnings on investments). These cuts were to expire in 2008
Yes, Clinton moderately reduced taxes. However, your point that the tax cuts that may expire in 10 minutes would result in pre-Clinton marginal tax rates is inaccurate. Marginal rates would go back to 15% for the bottom and 39.6% for the top, rates in effect when Clinton left office. That was my point.
You forgot that Regan increased taxes in 1982 after cutting them in 1981. Because his tax cuts had not stimulated the economy in a year. Unemployment was 10.1% and mortgage interest rates were 15%. Trickle down wasn't working.
As far as Democrats making oodles of laws, which president created the EPA? Nixon. And which president started deregulation? Carter with the aviation industry.
The reason the 112th congress did nothing is because the 111th congress SPENT ALL THE MONEY!!
you're right on the two wars bush didn't pay for the presicrption drug give away to big pharma and the 4 trillion in tax cuts to the rich.....
Marc huff- I love it when people talk about two wars NOT PAID FOR. Being that the military did this with out a draft and did not increase much in size you have to realize that a division in training cost just as much to operate as a division that is deployed. This talking point about bush's unpaid wars is used to confuse the uneducated. Funny how no one talks about Welfare, food stamps, section 8, foreign aid, green energy, free cell phones, medicare cards, government back loans to people who could not pay it back and all the other rot gut government that IS NOT PAID FOR!!
dessele0010
I agree with you partially, but being a vet of many deployments, can say that a division deployed is more expensive.
First off, deployed soldiers receive a boost in pay and pay no taxes. Secondly, maintained equipment is cheaper than replacing destroyed equipment. Thirdly, transportation costs. Fourthly, disability pay for many many THOUSANDS of disabled vets that because of modern medicine and better training, didn't die. (Not that this is a bad thing, but living vets with disabilities costs alot more in the long run than dead vets).
We will be paying for this war for a very long time.... I just hope it was worth it and no I won't listen to the whiners who automatically scream "IT WAS A WASTE!". Those types would not sacrifice a damn thing for any damn body so their opinions are completely meaningless to me.
I choose to hope...
Des.. You believe it was a good idea to send our best over to fight 2 useless wars that killed and maimed tens of thousands of Americans. That we were paying them anyway so we might as well use them. We are still and will be paying for these wars for many years to come. I know the TP doesnt want to but all our wounded and maimed vets have to be taken care of, some for the rest of their lives.
Guy
Calling BS here. It was Obama messing around with our benefits trying to "save costs".
Nice try though. The TP has no problem paying those that have most definately EARNED it.
Brian....Beg to disagree. The Ryan budget included across the board cuts which included cuts to the VA budget.
Yup, Guy is correct. Cuts to VA were included in Ryan budget. Obama has said on several occasions that he will make every effort to exempt benefits to veterans, including health care, from the defense budget cuts due to sequestration. If Brian is referring to Tricare, Obama proposed a minimal increase in premiums. Romney, however, proposed privatizing veterans benefits via a voucher plan.
Bill Gertz at the Washington Free Beacon writes of a growing controversy in Congress and the Pentagon over the Obama administration’s latest brainstorm for cutting our defense budget:
The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.
The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.
The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.
(Emphasis mine.) Military personnel have voiced some understandable concerns about this little scheme, which could “severely impact efforts to recruit and maintain a high-quality all-volunteer military force.” Here’s why:
Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.
Google "Total Dysfunction" and you get the US Congress and Senate, and members Boehner, McConnell, and Reid as the poster children. What is with these clueless baboozes? They just don't get it. Had they done their job for the past 10 years we would not be in this position. Each year they do less and less real work, more face time in front of the camera, talking their usual line of crap. How about 8 year term limits, no government related work for 10 years. Fail to do your job at the end of the year, your pay stops, donated to charity. Too bad their parents didn't practice birth control, saving us from their willful incompetence. They make the USA look like a little 4th world country with their failure to accomplish anything. Give us a break.
What a bunch of morons in Congress. How many years has our US Post Office asked Congress to le them reorangize and reduce their business so that they can balance their budget.....but no, Congress by their inaction, forces the US PO to run millions no billions in debt. And this is a Congress who tells us they want budget cuts and be responsible? What a joke! I say cut the federal employees...start with Congress reduce their numbers by 50% and reduce some of their benefits. Many of these Congressmen are millionaires and won't even notice. They sure don't notice how their cuts hurt middle class Americans.
no not a bunch of morons just the gop and the teaparty....pelosi had 40% approval rating in her two years and that was during the period after bush that was in deep recession. the gop and boehner are in charge of this mess not the dems...40% is high for the house in history...she did a good job...wether the gop wants to admit it or not...and relative to the new boehner house she run ruled the old boy....the people have spoken...
91% that means only there family and friends voted for them in that 9%....pelosi had a 40% approval rating during her two years....
don't blame the dems the teaparty is the only thing different than in the 2008-2010 house....i don't even blame boehner he didn't want these yahoo....that pearched debt reduction and then obama gives him a 4 to 1 spending cuts if they would just raise taxes on the wealthiest 2%...remember that grand bargain are fiscal house would have been in order but nnnnnnoooooooo the teaparty blocked it...... the teaparty.. and whats happening now those cuts are being raised and it's one to one spending to tax increases.... you want those bozos negoiating for you... couldn't take yes for and answer....
The TPGOP House approval is back in single digits. Way to go. No wonder the Dems got more voted for House seats than the TPGOP.
i don't blame boehner i blame the goofs that voted in the third party....the republicans don't want these goofs either...jim demitt and the me party...bye jimmie and 2014 see all you teapartiers in the unemployment lines....mr. boehner give em the line let him hang themselves...
82% are dissatisfied with the present congress yet we all continually send the sorry excuses for humanity back. Bottom line is they raise taxes and blame the other party for not working together. Step one would be balancing a budget. Not continually raising debt every time they need more money.
what about the grand bargain obama offered last debt ceiling 4 to 1 spending cuts to new taxes just on the top 2%,,,THAT THE TEAPARTY VOTED DOWN.. sounds like obama was serious...he took a ton of @!$%# for the deep spending cuts from his party.....but then he's not worried about his party first like the gop and teaparty...
things worked till the teaparty got in....ended two wars saved g.m. unemploy from 10 to 8...the teaparty voted 31 times to repeal obamacare since elected 31 times that more than the total other bills passed like maybe a jobs bill....duh
Farewell to the Do Little Congress... that are apparently all getting raises come March 2013.
I would say "unbelievable"... but considering Obama is the one that signed off on it, it is believable. Guess those tax hikes are for more than "balancing" the budget.
All I know is that I am going to lose a significant percentage of money in taxes out of my paycheck and I am no where near $250K a year. This all posturing and it sucks because the reporting on this blog never calls it for what it is. Poor leadership. It's such a simple negotiation ... you give a little and you get a little. This president can't get a deal done.
That's because the payroll taxes holiday - social security & medicare - expires. Rates will go back up to 6.2% - we've been paying only 4.2% for the past 2 years. Haven't seen anything in the proposals addressing this. What should happen is that the annual wage maximum on payroll taxes (not income tax) should be increased from $110,100 to at least $500,000. This would go a long way to insure the solvency of Social Security for decades. Why should I have to pay social security and medicare taxes on ALL my annual wage and the CEOs get to stop at $110K a year?
"Farewell to the 112th Congress...". Fairwell to a do nothing Congress?!! Just what the hell do people think the 113th Congress is going to be - any better? Only an idiot would believe that!
I'd feel a lot better if they ALL were leaving for good.
So Congress may vote in the wee hours of Tuesday but it counts as a vote in 2012? Did I miss something? Did Congress suddenly change the laws of space and time?
That will be the Senate only. There is no evidence that the House will go along with this. Remember that Senators are voted state-wide which means they are "elected" by the big city machnes. The House represents the people as they are eleected from areas that are not so controlled. They are responsible to the people in their district - not the whole state, and certainly not to the majority that might elect the president.
And your point is? You think House districts truly represent the electorate in that district? Ever heard of gerrymandering? You don't think powerful political machines don't influence the election of House members? And that state legislatures which draw congressional districts don't draw them in order to maintain a party's control? Really?!
However, none of this was the point of my post. My point was a vote in the wee hours of January 1, 2013 counting as though it was a vote in 2012. Thus Congress changing the physics of space and time. Wow, even Einstein couldn't do that...