From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro and Luke Russert
AP reports that "a former aide to Rep. Alcee Hastings (D) is suing the Florida congressman for sexual harassment."

Hastings dismissed the allegations as "ludicrous," contending that the suit "contains numerous inaccuracies and untruths."

More from AP on the allegations:

"The conservative legal group Judicial Watch is representing Winsome Packer in her lawsuit filed Monday against Hastings and the Helsinki Commission that he chaired. Packer claims Hastings repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances, including trying to invite himself to her apartment and hugging her, and threatened her position when she refused him."

Hastings said, "When all the facts are known in this case, the prevailing sentiment will be, ‘How bizarre!’ I will win this lawsuit.  That is a certainty.  In a race with a lie, the truth always wins. And when the truth comes to light and the personal agendas of my accusers are exposed, I will be vindicated.”

What was Packer's role? She "served as the commission's staff representative in Vienna and says much of the harassment occurred when Hastings was in Europe on commission business," AP writes. "The commission advises on U.S. policy about security, human rights and other issues involving Europe."

Before serving in Congress, Hastings was removed as a federal judge after being impeached. He later served as chairman of a subcommittee on the House Rules Committee.

Here's Hastings’ full statement:

“My comments will be limited since I have not seen the complaint filed in U.S. District Court by Judicial Watch.  I have seen a draft complaint prepared by my accuser that contains numerous inaccuracies and untruths.

“I have never sexually harassed anyone. In fact, I am insulted that these ludicrous allegations are being made against me.  When all the facts are known in this case, the prevailing sentiment will be, ‘How bizarre!’

“I will win this lawsuit.  That is a certainty.  In a race with a lie, the truth always wins. And when the truth comes to light and the personal agendas of my accusers are exposed, I will be vindicated.”

NBC's Kelly O'Donnell notes, Hastings is a senior member of the House Rules Committee, ranking Democratic member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, and Democratic chairman of the Florida Delegation.

From NBC's Luke Russert
How much will Democrats be willing to cut to the federal budget for the rest of fiscal year 2011 to avoid a future government shutdown? It remains unclear. At a news conference today on Capitol Hill, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declined to offer a number in regards to how much Democrats would be willing to cut from the current budget.

"You don’t expect me to announce it right here?” Pelosi said. She continued, “Democrats stand ready to meet with Republicans half way on this, that would be fair.”

What is half way?

Democrats contend they have supported more than $41 billion in cuts to President Obama’s requested fiscal year 2011 budget. That $41 billion comes from a vote in December 2010, which called for the budget to operate at a continued spending freeze at fiscal year 2010 levels till March of 2011. In essence, the $41 billion dollars in cuts to Obama’s desired budget came from the fact that House Democrats took the 2010 budget into the first three months of 2011.

During the 2010 mid-term campaign, Republicans in their “Pledge to America” promised to cut $100 billion from President Obama’s requested fiscal year 2011 budget. In 2010, House Democrats failed to pass a budget for fiscal year 2011. Therefore, the government is currently operating under fiscal year 2010 levels.

Two weeks ago, House Republicans proposed to cut $61 billion from the current spending levels that fund the government. The GOP cut $747 million from the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program and $119 million from an educational grant to improve teaching amongst other things. When asked if Democrats would put forth a counter offer to the $61 billion dollars that Republicans want to cut, Pelosi said:

"What we have to do is get a fair shake for the American people. This is about who can cut more without any scrutiny or subjecting these cuts to the scrutiny of what they do. You may think you are cutting but you aren't saving because your cuts maybe very unwise when it comes to education. Nothing brings more to the treasury than investing in education. Republican cuts to education present a false economy. This isn't just about numbers in the amount of cuts; it's about what is cut."

When pressed further for a concrete number, Pelosi responded, "I'm not going to say that number, because I'm not approximating or conceiving or stipulating to any number.”

The inability of Democrats to suggest a dollar number for cuts to the current budget has invigorated Republicans. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring quickly sent out the following release after Pelosi’s press conference:

“It is remarkable that with families small businesses tightening their belts and a debt that stifles investment and private sector job growth, former Speaker Pelosi still has not offered a plan that cuts a single dollar from current federal spending levels. People deserve honest leadership, and a Congress that is serious about getting its fiscal House in order – not this unserious malarkey that Leader Reid and former Speaker Pelosi keep throwing around.”

Later today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) Pelosi, Sens. Reid (D-NV) and McConnell (R-KY) will meet with Vice President Biden to begin talks in an effort to try and agree a long term government funding bill for the rest of fiscal year 2011. It is unknown if Democrats will offer a dollar figure on how much they’d be willing to cut from the budget to appease Republicans. As of 3:30 pm ET, the figure stands at $0 on top of the $4 billion in cuts that was agreed to earlier this week to keep the government operating another 14 days.

From NBC's Luke Russert and Mark Murray
Georgia Congressman Paul Broun (R) has confirmed that he received this question at a town hall on Tuesday: "Who's going to shoot Obama?"

According to the Athens Banner-Herald, which first reported the news, Broun responded to the question this way: "The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president. We’re going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we’ll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare."

Broun's spokeswoman told the Georgia newspaper: “Obviously, the question was inappropriate, so Congressman Broun moved on.”

Now, after the outburst gained national attention, Broun has issued a statement condemning any suggestion or threat of violence aimed at the president or any other elected official.

Tuesday night at a town hall meeting in Oglethorpe County, Georgia an elderly man asked the abhorrent question, “Who’s going to shoot Obama?” I was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question. After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities. I deeply regret that this incident happened at all. Furthermore, I condemn all statements—made in sincerity or jest—that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated.

*** UPDATE *** TPM is reporting that, per witnesses, Broun "laughed when an elderly man at his town hall meeting this week asked 'Who's gonna shoot Obama?'"

From NBC's Luke Russert
A GOP aide tells NBC News that the House GOP Leadership along with the House Appropriations Committee is working on a temporary funding measure for the nation's budget that would cut current spending levels and still have a real chance of passing the U.S. Senate.

The compromise would call for $4 billion in spending cuts from current fiscal year 2011 spending levels over two weeks from March 4th through March 18th.

Right now, the current continuing resolution (the funding of the U.S. government) expires on March 4th at 11:59pm.

Republicans contend the cuts would come from non-controversial areas of government and also touch on things that President Obama has said could be cut in the past.

"Senator Reid and Senator Schumer's position that they will force a government shutdown rather than cut any spending is indefensible," a GOP aide said. "It'll be very hard for them to oppose a reasonable short-term funding measure that will cut spending over a two-week period."

The aide also tells NBC News that the GOP leadership doesn't expect their 87-member activist freshman class to derail the two-week budget proposal. The timeline as to when it would be voted on in the House would be in the middle of next week.

Late last week the House passed at budget for the rest of fiscal year 2011 that included $61 billion dollars in cuts through September. That budget will likely not go anywhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Speaker John Boehner has rejected any compromise from Reid that would keep current spending levels frozen temporarily until a longer budget bill could be worked out between the House and the Senate.

The bill being crafted by the GOP leadership is aimed at attracting support from moderate Democrats in the Senate. A GOP aide speculated that the compromise bill might appeal to Sens. McCaskill, Tester, Manchin, and Warner.

The hope of the GOP leadership is that the two-week compromise would prevent a government shutdown and give the House and Senate some time to agree on a budget that cuts spending for fiscal year 2011.

*** UPDATE *** NBC's Ken Strickland notes that the $4-billion two-week short term fix is equal to a pro-rated amount of the $61-billion worth of spending cuts in the long-term Continuing Resolution the House passed last week.

In other words, if you divided $61-billion into the remaining weeks of the fiscal year, it would be about $2 billion per week. For two weeks--the likely length of the short term stopgap bill -- that would be $4 billion.

That does not sit well with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said in a statement:

"The Republicans' so-called compromise is nothing more than the same extreme package the House already handed the Senate, just with a different bow. This isn't a compromise, it's a hardening of their original position. This bill would simply be a two-week version of the reckless measure the House passed last weekend. It would impose the same spending levels in the short term as their initial proposal does in the long term, and it isn't going to fool anyone. Both proposals are non-starters in the Senate.

From NBC's Mark Murray and Luke Russert
Democrats in the House and Senate have proposed legislation halting congressional pay during a federal government shutdown.

Said Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), a co-sponsor of the legislation introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bob Casey (D-PA): “Though I’m hopeful that House Republicans will reach an agreement and back away from their threat of a government shutdown this spring, we should be realistic in preparing for that possibility.”

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has introduced the same legislation in the House. "If we're going to throw federal employees, including our staffs, out on the street, we should be right there with them," Moran said. "In the event of a shutdown, members should be eating peanut butter and jelly like everyone else."

U.S. Congressman Jack Kingston at Chatham County Republican Party Headquarters in Georgia.

From NBC's Luke Russert
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) came out strongly against a provision of health-care overhaul that is actually quite popular across the country.

Talking on the House floor today about the provision that allows children to stay on their parent's health-care plan until they're 26 years old, Kingston said (paraphrasing here, but pretty close):

"I have four kids under the age of 26. I have raised them to be responsible. The average age of soldiers in Vietnam was 19. World War II probably the same. I have raised my kids to be responsible, to get health care at 21. Kids don't need to be running home to mommy and daddy until they're 26 for healthcare."

FILE-Rep. Phil Gingrey R-Ga. during a health care news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington in 2009.

From NBC's Luke Russert
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) on the House floor said the health-care overhaul law was the "worst bill that has ever been passed in the history of Congress."

It's quite a statement considering the nation's history.

Some historians may argue that the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 or the Sedition Act of 1918, which essentially made it a crime to criticize the U.S. government, may be worse -- as they were a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Another black eye in the nation's history, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which allowed for slavery to exist beneath the 36-30 parallel was passed by Congress in an effort for America to continue as a half slave and half-free state.

Perhaps the worst bill passed by Congress is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This legislation called for all runaway slaves to be returned to their masters. The only thing needed to track and apprehend a slave was a sworn affidavit from a master. Also, the slave had no right to jury trial or right to testify on their behalf.

So as this contentious debate on an amendment to defund health-care reform goes forward in 2011, it's important to remember that our nation has come a long way since 1776 and seen its fair share of egregious legislation that has had to do with human rights.

*** UPDATE *** Rep. Shelia Jackson-Lee (D-TX) just went on the House floor and Gingrey's claim.

Jackson-Lee said (paraphrase), "Worst bill ever passed? How dare they? What about the slave laws? The fugitive slave laws? This bill gives people rights, it does not take them away."

*** UPDATE 2 *** Here's what Jackson-Lee said: "We have to respond to someone who got up and actually said this is the worst bill that's ever been passed. What about the slave laws? What about the fugitive slave laws. How dare anyone suggest this is the worst bill when we give opportunity to all Americans. This amendment should be denied."

From NBC's Luke Russert
At a press conference this morning on Capitol Hill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) claimed that House Republicans would trim $100 billion dollars from the budget for the rest of the fiscal year.

"As part of our effort to liberate our economy from the shackles of out of control spending," Boehner said, "the House will soon vote to cut discretionary spending by over $100 billion dollars over the last seven months of this fiscal year.”

When pressed by NBC News if the House GOP intends to cut $100 billion dollars from the budget that the nation’s government is currently operating under, Boehner said, "We're going to cut $100 billion dollars based on the budget the President submitted."

Yet, President Obama’s submitted budget for fiscal year 2011 was never voted on by Congress and thus never approved. It does not exist as a governing number.

Why?

Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became the first Speaker in the modern era to not pass a budget since the 1974 Budget Act was implemented in Congress. Due to Democrats' inability to pass a budget for fiscal year 2011, the government currently operates under a series of continuing resolutions which operate under fiscal year 2010 levels.

Boehner’s claim that House Republicans will cut $100 billion from the budget for the rest of fiscal year 2011 is dubious at best. In their “Pledge to America,” House Republicans said they would lower spending in their first year by $100 billion dollars and return to fiscal year 2008 levels or “pre-bailout and pre-Obama levels.”

Currently, House Republicans are working towards cutting around $60 billion dollars from the current budget for fiscal year 2011.

Originally, the House GOP introduced a budget that would cut $32 billion dollars for fiscal year 2011. By cutting $32 billion, Republicans would have spent out the rest of fiscal year 2011 at fiscal year 2008 levels.

That number was deemed too low by Tea Party and conservative House members.  By increasing the cuts to $60 billion, Republicans spend out the government in fiscal year 2011 at a lower rate than fiscal year 2008. Thus, Republicans not only honor their 'pledge' but also double the amount of money they are going to cut. All that being said, they are not cutting $100 billion dollars in real money for the rest of fiscal year 2011.

GOP aides tell NBC News that the $100 billion dollar number is symbolically important to conservative House Republicans and that straying publicly from that number would upset a base of voting support that has become increasingly hawkish on fiscal issues. For this reason the Speaker and others in the House GOP Leadership stick to script, saying they’ll cut $100 billion dollars from the budget. It sounds better than saying “we’re going to save you 50% more than fiscal year 2008 levels.”  

From NBC's Luke Russert
In a vote that split the parties, the House just adopted an amendment - sponsored by Reps. Tom Rooney of Florida and John Larson of Connecticut -- to eliminate funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine (F-136).

The final vote was 233-198, with 110 Republicans and 123 Democrats voting to strike the funding.

The engine, which costs $450 million, won backing from 130 Republicans but was opposed by some high-profile Tea Party-backed freshmen, including Reps. Allen West of Florida and Kristi Noem of South Dakota.

The only member of House GOP Leadership to vote for the amendment was GOP Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

Due to an aggressive lobbying push from people on both sides of the Striker engine issue, the vote caused for some strange bedfellows.  For example: Democrats Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida voted with Republicans Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota and Eric Cantor of Virginia to keep the funding.

The Senate still has to pass the amendment when they deal with the Continuing Resolution to fund the government later this month.

From NBC's Shawna Thomas, Luke Russert, and Kelly O'Donnell
Here's a wrap up of responses to President Obama's budget proposal out today. (For some details on the budget, see First Thoughts.)

REPUBLICANS

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH):

"The president's budget will destroy jobs by spending too much, taxing too much, and borrowing too much. By continuing the spending binge and imposing massive tax hikes on families and small businesses, it will fuel more economic uncertainty and make it harder to create new jobs.

"The president's budget isn't winning the future, it's spending the future. A group of 150 American economists signed a statement sent to the White House yesterday that says we need to cut spending to help create a better environment for job creation in our country. Our goal is to listen to the American people and liberate our economy from the shackles of debt, over-taxation, and big government. That's why the new House majority will vote this week to cut $100 billion in discretionary spending over the next seven months - with more cuts to come - in contrast to the Obama administration, which has proposed no cuts to the current fiscal year's budget while simultaneously asking for an increase in the national debt limit. And in the coming weeks, Budget Chairman Paul Ryan will offer a comprehensive budget for the next fiscal year that will contrast sharply with the president's job-crushing FY12 budget."

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA):

"President Obama says he wants to win the future, but the future will not be won by repeating the mistakes of the past and failing to live up to our responsibilities in the present. The future will be won by bold and honest leadership that addresses our challenges head on.

"Today, the President missed a unique opportunity to provide real leadership by offering a budget that fails to address the grave fiscal situation facing our country. At a time when unemployment is too high and economic growth is elusive in part because of the uncertainty created by our skyrocketing debt, we need serious reforms that will help restore confidence so that people can get back to work. We need a government that finally does what every other American has to do in their households and their businesses, and that's to live within our means. Instead, President Obama's budget doubles down on the bad habits of the past four years by calling for more taxes, spending and borrowing of money that we simply do not have.

"President Obama has used tough rhetoric about the need to get our fiscal house in order, even assembling a bipartisan commission to address entitlement spending which accounts for more than half of our federal budget including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Unfortunately, the President again failed to put action behind his words by neglecting to even acknowledge these tough issues that everyone knows drive up our debt and must be reformed if they are to meet their obligations for younger Americans.

"As our government continues to borrow forty cents of every dollar that it spends, our Democrat colleagues have offered no credible plan to get Americans back to work or seriously address our debt. In contrast, House Republicans are fully committed to using every tool at our disposal so that we can boost long-term economic confidence and help businesses to grow. And this week we will cut at least $100 billion of wasteful spending, a first step toward getting our fiscal house in order.

"For years, Democrats have proposed more government spending to create jobs, resulting in the largest debt and deficits in history while unemployment remains too high. Republicans believe in free markets and the ability for small businesses and entrepreneurs to keep more of their own money so they can invest, grow their companies and hire employees. This is the difference, and it will be clearly evident in the coming weeks as Chairman Paul Ryan and House Republicans introduce our own budget, one that addresses the challenges we face so that our children have the same hope, opportunity, and ability to achieve that our parents gave to us and their parents to them."

House Budget Chair Paul Ryan:

"The President's budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much - stifling job growth today and leaving our children with a diminished future. In this critical test of leadership, the President has failed to tackle the urgent fiscal and economic threats before us."

"Failing to heed the warnings of economists and the demands of the American people, the President's budget accelerates our country down the path to bankruptcy. Far from 'living within its means,' the President's budget puts the government on track to nearly double in size since the day he took office - a direct result of his party's reckless spending spree. His budget destroys jobs by imposing a $1.6 trillion tax hike, adding $13 trillion to the national debt and fueling uncertainty in the private sector.

"We cannot tax, spend and borrow our way to prosperity. Where the President has fallen short, Republicans will work to chart a new course - advancing a path to prosperity by cutting spending, keeping taxes low, reforming government, and rising to meet the challenges of our time."

Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH):

"Thanks to House conservatives, the spending culture in Congress is beginning to change. The White House still hasn't gotten the message, however.  Even as Americans are looking for Washington to cut back, President Obama wants to burden families and employers with higher taxes, more spending, and more debt.

"The President failed a crucial test of leadership by ignoring the need for reforms that will preserve Medicare and Social Security for future generations.  These safety-net programs are in serious trouble without significant reforms, yet this budget has nothing to say about the problem.

"House Republicans are working to reduce spending and put the country's budget back on the path to balance.  Americans know that prosperity does not spring from government's power to tax, borrow, and spend.  We need to rein in Washington's massive spending deficits and give American job-creators the freedom to grow once again."

Sen. Bob Corker:

"The president has missed an opportunity to show real leadership on the number one issue threatening our country's future. Getting spending under control and reducing our deficit will be difficult without presidential leadership. I hope in the coming weeks he will come to the table in a meaningful way to address these issues," said Corker. "As we approach our debt limit of $14.29 trillion, I see no better time to impose a fiscal straitjacket on Washington. We need to vote on and pass spending cuts this year, and we need to pass the CAP Act Senator McCaskill and I have offered to force Congress to dramatically cut spending over 10 years. By capping spending - discretionary and mandatory - to a declining percentage of GDP, we would put our country on a path to fiscal sanity, while incentivizing Congress to pass policies that promote economic growth."

The Commitment to American Prosperity Act, the "CAP Act," would:
(1) Put in place a 10-year glide path to cap all spending - discretionary and mandatory - to a declining percentage of the country's gross domestic product, eventually bringing spending down from the current level, 24.7 percent of GDP, to the 40-year historical level of 20.6 percent, and
(2) If Congress fails to meet the annual cap, require the Office of Management and Budget to make evenly distributed, simultaneous cuts throughout the federal budget to bring spending down to the pre-determined level. Only a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress could override the binding cap, and
(3) For the first time, eliminate the deceptive "off-budget" distinction for Social Security - providing a complete and accurate assessment of all federal spending.
The Corker-McCaskill CAP Act is currently cosponsored by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX):

"President Obama's timid budget proposal represents a missed opportunity to lead. It increases the national debt by nearly $11 trillion, raises taxes, and ignores the recommendations of the President's own bipartisan debt commission. Republicans are ready to show we are serious about making these tough choices and getting the boot off the neck of American entrepreneurs and small businesses."

NBC's Shawna Thomas reports that Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), vice chair of Budget committee, this morning made brief remarks that set up the GOP's prepared response to the budget with the line that it's "a budget that unfortunately spends a little bit too much, taxes too much and borrows too much again." House Budget Chairman Ryan and Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) will hold a presser this afternoon on the budget.

"In the preview of what we've seen so far it is a continuation of a, as our chairman has said, a budget that unfortunately spends a little bit too much, taxes too much and borrows too much again," Garrett said. "The President has indicated to us that it's imperative that we sign the raising of the debt limit but at the same time we look at this budget and we see that the debt of the federal government continues to grow at outstanding rates and he's going... to ask us to do so again."

When asked if he sensed there would be any common ground between the GOP and the president on this budget, Garrett couldn't seem to find any this morning.

"Well he, he says that he wants to work with us to begin reigning in spending," Garrett said. "Most of what we have seen as far as preliminary numbers go in exactly the opposite direction. Most of what we've seen is that the actual amount of borrowing will be going, as I said before,  in an increased direction and that's why you're actually seeing a doubling of the debt since the time this administration came into office. On the tax side of the equation, the president said he wanted to work with us, basically to place less of a burden on the American taxpayers. But we see here again that it goes in the opposite direction about $1.5 trillion increase in the opposite direction, in that direction, as well. And he also said he wanted to care, as you said, for our future generations, our children and our grandchildren,  but this is just going to place even our heaviest burden on them as well. So we're more than happy, I think all of us on our side of the aisle to reach a hand out to the administration to work where we can but there is very little that we see in this so far that there's commonality on spending."

DEMOCRATS

Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD):

"Today, President Obama released his proposed Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The president's budget makes the tough choices we need to reduce spending and put our nation's fiscal house in order; in fact, it would reduce our deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. At the same time, however, the budget identifies those investments we need to grow our economy and create jobs-investments in out-building, out-innovating, and out-educating competitors around the world. President Obama's priorities-protecting our fiscal future while investing in growth-stand in strong contrast to the priorities of Republicans. Their spending bill for the rest of this fiscal year would make indiscriminate and short-sighted cuts to the investments our economy needs to stay competitive. I hope that Republicans will, instead, work with President Obama to reduce our deficit without sacrificing America's competitive edge."

Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD):

"The President has put forth a budget that reduces our deficit, while also investing in our future. Two years after the President inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and a structural deficit that came from years of fiscal irresponsibility, we have made progress. But we must do more to invest in job creation and economic growth in the short-term, as well as get our nation on a long-term, responsible path to fiscal sustainability. This budget makes an important step towards both those goals.

"There is no question President Obama has made some tough decisions. But this budget also keeps in mind that we need to make smart choices that will create more jobs, lift up middle-class families, and keep our economy growing. While I don't agree with everything in this budget, it is a responsible place to start. It prioritizes national investments that will help our economy continue to recover and keep America competitive, focusing on important investments in things like infrastructure, education, and research. It also extends tax cuts for the middle class, while rejecting tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent. And it represents an important down payment on getting our fiscal house in order.

"The President's budget stands in sharp contrast to the House Republicans' proposed funding bill for the remainder of the year. We need to get serious about debts and deficits in this country - but while Democrats propose smart, precise cuts, the GOP wants to blindly slash in the short-term and has no plan for long-term fiscal sustainability. The President's budget is a responsible proposal that will help America move forward, while the reckless Republican bill will cost jobs and hurt the economy."

From NBC's Shawna Thomas and Luke Russert
It looks like it could be another day before House Republicans comes out with their actual cuts to this year's budget, and those cuts could be bigger than previously announced. The House Appropriations Committee was supposed to have posted the continuing resolution (CR) language on its Web site today, but in its place is a statement from Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) reaffirming the GOP’s promise to cut “$100 billion from the continuing resolution.”

The statement reads, “After meeting with my subcommittee chairs, we have determined that the CR can and will reach a total of $100 billion in cuts compared to the President’s request immediately -- fully meeting the goal outlined in the Republican ‘Pledge to America’ in one fell swoop. Our intent is to make deep but manageable cuts in nearly every area of government, leaving no stone unturned and allowing no agency or program to be held sacred.”

However, the $100 billion number could become smaller when the cuts are compared to the government current actual spending levels.

Any way it goes, this is a sign that the GOP is working hard to come up with a much bigger number than what had already been announced. Apparently, everything is on the table now with multiple aides confirming that even “security” spending is on the chopping block. “We will make $100 billion in discretionary cuts, while making common sense exceptions for our troops and veterans -- just as the Pledge promises.” The aide continued, “Yes, some cuts will come from “security” categories.”  

As for the new timing of the CR language, a leadership aide said, "Our goal is for it to come out on Friday." Rogers statement noted that more information will be made available “when the bill is formally introduced.” It did not specify a date.

Speaker John Boehner, when asked about the CR’s progress earlier today, answered calmly, "We're working with our members and our committee chairman to achieve the largest cut possible." When pressed he proceeded to repeat a similar line but seemed confident that the CR would come to the floor next week. 

Boehner was also asked whether this was the right time to cut funding to programs like WIC, the Women, Infants and Children program that provides nutrition “at no charge to low-income pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women; and infants and children." His response, "Everything is on the table. We're broke. Let's be honest with ourselves. It's time for Washington to get serious and that's exactly what the American people expect of us."

Based on the numbers provided yesterday, it looks like WIC could take about a 10% hit to their budget. 

(Crunching the numbers: WIC's budget in FY2010 was $7.3 billion and $6.9 billion in FY2009. The president asked for $7.6 billion for 2011, so the proposed cut of $758 million would be about 10%.)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also was asked about the delay, and she pointed to Republican infighting as a possible cause. "We had hoped to receive the numbers this morning so that we could make some comment." She continued, "Now because of the disarray in the Republican party, and this is only one manifestation of it, they will be taking another day. I think they're finding out is that it's easier to talk about cutting then it is to actually do it."

Pelosi also said that eliminating $100 billion, "really cuts to the heart of who we are as a county. Unless they're putting everything on the table." 

And with security spending not being sacred anymore, that begs the question what will be cut from that category. Boehner was asked specifically about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Extra Engine that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he doesn't want funded.  The reporter asked if it was a “no brainer” to defund that as well as some ethanol programs. Boehner responded, "Some of the things that you're mentioning are not in the discretionary spending pot... I remind you that we've been in the majority now five weeks. We're going to have a long year. You are going to see more spending cuts come out of this Congress than any Congress in the history of this country."

And some of those large cuts may become very visible tomorrow. But will that be large enough to appease Tea Party and Republican Study Committee members who have publicly complained for the last few weeks that leadership hasn’t been serious about getting the budget under control? 

From NBC’s Luke Russert and Domenico Montanaro
After last night’s failed vote to extend provisions of the PATRIOT Act, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said the GOP isn’t “going to be perfect every day,” but he blamed it on Democrats -- despite 26 members of his caucus voting against it.

"Well listen, we've been in the majority four weeks, we're not going to be perfect every day,” Boehner said. “If the Democrats who had voted for these provisions last year had voted for them this year, it would have passed. We're going to get these extensions of the PATRIOTIC Act enacted, because it's important for the safety and security of the American people."

Asked why leadership brought the bill up under suspension rules, which would require a two-thirds majority, if it didn’t have the votes, Boehner insisted the vote was there.

"It was," he said.

Another area of disagreement within the GOP caucus, particularly the Tea Party wing, is on spending. Some Tea Party-backed members – and Tea Party groups at large -- have criticized the GOP for not cutting spending enough, at least not to their proposed $100 billion promise in the “Pledge to America.”

"I have made it clear for a month now that I believe we ought to allow the House to work its will,” Boehner said. “I've been a big believer of this for the 20 years that I've been here. Now we have a chance to do it. Let's let the House make that decision. It's not about my decision, it's not about anybody else's decision. All members Democrats and Republicans ought to have a chance to involve themselves in the process of legislating and let all members represent all Americans to develop how much cutting the American people really want. I'm looking forward to debate, I'll look at the amendments, let's let the House vote on them."

Ahead of next week’s White House budget release, Boehner said the GOP will release its spending cuts bill tomorrow.

"Tomorrow, we'll unveil our budget-cutting bill to fund the government from March 4^th to Sept. 30^th, again keeping our pledge to the American people that we will cut spending,” Boehner said. “All of this will create an environment for more jobs in America."

This announcement means that tomorrow the public will be able to see which government programs specifically the GOP would propose cutting in order to bring spending down by $32 billion for the rest of fiscal year 2011.

Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) will be at the White House this afternoon to have lunch with President Obama. They’re expected to talk about spending cuts among other items.

“These are the kind of issues that we are going to talk to him about,” Cantor said, “and hopefully, we can find some common ground so we can see jobs growing in this country again."

While Cantor emphasized “common ground,” McCarthy took a shot at the president.

“As the leader said, when we go down to see the president I am very hopeful,” he said. But then added to the reporters gathered, “You want be there -- the teleprompters won't be there.

“I hope we have a very frank conversation about how we are going to create jobs and cut the spending in Washington."