From NBC's Shawna Thomas
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) teamed up this afternoon to tell Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that they will not be making any more moves on a Fiscal Year 2011 spending compromise until they see what his plan is to fund the government and cut spending.

"I think it's important to make clear that we've been in discussions with our Democrat colleagues for weeks," Boehner said. "This isn't something new. ... The House's position is we passed a bill. It's out there. I think it's time for them [Senate Democrats] to outline for us what's their position to keep the government funded. We've done our work in the House." 

What remains unclear is whether the position the speaker took today is a rejection of the White House's invitation to have Vice President Biden hold talks with both sides to help work out a deal. This morning, President Obama released a statement calling on congressional leaders to meet with Biden, White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, and his budget director to "find common ground on a budget that makes sure we are living within our means."

Multiple times the speaker was asked if would he be willing to take part in that meeting, and he seemed to continually dodge the question.

"I said the House has a position," Boehner reiterated. "Where's the Senate Democrats' position? I don't know where it is. How do you start a conversation where one House has spoken but the other House hasn't? Where's the starting point?"

After today's news conference, Boehner's office clarified that the speaker had not been formally invited by the White House and that the terms of the negotiation were murky, at best, pointing to Reid's comments that entitlements and the debt limit should be part of the conversations with the VP. 

McConnell seemed slightly more open to the White House's meeting saying, "We just heard about this suggestion of the people who are supposed to be invited to a discussion on the way in here, so we'll take a look at what they have to say."

McConnell and Biden had several conversations during the lame-duck session when the White House was trying to broker a deal on tax cuts.

From NBC's Shawna Thomas
The names Rivera and Lee have already given the new GOP House majority headaches when it comes to ethical behavior, either alleged or real. And now you might be able to add another name: Hanna -- as in Rep. Richard Hanna.

Hanna, a freshman congressman from New York’s 24th District, published a commentary in the Syracuse Post-Standard on Feb. 20 explaining why he didn’t vote for extensions of certain provisions of the Patriot Act when it was brought to the floor last week. Congressional commentary explaining one’s position is standard. But what about publishing a piece where sections appear to be lifted from a CATO Institute blog?

For example, Hanna wrote in his commentary:

As drafted currently, the Patriot Act includes “lone wolf” authority that allows non-citizens in our country who are suspected of involvement in terrorist activities to be monitored under the broad powers afforded by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), even if they are not connected to any overseas terror group or other “foreign power.”

And here's the CATO blog, penned by Julian Sanchez:

So-called “lone wolf” authority allows non-citizens in the U.S. who are suspected of involvement in terrorist activities to be monitored under the broad powers afforded by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), even if they are not connected to any overseas terror group or other “foreign power.”

Here's another passage from Hanna:

Finally, the Patriot Act expanded the authority of the FISA Court to compel the production of business records or any other “tangible thing.” Previously, such orders were limited to narrow classes of businesses and records, and required a showing of specific facts that the records sought pertain to an agent of a foreign power.”

And CATO's Sanchez:

Section 215 expanded the authority of the FISA Court to compel the production of business records or any other “tangible thing.” While previously such orders were limited to narrow classes of businesses and records, and required a showing of “specific and articulable facts” that the records sought pertain to an agent of a foreign power, Patriot stripped away those limits.

Hanna’s office maintains that this is not plagiarism. “Representative Hanna reaches out to a lot of policy experts, and he and Mr. Sanchez are closely aligned on the issue of the Patriot Act. Mr. Hanna sought Mr. Sanchez’s expert advice on this issue, and he offered his assistance for this particular piece.”

Sanchez backed up that claim on Twitter and in a follow-up email, in which he stated, “My post at Cato’s blog on the three expiring Patriot Act provisions drew on a short summary I wrote up for congressional offices—Rep. Hanna’s among them—that had asked me to help pinpoint the central issues in the renewal debate. Rep. Hanna’s office asked if they could adapt that summary for an op-ed, which I happily gave them permission to do after seeing a draft of the piece (this was on the 16th, I believe). As far as I’m concerned, this is a pretty routine case of legislators adapting analysis from outside experts in explaining policy issues to their constituents.”

But should Hanna's commentary still have cited Sanchez, or at least disclosed his role in the piece? James Thurber, a professor at American University’s Center for Congressional Studies thinks it is, in his words, “a question of ethics.”  

He said that members of Congress and their staffs have orientations on ethics, and he even helped co-author some of the member handbooks detailing the behavioral rules of Congress.  During the latest orientation, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) stated clearly in a document prepared for new Members that it was the job of the Republicans to “bring real reform to the House and not tolerate the mistakes and ethical lapses of our previous majority.” And in the much longer handbook, The Hill reported last year that there was advice such as “Don’t tolerate or enable ethical missteps. They are one of the easiest ways to short-circuit a congressional career.” And: “If you don’t want to see an activity or event reported on the front page of the local newspaper, don’t do it.”

Thurber reiterated that this is something members and their staffs have to be “exceedingly careful about... He’s a public figure that should be careful.” Thurber continued, “It's certainly not something that the congressman would want to have his children doing... He should be setting a much higher standard."

It's a standard Speaker John Boehner has said he expects from his members. “I believe that members of Congress should be held to the highest ethical standards, that's what the American people expect," he said after former Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY) resigned after the married congressman sent a shirtless photo of him to a woman he met on a CraigsList dating site. 

Boehner’s office had no immediate comment on Hanna’s situation. The Syracuse Post-Standard confirmed that they are researching this story and confirmed that that the commentary posted on their Web site is the same that appeared in the physical newspaper Sunday. 

Interestingly, this may not be Congressman Hanna’s first time cribbing CATO. Last year, the National Interest published a piece by Benjamin Friedman, in which he accused Hanna of stealing a line from a paper he co-wrote that was published in 2008.

Said Friedman: "In February 2008 Cato published 'Learning the Right Lessons from Iraq,' a paper I wrote with Harvey Sapolsky and Chris Preble... One line in the paper summed up our view this way: 'The military gives us the power to conquer foreign countries, but not the power to run them.'"

More from Friedman: "I remember thinking that was a good line when I wrote it. So, evidently, did Richard Hanna, a Republican who just got elected to Congress representing New York’s 24th District. In the speech he gave announcing his unsuccessful candidacy for the same seat in 2008, he said: 'The military gives us the power to conquer countries but not the power to run them.'"

Hat tip to Taegan Goddard, who first noted this Hanna-Sanchez controversy.

From NBC's Shawna Thomas and Mark Murray
As expected, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence's (R) amendment to strip federal funding for Planned Parenthood passed the House by a 240-185 vote. Ten Democrats joined the GOP majority, while seven Republicans voted against the measure.

It is very unlikely that the measure would pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.

From NBC’s Shawna Thomas and Carrie Dann 
At least some Congressional leaders aren’t backing down from a confrontation that could have Washington D.C. partying like it’s 1995.

House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that he will not support a temporary measure to fund the government at current levels, even if a larger federal spending bill  – called a “continuing resolution” – does not pass before a March 4 deadline. If no agreement is reached on the stopgap measure, a federal shutdown akin to one in the mid-1990s could result until a funding bill is passed.

"I'm not going to move any kind of short-term [continuing resolution] at current levels," Boehner told reporters today. "When we say we’re going to cut spending, read my lips: we’re going to cut spending.”

While some GOP leaders are downplaying the threat of another prolonged federal closure, Boehner’s unequivocal call to require at least some cuts from 2010 spending levels in order to keep the federal government’s lights on isn’t sitting well with Democrats, who accuse House Republicans of engaging in a high-stakes game of chicken.

His remark prompted a furious and almost immediate response from Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid, who appeared before cameras shortly after Boehner’s press conference to slam the House leader.

“We are terribly disappointed that Speaker Boehner can't control the votes in this Congress to prevent a shutdown of government,” Reid said. “And now he is resorting to threats to do just that without any negotiation.”

Asked whether Boehner will stick to his promise to cut spending even if it results in a federal blackout, a spokesman said that blame for a shutdown should be pinned on the Democrats, not on the GOP.

"All the Speaker said is that any short-term [continuing resolution] must cut spending," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. "If Sen. Reid wants to shut down the government rather than cut spending, that’s entirely on him."

The last government shutdown occurred in December 1995, when clashes between President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled House prompted the halting of many federal services and caused thousands of federal employees to stay home on furlough.

That political battle ultimately resulted in a popularity boost for Clinton. A Gallup poll released during the shutdown showed that only a quarter of Americans faulted the president for the shuttering of some federal agencies while nearly half blamed congressional Republicans.

Arthur the Aardvark (front), Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) (left), Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) outside the Capitol Feb. 16.

From NBC's Shawna Thomas
Arthur the Aardvark didn’t need to say anything at the foot of the Capitol today to make sure the cameras showed up. His mere presence was enough to spark the curiosity of the media. The popular PBS children’s character silently stood outside with a goofy grin, flanked by members of Congress, because the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s funding is once again on the chopping block by Republicans. (Here's a First Read history of the fight over funding for public media, courtesy of msnbc.com's Carrie Dann.)

This time the funding has been zeroed out in the Republicans’ continuing resolution that’s being debated on the House Floor. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and other Democrats announced plans to introduce an amendment to add back funding for the CPB and said that this is an ideological fight.

"Is this a fiscal fight or a cultural fight?" asked one reporter.

Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) answered, "This is an ideological attack on [the] public broadcasting system. Again, it happened in 1995 as soon as they took over the House the last time. It happened after President Bush was elected. This is just part of a reoccurring habit."

Markey then warned his colleagues that voting against the public broadcasting system would be "at their own political peril." He continued, "There's a razor-sharp edge to this issue back home."

While Markey couldn't give a whip count, he seemed optimistic about the prospects of the amendment. However, Blumenauer seemed worried about the lack of moderate Republicans in the House. 

"In the past, we have been successful, because there has been a strong, moderate, thoughtful Republican base of support where we had dozens of people," he said, adding, "There were a number of them that were involved with this and who were upfront, but now there is an undercurrent that is unsettling." 

Sunday, CPB released a statement that read: "We understand the challenges to our economy as a result of increasing budget deficits, but the proposed elimination of funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) will not address this challenge in a meaningful way...proposed action would directly result in cuts to the 1,300 public television and radio stations that provide this service. " The CPB supports more than 1,100 "locally-owned-and-operated public television and radio stations nationwide."

Blumenauer's amendment would put $460 million back into the CBP's budget by taking it away from the "percentage-depletion allowance for oil and gas wells.”

However, due to rules governing how appropriations bills can be written, this amendment will most likely be subject to a point-of-order objection, which would invalidate it.

Blumenauer office's complained about the amendment process in an email: "The way that the rules are written, there is no possible way to offer meaningful amendments in the minority. This is an intentional rule-making trap that the new majority uses to shut out the minority from meaningfully contributing to the discussion."

From NBC's Shawna Thomas
"So be it."

That's what House Speaker John Boehner said today when asked about the possibility of federal job losses as a result of the Fiscal Year 2011 funding bill that is currently being debated on the House floor.

In a GOP leadership press conference, Boehner was asked if he had an estimate on how many jobs could be lost as a result of the spending cuts House Republicans are seeking to various government programs.

His response: "Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs. And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We're broke. It's time for us to get serious on how we're spending the nation's money."

Democrats quickly seized on the remarks by Boehner, who during the 2010 midterm season constantly hurled this phrase at Obama and the Democrats: "Where are the jobs?"

When asked about Boehner's comments today, Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) responded, "What I wonder is, so what if it's aircraft controllers that make the skies safe?...So what if it's USDA meat inspectors that make sure the food supply is safe?... I think there's a lot of concern about that and this blithe assumption that anyone who works for the federal government must be part of waste fraud and abuse, maybe that should extend to the Congress as well as the federal work force. I think that's a very flip attitude about a very serious problem."

Andrews did say Congress needs to consider where there is redundancy in our government but still called the speaker's words "reckless rhetoric."

According to Politifact.com, Boehner's numbers may be off on how many jobs have been added to the federal government since President Barack Obama took office. Counting temporary workers who were hired to conduct the 2010 census the federal government increased by about 379,000 workers, as of June of 2010. However, when you subtract those temporary workers from that figure, you get an increase of about 46,000. 

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 Shawna Thomas
The House finished voting on another "suspension" bill, which means it needs a two-thirds majority of voting members to pass, and it failed. Only two Republicans voted against it, and 26 Dems voted for it, so while this isn't an example of Republican infighting, it is an example of the majority party not quite counting their votes correctly. It's, well, embarrassing. 

Final Vote Tally YEA-259 NAY-169 PRESENT-0 NOT VOTING-6

(This bill needed 284 votes to pass.)

This bill, while not as sexy as last night's vote, was part of the GOP's much touted YouCut program, where they ask the public, what you would like to see cut from federal spending. HR 519 would basically instruct the United Nations to give the excess money the U.S. contributed to a specific fund back and ask the Secretary of State to withhold funds from this program until the U.S. had gotten its money back. 

It was described on the YouCut Web site like so:

Obtain Refund of Funds Owed to the U.S. by the U.N. Tax Equalization Fund
Approximate $180 million in one time savings

As of December 31, 2009, the United Nations reported that it was holding almost $180 million that the U.S. had overpaid into the U.N.'s Tax Equalization Fund (TEF). It appears that the U.N. is still holding the U.S. funds because the Administration has not instructed the U.N. on how it wishes to dispose of them. By instructing the U.N. to return those funds to the U.S. we can generate savings for American taxpayers. In addition, the Administration should also demand that the process for Tax Equalization Fund withholdings be revised to prevent (or at least reduce) future discrepancies leading to such large surpluses.

However, the Congressional Budget Office scored this bill and wrote, "CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 519 would have no effect on the federal budget. Enacting H.R. 519 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. The bill would establish a new policy to direct the United Nations (U.N.) to return $179 million that the United States overpaid to the U.N. as well as any similar over-payments in future years."

And one Democratic member, according to The Hill newspaper said: "It's stupid," he said. "Vote 'no' on stupid."

From NBC's Shawna Thomas
In the last two weeks, there's been a slowly bubbling uproar over H.R. 3, legislation to prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). The bill seeks to eliminate the need to keep passing the Hyde Amendment, the current language that bans the use of federal funds for abortion, by codifying the ban into permanent law.

The controversy: Multiple human rights groups have said the exception clause in the bill seems to redefine "rape" -- therefore making it more difficult, perhaps illegal, for women who are subject of rape or incest who rely on government funding for health care to obtain an abortion.

SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself

At issue is the term "forcible rape," which according to one reproductive-rights lawyer has no definition in federal code and appears to be a step backwards in how sexual assault is defined in the country. Also at issue is limiting the incest exception to minors.

Today, Smith's office confirmed it is rewriting the exception clause to match the language in the Hyde Amendment, which states:

SEC. 508. (a) The limitation established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion-
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

From NBC's Shawna Thomas
Freshman Rep. Allen West (R-FL), no stranger to controversy, is now receiving criticism from some religious leaders who want West to apologize for comments he made about a fellow member of Congress.

Today, four interfaith leaders sent a letter to West asking him to clarify statements he made about Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) on a local Florida show called, "The Shalom Show." During the interview, West is asked how he manages working with people in Congress that he disagrees with.

Interviewer: "Since you're with a new crowd of people you haven't really met before and will be very closely associating with in the future, including Keith Ellison who supports Islam.  How will you manage that if I may ask?  Because it's not really easy to be that polite often with individuals one totally disagrees with, which I believe may be the case."

Rep. West: "I think it's most important that I stand upon the principles that people elected me to go to Washington DC and represent them on Capitol Hill. So that when you run into someone that is counter or someone that really does represent the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established. You've got to be able to defeat them intellectually in debate and discourse and you have to just be able to challenge each and every one of the assertions very wisely and very forthright."

Ellison is one of only two Muslim members of Congress and was targeted by Tea Party Nation, which sent an e-mail to members that said, in part, “Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of congress.”

One signatory, Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said he initially found the comments "alarming." "We wanted to raise the issue and encourage him to clarify what he intended to say," said Saperstein.

West responded with a letter of his own today that offered some clarification:

"Let it be clear.  It is the extremist, radical element that has hijacked Islam that presents a dangerous threat to both our country and our allies throughout the world.  This radical jihadist movement has no place in the United States of America or anywhere on earth...The problem is, these fanatics are often supported by certain groups and organizations that masquerade as more peaceful moderates.  Organizations such as CAIR have long histories of supporting violent anti-American and anti-Israel terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood.  These organizations operate within our borders, and as an elected official, I have an obligation to speak the truth and educate my constituency on the threat they pose...My comments in regards to my colleague Representative Keith Ellison, are not about his Islamic faith, but about his continued support of CAIR."

But the interfaith letter says West's remarks about Islam in the past have not been as carefully worded:

"Regrettably, this is just the latest example of your tendency to offer intemperate comments about Islam. At a town hall meeting during your campaign, you characterized Islam as America's enemy and asserted, "Islam is a totalitarian, theocratic political ideology; it is not a religion." Such untrue and inflammatory remarks intensify an unsettling trend of anti-Muslim rhetoric and fear in our country."

And yesterday, CNN reported that at a town hall, West responded to a question from the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Miami, Nezar Hamze, who challenged West on his comments about Islam:

Me and my children choose to follow the faith of Islam. You consistently insult it. How can we expect you to defend our right and practice Islam as far as the Constitution is concerned?" Hamze asked.

"I will always defend your right to practice a free religion under the First Amendment," West said. "But what you must understand, if I am speaking the truth, I am not going to stop speaking the truth. The truth is not subjective," he continued to loud applause.

At the end of the letter, West wrote, "I certainly will take your concerns to heart, and hope that we can work together to continue to educate the American public on the importance of both understanding the threats we face, and exercising religious tolerance." 

As of now the interfaith leaders are planning no response to West.

From NBC's Shawna Thomas
After posting on Rep. David Rivera (R-FL) and the ethics headache he may cause the House Republicans, his congressional office responded saying his "campaign" was taking care of any questions having to do with the ongoing investigation into his "alleged financial improprieties." 
 
In an email to First Read, Rivera's campaign contends that "he has not committed any wrongdoing whatsoever." It put out a statement on January 3, 2011 explaining that Rivera had already submitted his congressional 2010 financial disclosures before the May deadline "in order to dispel any speculation surrounding his personal finances that were raised by political opponents during the recent election and by subsequent media reports. These federal financial disclosure documents, along with previously-amended State of Florida financial disclosure forms, demonstrate clearly that Congressman-elect Rivera, as he has stated repeatedly, never received income from entities that have been the subject of speculation in the media - including Flagler Dog Track, Millennium Marketing, or any other entity associated with a 2008 slot machine referendum in Miami-Dade County."

(The reason the Florida documents were amended was to show he had received a large loan from Millennium Marketing, the company co-managed by his mother. The statement went on to say that he has paid back that loan in full.)

Also, the congressman's campaign said he "has not personally become aware of any involvement by FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement), as he has not been contacted by them. He has only read media reports." And that he has not had any discussions with the House GOP leadership about the investigation.