Are you watching your 401(k) drop? Are you seeing your retirement tank? Are you waiting for higher interest rates on your credit cards and mortgages? Are you nervous about another recession?
Well, thank the Republicans.
This debt crisis is totally of the Republicans’ making. From the beginning we should have had a clean vote—up or down—on the debt ceiling, just as Ronald Reagan and other presidents have done.
If Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans allow a default with their last minute antics things are only going to get worse. That is clear.
And the very notion of revisiting this silly scenario in six months is absurd. For the life of me I can think of no quicker way to sink our economy. Will that give confidence to the markets? Not a chance. Will it result in a downgrading of our credit rating? In all likelihood it will.
The sad truth is that without the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, without the oil and gas loopholes and, most important, without two wars that the Republicans and Bush failed to pay for, we would be in the black right now, or close to it.
Democrats will have to come up with a grand compromise, hurting many segments of our society, to bail out the Republicans, much the way Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. Revenues will have to be part of that package. Hopefully, that can happen when cooler heads prevail and the Tea Party stops their nonsense.
In the meantime, if the stock market continues to drop and Americans are taken to the cleaners, pick up the phone and thank John Boehner and the Tea Party Republicans for what they have done to your bank accounts and your savings.
All this sound and fury comes out of the majority in the House and not one bill on jobs, not one piece of legislation to help our economy. Sad.
By: Peter Fenn, U. S. News and World Report, July 28, 2011
July 28, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Budget, Class Warfare, Congress, Conservatives, Consumer Credit, Consumers, Debt Ceiling, Debt Crisis, Deficits, Democracy, Democrats, Economy, GOP, Government, Government Shut Down, Ideologues, Ideology, Jobs, Lawmakers, Middle Class, Mortgages, Politics, Public, Public Opinion, Republicans, Right Wing, Teaparty, Wealthy | 401k's, Bank Accounts, Bush Tax Cuts, Credit Rating, Default, Interest rates, Markets, Recession, Rep John Boehner, Retirement, Tax Revenues |
Leave a comment
The run-up to the vote expected Thursday on House Speaker John A. Boehner’s proposal to provide a short-term increase in the national debt limit is quickly turning into a time of clarity for the chamber’s Republicans.
If GOP leaders are unable to muster enough support to get the plan out of the House, the only measure left would be a Democratic proposal by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), and voting with Reid is not a concession many House Republicans are willing to make.
“There’s only three choices,” said Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), a close Boehner ally. “One is to vote for Senator Reid’s plan. One is to default. And one choice is the Boehner bill. It should be pretty self-evident what the best choice is to someone who’s a Republican.”
Increasingly, the vote on Boehner’s proposal is shaping up not as a test of wills between moderates and conservatives, but as a face-off between political purists who scorn the bill and realists who prefer it to the alternative.
“We came here to reduce the size of government and reduce spending, and this bill, I think, begins to accomplish that goal,” said Rep. Sean P. Duffy (R-Wis.), who decided Wednesday that he will vote for the measure. “It’s by no means perfect. But it’s the best bill we have.”
At a closed-door meeting for House Republicans on Wednesday, where leaders tried to rally support for the measure, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (Wis.) read from a blog post by conservative commentator Bill Kristol. “To vote against Boehner is to choose to support Barack Obama,” Kristol wrote.
But it is not an easy sale for a party that won back control of the House last year on promises to vote without regard to political consequences.
Boehner’s bill would postpone major entitlement reform and other deep cuts by passing such decisions to a new committee that would report its recommendations by year’s end. The proposal also would not require Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, but only that it vote on one.
Some Republicans have vowed that they will not raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances.
Others preferred a conservative bill dubbed “cut, cap and balance” that passed the House this month but was killed in the Senate. It would have required Congress to vote to send the amendment to the states for ratification.
“The credit rating agencies have been clear that no matter what happens with the debt limit, the U.S. will lose its AAA credit rating unless we produce a credible plan to reduce the debt by trillions of dollars,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), chairman of the Republican Study Committee. The group comprises more than 170 House conservatives. “Cut, cap and balance is the only plan on the table that meets this standard,” he said.
House leaders expressed cautious optimism Wednesday that they were convincing members that the plan advanced by Boehner (R-Ohio) is the best that Republicans can hope to get.
It would avert a government default, take a bite out of the deficit and require Congress to adopt $1.8 trillion in additional cuts before the debt ceiling could be raised again next year.
Freshman Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), whose district in Staten Island and Brooklyn is home to many Wall Street professionals, said he decided Wednesday that he will vote for the bill after he was convinced that its failure would hand Democrats control of the debate.
“I don’t think it’s perfect. I don’t think it’s close to perfect. I don’t think it’s in the realm of what I expected to get,” he said.
But, Grimm said, it would require deep spending reductions over the coming years. “That’s historic. And that’s a step in the right direction.”
The public infighting has served to rally some Republicans. Behind closed doors, members erupted Wednesday over an e-mail that a staff member of Jordan’s Republican Study Committee sent to outside conservative groups. It listed undecided members who could be pressured to vote against the Boehner plan.
“I think it’s offensive when a group that you’re a part of uses your bullets to shoot you,” said Rep. Bill Flores (Tex.). “So I have a problem with it.”
Those entreaties did not quiet conservatives who are urging that the plan be abandoned: On Wednesday, the head of the group Tea Party Nation accused Boehner of surrendering to Washington’s status quo and called for him to be replaced.
The House proposal was panned at a small rally held at the Capitol by the Tea Party Express and the American Grassroots Coalition. The GOP that rode tea party energy and activism is hoping that some of it members can look past that relationship.
“Some people are new here and this is part of the learning curve,” LaTourette said. “At times you have to say ‘no’ to people you represent who are yelling at you, if you’ve reached the conclusion that it’s in the best interests of the country.”
By: Rosalind Helderman and Felicia Sonmez with Contribution by David Fahrenthold, The Washington Post Politics, July 27, 2011
July 28, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Budget, Congress, Conservatives, Debt Ceiling, Deficits, Democrats, Economic Recovery, Economy, Elections, GOP, Government Shut Down, Ideology, Lawmakers, Politics, Republicans, Revolution, Right Wing, Teaparty, Voters | Balanced Budget Amendment, Bill Kristol, Cap and Balance, Credit Ratings, Cut, Default, Purists, Realists, Rep Bill Flores, Rep Jim Jordan, Rep John Boehnar, Rep Michael Grimm, Rep Paul Ryan, Rep Sean Duffy, Rep Steve LaToutette, Sen Harry Reid, Spending Cuts, Super Congress, Teaparty Express, Teaparty Nation, Wall Street |
Leave a comment
In retrospect, the emergence of a suicide-bomber wing of the Republican Party should’ve seemed obvious.
Why use such an inflammatory term? What I mean by it is this: They would blow up the economy to fulfill a mission of otherworldly righteousness.
Their first attempt to blow up the economy arrived with the defeat TARP. It was a reckless subversion of the leadership of both parties and, at least for a day, brought equity markets to their knees.
With ideological bravado to match their breathtaking economic illiteracy, they positively relished the impact they could have on our national life.
Since then, they’ve become still more emboldened, knocking off an incumbent senator in Utah and propping up a bad joke of a senate candidate in Delaware.
Last year’s wave election infested the party with additional scores of suicide bombers.
In a repeat of the TARP fiasco, the bomber boys and (and, lest we forget bomber-in-chief Michele Bachmann, girls) have, once again, made it impossible for congressional leaders to do the right thing. A grand bargain was in sight—but the itch for destruction overmatched the desire for reasonable compromise.
We may yet stumble toward some cobbled-together agreement that staves off a catastrophe. But the bombers will be emboldened again.
And why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got a cheering section among Washington pundits.
The normally thoughtful Yuval Levin calls this suboptimal state of affairs, in which Republicans will secure far less in deficit reduction than they could have, a “stunning victory.” New York Post columnist Michael Walsh compares the debt ceiling showdown to the Union’s victory at Gettysburg. Most depressing of all is my former hero George Will, who calls the Tea Party “the most welcome political development since the Goldwater insurgency.”
Will is dead wrong: Ronald Reagan’s election—or rather his administration—did not simply bring the “Goldwater impulse” to “fruition.” It signaled that the Goldwater impulse had matured into a governing philosophy—a governing philosophy that could accept compromise, could acknowledge reality.
The Tea Party’s triumph has reversed that process of maturation; a governing philosophy has degraded back into mere impulse.
Enjoy your ascendancy while it lasts, Tea Partyers.
But know this: You are not legislators. You are vandals.
By: Scott Galupo, U. S. News and World Report, July 26, 2011
July 27, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Congress, Conservatives, Debt Ceiling, Debt Crisis, Deficits, Democracy, Democrats, Disasters, Economic Recovery, Economy, Elections, GOP, Government, Government Shut Down, Ideologues, Ideology, Journalists, Lawmakers, Politics, Press, Public, Pundits, Republicans, Right Wing, Teaparty, Voters | Barry Goldwater, Compromise, George Will, Governing, Legislators, Markets, Michael Walsh, Rep Michele Bachmann, Suicide Bombers, TARP, Yuval Levin |
Leave a comment
As the debt-ceiling talks tick down to the Aug. 2 deadline, leading the opposition to any deal that includes higher taxes is the new tribune of rank-and-file House Republicans: Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia.
Cantor’s pivotal role marks a rapid rise for the 48-year-old from the Richmond suburbs. It also represents a major coup for sectors of the investment community that Cantor has been striving to assist for years — on the same tax issues that have been at stake this month. And so far, he has prevailed on those issues.
Among the White House’s top demands for new revenue are changes in the tax code affecting hedge funds, private equity firms and real estate partnerships, which would raise an estimated $20 billion over 10 years.
For the past four years, Cantor has taken the lead in the House on fighting the same changes. He also has been one of the top recipients of contributions from those industries — last year, his two fundraising committees took in nearly $2 million from securities and investment firms and real estate companies, more than double the figure for Boehner (R-Ohio).
The hedge fund and private equity proposals were at the center of Cantor’s decision to exit talks with Vice President Biden this month. Since then, the prospect for any immediate tax increases has declined, with the focus turning to spending cuts and broader tax reform postponed.
This dismays Democrats, in part because Cantor has cast his defense of the investment tax treatment as part of the broader tea party-fueled anti-tax orthodoxy. To Democrats, Cantor embodies the convergence of tea party and business interests, which is often obscured by the movement’s anti-Wall Street rhetoric.
“This [anti-tax stance] isn’t all coming up from the grass roots,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). “This goes to some longtime cozy relationships between House Republicans and hedge fund managers in the financial sector.”
A spokesman for Cantor noted that he always has opposed raising the investment taxes in question but declined to comment further.
Cantor has said repeatedly that Obama and other Democrats are exaggerating the value of closing tax loopholes for financiers. Although Cantor opposes closing them to raise revenue, he says he is open to doing so as part of broader tax reform that lowers overall rates.
“So I know it makes for good politics to throw the shiny ball out there . . . that somehow Republicans are wed to that kind of policy to sustain these preferences, when all along, in our budget and in our plan, we have said we’re for tax reform, we have said we’re for bringing down rates on everybody,” he said on the House floor last week.
Jennifer Thompson, a political science professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and former Republican campaign operative, said Cantor’s longtime opposition to the investment tax provisions is a sincere reflection of his conservatively inclined district.
“Eric Cantor is a Virginian and you can’t separate too much from that fact,” she said. “His constituents are very much aligned with the no taxes and being back in the black and that’s what Eric Cantor represents.”
Lawmakers from both parties have cultivated the investment community, but Cantor, whose wife is a former Goldman Sachs vice president, has had particularly strong connections. In 2006, his campaign committee and his leadership PAC, established to support other Republicans, collected $682,500 from securities and investment and real estate firms, far more than any other Republican on the Ways and Means Committee and nearly double the take of then-Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.).
Cantor sprang into action in 2007, when Democrats proposed the two major tax code changes that have been at the center of the debt talks. He formed the Coalition for the Freedom of American Investors and Retirees and invited several dozen industry groups to the opening meeting.
One of the changes revolves around “carried interest” — the pay managers receive for gains they produce for investors — which is taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15 percent. Many tax experts argue that it should be taxed at the 35 percent rate for ordinary income because it is the managers’ compensation for services performed, not the result of their own capital investment.
Another proposal would tax profits from the sale of hedge funds as ordinary income.
Since 2007, Cantor has railed against the proposals, saying that the carried interest proposal would “raise taxes on innovation and opportunity in America” and harm “mom and pop” businesses.
Democrats dismiss that argument. “There is virtually no evidence that having these people pay ordinary income would inhibit business development,” said Rep. Sander M. Levin (Mich.).
The proposals passed the House, which was then under Democratic control, but fell short of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate last year.
Cantor’s support from the industries soared. Contributions to his two campaign committees from the real estate and securities and investment sectors jumped to $916,307 in 2008 and doubled to $1.85 million in 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The top 10 contributors to Cantor’s two committees in 2010 included three investment firms: employees at SAC Capitol Advisers, the hedge fund founded by Steven Cohen, gave $64,964; those at the private equity firm KKR gave $52,600; and those at Elliott Management, the hedge fund founded by Paul Singer, gave $44,198. The Blackstone Group, the hedge fund run by Steve Schwarzman, and its employees gave $26,100.
The main private equity and hedge fund trade groups have ramped up their lobbying amid the debt talks, spending $4.2 million this year.
By: Alec MacGillis, The Washington Post, July 25, 2011
July 27, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Businesses, Congress, Conservatives, Debt Ceiling, Debt Crisis, Deficits, Democrats, Economic Recovery, Economy, Financial Institutions, GOP, Ideologues, Ideology, Politics, Republicans, Right Wing, Tax Loopholes, Taxes, Teaparty | Blackstone Group, Campaign Contributions, Carried Interest, Elliott Management, Equity Firms, Goldman Sachs, Hedge Funds, KKR, Real Estate, Rep Eric Cantor, Rep John Boehner, SAC Capitol Advisors, Securities Firms, Spending Cuts, Tax Code, Tax Rates, Tax Revenue |
Leave a comment
Impeach him.
Not the president. Barack Obama is holding a huge global and domestic crisis in his hand. To use a Washington metaphor, he’s dangerously close to being left “holding the bag” on the Treasury debt ceiling limit. He keeps talking sweet reason about the art of compromise to Republicans in Congress—not a language they speak. Obama played golf with the House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican who drones on about “small business” every chance he gets. Obama is not getting traction or making friends with Boehner because he does not grasp the conversation about the debt limit is not about the debt limit. It’s about taking his presidency down—this week—even if it hurts the United States of America, which it will. A small price to pay for this tea-drinking crowd of 87 GOP House freshmen which turned the chamber upside down six months ago.
“This is no way to run the greatest country on earth,” Obama declared in a belated speech, sounding a call to arms around the country, last night. That in itself says so much—he’s right, but he’s the man who’s elected by the people—not John Boehner who was elected by a small-town slice of Ohio—to run the country! Everything was calculated to leave Obama in the lurch—by Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of the old Confederate capital, Richmond, Va. and at least one other mastermind. The conspiracy has succeeded flawlessly so far. They separated Obama from his own party in Congress; in his dealings with only Republicans he went way beyond Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” strategy. Obama made allies feel like they were shut out of the deal-making room when he offered concessions that cut at the heart of the Democratic Party‘s proud history on social programs dating to the New Deal.
The GOP—and I mean the George W. Bush years and the current crop of Senate Republicans, too—has a new deal for you, too. It’s called the New Steal. It goes like this: we’ll take all the peace and prosperity of the Clinton tax code years up until 2000 and then squander it on a couple unwinnable wars of choice—and by the way, make rich people pay less into the Treasury than they did during those golden years. They might start one of those illusory “small businesses.”
The reason President Clinton was acquitted at his impeachment trial in the Senate for a fling with Monica Lewinsky was because he built bonds of loyalty, teamwork and camaraderie with Democrats in both houses of Congress. Not one of them came forward on the floor to speak against him, except pious Sen. Joe Lieberman, who suggested a censure. He was utterly alone in his opportunistic little ploy. Clinton’s true friends all stood by him in the Senate—because he was their president.
Obama, a bit of a loner, needs more bosom buddies among lawmakers. In a crisis, you find out who your friends are. The one who could have steered him straight, sailing into the wind, was the late great senator, Edward M. Kennedy. When Kennedy got his Irish up and roared on the floor, he scared the forest. Obama does not scare the Republican jungle.
Let’s impeach Rush Limbaugh as the master of public dis-coarse. He’s the real reason we have so many angry white men in office who are plotting against the president. He’s writing the back-story of this debt drama, consulting closely with House Republican leaders step by step. I believe it even if I can’t see it because he did the same thing in 1994, in cahoots with Newt Gingrich, who recruited a new House Republican freshman class to take over the House. Yes, I saw Rush with my own eyes getting all the glory as class mascot at a fancy dinner at Camden Yards in Baltimore for the new Republican victors that enabled Gingrich to become speaker. The government shutdowns and showdowns against President Clinton resulted—remember?
By: Jamie Stiehm, U. S. News and World Report, July 26, 2011
July 26, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Budget, Class Warfare, Congress, Conservatives, Debt Ceiling, Debt Crisis, Deficits, Democracy, Democrats, Economic Recovery, Economy, Elections, Federal Budget, GOP, Government, Government Shut Down, Ideologues, Ideology, Lawmakers, Politics, President Obama, Public, Republicans, Right Wing, Small Businesses, Taxes, Teaparty, Voters | America, Bill Clinton, Compromise, GWB, House Republicans, Newt Gingrich, Rep Eric Cantor, Rep John Boehner, Rush Limbaugh, Sen Joe Lieberman, Senate, Tax Code, Ted Kennedy, The New Deal, Treasury Dept |
Leave a comment
Unknown Feed
mykeystrokes.com 