While many on the far left are digging in and telling Democrats not to even consider entitlement reform in talks over averting the fiscal cliff, reports today suggest there may be some Democrats who aren’t wedded to massive tax hikes and could be open to entitlement reforms.
The Hill reports today, “President Obama’s allies in the labor movement are targeting centrists in both parties in an attempt to pull the ‘fiscal cliff’ talks to the left. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Education Association (NEA) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will launch a series of radio and television ads on Tuesday that urges lawmakers to let the Bush tax rates for the wealthy expire while preserving entitlement benefits. Mary Kusler, NEA’s director of government relations, said the ads will target House Republicans who appear open to raising tax revenue and Senate Democrats who have appeared willing to slash programs like Medicare and Social Security.”
But the AP noted recently that “Obama allies worry that liberal demands will make it harder for the president to seal a bargain with the GOP.” And “Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., said Obama has the same problem with his party’s liberal base… ‘and the president has equally the same sort of problems with people who are horribly unreasonable.’”
Are there any Democrats who are willing to set aside “horribly unreasonable” demands from big unions and others on the Left? According to Politico, “Democrats have their own internal issues heading into the high-stakes [fiscal cliff] talks — and they’re not insignificant. . . . [G]etting a deal that raises tax rates for the wealthy may not be so easy for the party, and not just because of inevitable GOP resistance. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will have to find 60 votes to extend just the middle-income tax rates — far from a given when a swath of the Senate’s moderate Democrats are up for reelection in 2014. Reid and the White House will also need to navigate a hardening Democratic divide on entitlements. Progressives don’t want any deep cuts that Republicans will insist on for a deal. But a Third Way poll of 800 Obama voters set for release Tuesday found that efforts to fix Medicare and Social Security enjoy broader support than liberals suggest.”
And Bloomberg News writes, “Senate Democrats, optimistic about prospects for a deficit-reduction deal, may have to contend with wariness from seven members who face 2014 re-election campaigns in states Mitt Romney won Nov. 6. Some of those seven Democrats, including North Carolina’s Kay Hagan and Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, say they aren’t ready to commit to President Barack Obama’s proposals for boosting tax revenue. Instead, Hagan isn’t ruling out support for extending the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for top earners. Landrieu said she opposes eliminating tax breaks for oil companies. . . . Pressed on whether she could be persuaded to support the Republican position of extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels, Hagan said, ‘I want to look at the whole package, but I definitely want to protect the middle-class taxpayer, first and foremost.’ . . . Besides Hagan and Landrieu, the Democrats up for re- election in 2014 in states Romney won are Alaska’s Mark Begich, Arkansas’s Mark Pryor, South Dakota’s Tim Johnson, West Virginia’s Jay Rockefeller and Montana’s Max Baucus.”
“Why I am sleeping out? I am sleeping out on November 15th because I have two children. Their hopes and dreams are my highest concern. This week, more than 2,500 other young people will be sleeping in vacant buildings, shelters, and alleys throughout the St. Louis region. They have the same aspirations as my own kids, but none of the support system and parental guidance to help them navigate the challenges and opportunities of life. I am sleeping out with other parents, community members, and public officials tonight to send a message to homeless youth: You are not forgotten; you are not alone. I urge anyone who reads or hears this message to work with agencies like Covenant House Missouri to support children who need our help – in the city and surrounding counties.”
The Wall Street Journal reports, “U.S. companies are scaling back investment plans at the fastest pace since the recession, signaling more trouble for the economic recovery. Half of the nation’s 40 biggest publicly traded corporate spenders have announced plans to curtail capital expenditures this year or next, according to a review by The Wall Street Journal of securities filings and conference calls. Nationwide, business investment in equipment and software—a measure of economic vitality in the corporate sector—stalled in the third quarter for the first time since early 2009. Corporate investment in new buildings has declined.”
According to the WSJ, “Corporate executives say they are slowing or delaying big projects to protect profits amid easing demand and rising uncertainty. Uncertainty around the U.S. elections and federal budget policies also appear among the factors driving the investment pullback since midyear. It is unclear whether Washington will avert the so-called fiscal cliff, tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to begin Jan. 2. Companies fear that failure to resolve the fiscal cliff will tip the economy back into recession by sapping consumer spending, damaging investor confidence and eating into corporate profits.”
Meanwhile, the AP writes, “Just last year, Obama and top Democrats were willing during budget negotiations with Republicans to take politically risky steps such as reducing the annual inflation adjustment to Social Security and raising the eligibility age for Medicare. Now, with new leverage from Obama’s big election victory and a playing field for negotiations that is more favorable in other ways, too, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats are taking a harder line. ‘I’ve made it very clear. I’ve told anyone that will listen, including everyone in the White House, including the president, that I am not going to be part of having Social Security as part of these talks relating to this deficit,’ Reid, D-Nev., told reporters. Reid’s edict would appear to take a key proposal off the table as an ingredient for a deal on avoiding the ‘fiscal cliff,’ the year-end combination of expiring President George W. Bush-era tax cuts and harsh across-the-board spending cuts.”
And so with Democrats now making a solution to the fiscal cliff in the short-term and getting America’s fiscal picture under control in the long term, it’s no wonder businesses continue to be skittish about investment. As Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics, told The Wall Street Journal, “Given the timing of the drop-off in business investment . . . you have to think it’s not just a coincidence with the timing of the fiscal cliff.”
But if Democrats won’t touch entitlements, a solution that creates some certainty and begins to address the country’s long-term fiscal issues doesn’t look any closer. The AP notes Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Washington’s problem isn’t that it taxes too little, but that it spends too much. But in a good-faith effort to make progress on boosting the economy and government’s long-term solvency, Republicans like me have said for more than a year now that we’re open to new revenue in exchange for meaningful reforms to the entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of our debt.”
As Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) said in the Weekly Republican Address, “One thing is clear: doing nothing is not an option. And any effort to address our fiscal crisis without including entitlement reform can’t be taken seriously.”
Earlier this week, a top Senate Democrat once again suggested that Democrats are so insistent on tax increases that they’d be willing to let the nation plunge over the fiscal cliff to get them.
CNN writes, “Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) says that if Republicans do not agree to let tax cuts expire for Americans making over $250,000 per year, the country should go over the fiscal cliff . . . .” Appearing on MSNBC that same day, Murray was asked, “You believe that’s a viable option, going over the cliff?” She responded, “Yes, if the Republicans continue to sit in their corner . . . .”
Of course, this isn’t the first time Murray, the 4th ranking Democrat in the Senate, has pushed this idea. Over the summer, it was “Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who outlined the Democratic strategy … that her party would rather plunge off the fiscal cliff than extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans,” as National Journal described it. Appearing at the Brookings Institute, Murray said, “So if we can’t get a good deal… then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013… our country is going to have to face the consequences…” The day after, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was asked, “Do you agree with Senator Murray that if you do not get a balanced deal, you’ll fight this into 2013?” Reid replied, “…Patty Murray knows what she’s talking about.”
A September Rasmussen poll had “moderate” Sen. McCaskill ahead of Todd Akin by 10 percentage points — 48%-38%. This was Claire’s reaction then:
“Rasmussen’s poll made me laugh out loud … If anyone believes that, I just turned 29. Sneaky stuff.”
Here’s the tune she’s now singing after the election:
The Hill:
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who defeated challenger Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said Wednesday that she never believed the competition was a close one.
“There was a media narrative in my race that sometimes was divorced from reality. I’m not sure the race was so close for so long,” she said.Read more….
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell discussed one of the key obstacles to obtaining an agreement to avoid the approaching fiscal cliff. “I believe the two parties can avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. And in the process, I even believe we can agree on a framework for a bipartisan plan to address the even bigger problem of our nation’s fiscal solvency. But there are clear obstacles to success. . . . The first obstacle is a very vocal and very determined group of extremists on the Left who are rooting for us to go off the fiscal cliff. These are the folks the President invited to the White House earlier this week, and who seem to have gotten a number of Democrats in the Senate to embrace this reckless idea themselves.”
Recall that over the summer, Sen. Patty Murray, the number 4 Democrat in the Senate, suggested that Democrats are “prepared to go over the so-called fiscal cliff,” according to Bloomberg News. Speaking to the Brookings Institute, Murray said, “So if we can’t get a good deal… then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013… our country is going to have to face the consequences…”
Then in October, Sen. Chuck Schumer, the number 3 Democrat in the Senate, rejected bipartisan outlines for tax reform, demanding that tax rates go up.Politico noted, “If embraced by other Democrats, Schumer’s approach would represent a hardening of the party’s position on taxes and could complicate the prospects for a bipartisan deal before year’s end . . . . A Democratic aide argued that Schumer’s speech managed to move the party to the left . . . .”
And based on his answers at his press conference yesterday, The Wall Street Journal editors speculate, “All of which makes us wonder why [President] Obama is so insistent on raising tax rates now, even if he can get nearly the same amount of revenue from reducing deductions. Here’s one guess: He really doesn’t care if there’s a budget deal this year that avoids the tax cliff. By taking an absolutist line, he’s basically gambling that Republicans will be more reasonable than he is and will blink. But if they don’t blink and we go over the cliff, from his point of view so what? Mr. Obama then has an excuse to blame Republicans if there’s another recession. Meanwhile, he pockets the higher tax rates that take effect on January 1 anyway, and he can then negotiate a budget deal next year without having to make any tax concessions.”
Discussing those on the Left who seem content to allow the nation to plunge over the fiscal cliff so they can get higher taxes, Leader McConnell said, “Make no mistake: the goal of these folks isn’t to do what’s best for the middle-class. It isn’t to create jobs. It isn’t even to balance the books, since the taxes they’d hike wouldn’t even come close to covering current spending. What they want is to sock it to those they define as rich, regardless of the impact on jobs or the broader economy. That’s what motivates this crowd. They’re not serious about tackling the nation’s fiscal problems. And if we’re serious about helping middle-class Americans and helping this economy grow, their radical approach should be ignored.”
Instead, he explained, “The only way — the only way — we’re going to solve this present crisis, and get past the political stalemate, is for the President to lead. . . . The President is the only person in America, the only one out of 315 million, who can sign a bill into law. He’s the only one who can lead the members of his own party to do something they wouldn’t ordinarily do, but first he needs to decide it’s time to put away the talking points and do something good for the county.”
Washington, D.C. – Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO) and Congressman Kevin Yoder (R-KS) today received the Consensus Civility Award for their efforts in bringing civility to public life as Members of Congress. They were among the six members of the inaugural class of Consensus Civility Award winners who were recognized this morning at a ceremony at Rockhurst University in Kansas City.
“It is a great honor to receive the Consensus Civility Award, and an honor that gives me hope,” said Congressman Cleaver. “Often, the debate in DC can devolve into one with a great deal more heat than light. As we return to Washington to work on the issues facing our nation, we must remember that while partisanship is a vital component of democracy, only healthy disagreement can propel us forward, to better ideas and brighter days. Embracing a civil exchange of ideas and respectful differences of opinion fosters real debate, and allows our best ideas to shine.”
Now we know for sure the end times must be near! Cleaver receives a civility award while he campaigns with rappers who called former President Bush a “racist “and another who raps, “no more white lies – My President is black.” Mr. Satan Sandwich himself gets a civility award while outright lying when he said heard racial epithets hurled at him while he and other Democrats took their triumphant march to Capitol Hill after Obamacare passed.
Immediately after the presidential election, and more than a week ahead of the Nov. 16 deadline, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, announced he had made up his mind. The state would not be setting up its own health insurance exchange….”Based on current state law, and the federal deadline, the state-based option isn’t on the table for Missouri at this time,” said Nixon. So a federal exchange seems to be the only possibility.Read more…
What leadership! Governor Nixon waits till after the election to announce that Missouri will not be participating in health insurance exchanges. Missouri Political New Service was the first to report on the governor’s backhanded implementation of Obamacare through executive order back on September 15th, 2011.
A Senate committee heard testimony Tuesday on a bill, which would prevent Gov. Nixon’s administration from creating a health exchange without the approval of Missouri voters.
The bill sponsored by Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, prevents the state executive branch from establishing such an exchange as mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “Obamacare.”
“This bill is needed because the governor has already tried to create a health insurance exchange by executive order … this shouldn’t be allowed to happen. This is the purview of the Legislature, not the governor,” Schaaf said. Read more…
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore at the end of last week, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell reiterated that in order to get an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff, there needs to be some leadership from President Obama. “The missing person, the guy who was AWOL in 2011, is still the president. I think a good starting place in trying to figure out how to go forward is for the president to have an epiphany.” He noted that at the conclusion of negotiations to extend all current tax rates in 2010, “When the president said, ‘I’m for it,’ 40 Senate Democrats voted to extend the Bush tax cuts, which leads me to my point: Without the president, we can’t fix this problem.’”
But it seems that liberal groups and some Senate Democrats are already drawing lines in the sand demanding tax increases in a struggling economy and refusing to do anything about the country’s looming entitlement crisis. The Washington Post reports, “With President Obama seeking a deal to avoid the ‘fiscal cliff,’ liberal groups that campaigned aggressively for his reelection are mobilizing to oppose concessions they fear he could make on Medicare and Social Security. Leaders of the nation’s labor unions and other liberal groups are planning Tuesday to press Obama at the White House to reject the kind of cuts in Medicare and Social Security that he has previously offered to make. On Thursday, left-leaning lawmakers and seniors groups plan to rally on Capitol Hill against any changes to entitlements. . . . Democratic lawmakers have made clear they will oppose any changes to Social Security. Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters that he is open to a fiscal-cliff deal but that ‘we are not going to mess with Social Security.’”
But Leader McConnell told the WSJ entitlement reform is critical to getting an handle on the looming fiscal crisis: “‘The speaker and I spent an endless amount of time in the first half of 2011 trying to get the president to do what we all know has to be done if we’re going to save the country,’ Mr. McConnell says. ‘Until we adjust the entitlement programs to fit the demographics of today’s America, you can’t fix the problem. You can’t tax your way out of it. You can’t cut health-care providers as a way out of it. But Democrats laughed at those ideas even when we offered a quarter-trillion of higher revenues largely taken from high-income people.’”
The Journal notes, “A newly emboldened President Obama is likely to take his soak-the-rich case straight to the people, I remind the senator. The political pressure to capitulate could become intense. ‘Look, he may think it would be helpful to his presidency to continue to divide and demonize us,’ says Mr. McConnell. ‘But my answer will still be short and firm: No. We won’t agree to any tax increases that will hurt the economy.’”
“But,” the WSJ asked, “don’t Messrs. Obama and Reid think they’ve just been given a mandate to raise those tax rates? ‘Yes, well, we Republicans in the House and Senate think we have a voter mandate not to raise taxes,’” Leader McConnell said.
“And what if the president insists on raising tax rates? Expect a principled stand by the minority leader and his fellow Republicans: ‘He’s got to understand he doesn’t fully control the Senate. He doesn’t control the House at all. In order to accomplish things for the country he will need to work with us.’”
The Washington Times writes, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he will try to push through a change to Senate rules that would limit the GOP’s ability to filibuster bills. . . . ‘I think that the rules have been abused and that we’re going to work to change them,’ he told reporters. . . . Republicans, who have 47 of the chamber’s 100 seats in the current Congress, have repeatedly used that strong minority to block parts of President Obama’s agenda on everything from added stimulus spending to his judicial picks. A filibuster takes 60 senators to overcome it. Leaders of both parties have been reluctant to change the rules because they value it as a tool when they are in the minority. But Mr. Reid said things changed over the last few years when he repeatedly faced off against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell . . . .”
Back in July, the last time Reid floated this idea, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell shot back, “The core problem here is … the Majority Leader as a practical matter is running the whole Senate because everything is centralized in his office, which diminishes the opportunity for senators of both parties to represent their constituents. Look, we all were sent here by different Americans who expected us to have a voice, to have an opportunity, to effect legislation. I would say … we don’t have a rules problem, we have an attitude problem. When is the Senate going to get back to normal? I can recall my friends on the other side saying repeatedly the difference between the House and Senate is you get to vote.”
Indeed, The Times goes on to point out, “Senate Republicans, though, said the real problem is that Mr. Reid too often tries to limit the amendments they can offer to bills on the Senate floor. Left without the chance to debate their own priorities, the GOP sees little option but to filibuster. After Mr. Reid’s comments Wednesday, Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mr. McConnell, said Democrats would set a bad tone for next year. ‘We hope Democrats will work toward allowing members of both sides to be involved in the legislative process — rather than poisoning the well on the very first day of the next Congress,’ Mr. Stewart said. ‘And that Sen. Reid will honor his public commitment to do rules changes only through the regular order.’”
Townhall.com’s Guy Benson adds some key context: “Reid’s rationale is faulty and hypocritical. . . . The historic uptick in attempted and threatened Republican ‘filibusters’ (or some variant thereof) has correlated directly with Reid’s strong-arm tactics as majority leader. To an unprecedented degree, Reid has denied the minority the right to even offer amendments to legislation, meaning that Republicans would have no input in the structure or content of these laws. Reid has employed this maneuver, known as ‘filling the amendment tree,’ more than his six immediate predecessorscombined. . . . When some Republicans proposed the ‘nuclear option’ to limit filibusters of judicial appointees by changing the rules during the Bush years, Democrats melted down. This idea amounted to a mortal threat to the republic, they argued . . . . California’s Diane Feinstein gravely warned that the Republican plan would put the Senate on a slippery slope — ultimately leading to tampering with the sacred legislative filibuster…which is precisely what Reid is moving to do now.”
