All Things Considered, NPR Class Warfare Edition 5DEZ13 & VIDEO Huey Lewis and the News - Workin' for a livin' 1982

HERE is a great piece on the battle now being waged for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party and the over the economic direction our nation will take. Will we continue our downward slide to becoming a Third World plutocracy or will the Democrats return to the Bold Progressive agenda that made us a great economic and political power in the past and can lift us from the unending recession we are wallowing in now? Sen Elizabeth Warren D MA, not the President, has taken the lead in this fight (see Elizabeth Warren takes sides in Democratic feud (and challenges third way) 4DEZ13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/elizabeth-warren-takes-sides-in_5.html ) , joined by Sens Sherrod Brown D OH, Tammy Baldwin D WI and Jeff Merkley D OR for the American people. As noted in a recent Daily Kos call to action "Wall Street Democrats (are) spooked by the party's embrace of politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin and Jeff Merkley.

They should be spooked. The future of the Democratic Party is a populist one, and all that's left is to whittle out the dead weight." That dead weight includes Pres Obama. He campaigned on a Bold Progressive platform and once elected took the road too often traveled since the Clinton era by Democrats, he took the third way. His 5 years in office has been trickle down economics disguised as Democratic policy. A great speech on income inequality is not enough. He needs to take his chained cpi proposal off the table and refuse to sign any budget deal that cuts SNAP, raises the retirement age, fails to expand Social Security, fails to lift the tax cap on Social Security wages, cuts Medicare and Medicaid and doesn't include an extension of emergency unemployment compensation. He must refuse a grand bargain that will be a grand betrayal of the progressive politics he was elected on. If he can't do that then he should at least support the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party. No more jellyfish Democratic politics. No more corporate Democratic eunuchs. No more third way. From Daily Kos....
xaxnar

   Despite the snarky title, NPR done good today on All Things Considered 12-5-13. Looking at Fast Food workers on strike and Social Security fixes that actually might fix things, NPR actually dared go there with some reporting about things that are finally becoming too outrageous to ignore. When NPR airs stories like this, it's a sign that "the game is afoot" and a long overdue shift in the political landscape regarding economics is changing the view through the Overton Window. Elizabeth Warren is making a difference every time she speaks. It doesn't hurt that both the Pope and the President have started to hammer on that message either.
More below the Orange Omnilepticon.

       It's just possible that America is finally starting to see through the snake oil of supply side Reaganomics and blind faith in market forces. Too many decades of failed promises, too many decades of declining life quality for the majority of people in this country, too many decades of the rich getting unspeakably richer (and becoming ever more arrogant about it) - is it possible the 'common wisdom' is starting to shift? (As espoused by the lamestream media and pundits, that is?)
Starving on Fast Food
      The NPR story on striking fast food workers

And the image problem for the fast-food industry is exemplified by this online petition urging McDonald's chief executive officer, Donald Thompson, to cancel his order for another corporate jet until he pays all his employees a decent wage. According to the petition, McDonald's just bought a $35 million luxury Bombardier jet for its corporate executives. Yet many of the company's employees make so little that they rely on public assistance to get by.
"It's not right to impoverish your employees while sailing above them at a rate of $2,500 an hour," reads the petition started by the Campaign For America's Future. "It's immoral to do it with a taxpayer subsidy."
In a recent study, economists at the University of California, Berkeley, found that 52 percent of fast-food workers rely on taxpayer-funded public assistance programs, such as food stamps or Medicaid.
"Taxpayers are subsidizing the low-wage model of these employers, who are making record profits in some cases," says Dorian Warren, an associate professor at Columbia University who studies income inequality.

emphasis added Food Stamps: they're not just for shiftless drug-abusing high school drop outs and/or "those people" any more. (Though that has yet to penetrate the skulls of the race-baiting, stereotyping demagogues of the Right Wing, or their followers.) We're talking about ordinary people, people who got educations with degrees like they were supposed to, people working full time jobs if they can find them - people holding several part time jobs because they can't get a full time job... People who ARE working, people who WANT to work - and it's not enough to live on.
The Other Side of the Coin
Let's look at the other side of working for a living: retirement. The NPR story on Social Security dares to look past the conventional story line that a tidal wave of retiring baby boomers will swamp Social Security unless we cut benefits! Elizabeth Warren's challenge to Third Way types has helped set the stage for an honest discussion on Social Security. As NPR notes, lifting the cap on wages taxed for Social Security would make a big difference:

Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin sponsored legislation that would gradually remove the cap that currently makes only the first $113,700 in wages subject to Social Security taxes. He says it's the only fair thing to do. "If I make $50,000 a year, I pay Social Security taxes on every dime I make. If I make $500,000 a year, I only pay taxes on about the first 20 cents. After that, I don't pay any more Social Security taxes. That's regressive," Harkin says. "You want to make it more progressive, raise the cap so everybody pays their share on every dollar they make."
And as President Obama noted this week, an ever greater share of dollars are being earned precisely by those at the top.
"Since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few," Obama says. "The top ten percent no longer takes in one-third of our income, it now takes half."
That concentration of wealth has taken place beyond the earnings subject to Social Security taxes. Melissa Favreault, a Social Security expert at the non-partisan Urban Institute, says that has meant an ever greater share of the national income is contributing nothing to Social Security.
"We do have this declining share of overall earnings that are taxed, reflecting the fact that the top half of one percent or so has been garnering a really large proportion of total earnings," Favreault says.
Favreault says three decades ago, 90 percent of the nation's wage earnings were taxed for Social Security; that proportion has now shrunk to 83 percent. And that's made an already regressive tax even more so.

emphasis added The Big Scam
People who are retired, or would like to someday be able to retire are starting to notice that they can't count on anything, and just who the economy really seems to be wired for. Charles P. Pierce looks at fast food workers in Detroit - and the rest of the story.

Not for nothing but, right at this very moment, and only a couple of days after a judge gave legal permission for the city to renege on its obligations to its retired workers -- the business elite is overjoyed that aging and crippled sanitation workers can't "jump ahead" of the bondholders in Malibu who want to pick the carcass --  Mike Illitch, the billionnaire-with-a-B owner of the Detroit Red Wings, has his tin cup out for the devastated city to kick in for a new arena for his hockey team. Mike Illitch made his fortune by being the founder of the Little Caesar's chain of pizza restaurants, wherein he paid his workers the kind of wages that has brought them out in the streets today. Yes, this [is] about a lot more than fast food and the people who prepare it. We are all one more economic temblor away from being a fast food nation. It is about a lot more than pizza and burgers.

emphasis added Paul Krugman has long been a voice in the wilderness decrying the wrong-headed thinking about the economy, and the obsession with deficits instead of employment. Crooks & Liars has a video clip of Krugman talking with Ed Schulz over just how dumb it is. As Heather at C&L observes:

What we should be talking about first and foremost is getting Americans back to work. It was also good to hear some push back against the constant chatter we're hearing from the Villagers in the media who are continually pushing for Chained CPI, and pretending as though cutting Social Security benefits in exchange for "tax reform" -- a.k.a. lowering taxes on rich people and corporations -- is something anyone should think is acceptable, or "balanced" or that would do a thing to help lower the deficit. It would have been nice to hear either of them say out loud that Social Security does not add to the deficit during this interview, but it was only implied and not clarified for the audience.

Krugman has repeatedly noted that deficit 'hawks' don't really care about the deficit (which is shrinking). All they really care about is cutting taxes on the rich and cutting the social safety net; deficits are just the excuse du jour. Charles P. Pierce has a pithier summary:

I will be submitting a paper entitled, The Blog's First Law Of Economics: Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money.

What's Next? Prognostication is always a gamble. But, FWIW I think I see some trends worth watching. The Republican Party has lost its mind and is incapable of governing; it will be impossible for Democrats to split differences with them to move the country forward. The hardcore Ryan/Cruz tea bagger wing of the party would consider it the ultimate form of treason to actually make government work for the people again. So, expect more budget hysteria and hostage taking.
IF Democrats can't take back the House and hold on to the Senate, it's not going to get better soon. The Supreme Court is as blatantly partisan as its been in years. (God help us if Republicans get the White House too.) Democrats who think they need to play to the 'undecided middle' to win will only be prolonging the agony. It's time to do to the GOP what they've been doing to Democrats for years: marginalize them as extremists out of touch with the real America, elitists who have a record of 30 years of failing to keep their promises to the country while they have cashed in.
It's time to start driving a stake through the heart of Reaganism. It. Just. Does. Not. Work. Republicans have been claiming for years that cutting taxes (mostly on the rich) would make the economy grow. And it has… but not as fast as it could have, and only for those at the very top. The pie HAS grown - but 99% of us have seen OUR slices shrink!
Cutting back on government has not made us more free - it's left us helpless in the face of natural disaster, victimized by a financial sector out of control, and ripped off by corporations who've cut wages and benefits, shipped jobs overseas AND demanded more and more tax breaks. Air, water, food - even the weather is not going in a good direction, wherever Republicans rule.
We supposedly can't afford to make sure everyone has a decent education, decent housing, enough food, a living wage (no matter how many billionaires we have) but God help us if we cut the military. The multi-national corporations make too much profit building weapons systems for it, supplying it, and using it for leverage on the rest of the world. And given how good Republicans are at pissing people off, do we really dare cut it back? (Except for the people in it who are expected to fight our wars - screw them out of their pay and benefits, of course.)
The point is, the Republican party has nothing to offer the country but snake oil - and people outside of the beltway and the lame stream  media are starting to see through it. And if they don't, Democrats have only themselves to blame for not pointing to the humongous pile of evidence that it's so. Triangulating Third Way corporatist Democrats are not the solution - they are just enabling the GOP by other means. Jumping off the cliff in partnership with the GOP in the expectation that they'll be able to stop halfway down is not exactly tenable - but they keep trying to do it. The Elizabeth Warren wing of the party has this advantage: it is prepared to embrace solutions that would actually work. We may be hitting an inflection point, at which time things will rapidly start going in new directions - if we are ready for it.
Obamacare is the joker in this deck at the moment. The Republicans and the media have gone out of their way to portray it as a total train wreck - but it keeps getting better and more people are signing up every day. It is beginning to deliver on its promises despite unwavering Republican opposition every step of the way. IF Democrats are not afraid to run on it, it could become a potential pivot point in the larger discussion about the role of government, and how the economy works. Millions of people who've never realized just what a difference government can make to them personally are finding out it can be literally a matter of life and death who they vote for. They're already becoming restive over an economy that seems to work for only a favored few.
Charles P. Pierce has looked at Obama's recent speech about the economy, and views it as a game changer. When the President of the United States, and the leader of his party is willing to say things like:

"...the result is an economy that's become profoundly unequal, and families that are more insecure.  I'll just give you a few statistics.  Since 1979, when I graduated from high school, our productivity is up by more than 90 percent, but the income of the typical family has increased by less than eight percent.  Since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few. The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income -- it now takes half.  Whereas in the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today's CEO now makes 273 times more.  And meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family, which is a record for this country.
So the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed.  In fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to America's market economy.  Across the developed world, inequality has increased.  Some of you may have seen just last week, the Pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length."How can it be," he wrote, "that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?"

If you haven't read the entire speech by the President, I strongly suggest you do so. The first necessary step in solving a problem is to recognize you have one. The national political dialog is starting to come to grips with that task, however slowly and defiantly. As Pierce comments:

This is where the speech begins to get important, and not just because the president is quoting the barbed criticisms leveled by the pope. It is here where the president begins to insist that there be a new paradigm in how we talk about income inequality and what we do about it. It is here where he begins to insist that income inequality is not the result of the impersonal consequences of economic transition but, rather, the result of choices made and not made, the result of actions taken and not taken, and all of them deliberate and calculated to benefit a specific class of people. The crash of 2008 was not inevitable. It had human causes that were very much avoidable. It is here where he begins to talk about the dangers of oligarchy, and about how oligarchy can turn the promise of self-government into a sucker's game.

emphasis added When even NPR starts to pick up on this vibe, it's an indication the earth is shifting under us.  What can Obama and the Democratic Party do at this point? As long as Republicans hold the House (and the Supreme Court), not a lot from the legislative end. But getting the message out, finding a voice that reflects the will of the vast majority of Americans who are not happy with the direction of the country, using Obamacare as a wedge to start shifting the Overton Window, challenging the lame stream media narrative that has served us so badly for so long, AND holding Republicans responsible for decades of failure… it's a starting point. 2014 and 2016 are not that far away.
Pierce notes that one way Obama can take concrete steps to embrace this changing world view is to act on something coming down the pipeline.

But, as we often say around here, faith without works, Mr. President. For example, the egregious Trans-Pacific Partnership is coming down the fast track. You can't find a better example of something aimed at enriching the people, and empowering the forces, that deliberately have engineered income inequality, or a better example of who engineered it and on whose behalf. Your move, Mr. President.

For my own part, I consider killing the Keystone XL Pipeline would also be a step in the right direction, for similar reasons. There ARE things that can be done. It's past time to start doing them. For a closer, here's a classic video from 1982. Reagan was just settling into the White House, and who knew just how hard "Workin' For A Living" was going to get?

http://youtu.be/9N2CANatVYQ
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260464/-All-Things-Considered-NPR-Class-Warfare-Edition

Huh, so it IS a coordinated Wall Street Democrat campaign

Wall Street's worst day.

Hmmm, so far today we've seen that Third Way op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and Sen. Chuck Schumer's comparing us to the teabaggers. Then there is DLC dinosaur Al From with a new book and rhetorical embrace of Hillary Clinton, unreconstructed racist Richard Cohen's blasting of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Fox News "Democrats" Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell in Politico are back for another stab at that whole "radical center" nonsense.
One or two of these would be random noise. All of this, all at once? It's a coordinated counterattack by Wall Street Democrats spooked by the party's embrace of politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin and Jeff Merkley. The future of the Democratic Party is a populist one, all that's left is for time to whittle out the dead weight.
But this counterattack ... it's kinda pathetic. Warren will DOOM Democrats! Except that she is on the right side of American public opinion on issues of Wall Street dominance. That's the whole definition of being "populist" after all. But Warren can only win in a place like Massachusetts! Only if you ignore what Sherrod Brown did in Ohio with virtually identical politics. Or the way Democrats like Jon Tester and Heidi Heitkamp won their solidly red states. Hint: they didn't run Bob Kerrey's playbook of campaigning on Social Security cuts and austerity.
Wall Street can't possibly see a future in the Republican Party. It is increasingly a home for right-wing populists, the teabaggers, pushing for economy-destroying austerity, reactionary social policy, government shutdowns and national defaults. That's not good for business! And neither is blocking immigration reform. So the Democratic Party—the party that has saved capitalism by smoothing its rougher edges (it's no coincidence the stock market does better under Democratic administrations)—is the only choice. Except corporatists want less of that "smoothing the rougher edges" stuff. A lot less.
For now, Wall Street and its allies are simply trying to claim that cutting Social Security and other social programs are a path to electoral relevance—a notion laughable on its face.
But if Wall Street was really smart, they'd start getting the less crazy Republicans, like Mark Kirk and Susan Collins, to switch parties, reinforcing the ranks of Wall Street Dems in Congress and giving the corporatists a functional governing majority. And if that happened, it would be our turn for a good ol' civil war, just like the one the GOP is currently waging.
We're not there yet, but today's coordinate assault, inept as it might be, could be the first skirmish.
11:00 AM PT:

@markos Add @HFord2 to the coordinated attack; he just told @alexwagner  et al the way to salvation is cutting SS & Medicare
— @laguna_bob

Even Harold Ford is coming out of the woodwork. It's a corporatist Reunion Day!

Originally posted to kos on Tue Dec 03, 2013 at 10:30 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos, Pushing back at the Grand Bargain, and Social Security Defenders. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/03/1259852/-Huh-so-it-IS-a-coordinated-Wall-Street-Democrat-campaign

Obama Budget Proposal Cuts Are 'Unconscionable,' Says AFL-CIO & What's the 'Chained CPI,' Why It's Bad for Social Security and Why the White House Shouldn't Be Touting It (VIDEO) 6&4APR13

MORE of the political backlash from the Progressive and Labor communities. Pres Obama may plan on sticking to his proposal, but the Democrats in Congress will pay if they go along with his plan. There is no way people are going to volunteer for and donate to Democrats up for reelection if these politicians give in and vote for the chained cpi proposal or any cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. We, the Bold Progressives, labor activist, and the people of faith who got Pres Obama reelected will prevail in this battle. He has till Wednesday to come up with a better plan. A few articles on this from HuffPost......

WASHINGTON -- President Obama hasn't formally proposed his "compromise" budget plan yet, but the White House can already see cracks forming among its trusted progressive coalition over cutbacks to cherished safety net programs.

On Saturday, organized labor quickly made good on its promise to oppose a White House budget that includes cuts to Social Security and Medicare, with the AFL-CIO labor federation ripping the president's expected proposal with unusually tough language in an email blast to activists.

The email (below) came with the subject heading, "Obama's really bad idea."

"From all reports I’ve seen, President Obama is going to propose a budget plan next week that is unprecedented for a Democratic president," said the email from Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO's policy director. "It will propose a cut to Social Security benefits for seniors, veterans and people with disabilities."

"It is unconscionable to ask seniors, people with disabilities and veterans who are barely making it to be squeezed even tighter at a time when corporations and the wealthiest 2% are not paying their fair share of taxes, despite soaring profits."

That the AFL-CIO would oppose such a budget comes as no big surprise -- the federation has been saying as much since the day after Obama's election victory over Mitt Romney. But the fact that one of the president's strongest allies is preemptively calling his proposal "unconscionable" hints at some of the withering criticism Obama can expect to come from his left flank.

The president will propose his budget on Wednesday. As HuffPost has reported, it is likely to include a proposal to readjust the way the cost of living is calculated for Social Security beneficiaries. Known as "chained CPI," the switch will effectively reduce payments over time. The budget is also expected to include additional means testing for Medicare.

The budget would trim the deficit by an estimated $1.8 trillion over a decade, with $600 billion in savings coming from revenue and $1.2 trillion coming from domestic program and entitlement cuts, according to the New York Times.

While the inclusion of chained CPI and other cuts strengthen the possibility of a "grand bargain" over the budget, many to Obama's left seem to be questioning the prudence of starting negotiations so close to the middle. Count the AFL-CIO among them.

In his email, Silvers steered activists to a petition and urged them to "tell President Obama: No 'chained CPI and no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or other cuts to Social Security benefits. Period.'

Read the email in full:

From all reports I’ve seen, President Obama is going to propose a budget plan next week that is unprecedented for a Democratic president. It will propose a cut to Social Security benefits for seniors, veterans and people with disabilities.

It appears the proposed cut will take the form of “chained” CPI—a discredited way of calculating annual cost-of-living increases that does not keep up with actual costs, eating into benefits.

But there’s more. The president’s budget proposal also would require middle-class seniors—people who make $47,000 a year and more—to pay higher Medicare premiums.

These cuts are bad policy. And the only way we’re going to stop them is if President Obama and all members of Congress hear that we’re not going to tolerate them. Sign our petition to the president NOW.

It is unconscionable to ask seniors, people with disabilities and veterans who are barely making it to be squeezed even tighter at a time when corporations and the wealthiest 2% are not paying their fair share of taxes, despite soaring profits.

It’s bad policy to make cuts that will weaken our economic recovery.

And it’s wrong, at a time of record income inequality and stagnant wages, to make the gap even worse by undercutting the retirement security of working- and middle-class Americans.

The majority of Americans oppose cuts to our country’s most important family protection programs. It’s time to make some noise about it.

We need to invest in America's working families, not pull the rug out from under them. That starts with repealing the sequester and making corporations and the richest 2% pay their fair share. And that should never, ever include cuts to benefits that millions of working families rely on.

Tell President Obama: No “chained” CPI and no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or other cuts to Social Security benefits. Period.:

go.aflcio.org/No-Cuts-Obama

In Solidarity,

Damon Silvers
Director of Policy, AFL-CIO

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/06/obama-budget-proposal-cut_n_3029598.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications

What's the 'Chained CPI,' Why It's Bad for Social Security and Why the White House Shouldn't Be Touting It (VIDEO)

The White House and prominent Democrats are talking about reducing future Social Security payments by using a formula for adjusting for inflation that's stingier than the current one. It'scalled the "Chained CPI." I did this video so you can understand it -- and understand why it's so wrongheaded.

Even Social Security's current inflation adjustment understates the true impact of inflation on the elderly. That's because they spend 20 to 40 percent of their incomes on health care, and health-care costs have been rising faster than inflation. So why adopt a new inflation adjustment that's even stingier than the current one?

Social Security benefits are already meager for most recipients. The median income of Americans over 65 is less than $20,000 a year. Nearly 70 percent of them depend on Social Security for more than half of this. The average Social Security benefit is less than $15,000 a year.

Besides, Social Security isn't in serious trouble. The Social Security trust fund is flush for at least two decades. If we want to ensure it's there beyond that, there's an easy fix -- just lift the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes, which is now $113,700.

Why are Democrats even suggesting the inflation adjustment be reduced? Republicans aren't asking for it. Not even Paul Ryan's draconian budget includes it.

Democrats invented Social Security and have been protecting it for almost 80 years. They shouldn't be leading the charge against it.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

 

Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/chained-cpi_b_3016471.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications 

Defense Lobby Wins, Middle Class Loses In Obama Debt Proposal 19DEZ12

AFTER all the political fighting, court cases, lobbying, protest, petition drives, e mailing, etc over the issue of voter fraud prior to this years election we finally know who committed the greatest fraud and stole the most votes......+Barack Obama. He ran as the defender of the middle class, the working class, students, seniors, vets, children, the 98% of us who have suffered and lost the most during and from the great recession. His campaign was a masterpiece of propaganda that would have made +joseph goebbels proud, because millions of us actually believed he was going to stand strong against the monied interest of the rich, wall street, the bank-financial cabal and the military industrial complex. After years of economic hardship we were desperate, and in our desperation deceived. We now know +Obama is owned by the plutocracy as much as the gop / tea-bagger ticket was, they were just stupid enough to let us know who's interest they were representing. I resent I spent so many hours volunteering to help elect Obama. I resent I donated money to his campaign. And I apologize to my fellow citizens who are going to suffer because of Obama's position on the "fiscal cliff" budget and debt negotiations. This from +HuffPost......
The President's latest budget offer slashes a 95 year old retiree's Social Security benefits by more than nine percent -- and trims the defense budget by less than one percent.
Nancy Pelosi insists that these benefit reductions aren't "cuts," which is consistent with the propensity to describe the slowed growth or freezing of military spending as a "reduction."
Pelosi says she'll push this deal in Congress and that most recalcitrant Dems will eventually fall in line behind it. She said they'll "stick with the President" - as opposed to, for example, sticking with seniors.
Why are people so anxious to avoid the "fiscal cliff" that they'll sacrifice the elderly, along with the disabled, veterans, and their families? And why does the President's proposal ask so much more "shared sacrifice" from them than it does of the nation's bloated defense contractors?
As the old saying goes: Follow the money.
Ike's Warning
In this case the money trail quickly leads from the corridors of power to the boardrooms of the Military Industrial Complex.  (You didn't think it had gone away, did you?)
The contours of our national budget debate - both in the press and among politicians - have been shaped by a small cadre whose latest front group is called "Fix the Debt."  Thanks to some in-depth investigative reporting from ProPublica, we now know that "Fix the Debt" is deeply embedded with the defense industry.
That's the almost all-powerful lobby which President (and five-star General) Dwight D. Eisenhower named in his final Presidential address. "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence" by that lobby, Eisenhower said, adding:  "We must never let the weight of this (complex) endanger our liberties or democratic processes,"
How's that working out for you?
Under the Influence
Fix the Debt's participants are linked to 43 companies - companies whose defense contracts amounted to $43 billion in 2012 alone. It has a $60 million publicity budget.  And it's scooped up some self-interested Democrats to lend that all-important "bipartisan" air to its lobbying efforts.
The Fix the Debt cluster of lobbyists has also co-opted some lazy journalists who can't be bothered to learn the subject matter for themselves, content to treat its spoon-fed "facts" and ideas as gospel truth instead.
This corporate lobbying front has moved Beltway and media perception so far to the right that even an opinion supported by 75 percent of Tea Party members is considered too "leftist" and "extreme" to be taken seriously. [1]
Sharing the sacrifice ... among seniors, veterans, and the disabled
It shows.  In their world the President's counter-offer represents the "left" side of the political spectrum. It slashes Social Security $122 billion over ten years, increases the tax burden on middle-class (but not high-earner) income, and calls for only a $100 billion reduction in planned defense spending.
That's right:  The President's "compromise" counter-offer asks seniors, veterans, the disabled, and non-wealthy working people to "sacrifice" roughly three times much as the Pentagon and its contractors. It reduces an 85 year old's benefits by 6.5 percent and a 95 year old's by 9.2 percent, while trimming less than one percent from our trillion-dollar defense budget.  What does that say about our values?
And remember: That's just his bargaining position. It'll go down from there.
There is no cliff
But isn't the "fiscal cliff" a disaster to be avoided at all costs?[1] In a word: No.Financial analyst Barry Ritholtz has been one of the few financial voices to point out the obvious: the stock market doesn't care about the 'fiscal cliff," or about a possible downgrade in the Federal government's credit rating. And via Wonkblog, he has the chart to prove it.
And I have the chart (here) to prove that, contrary to popular 'expert' belief, the stock market didn't care about a ratings downgrade the last time it happened. It also proves that the market fell after the last Obama/Boehner round of budget cuts.
It'll probably do the same thing their next deal, too. Austerity agreements are terrible for the entire economy - with the exception of defense contractors and a few other special interests.
Grave Implications
So who's really afraid of the "fiscal cliff"? These headlines offer some clues:

• Politico: "Contractors fear sequester's impact"


• Los Angeles Times: "In defense-heavy San Diego, 'fiscal cliff' threat hits home"


• Virgina Pilot: "Firms fear sequester's impact on government contracts"


• Naples (FL) News: "Fiscal cliff: Employers, Naples defense contractors anxious for deal'


• ABC News: "California defense contractors fear fiscal cliff"

"We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications," Eisenhower said of the defense lobby. "Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society." Miracle On K Street
Meanwhile, in the supposedly "deadlocked" city of Washington, there's agreement about something. Bloomberg News reports that "House and Senate negotiators agreed on U.S. defense legislation authorizing about $640.7 billion in the current fiscal year for the Pentagon."
Boy, the Pentagon must have lobbied really hard to get that kind of money in this fiscal climate. Right?  Wrong:  "On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called on lawmakers to cut $74 billion in "needless" spending on weapons--to no avail."
As we were saying, a reduction of less than one percent - as we wind down two wars, more or less - is the left side of the debate now. So who did lobby so successfully, for such an astonishing sum of money?
The defense lobby and its politician friends are hoping you won't ask. Just think of it as a Christmas miracle.
The Name Game
How does this cynical lobby create a political climate in which a proposal that cuts benefits and raises taxes for the middle class is the liberal side of the debate?
That's where "Fix the Debt" comes in.  This supposedly unbiased group of CEOs is only the latest incarnation of a longstanding anti-tax, pro-giant-corporation lobbying web.   This entity goes by many names: The  "Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget." The "Comeback America Initiative." "The Can Kicks Back." And many more.
Please allow me to introduce myself ...
The Usual Suspects
But while the names change, the players stay the same - including Alan Simpson, Erskine Bowles, and corporate and defense-industry stealth super-lobbyist Maya MacGuineas.
So do their "unbiased" recommendations: Lower tax rates for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations (in the name of deficit reduction, no less.) Eviscerate Social Security and Medicare and turn their functions over to private corporations.
They say they want a "national conversation" about government debt. But when defense spending comes up they always change the subject.
Peace On Earth, Goodwill Toward Raytheon
The latest "lucky" break for defense contractors came just today, as Senate and House negotiators from both parties agreed to protect defense contractors from some of sequestration's worst features.
"A leading industry organization cheered the (the) changes," reported the Washington Business Journal,"... which softened the potential blow for contractors in the areas of workforce, compensation, and oversight."
Congratulations, contractors, on this unexpected stroke of good fortune. Now who'll soften the blow for the rest of us?
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals," said Eisenhower, "so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Obama and Pelosi are pushing a deal that lets this "machinery" prosper at the expense of our "peaceful goals." This holiday season is becoming the time for an "alert and knowledgeable citizenry" to take action.
____________
[1] 75 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of self-described Tea Party supporters told pollsters they opposed cutting Social Security to balance the deficit. So did more than 80 percent of Americans overall. But unless we do something it's going to happen anyway.

Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/defense-lobby-wins-middle_b_2334995.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications 

Fiscal Cliff Poll: Democrats In 'Strong Position' & U.S. Fiscal Cliff Talks Continue, Republicans Losing Public Opinion Wars 12&13DEZ12

POOR rep john boehner r OH, leader of the losers on 6NOV12, he still doesn't get it. The people have spoken and a vast majority want the wealthy 2% and corporate America to pay their fair share in taxes, want corporate welfare cut and do not want cuts in programs for the poor, education and national infrastructure. The repiglican's and tea-bagger's obstructionism in the House will be responsible if the nation goes over the fiscal cliff in January. Here are two articles from HuffPost on the attitude of the nation and boehner's inability to face reality, and to see what the government might have in store for 98% of us see my earlier post When You've Lost the VFW on Budget Cuts, You've Lost America 12DEZ12
...

Americans' relative confidence in President Barack Obama and their support for repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy could give Democrats an edge in budget negotiations, according to a Pew Research poll released Thursday, while Republicans risk portrayal as obstructionists.
"The Democrats are in a strong position with the public as they engage in negotiations to find a solution to the fiscal cliff crisis," the Pew report finds, echoing a slew of recent surveys that find broad support for a compromise between sides, but also a willingness to blame Republicans should the talks fail.
Obama's negotiating position is backed by strong approval ratings and the perception that he's more serious about working with Republicans than vice versa. The president's approval rating, at 55 percent, is more than twice that of Republican congressional leaders, who have suffered in the polls since the debt ceiling debate last summer.
Both parties are about equally trusted on jobs and the deficit, but the Republican Party is seen, by a 20-point margin, as "more extreme in its positions," than the Democratic Party, and as less likely to work across the aisle by an even greater spread.
A plan proposed this week by House Republicans would permanently extend Bush-era income tax cuts for the wealthy, taking off the table the most popular of the changes Pew polled on. About seven in 10 Americans support raising the tax on income over $250,000. Measures that would limit taxpayer deductions, raise taxes on investment income, and reduce Medicare and Social Security benefits for higher-income seniors also won majority support.
Public opinion on other proposed cuts was murkier. Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they support both spending cuts and tax increases, but a majority disapproves of specific cuts to education, infrastructure, defense and anti-poverty programs, as well as raising the retirement age for Medicare and Social Security.
Knowledge of what the fiscal cliff entails was also mixed, with 57 percent of Americans correctly identifying that the phrase refers to automatic tax increases and spending cuts that could go into effect next year, but 43 percent misinformed or not sure about what the term meant.

Only a quarter of people named the fiscal cliff as the country's biggest issue, unchanged since March. More named jobs as their biggest worry -- 22 percent of Americans believe that plenty of jobs are available, an increase from 10 percent two years ago.
Perceptions of the state of the economy have somewhat improved as well, with the percentage who say the economy is "poor" the lowes
t since January 2008. But pessimism about the future has also grown, fueled by a growing partisan divide, Pew found. While Democrats' economic outlook has remained the same in recent months, Republican confidence in America's economic future has plummeted since the election.
The Pew poll surveyed 1,503 American adults by phone between Dec. 5 and Dec. 9, with a 2.9-percent margin of error.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/fiscal-cliff-poll-pew_n_2292151.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

U.S. Fiscal Cliff Talks Continue, Republicans Losing Public Opinion Wars

WASHINGTON, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Negotiations are expected to continue Thursday on the "fiscal cliff" with Republicans at a growing public opinion disadvantage and approval ratings for President Barack Obama rising to levels not seen since the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Senior Democratic Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota said on MSNBC late Wednesday that he thought Obama and House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner were edging closer to a deal.

He added that he hoped something will be announced next week to avert the steep tax hikes and budget cuts set for the start of 2013.

"I believe that they will have a framework agreement," Conrad said. "I believe they'll have it early next week. And I believe it will secure the votes in both the Senate and the House. We may miss some on the wings, but I think the center will hold."

Republican Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, in a Fox Business News interview Wednesday evening, disagreed with Conrad's assessment.

"I started pretty optimistic about this that we could get this done well before the holidays, but I don't feel that way anymore," Brady said. "It seems to me a decision's been made perhaps by the White House already to take us off this fiscal cliff."

Conservative Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina said the economy had already been damaged by the uncertainty caused by the deadlock.

"We can't fix it Christmas Eve and expect it all to bounce back in January," he said Thursday on CBS.

Sharp differences remained between congressional Republicans and the White House in talks to avert the cliff, and negotiators warned the showdown could drag on past Christmas.

Both sides refused to give any ground in public, with the main sticking point being the expiring tax cuts, which Obama wants extended for all but high earners and Boehner wants extended for everyone.

Polling shows strong support for Obama's position. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey released late Wednesday, three-quarters of Americans say they would accept raising taxes on the wealthy to avoid the cliff.

Among Republicans, some 61 percent say they would accept tax increases on high earners.

An ABC News-Washington Post poll released Tuesday indicted that nearly half of Americans approve of Obama's handling of the negotiations versus the quarter of respondents who approved of Boehner's.

At the same time, Obama's public opinion rating has reached about 54 percent in the Real Clear Politics polling average, above the level where it peaked in May 2011, when bin Laden was killed.

Republicans are in a bad negotiating position, Conrad said, noting that the Democratic-controlled Senate has already passed a bill preserving tax cuts for the middle-class, leaving the Republican-controlled House standing in the way.

"And so Republicans are really in an awkward position," he said.

Boehner, meanwhile, faces increasingly conflicting pressures, from the right to hold firm, from the Republican center to be flexible and from the polls to abandon his position. (Editing by Xavier Briand)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/us-fiscal-cliff_n_2291989.html?ref=topbar 

Obama Tells Progressives He Won't Budge On Bush Tax Cuts13NOV12

SEQUESTRATION, THE FISCAL CLIFF, it is looming and it is a real threat to the entire nation. The difference is in who will actually suffer if a budget agreement is not achieved. The poor and the working poor, the retired, the disabled, the least among us, those living on the very edge (and I do not mean in a risk taking way) will be hit the hardest. The gop and the tea-baggers are already pushing for a budget agreement to protect the rich and to shift the cost of any budget agreement onto the middle class, working class and the poor. Pres Obama and Progressive Democrats in Congress are girding for the fight as laid out by the President, dedicated to making sure the bush tax cuts for the rich are ended so they start paying their fair share and making sure cuts are not directed to vital government agencies and the social safety net. From HuffPost....
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will enter high-stakes budget negotiations firmly committed to seeing the tax rates for high-income earners rise to pre-George W. Bush levels, he assured a gathering of progressive and labor leaders on Tuesday.
"I am not going to budge," he told the group, according to an attendee who relayed material from the meeting on condition of anonymity. "I said in 2010 that I'm going to do this once, and I meant it."
The White House did not immediately return a request for comment, but two other sources who attended the meeting confirmed the quote. The administration seems to have staked out a firmer position than during the first stand-off over the Bush-era tax cuts, in November and December of 2010, leaving the impression that it won't sign off on a compromise that doesn't increase the tax burden on the wealthy as a means of paying down the deficit.
How the president plans to effect that outcome is still unclear. Top Democrats in the Senate have said they would be comfortable letting all the tax rates expire -- as they are scheduled to do -- at the end of the year, after which they will put together a tax cut bill that would re-establish the Bush-era rates for incomes below $250,000.
Several sources at the meeting said the president was, as one noted, "more nuanced than going off the cliff." Obama hopes to place "maximum pressure on House Republicans so at the end of the day he may be able to budge them," the source added.
"It seemed like he meant it," the first source said. "That suggests that they are ready to go over the ledge."
Following the meeting, a handful of attendees spoke briefly to the press, praising Obama for vowing to firmly oppose an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.
"It was a very, very positive meeting," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. "We're very committed to making sure that the middle class and workers don't end up paying the tab for a party that we didn't get to go to, and the president is committed to that as well."
"The president was really standing firm on taxes," said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress. "Everyone in the room talked about how much they have the president's back in this fight."
The expiring Bush-era tax cuts are just one component of a larger budget deal that needs to be hammered out with congressional Republicans, the details of which remain unclear. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney ducked a question during Tuesday's press briefing as to whether Obama would be willing to put cuts to entitlement benefits on the table in negotiations with Republicans. Instead, Carney pointed to the $340 billion in savings from entitlement reform already in Obama's plan.
The first source said that the president "seemed to agree that Social Security" should not be part of any grand bargain because it "didn't add to the deficit."
Carney also left the door open to the idea of raising the threshold for extending the Bush-era tax cuts to $500,000 or $1 million. Obama drew the line at $250,000 in his proposal.
"He is not wedded to every detail of that plan," Carney said, when asked specifically if Obama would be willing to raise the limit.
In the process of putting together a far-reaching piece of legislation, the president will have the help of the progressive community's political arms. All of the meeting's attendees pledged to keep their election-season campaign apparatuses intact for purposes of drumming up support for the president's budget priorities.
Obama asked the attendees to focus their efforts on pressuring House Republicans to reach an agreement on the tax cuts, reminding them that the American people made clear in last week's elections that they want to see the wealthiest pay more in taxes, according to a source familiar with what was discussed at the meeting.

AFSCME president Lee Saunders, who attended the meeting, said his members are prepared to devote as much energy to pressuring Republicans to reach a balanced debt deal as they put into the campaign season.
"We're going to have our folks engaged, just like they were in the election," Saunders said. "They're going to be engaged in this campaign."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/obama-bush-tax-cuts_n_2124324.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
 

President Obama, Gov. Chris Christie touring storm damage together in New Jersey & Don't let Republicans hold disaster relief hostage 31OKT&1NOV12

COVERAGE of Pres Obama's tour of storm ravaged New Jersey with Gov Christie, from the Washington Post. Also a petition campaign from Daily KOS demanding the repiglicans in Congress lead by lyin' paul ryan, eric cantor and john boehner not hold social safety net funding and funding for disaster relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy  be held hostage in budget negotiations, click the link to participate....
President Obama visited one of the hardest-hit areas in Hurricane Sandy’s destructive path Wednesday, joining New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) — one of his most outspoken critics and a chief surrogate to rival Mitt Romney — for a tour of the damage the storm inflicted on the Garden State.

N.J. Gov. Chris Christie (R) and President Obama during the president’s visit to the Garden State to tour storm damage. (Jewel Samad/Getty Images)

“We are here for you. And we will not forget. We will follow up to make sure that you get all the help you need until you’ve rebuilt,” Obama said at an afternoon news conference.
Obama and Christie reviewed the storm’s impact on New Jersey from the air for a little over an hour before meeting with residents on the ground. Both stressed that restoring power to residents who have lost it is the top priority.
Speaking at a community center being used as a shelter, Obama praised Christie’s response to Sandy, and said the country’s been watching the Garden State in the wake of the storm.
“I want to let you know that your governor is working overtime,” the president said, later adding: ”The main message I wanted to send is the entire country has been watching what’s been happening. Everybody knows how hard Jersey’s been hit.”
Christie, who called Sandy “the worst storm that I’ve seen in my lifetime in the state,” lauded the president for making the trip to the Garden State.
“He has worked incredibly closely with me since before the storm hit. I think this is our sixth conversation since the weekend. It’s been a great working relationship,” Christie said.
Air Force One landed in Atlantic City just after 1 p.m. local time. On the tarmac, Christie greeted the president, who was accompanied by Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Craig Fugate. The three immediately boarded a helicopter to survey the storm’s damage and later met with locals impacted by Sandy.
From North Carolina to New England, Sandy’s high winds, storm surges, rain and snow have left thousands without power and claimed the lives of at least 59 people, according to the Associated Press.
Obama, who was previously scheduled to be on the campaign trail this week, canceled stops Monday and Tuesday to monitor the storm from Washington. He convened a video conference in the White House Situation Room with top advisers Tuesday morning and held a conference call with utility executives later in the day. The president met with top officials once again for a briefing Wednesday morning before he departed Washington. Obama’s trip to New Jersey was the only travel on his Wednesday schedule.
As he reviewed storm damage with Christie in Atlantic City, where Sandy made landfall Monday night, Obama joined a political opponent who hasn’t been shy about criticizing his administration. In recent days, though, Christie has appeared inclined to put politics aside in the wake of the deadly storm that slammed the East Coast. He applauded Obama’s response to New Jersey’s post-storm needs in a Tuesday morning interview.
“The federal government’s response has been great. I was on the phone at midnight again last night with the president, personally, he has expedited the designation of New Jersey as a major disaster area,” Christie said on NBC’s “Today” show. Obama ordered federal aid be sent to New Jersey, along with New York, West Virginia and Virginia, which were also impacted by Sandy.
While the president is visiting New Jersey in an official capacity, there also is a potential political upside to his trip. Six days before Election Day, it’s an opportunity for him to appear to be working in a bipartisan manner alongside one of his chief critics. It’s also a chance for Obama to remind voters of his commander-in-chief credentials.
For Christie, too, there is potential for political gain. The governor could face a tough reelection campaign in 2013. Appearing with Obama in the Democrat-leaning state could boost his own cross-party appeal ahead of what could be a bruising battle in 2013. What’s more, handling a natural disaster with command and control could win him praise from voters.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One that Obama decided to visit New Jersey because of the impact of the storm on the Garden State, adding that this is no time for politics.
“New Jersey was, by many measures, the hardest-hit state — I believe that’s correct — and it is entirely appropriate for the president to visit New Jersey and receive updates on the efforts there to recover and to view firsthand the damage inflicted by Sandy.  This is not a time for politics,” Carney said.
When asked by a reporter Wednesday whether Christie’s praise of Obama annoyed him, senior Romney strategist Russ Schriefer — who was an adviser on Christie’s 2009 gubernatorial campaign — said Christie is simply doing what he was elected to do.
“Governor Christie is doing his job,” Schriefer said. “He is the governor of a state that has been hit by a very, very horrific storm, there’s tremendous damage, people have lost their lives and he’s doing exactly what he’s supposed to be doing as the governor of New Jersey. And the president is doing what he needs to do as president, and this is a case of the governor doing his job. So I think that’s it.”
Obama had halted his campaign activities through Wednesday, but will return to the stump Thursday. While he has remained focused on Sandy, Obama’s surrogates have been barnstorming the battleground states most likely to decide the outcome of the election. Former president Bill Clinton stumped for Obama in Iowa Wednesday morning and was slated to join a campaign event in Wisconsin later in the evening.
Romney, who canceled campaign rallies Tuesday to participate in storm relief efforts, was back on the campaign trail Wednesday for three stops in the key swing state of Florida. He was joined on the stump by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) and Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), who is also a U.S. Senate candidate.
On the Democratic side, Vice President Biden stumped for Obama in Florida on Wednesday.
A top Obama campaign adviser told reporters Wednesday that the president had been determined to monitor Sandy from Washington in advance of its impact and stay in close contact with the principals involved in the preparation and relief efforts.
“Our judgment was until we got a handle on the scope of this disaster, the president’s job, and this was his judgment, was to remain in Washington and in touch face-to-face with those who were responsible,” top Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod told reporters Wednesday morning.
Obama will campaign Thursday in Green Bay, Wis., Las Vegas and Boulder, Colo.
Philip Rucker contributed to this post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/31/president-obama-gov-christie-to-tour-storm-damage-together-in-new-jersey/?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics 

Craig, please sign our petition telling the House Republican leadership that federal emergency disaster funding should not be held hostage in order to force spending cuts elsewhere. Click here to sign.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, which affected as many as 60 million people, those in the path of the storm are relying on coordinated disaster relief to get back to normal. Yet Republican leadership, including Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and John Boehner, have fought to cut disaster relief funding. In fact, they managed to cut the disaster relief fund to a mere $2.65 billion, which Sandy’s impact is sure to surpass.

Now, we have a huge swath of the eastern seaboard in need of relief, supplies and clean up. The resources to fund this effort will need to be allocated quickly, and it is likely that this will be done during the lame duck session. Those same House Republicans will still be in power and in the position to hold disaster relief hostage for other cuts. Given their past efforts, which include cutting first responder funding to pay for disaster relief, we must demand now that social programs and first responder funding are not cut to pay for Hurricane Sandy.

Please sign our petition telling House Republicans that federal disaster funding should not be held hostage in order to force spending cuts elsewhere.

Keep fighting,
Joan McCarter, Daily Kos

Congressional leaders reach spending deal to avoid government shutdown 15DEZ11

HOW are the issues and concerns of the 99% addressed in this agreement? The payroll tax break isn't part of the deal, unemployment benefits haven't been extended, the keystone xl pipeline may still be one of the riders in legislation and there is more interference in the lives of the citizens of D.C. along with funding cuts for the EPA and education. The 1% come out ahead, as usual.....no surtax on millionaires, no cuts to corporate welfare, no closing major corporate tax loopholes, no cuts impacting the profit margins of those merchants of death controlling the Pentagon. Congress is waging class warfare on 99% of the country and Pres Obama has become the Commander-In-Chief of this force of 535 whose motto has become to serve and protect the obscenely rich, the greedy, the corporate welfare queens and the military-industrial complex.

Congressional negotiators signed off Thursday evening on a $1 trillion spending agreement for federal agencies, just 28 hours before a deadline that would have led to a government shutdown.
After dropping policy prescriptions restricting travel to Cuba and a minor provision related to oversight of financial trades, members of the House and Senate appropriations committees gave final approval to the plan after a four-day standoff that was linked to a separate issue: President Obama’s demands to extend the payroll tax holiday for 160 million workers.
That negotiation, lawmakers and aides said, also could be headed toward an agreement, with lawmakers thinking about extending the tax break for two months to buy more time to determine how to fund it without increasing the federal deficit.
There was a broad shift in tone Thursday on Capitol Hill as leaders on both sides stopped saying the other would be to blame for a potential shutdown and began sending signs of progress.
Talks on the payroll tax began after Democrats dropped their demand that the cut be paid for with a new surtax on those who earn more than $1 million a year.
“Yeah, that’s gone,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) confirmed Thursday evening.
But it was not clear whether Republicans would drop a series of provisions added in the House intended to lure votes from conservatives who believe the tax holiday is bad economic policy.
The House “riders” included an effort to speed approval of the construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, reforms to unemployment insurance, higher Medicare premiums for upper-income seniors and a year-long extension of a two-year pay freeze for federal workers.
The package also would extend unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and avert a scheduled cut in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors.
Baucus, who is negotiating the tax and unemployment package for Democrats, said one consideration was to link the eligibility period of unemployment benefits to the level of joblessness in each state. That would mean that laid-off workers in Nevada — which has a 13.4 percent unemployment rate, the nation’s highest — would be eligible to receive benefits for a longer period than those in North Dakota, the state with the lowest unemployment rate.
A senior Democratic aide said talks over how to pay for the extended tax cut for the full year were ongoing, but an agreement had been secured to at least continue the tax break for two months, at a cost of $40 billion. Among the ideas being considered to pay for the cut, the aide said, were raising fees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collect from lenders, selling wireless spectrum controlled by the government and ending a tax break on the sale of corporate jets.
“There’s momentum building toward a comprehensive agreement, but still there are a lot of pieces to put together,” Baucus said.
To ensure the government remains funded, the White House and Democratic leaders signaled earlier Thursday that they would release their members to move ahead with the $1 trillion spending bill that the Appropriations Committee negotiated, paving the way for final votes on the measure in the House and the Senate.
A vote could occur as early as Friday, with Congress approving a temporary stopgap measure to provide time to complete their work when the legislation that is keeping the lights on ends at midnight.
Democratic leaders had blocked the bill from moving ahead after the White House said it wanted Congress to agree to extend the tax cut first and expressed lingering concerns about some of its provisions.
They included a provision barring the District from spending local tax money on abortion, another blocking the implementation of new standards for energy-efficient light bulbs and a third reversing an Obama administration decision to loosen rules for Americans who want to visit family members in Cuba.
The goal of linking the payroll tax issue to the spending bill was to ensure Republicans in the House could not pass the funding measure and then leave for the holidays — forcing Senate Democrats to accept a Republican proposal to extend the tax cut or let it expire.
At the White House on Thursday, Obama reiterated that the move would be unacceptable to him.
“Congress cannot and should not go on vacation before they have made sure that working families aren’t seeing their taxes go up by $1,000 and those who are out there looking for work don’t see their unemployment insurance expire,” he said.
The hardball tactic of linking tax holiday negotiations — as well as jobless benefits — to the completion of the must-pass spending bill aggravated some Democrats who had worked with Republicans for months to hammer out the appropriations deal.
Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.), who sits on the key committee, said some Democrats had told the White House that “they should not be using federal employees as pawns in a larger issue.”
“I don’t blame them for trying to use every means available to them,” he said. “But I just don’t think that it’s right.”
The funding bill sets government spending for the year at $1.043 trillion, a level agreed to in the August deal that also raised the nation’s legal borrowing limit. The figure represents a 1.5 percent drop in spending from the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
That doesn’t count $115 billion for overseas military operations, a $43 billion dip since this past year as the war in Iraq winds down. It also doesn’t count $8.1 billion in emergency disaster-relief spending.
The measure outlines spending for three-fourths of the government — all but the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, State and Transportation, as well as NASA and some smaller agencies — which were settled in a November deal.
But it addresses funding for a wide swath of government programs, including Pell grants, border security and federal funding for the District of Columbia, and is designed to settle spending issues until nearly the next election, sparing the government the possibility of another shutdown. As Congress works to lower the federal deficit and reduce government spending, most domestic programs will see cuts.
The measure omits funding for the Internal Revenue Service to prepare for the 2014 implementation of the federal health-care law. But it increases funding for border agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
It includes $8.4 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency — a $233 million drop from last year. And provides $550 million for Obama’s signature Race to the Top education program, which incentivizes school reform, a cut of more than 20 percent.
But the Indian Health Service would see funding rise to $237 million. And funding would increase for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.

Supercommittee Admits It's Failed To Reach A Deal 21NOV11

HERE are some words of wisdom our government and nation should consider, and should be considering with today's announcement that the super committee and congress failed the people again....THIS is NOT saying the Democrats should have caved in to the demands of the Republicans....It is saying that with this failure we should not lie, deceive and manipulate the facts about why the committee failed and who is responsible. There is enough truth in the facts, that the Democrats finally took and stand, and remained united in their commitment to the poor, the retired, the working class and the middle class of this nation and defended them against what seems to be the insatiable greed of the rich, corporations, the banking-financial cabal and the military industrial complex. Finally someone took a stand and held their ground for the the 99%!
Work toward unity, and live in harmony with one another. Avoid thinking you are better than others or wiser than the rest; instead, embrace common people and ordinary tasks. Do not retaliate with evil, regardless of the evil brought against you. Try to do what is good and right and honorable as agreed upon by all people. If it is within your power, make peace with all people.
- Romans 12:16-18

by Eyder Peralta

Enlarge J. Scott Applewhite/AP Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, the supercommittee co-chairwoman, arrives to meet in the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Sen. John Kerry with other members of the deficit reduction panel on Monday.

The co-chairs of the Supercommittee made it official, minutes ago: They said they have failed to reach an agreement over a deficit reduction package.
The AP reports:

"Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling say that despite 'intense deliberations' the members of the panel have been unable 'to bridge the committee's significant differences.'
"The panel was established by this summer's budget and debt agreement to cut at least $1.2 trillion from the budget over 10 years. But the panel has been divided from the beginning over taxes and cuts to popular government benefit programs like Medicare."

In a statement, Rep. Jeb Hensarling and Sen. Patty Murray, the co-chairs of the commission, said they were "deeply disappointed" in their inability to reach a bipartisan deal.
They add:

Despite our inability to bridge the committee's significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation's fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve.

The legislation Congress agreed to in the summer stipulates that if the committee could not reach a deal, there would across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion — or 10 percent of the nation's collective deficit — over the next decade. Neither party wants that, because it would hit the defense budget hard, which Republicans don't want, and also hit domestic programs, which Democrats don't want.
That could happen, or NPR's Liz Halloran reports, they could change the rules.
We'll have more as this story develops.
Update at 6:02 p.m. ET. A Bit More On The Impasse:
Like the debt ceiling negotiations of earlier this year, the impasse of these negotiations was about taxes on the rich. The Washington Post captures that divide with rounding up interviews with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.):

Kerry said efforts ultimately foundered over the Republican refusal to accept any tax increases on the wealthy in exchange for spending cuts.
"This is a matter of fundamental fairness," Kerry told CNN. "We are stuck on this insistence of making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. I think the American people will judge that to be insane."
Kyl blamed Democrats for insisting that taxes on more affluent Americans be increased. "Our Democratic friends said we won't cut one dollar more without raising taxes," Kyl said. "That tells you a lot about the ethos in Washington. We went into the exercise to try to reduce federal government spending. What we get from the other side is, 'No, we won't make more cuts unless you raise taxes.' "

Update at 5:49 p.m. ET. Obama Says He'll Veto Rule Changes:
"One way or another, we will be trimming the deficit," said President Obama just moments ago. The president, making a statement in the White House press briefing room, said Congress still has time to reach a deal, but that he does not support changing the rules in order to avoid automatic cuts.
The president warned he would veto any legislation that did so.
Obama opened his statement, however, with sharp words toward congressional Republicans. He said Republicans have refused to give in on new revenue or letting the Bush tax cuts expire. He said Republicans are trying to "protect the rich" despite cuts to medicare and other social programs for the poor.
"Their refusal remains the main stumbling block," he said.
Obama said Congress needs to get back to work and "create a balanced plan."
"They have a year to to figure it out," Obama said.
Update at 5:18 p.m. ET. President To Make A Statement:
President Obama will make a statement at 5:45 p.m. ET. We'll bring you his comments as they happen.

Related NPR Stories

Four Reasons The Supercommittee Isn't So Super Nov. 21, 2011

With No 'Super' Deal, What's Next? Nov. 21, 2011