Conservatives, Liberals and Government - Study

BrighterLife.ca

Fundamental to our understanding of democratic politics across the developed world is that conservative parties stand for relatively low levels of government spending, while those on the left of the political spectrum are prone to higher spending. A new study, released yesterday by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI), blows a hole through that conventional wisdom.

“When you look at the behaviours of various parties over long periods of time in different governments, the pattern is that there is no pattern,” said MEI’s president and chief executive officer, Michel Kelly-Gagnon in an interview with me yesterday. “The parties that are supposed to be more in favour of big government end up spending less than we might expect. And the parties that are supposed to be fiscally conservative sometimes end up being spendthrifts.”

MEI’s study examined government spending in Canada, Quebec and the U.S., dating back to the Pierre Trudeau, Robert Bourassa and Richard Nixon administrations respectively. “In all three cases,” reads the report, “it is actually left-wing governments that most reduced the relative size of government.”

MEI reports government size as the ratio of public spending to gross domestic product.

Under Liberal Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, that ratio fell by 32.5%. The current government, under the leadership of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, drove the ratio up after the financial crisis. It has since reduced the size of government to roughly where it was when the Conservatives took office in 2006.

In the U.S., Republican President George Bush grew the ratio more than any other, by 39%. Democratic President Bill Clinton shrank it by 14.3%.

Is this simply a matter of parties running for office from the left or right, as the cliché goes, and then governing from the centre? Partly, said Kelly-Gagnon. “Parties, when they form governments, regardless of their declared ideology, have to be responsive to the economic environment.”

Context matters, Kelly-Gagnon told me. Clinton’s numbers look great because he enjoyed strong gross domestic product growth during his presidency. Harper had a financial crisis to deal with, and he therefore had to implement a level of stimulus spending that ran contrary to his party’s small government plans.

The report draws two conclusions. First, our perceptions about left- and right-wing political ideology don’t reflect the realities of the last four decades. The data tell a far more nuanced story. Second, we’re far better positioned to debate the role (and size) of government in a non-partisan fashion than we might have expected. The fact that actual decision-making hasn’t been as tied down by ideology as we may have thought means we can be more pragmatic about, for example, the austerity-stimulus debate that continues to rage around the developed world.

It’s worth a try, anyway.

Conservatives, Liberals and Government - Study

House Dems Want 45% Taxes on $1M Incomes

breitbart

By Ben Shapiro 

On Thursday, House Democrats proposed a new bill that would create a minimum 45 percent tax rate on income more than $1 million, and a rate of 49 percent on income more than $1 billion. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) is the mastermind behind this notion; she calls it the Fairness in Taxation Act. “Our country faces an inequality crisis,” she said. “While the amount of earned income – and accumulated wealth – by the top one percent of earners continues its dramatic rise, most Americans have seen little or no gain in take-home pay for decades. We need increased revenue to eliminate the sequester.” Other sponsors of the bill include the most liberal members of the Congress: John Conyers (D-MI), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Luis Guttierez (D-IL), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Betty McCollum (D-MN), and John Yarmuth (D-KY).

Of course, the Obama administration rammed through a tax increase at the beginning of 2013, and focused largely on measures designed to redistribute income to low-income earners throughout President Obama’s first term. The result: the weakest and most lopsided recovery in American history. In California, where taxes have been consistently increased for years, more and more businesses and high-income earners are leaving the state for greener pastures.

Our country does not face an inequality crisis. It faces a growth crisis. Cuba has no inequality crisis, but the people are still miserable. The same holds true of most socialized societies, where income gaps are smaller but growth is similarly minute.

House Dems Want 45% Taxes on $1M Incomes

Get 'off your ass': Boehner blasts Senate Democrats

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

firstread

By Carrie Dann, NBC News

House Speaker John Boehner addresses the ongoing sequester standoff on Capitol Hill.

Echoing the frustration of lawmakers throughout Washington hoping for a last-minute swerve to avoid impending budget cuts, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, used some PG-13 phraseology Tuesday to urge the Senate to action. "We have moved a bill in the House twice," Boehner said at a press conference Tuesday. "We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something." The refrain of urging Senate action comes from Boehner just four days before the sequestration cuts are slated to kick in. President Barack Obama will travel to Newport News, Va. this afternoon to highlight the cuts' effect on the region's shipbuilding community. He will be joined by the area's Rep. Scott Rigell, a Republican. The White House's road trips to warn of the sequester's impact have drawn criticism from foes. "He has traveled over 5000 miles the last two weeks, and we challenge him travel a mile and half and come to Capitol Hill," said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers of Washington on Tuesday. "Sit down with Harry Reid and urge the Senate Democrats to take action."

Boehner said Obama's event this afternoon will reduce the nation's military to a campaign "prop."
"I don't think the president is focused on finding a solution to the sequester," he said. "The president has been traveling all over the country, today by going down to Newport News in order to use our military men and women as a prop in yet another campaign rally to support his tax hikes."

Get 'off your ass': Boehner blasts Senate Democrats

Washington's sequester standoff drags on: 'Mr. President, you got your tax increase'

By Michael O'Brien, Political Reporter, NBC News

The nation’s capital was enveloped in a familiar kind of gridlock late Monday, as Republicans again demanded that President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats act first to put off $85 billion in automatic cuts slated to take effect on Friday.

“The president says we have to have another tax increase to avoid the sequester,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said of the hefty and indiscriminate spending cuts. “Well, Mr. President, you got your tax increase. It's time to cut spending.”

Related: Obama to govs: Push Congress to avert cuts

As Congress returned to work following a weeklong recess, the Obama administration and lawmakers appeared no closer to resolving the automatic spending cuts before their Friday deadline. While both Democrats and Republicans bemoan the cuts as potentially catastrophic for the economy and the national defense, both sides have been locked in a virtual staring match over the sequester.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

More on firstread >>

Washington's sequester standoff drags on: 'Mr. President, you got your tax increase'

O'Really: The Democratic Party: A very lucky crew

O'Really: The Democratic Party: A very lucky crew

Corporate Socialism

By Laika 

www.cosmosmith.com

Well, who would've imagined... now we have Republicans and Democrats joining hands in a great demonstration of bipartisanship and amazingly quick action by the usually gridlocked Congress... for what? Corporate Socialism in America! Working folks lose their jobs (outsourced abroad), can't pay their mortgages, lose their homes, and its tough luck. Big creditors on Wall Street get a $700 billion bail-out courtesy of the taxpayers. I thought capitalism was supposed to be about natural market forces, smart businessmen making sound investments and being rewarded with profits that trickle down... creating jobs, paying wages, stimulating consumer spending.... Now we have the federal government subsidizing failed financial institutions. With this $700 billion bail-out on top of the Iraq war debt, my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will all be paying for it with their taxes (if the whole house of cards does not come tumbling down soon). Why the sudden urgency, you might ask? Hmmm... the election in six weeks might have something to do with it, maybe?  At last we have something liberals and conservatives can agree on.  Bye bye Free Market Capitalism; hello Corporate Socialism.

Corporate Socialism

Year of the Political Snake

NewZeal

NoisyRoom
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

I would wish everyone a happy Chinese New Year, but the prospects for it being a ‘happy’ year are rather bleak. Traditional astronomers warn that this coming year could bring economic upheaval and geopolitical strife. Ya think? In Chinese symbology, snakes are regarded as intelligent, but with a tendency to be somewhat unscrupulous. Sounds a lot like our President, doesn’t it? Although I would like to say this is exclusively about Barack Obama, there are plenty of political snakes to go around. We have a virtual den of snakes currently here in America to choose from and they slither on both sides of the aisle.

Let’s take a look at some of the biggest serpents in the American Garden of Eden:

• Barack Obama – Wow… where to start. From tyrannical executive orders to his lavish lifestyle, Barack Obama embodies the very essence of an arrogant dictator. Among his greatest atrocities: Benghazigate, Obamacare, Fort Hood, the wooing of the Muslim Brotherhood, Cloward and Piven spending on a massive scale, attacks on the Second Amendment, illegal immigration, regulation on an epic scale, crony capitalism, executive orders bypassing the Constitution, drone wars, Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, class warfare (racism 2.0), Czars, the call for a second Bill of Rights and the list goes on and on and on. I firmly believe that Obama is a snake, but he is a puppet to the Progressive/Marxist movement. The puppeteers are the Marxists who have money and influence, such as George Soros and his fellow Marxist reptiles.
• Karl Rove – Rove is almost as big an enemy to Constitutional Conservatives as Obama and the Progressives. In the last week or two, he has openly declared war on the Tea Party, while attempting to further RINO moderation (especially on illegal immigration) and Progressive principles in the Republican Party. He has been the ‘architect’ of the death of the Republican Party and making sure it goes the way of the Whigs.
• Chuck Schumer – By all accounts one the most arrogant of the self-styled nobility in our government. He is anti-Second Amendment and just generally anti-Constitution. Corruption for him is a breakfast food and he sneers at the common man while collecting power and wealth. He is a detestable human being (and I’m not entirely sure he’s human).
• Michael Bloomberg – Another arrogant elitist, Bloomberg is not only fascist, he’s downright batty. From banning salt, to banning large soft drinks to banning styrofoam – he’s the no-go nanny and is delirious with regulation authority. He is also anti-Second Amendment (having blatantly committed anti-2A crimes, e.g. gun stings across state lines) and he is tax happy.
• Diane Feinstein – Feinstein is the queen of hypocrisy. She has armed guards and is armed herself, but she is the leader currently against the Second Amendment. If she had her way there would be universal gun registration and confiscation. Another elitist who sees two sets of rules – one for the wealthy Progressive elite and one for the rest of us.
• Jesse Jackson – Another leftist, whacko extremist – Jackson hides behind the title of ‘reverend’ while violating every commandment in the Bible. He’s known for his sexual escapades, corruption, lies and racism. Lately, he has jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon like a good little Progressive soldier, spouting fascist proclamations while seeking more bribes and power. He’s the poster boy of the Progressive movement and the tip of the spear for racism 2.0.
• John Boehner – Mister ‘cry me a river’ is a RINO Progressive coiled on the right side of the aisle. While forwarding more and more Keynesian spending, he tearfully proclaims that he can’t stop the left. Well, it’s hard to stop the left while enabling them. Boehner covets money and power and has made his bed with the Progressives. If this is what leads the Republicans, they would be better off with an old shoe. At least the old shoe would not betray his party base at every opportunity.
• George Soros – Soros is an evil, wretched old spider. He has toppled currencies and countries, been responsible for the deaths of thousands and wields power as if he is king of the world. He is one of the chief power brokers behind the Progressive movement and plays global RISK like no other. He is a very dangerous man with an evil empire at his beck and call. If you want to see a prime example of an election fixer and an enemy to America, he’s your guy.
• John Brennan – Don’t let Brennan’s incompetent facade fool you. He is a vile viper who is about to be confirmed as the head of the CIA. An evil, malicious power broker – he hates Israel and America. The latest revelation… Brennan is a convert to Islam – so says a former FBI agent, John Guandolo, who wrote the first Muslim Brotherhood training manual for the FBI. He converted while in Saudi Arabia. In my book, that makes him a national security threat – compounded by his love for the Muslim Brotherhood. His conversion was the fruit of a foreign service agency who recruited him to join Islam.
• John Kerry – Swift Boat Kerry is now our Secretary of State. This is a wealthy, one-percent Progressive who hates America and all she stands for. He berated and dragged our military through the mud over Vietnam with many, many falsehoods that were proven lies repeatedly. And yet, here we are with a treasonous asshat as Secretary of State. And he was confirmed by a vast majority on both sides of the aisle.
• Hillary Clinton – Speaking of Medusa, the ‘dirty dancing’ former Secretary of State is now prepping herself to run for the presidency in 2016. Some polls says she is the favorite. Either the whole country has lost its mind (which is very possible), or the polls are lying. She is fresh off of Benghazigate where she lied over and over with nary a peep from any opposition. On her worldwide tour, she spent more time drunk than not and was arguably the worst Secretary of State we have ever had. But man, she gets high scores for dancing the nights away with other women while pounding down those drinks. Maybe she should have been Secretary of Corona. But don’t look too hard or too closely at the Gorgon, you might wind up stoned.
• Leon Panetta – Panetta is a two-faced political animal who is surpassingly cunning and I believe he is a Communist. Which could probably be said of most of the Progressive movement these days. He screams that sequestration will weaken our military on one hand, while doing all he can to gut our forces on the other. He has been the most expensive Secretary of Defense in US history; taking many, many lavish government paid trips. He denies culpability in Benghazi when it was his job to handle it. His lies on the subject are breathtaking. Between the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, the attempts to undermine Israel and weakening our military worldwide, Panetta has been a busy little Progressive.
• Chuck Hagel – Hagel is a Jew-hater extraordinaire. He has also received funds from Hamas related groups and others he won’t disclose. I would wager they are Communists and Iran related groups. Not only that, but he comes off as an incompetent boob. And yet, I can’t quite believe the headlines that he will withdraw from the nomination of Secretary of Defense. Why should he? Even with someone as evil as Hagel surely is, our esteemed leaders will almost certainly confirm this reprehensible power monger. He’s one of ‘them’ don’t ya know.

And there are soooo many more. We just let these monsters go on and on. We are willingly submitting to their rule over us. We have to get these thugs out of office and fast, 2014 may be our last off ramp… our last chance to get back enough seats in Congress to wrest back control of our government. We need to make these evil asshats shake in their jackboots. If we don’t take massive action, all that will be left to us is revolt and with few exceptions, that always ends badly.

The above list does not even begin to touch the plethora of snaky Progessive organizations funding and supporting these Marxist moves in our government. Take for example, Obama’s newly formed “Organized for Action.” I kid you not, it is a “non-profit, non-partisan” group. If you believe that, I have a bridge for you – a real steal. Involved with this false front for Obama are the likes of George Soros, Lockheed Martin, Citi Group and Duke Energy. You’ll also find Walmart in that mix – Sam Walton must be turning over in his grave. And “Organized for Action” is not the only group providing money and cover for the Progressives. You have “Priorities Action USA” and the “Common Purpose Project.” And if that is not enough to garner attention, well take a gander at “Business Forward.” This is an association of “more than 40 of the world’s largest and most respected companies” that makes “it easier for entrepreneurs, investors, small business owners and senior executives from across America to get involved in the policy-making process.” These movers and shakers get involved in the policy-making process by forking over a membership fee to Business Forward, which then organizes meetings between company officials and White House personnel. To me, this is all very reminiscent of how Hitler worked with companies in Germany before and during WWII.

Yes, it is the Year of the Political Snake. By the way, our political snakes are poisonous and are crushing our freedoms. Whose up for a red snake hunt?

I’ll leave you with the following from Daniel Greenfield of Sultan Knish >>

Year of the Political Snake

BUDGET TALKS: Dems, GOP Far Apart as Cuts Seem 'Inevitable'

foxnews

Congressional Democrats and Republicans appeared far apart Sunday on a deal to avert $85 billion in federal spending reductions next month, with a top House Republican saying the cuts appear “inevitable.”

The automatic cuts, known as sequester, kick in March 1 because the parties have failed to agree on a less-drastic plan to cut the federal budget and deficit.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told “Fox News Sunday” that Democrats remain steadfast about tax increases being part of the deal but remain open to spending cuts.

“What we do need is more revenue and new cuts,” the California congresswoman said.

Pelosi said Democrats were “not talking about raising taxes,” but want to close tax loopholes, including those for U.S. oil companies.

She also argued Democrats have made $1.6 trillion in cuts over the past two years and suggested the bigger solution to the country’s economic problems is job growth.

Her argument is similar to the one President Obama -- who also has suggested stopping sequester with a mix of tax cuts and spending cut -- is expected to restate Tuesday during his State of the Union address.

“We need a big, balanced, bold proposal,” said Pelosi, arguing more jobs result in more revenue. The interview was taped last week.

However, Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole said fellow House Republicans will “absolutely not” accept tax increases as part of a deal, which would trigger the cuts to federal defense and discretionary spending.

Cole told ABC News’ “This Week” that the president refused to agree to spending cuts during the recent, so-called “fiscal cliff” negotiations so Democrats are not getting revenue increases now.

“I think (sequester) is inevitable, quite frankly,” he said.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain also said Sunday that Republicans don’t want tax increases, considering they just agreed to end more than $1 trillion in income tax breaks, but suggested he might be open to closing some tax loopholes.

He also urged both parties to work together to avoid sequester, which will result in big cuts to the defense budget and roughly $1.2 trillion in total cuts over the next decade.

“I’ll take responsibility as a Republican, but we’ve got to avoid it,” said McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The world is a very dangerous place.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/10/pelosi-dems-remain-open-to-spending-cuts-to-avert-85-billion-in-cuts-in-march/#ixzz2KWL9835Z

BUDGET TALKS: Dems, GOP Far Apart as Cuts Seem 'Inevitable'

Carl Sciortino: Marxist Musical Chairs in Massachusetts

NewZeal

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Carl Sciortino

Democratic Socialists of America aligned President Barack Obama, has appointed DSA supported Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, as US Secretary of State.

Leftist Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey is standing for Kerry’s old job, while Democratic Socialists of America supported Massachusetts State Rep. Carl Sciortino has put his hand up for Markey’s Congressional seat.

Sciortino said in a statement to a local newspaper:

“I am running to continue the strong progressive leadership that the families of the Fifth District have always counted on. I look forward to bringing my record of accomplishment to Washington to fight for our progressive values…I am proud to call Ed Markey my Congressman and I am dedicated to helping elect him as our next U.S. Senator. His record on behalf of Massachusetts families – fighting for jobs, consumers’ rights and a healthier environment— is the kind of leadership Massachusetts needs in the Senate and it is a record I look forward to continuing in Congress.”

Serving in the Massachusetts State Legislature since 2004, Sciortino has been backed by Boston Democratic Socialists of America his entire term of office. If he makes it to Congress, Sciortino will join a long list of Reps. who owe their careers, at least partially, to the US’ largest Marxist organization.

According to to the Boston DSA newsletter, The Yankee Radical, September 2004, page 6:

 Although supporting all of the CC” (Commonwealth Coalition) ”endorsements, Boston DSA has prioritized the campaign of Carl Sciortino for State Representative in Somerville. And in addition to our’ work with the Coalition, DSA is urging a vote for Andrea Cabral for Suffolk County Sheriff and John Kerry for President.

According to The Yankee Radical November 2004, the DSA influenced Commonwealth Coalition played a major part in Sciortino’s primary victory:

Most notable of the Coalition s winning candidates was Carl Sciortino, who defeated powerful conservative Rep. Vincent Ciampa in the 24th Middlesex district. With the support of many of the member groups of the Coalition, including DSA, Sciortino s campaign was able to overcome a last minute effort to save Ciampa by conservative House Speaker Tom Finneran.”
‘The September 14th State Primaries brought a welcome victory to Boston DSA and Massachusetts progressives. Carl Sciortino , a 26-year-old progressive activist and LGBT-rights advocate, edged out 16-year leadership incumbent Vinnie Ciampa in the Somerville-Medford 34th Middlesex District by 117 votes…Together, we were able to bring down one of Finneran’s staunchest lieutenants.
Carl Sciortino made a perfect champion for this broad progressive alliance. As Research Manager for Fenway Community Health Center, Carl saw the devastating effects of budget cuts on AIDS-prevention work. He became active in the Stop the Cuts Campaign, advocating for progressive tax reforms as the best way to prevent cuts to public health programs, public schools, and local aid. At the same time, he was active with OutSomerville and the Freedom to Marry Coalition.”

DSA led Neighbor to Neighbor came on board to help design, and later manage, the field plan.

According to DSA leader and Neighbor to Neighbor Director Harris Gruman:

In July and August, volunteers streamed in from the Stop the Cuts coalition, the Progressive Democrats of Somerville, Freedom to Marry and other groups.This gave Carl an impressive grassroots army of highly motivated door to- door canvassers and phone callers who contacted voters three to five times each.
”This surprise victory for progressives shows what can be done with clear issues and a strong grassroots campaign. Even more important, it shows the Legislature that progressive taxes and equal marriage rights are not the issues Republicans use against Democrats they re issues the left uses to defeat conservatives! Moral of the story: PINKOS UNITE!“

On June 13, 2006, almost 50 supporters attended a fundraiser at the Somerville Massachusetts home of DSA member Dick Bauer to help DSA aligned Congressman Bernie Sanders in his successful quest to become the next U.S. Senator from Vermont.

The reception, organized by local volunteers as part of a national project of the Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee, raised almost $5,700 for the Sanders Campaign. Sponsors of the event included Boston City Councilor Felix Arroyo, State Senator Patricia Jehlen, and State Representatives Anne Paulsen, Alice Wolf, Denise Provost and Carl Sciortino.

Carl Sciortino was also endorsed by Boston DSA in 2008, 2010 and 2012.

The Yankee Radical, Aug. 2006, p7

No doubt, if Ed Markey becomes a US Senator, Boston DSA will back Carl Sciortino in the Democratic primary for Markey’s vacant Congressional seat.

DSA influence is rampant in the Massachusetts State Legislature, as it in the US House of Representatives.

If Carl Sciortino becomes a US Congressman, he will be simply moving from one Marxist infiltrated body to another.

Carl Sciortino: Marxist Musical Chairs in Massachusetts

Rubio to deliver GOP response to State of the Union

washingtonpost

Marco Rubio’s selection to deliver the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union cements the Florida senator’s role as a first-among-equals when it comes to the future leaders of the party, and sets up an intriguing dynamic over the next few years between Rubio and the man he almost certainly wants to replace.

Marco Rubio. AFP/Getty Images

That Congressional Republicans chose Rubio to carry the party’s flag is, frankly, not at all surprising. It’s no secret that Rubio is the single most marketable product in the Republican party today;  he’s young (41 years old), Hispanic and conservative without being frightening to voters outside of the party base. He is also, without question, the most gifted communicator in the party — a natural ability that evokes, dare we write it, Barack Obama. (For more on Rubio’s abilities, check out the piece we wrote following his speech at the Republican National Convention speech.)

“He is the most natural communicator in put party since Reagan, and I’ve not said that of anyone before,” said Ed Gillespie, former chairman of the Republican National Convention of Rubio. “When he speaks it’s like someone tapped a tuning fork. He just hums.”

Rubio is, to be blunt, the obvious choice — particularly with his recent leadership on a compromise immigration reform measure, a piece of legislation that is of massive import to the GOP’s future political prospects.

The more intriguing narrative that unspools from the choice of Rubio is how Tuesday night’s speech likely kicks off a period in which the GOP puts the Florida senator forward as its de facto foil to President Obama.

The simple truth is that the national Republican party lacks a leader at the moment, someone who can effectively articulate a counter-message to the one Obama is delivering to the country.

For much of 2011 and 2012 that role was occupied by House Speaker John Boehner thanks to the GOP’s majority in that chamber. But Boehner was always a bad fit.

First, Boehner’s prime concern was, is and always will be the care and feeding of what has become an increasingly conservative Republican majority in the House. Boehner’s messaging, therefore, was always calibrated to the 200+ House Republicans, not the American public writ large.

Second, Boehner isn’t — and, to his credit, doesn’t claim to be — a communicator on the level of Obama. He is blunt and occasionally short-tempered, traits that are of value when leading a group like House Republicans but are less useful when trying to re-brand the GOP for moderate and independent voters across the country.

Third, Boehner’s failure late last year to round up votes for his so-called “Plan B” during the fiscal cliff debate — a proposal that would have exempted all but those making $1 million or more from a tax increase — proved that he lacks the sort of control over his caucus required to lead it, let alone the Republican Party.

The leadership vacuum caused by Boehner’s struggles has contributed in no small part to the seemingly catch-as-catch-can approach the party has taken to its political tactics and strategy over the last few months.

On the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling, the party backed down for fear of picking a fight it couldn’t win with Obama. On immigration, a handful of Senate Republicans (including Rubio) looks to be moving forward but with no signoff from the House majority on the idea of a path to citizenship for undocumented workers.

Enter (at least in theory) Rubio. In addition to his natural political skills, Rubio has also proven decidedly deft at navigating between the tea party and the GOP establishment during his brief time in the Senate. That decidedly rare skill — Boehner, Mitt Romney, John McCain and many others lack it — coupled with the sense that Rubio is the person best positioned to put a Republican back in the White House in 2016 — could well provide the momentum he needs to be the GOP’s answer, figuratively and literally, to President Obama.

Now, with all that said, it’s important not to overstate the import of the Republican State of the Union response. Most of these responses are forgotten almost as soon as they are delivered. And while the political world loves to cite Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s weak performance in 2009 as a sign of how much damage a poor speech can do, is there anyone who thinks Jindal’s prospects as a 2016 candidate have been materially affected by that speech?

What’s clear from Rubio’s selection as the State of the Union responder is that the national Republican Party both recognizes his ability and understands its own need to begin to elevate a national messenger to contend with President Obama over the next few years. Rubio has long been the expected inheritor of that role; his State of the Union response formalizes it.

Rubio to deliver GOP response to State of the Union

Democrats Move to Make Voter Fraud Easier

visiontoamerica

www.rushlimbaugh.com

RUSH: This next story, I just marvel.  I literally marvel at the alliance that there is between the Democrat Party and the Drive-By Media.  This is a story in the New York Times.  The headline really says it all, but I’ll give you some details.  “Waiting Times at Ballot Boxes Draw Scrutiny — With studies suggesting that long lines at the polls cost Democrats hundreds of thousands of votes in November, party leaders are beginning a push to make voting and voter registration easier, setting up a likely new conflict with Republicans over a deeply polarizing issue.”

So long lines at your polling place, that’s just not fair to Democrats.  That is making it harder for Democrats to get votes.  Those long lines cost the Democrats hundreds of thousands of votes.  Why, if there hadn’t been long lines, why, the Democrats mighta won this by an additional two percentage points.  Oh, yeah, the long lines, they’re all Democrat voters.  There aren’t any Republicans in there.  The people really, really desirous to vote, the people that show up and wait in line a long time, obviously they’re voting for Democrats.  Nobody would do that to vote for a Republican.  If there were long lines for Republicans to vote, the New York Times would have a story on how we can make the lines longer.

Now, this article is motivated by three things.  First — and this is the key — and, remember, it’s the New York Times, so there’s always an agenda behind this stuff.  This is not news.  The biggest thing anybody could learn is that stories in the New York Times today are not news.  They are related to the achievement of the next phase of the Obama agenda.  Every story for the most part, particularly domestic political stories, are nothing more than telltale indicators of what it is Obama wants next.  In other words, here we are on February 5th and we get a story in the New York Times about long lines at the polling place.  Why don’t we get this story two days after the election?  If long lines at polling places was a problem, why now?  Why February 5th?  There isn’t an election any time soon.
Post Continues on www.rushlimbaugh.com >>

Democrats Move to Make Voter Fraud Easier

GOP Blasts Obama Stopgap Fix

foxnews

 

President Obama is running into a buzzsaw of Republican criticism that his latest call for a stopgap fix to avert automatic budget cuts is an unserious proposal that would once again lock in permanent tax hikes without addressing the country's spending.
The president is heading to Annapolis, Md., Wednesday to sell that and other policy proposals to Senate Democrats at their annual retreat. With Congress facing a March 1 deadline before sweeping defense and other cuts kick in, Obama on Tuesday said the best thing to do if they can't meet that deadline is to pass a package of "spending cuts and tax reforms" that would push off the deadline for a "few more months."
But Republican leaders roundly rejected the idea.
"It's just more of the same," House Republican Leader Eric Cantor told Fox News.
Cantor and others accused the president of once again "kicking the can" on the debt crisis -- and further, they claimed that after the fiscal-crisis deal yielded a tax rate increase on top earners, Obama and his Democratic allies are trying to squeeze in more tax hikes in lieu of spending cuts.
Republicans also want to replace the indiscriminate spending cuts set to hit March 1. But they want to replace them with other spending cuts.
"(Obama) wants to continue down the path of insinuating that somehow taxpayers have got to put more and more money in, when the problem is spending," Cantor said, urging the president to "lead" on the issue of passing a comprehensive replacement bill.
At issue are the spending cuts set into motion by the 2011 deal to raise the debt ceiling. As part of that deal, Congress teed up more than $1 trillion in defense and other spending cuts unless lawmakers found an alternative that achieved similar deficit reduction. They didn't. Lawmakers, as part of the fiscal crisis deal at the end of 2012, delayed the automatic budget cuts for two months. The next deadline is March 1.
Obama, in a brief statement Tuesday at the White House, urged Congress to give itself time by passing another stopgap.
"There is no reason that the jobs of thousands of Americans ... not to mention the growth of the entire economy, should be put in jeopardy just because folks in Washington couldn't come together," Obama said
Noting that Congress is currently working on a broader package, Obama said "at the very least we should give them a chance to come up with this budget instead of making indiscriminate cuts now that would cost us jobs and significantly slow down our economy."
The move, though, raised renewed concerns among Republicans that Obama, after winning tax hikes on top earners during the fiscal-crisis talks, would push anew for more tax increases.
"We believe there is a better way to reduce the deficit, but Americans do not support sacrificing real spending cuts for more tax hikes," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell accused Obama of wanting to "delay" the cuts "for a few months with more permanent tax hikes at a time when American families are already feeling the pinch of the Obama economy."
He called on the president to propose "significant spending reforms."
"The clock is ticking. It's time to get serious," McConnell said.
Obama is not calling for increases in tax rates, like the kind enacted in the fiscal-crisis deal. Rather, he wants to close loopholes and deductions to raise revenue.
But while Obama wants to use that revenue to close the deficit, some Republicans say that revenue should be used to in turn lower rates and boost the economy.
"I'm disappointed the president today attempted to unilaterally change the terms of the debate on tax reform," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said in a statement. "Tax reform does not mean closing loopholes to solely pay down the deficit.  Tax reform means closing loopholes to primarily lower rates for working families in order to promote economic growth, which has the effect of increasing tax revenues for the federal government."
Meanwhile, lawmakers across Capitol Hill are putting out dueling proposals to deal with the March 1 deadline.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of liberal House Democrats, on Tuesday unveiled a bill that would cancel the looming spending cuts and replace them with tax hikes. It would also cut $300 billion from the Pentagon and divert it to "job creation."
House Republicans are sure to oppose the bill.
Republicans on the armed services committees in both chambers are expected to unveil a proposal of their own on Wednesday.
The automatic cuts add up to roughly $1 trillion over 10 years. While many lawmakers are still committed to achieving that level of deficit reduction and more, the fact that half the cuts hit the Pentagon -- which is already dealing with cutbacks -- and the other half hit domestic programs favored by Democrats has made the current course unpalatable in Washington.
For more than a year, though, lawmakers have been unable to figure out an alternative that is amenable to both sides.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/republicans-blast-obama-stopgap-budget-fix-as-ploy-for-tax-hikes/#ixzz2K8HNZQoP

GOP Blasts Obama Stopgap Fix

ALERT: CBS' Dickerson to Obama: 'Go for the Throat' of GOP

foxnews

John Dickerson

A column published on Slate.com over the weekend urged President Obama to "pulverize" and destroy his Republican opponents -- even "go for the throat" -- in order to "cement his legacy."
The words of advice, though, didn't come from a Democratic strategist or a former member of the president's inner circle.
The nearly 2,000-word playbook came from CBS News' political director John Dickerson.
Dickerson, who also works as chief political correspondent for Slate, had some unusually harsh words for the minority party as Obama takes the oath and launches into his second term.
To hear Dickerson tell it, Republicans have proved so intransigent that Obama's only option is to obliterate them. The subhead on the article said, "Obama must declare war on the Republican Party" if he wants to transform American politics.
"There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon," Dickerson wrote. "The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat."
Dickerson went on to describe the strategy of picking off and cultivating a few Republican allies as "the old way."
"Obama's only remaining option is to pulverize," Dickerson said. He wrote that Obama's attempt to build a "post-partisan" Washington didn't work, and in his second term Obama has the chance to "hasten the demise of the old order" of the GOP by "increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers, supporters of 'self-deportation' and the pure no-tax wing."
The advice comes despite the eventual willingness of the Republican Party to allow tax increases on top earners, as part of the recent fiscal crisis deal.
Republicans have also eased off their opposition to raising the debt ceiling, proposing a three-month extension while a budget is debated.
Dickerson was named CBS' political director in November 2011.
Representatives from CBS News have not yet responded to requests for comment.

ALERT: CBS' Dickerson to Obama: 'Go for the Throat' of GOP

GOP Hits Snag With No-Pay Plan

foxnews

House Republicans might run into a snag in trying to suspend congressional pay as a way to nudge budget negotiations along: the U.S. Constitution.

As part of a proposal to raise the debt limit for three months, the House GOP would suspend pay for members of Congress unless both the House and the Senate pass a budget blueprint for the next fiscal year.

The measure plays to public disaffection with Congress, which has been locked in a bitter spending battle, and appeals to the small-government wing of the Republican Party, which doesn’t like government spending to begin with. It is also a dig at Senate Democrats, who have gone for years without adopting a budget plan.

The problem is that immediately withholding pay from lawmakers may be unconstitutional. The 27th amendment states no law changing compensation for members of the House or the Senate can take effect until after the next House election. That means a law, even if it were to clear the Democratic-controlled Senate, which is a long shot, could not be used to withhold pay for almost two years.

To read more from The Wall Street Journal, click here >>

GOP Hits Snag With No-Pay Plan

DEMS ON FENCE? Senate Dems Won't Commit To Assault Weapons Ban

Read >>

DEMS ON FENCE? Senate Dems Won't Commit To Assault Weapons Ban

Will Obama destroy the Republican Party?

Will Obama destroy the Republican Party?

GOP Fires Back at Obama Gun Plan

foxnews

President Obama's sweeping plan to address gun violence was met Wednesday with swift and stiff resistance by gun rights advocates and conservative lawmakers, setting up a tense debate that will be held on the airwaves, in congressional hearing rooms and in communities across America.
The package proposed Wednesday is the most comprehensive in decades. The president called for a new, tougher assault weapons ban and a 10-round limit on magazines, as well as legislation to bar the possession of armor-piercing bullets and require criminal background checks for nearly all gun sales.
Separately, he approved 23 executive actions while calling for additional funding to address mental health and school security.
The movement comes in the wake of last month's school massacre in Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were killed.
"If there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try," said Obama, joined at the White House by four children who wrote to the president following the Newtown, Conn., tragedy.
But several lawmakers said the president's proposals in large part would not have prevented a shooting like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School. They accused the president of glossing over potential factors like the entertainment industry and the country's mental health system, making clear that the legislative proposals could face an uphill climb.
"Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook. President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said. "Rolling back responsible citizens' rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill."
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the proposals would merely invite "drawn-out court battles."
"Instead of a thoughtful, open and deliberate conversation, President Obama is attempting to institute new restrictions on a fundamental constitutional right," he said.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, in a written statement, said: "Guns require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons, and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror."
But both sides of the debate were preparing Wednesday for a drawn-out national debate. The National Rifle Association is preparing to launch a major ad campaign and has already started running one ad. The group said Wednesday it would work with Congress on a "bipartisan basis" but that "attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation."
The NRA said: "Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected, and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy" as a result of the administration's plan.
On the other side, a group founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded in a 2011 mass shooting, and her husband, Mark Kelly, has gotten involved in making the public case for gun control. Kelly and Vice President Biden, who led the president's anti-gun violence task force, met Wednesday in Washington.
A handful of Democratic lawmakers have already proposed gun-control bills, though Obama on Wednesday did not endorse any specific piece of legislation. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said he plans to start holding hearings in two weeks on the issue.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who intends to introduce a gun-control package next week including an assault-weapons ban, on Wednesday praised the president's announcement.
"He was exactly right when he said 'weapons designed for the theater of war have no place' in our society. I couldn't agree more. These weapons have one purpose: to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time possible," Feinstein said.
The leaders of the House and Senate declined to issue any definitive statements on Wednesday. "House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.
In the Senate, Democratic Leader Harry Reid said: "I am committed to ensuring that the Senate will consider legislation that addresses gun violence and other aspects of violence in our society early this year." He thanked the task force for the "thoughtful" ideas and said "all options should be on the table moving forward."
The president, immediately after making his remarks, signed nearly two-dozen executive actions -- a step that has stirred objections from lawmakers who have warned Obama not to overstep his bounds.
Unilaterally, Obama on Wednesday directed federal agencies to share information with the federal background check system; proposed new rules to let law enforcement run full background checks before returning a seized gun; ordered the Centers for Disease Control to research causes of gun violence; required law enforcement to trace guns from criminal investigations; and took other steps. Obama also is nominating the ATF's acting director, Todd Jones, to lead the agency permanently.
The most controversial elements of the president's plan, though, continue to be the proposals he wants Congress to pass.
The call for universal background checks would extend to gun shows and private sales, with "limited" exemptions for "certain transfers" among family members and other situations. The administration plans to give private sellers guidance on how to run background checks as soon as possible.
The president also wants to commit $4 billion to hiring more police officers and to pass new gun trafficking laws to explicitly prohibit straw purchasing.
The White House plan addresses school security, as well, urging Congress to help schools complete emergency plans; proposing an initiative to help schools hire up to 1,000 resource officers and mental health professionals. and proposing new training for teachers to recognize mental health issues among young people. Obama also plans to beef up mental health insurance coverage by executive action.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/obama-gun-plan-meets-resistance-on-capitol-hill/#ixzz2IBzKVOml

GOP Fires Back at Obama Gun Plan

We're now one step closer to America's coming civil war

foxnews

ozarkteaparty.com

By Arthur Herman 

The New Year has started with a monstrosity of a budget deal, one that proves that neither political party, Democrats or Republicans, is really serious about controlling the growth of big government.

But soap opera dramatics about fiscal "cliffs" and sequestration shouldn’t deflect from where President Obama is really taking this country. Consider this story from the Wall Street Journal a few days before Christmas:

“Thousands of people in several Argentine cities ransacked supermarkets for a second day in the latest challenge to President Chistina Kirchner, who is struggling to revive a weak economy...In the central city Rosario, two people were killed during the incidents and 137 people arrested.

Washington's Republicans and Democrats alike have become the toll collectors on the road to serfdom

“The violence puts Mrs. Kirchner in a difficult position as the poor are [her] core constituents...Her government spends billions of dollars a year to help low income families, including free health care...[Yet] Argentine activists who claim to represent the poor traditionally block access to supermarkets in the month of December to demand free food and other items...The latest events were some of the worst acts of looting and vandalism in years.... Local media showed dozens of men, women, and children hauling away televisions, refrigerators, and food.”

Some have said my warnings about a coming civil war between makers and takers are exaggerated. It’s true that Argentina’s politicians have been waging class warfare since Juan and Eva Peron–and they aren’t fazed when it turns bloody. Obama and the Democrats are relative newcomers to the game. But Argentina reveals who really suffers when those who create a nation’s wealth get mugged by those who spend it–as just happened this week in Washington.

It’s the poor and the middle class, the very ones big government says it’s trying to protect.

And sadly that’s where Mitt Romney had it wrong.

That 47 percent of Americans who get unemployment benefits, Social Security disability checks, Medicare and Medicaid, and government student loans, aren’t the real takers. Like the rioters in Rosario, they’re just pawns in a perennial battle between those who see wealth and prosperity as something created by hard work, ingenuity, and innovation in a free market system–or something to be doled out by government.

Experience teaches that those who believe in free markets are right. The November election and the budget deal, however, show that the other side is winning, and winning big.

Since 1970, America’s public sector has exploded as a percentage of GDP, rising to almost 25% last year. While the national unemployment rate hovers at the 8% mark, government worker unemployment rate is a cozy 3.8%. Sixteen percent of America’s workforce now work for government. By the time the Obama administration ends, we won’t be that far away from Argentina’s 21 percent.

Yet as an economic and social enterprise, government creates nothing.

Far from adding to people’s standard of living, government is the number one cause of poverty in this country. It forces those who depend on its largesse to live hand to mouth, with no time or money to plan for the future. They become unable to fend for themselves---and increasingly resentful of those who can.

When the economy tanks and the government checks have to shrink, their only alternative is to take to the streets. That’s what happening in Argentina, and in Greece; and that’s where the growth of government is taking us here, as this current budget deal increases handouts–and more and more Americans are finding that an unemployment or Social Security disability check is their only life line.

Washington’s Republicans and Democrats alike have become the toll collectors on the road to serfdom–and the road to Rosario.

How far down that road depends on how our private sector rallies in 2013 after two numbing defeats, first on November 7 and then on Capitol Hill this week.

It needs to explain to that 47 percent that when big government wins, we all lose–and that this nation won’t survive if it does.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/03/were-now-one-step-closer-to-america-coming-civil-war/#ixzz2HplyFyvw

We're now one step closer to America's coming civil war

America is watching 'War of the Roses' 2013-style starring Obama and Boehner

foxnews

Painting by Henry Payne in 1908 [Wikipedia]

By Liz Peek 

The most famous talked-about couple in Washington needs serious therapy. No, not Michelle and Barack – I’m talking about the  President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner.

Watching those two guide the country through difficult times is like witnessing "The War of the Roses" – the film variety. 

Unfortunately, instead of the relatively trivial matter of managing household finances, our elected leaders need to come together on solving our country’s dire fiscal problems. Most immediately, they need to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

As with many troubled couples, these two cannot agree on money matters. Like a wife ignorant of the family’s finances, Obama wants ever more and ultimately ruinous spending. Boehner is the stern husband trying to talk sense.   

As with many troubled couples, these two cannot agree on money matters. Like a wife ignorant of the family’s finances, Obama wants ever more and ultimately ruinous spending. Boehner is the stern husband trying to talk sense.   

Beyond philosophical disagreements, and adding to their inability to function well together, Messrs. Obama and Boehner do not appear to have a high regard for each other. This is disastrous in marriage, and in politics. In "Blink," author Malcolm Gladwell introduces psychologist John Gottman, who claims that after only fifteen minutes of observing a couple, he can predict with 90% accuracy their chance of a successful marriage. (Really, I’ve always wondered why don't more young hopefuls don’t sign up for this?)

What are the signals? He ascribes most marital failures to the presence of four behaviors: defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism and contempt. 

It is hard to come up with four words that more appropriately describe the relationship between the House Speaker and the president, who have regularly indulged in angry phone calls, pouting and blame-throwing. There is one reaction, though, that is determining, and that is contempt. As Gottman explains, “...if I speak from a superior plane, that’s far more damaging, and contempt is any statement from a higher level.”

Does anyone doubt that President Obama speaks from a higher plane? That he is dismissive of John Boehner?  Do we imagine that John Boehner is enthralled with the president? 

The Speaker reported recently that Obama told him, “we don’t have a spending problem.” Boehner was not only exasperated, he was also incredulous. After four years of trillion-dollar deficits on his watch, after suffering the first U.S. credit downgrade in generations, having been on the receiving end of stern warnings from the IMF of the sort usually reserved for countries like Zambia, and with every reasoned analysis projecting fiscal Armageddon if Medicare is not brought to heel, how could the president not recognize the urgency of bringing long-term entitlements spending under control?

Boehner’s explanation is that President Obama is “so ideological himself”, as he told the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore, and that he is “unwilling to take on the left wing of his own party.” It’s hard to say which the Speaker considers worse.

When Boehner tried to press his concern about excessive U.S. spending, Obama reportedly replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”  How very Marie Antoinette.

As in most marital spats, there are hints of affections straying. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has played, perhaps, the “other woman”, to pursue this analogy. Christie was charged with introducing candidate Mitt Romney at the GOP convention -- perhaps the most important speech at the Republican gathering –- testament to his stature in the party. 

He spent that coveted spot mainly talking about himself, and giving but mildly enthusiastic support for his party’s hopeful, planting seeds of doubt in the minds of some that he was the GOP’s best bet for 2016. However, his standing took an even greater hit when he bear-hugged (literally and figuratively) President Obama in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Coming as it did just before the election, the Sandy love-fest, and Christie, are blamed for boosting Obama’s image at a critical moment.

More recently, Christie savagely criticized the Speaker’s failure to ram through the relief bill so needed by New Jersey and other states badly damaged by the hurricane. Christie’s attack, on the heels of the dalliance with Obama, has helped dim the public’s view of Boehner, further trimming his negotiating ability.

The Speaker Boehner has determined that he will forgo any more closed-door negotiations with the president, considering them “futile.” The president, in return, has vowed not to negotiate over raising the debt ceiling. More and more Obama has turned to executive orders to carry out his agenda – including most recently threatening to use that means to enact gun controls. The relationship, as poor as it was, appears to be on the skids. This is not entirely good news for the country.  

Is it time to bring in marriage counselors? One team that might help the fractious twosome is former Senators Simpson and Bowles. This bipartisan duo, after all, was asked by President Obama to come up with a long-term plan for putting our nation’s finances in order. They did a bang-up job of putting everything on the table, and proposing measures that both right and left found odious. That was the virtue of their plan, which remains the best blueprint – or at least the most intelligent starting point -- for putting our house in order. 

Numerous House Republicans in the past couple of days have proposed taking up the Simpson-Bowles plan; Texas Representative Steve Stockman has said he would introduce it as a bill in the House. Unfortunately, Obama dismissed the plan as readily as a shopaholic housewife scorns a budget; the plan was DOA.

Indeed, it is of course not just DC’s most talked-about visible power twosome duo that is having difficulties. The entire extended body politic -- GOP and Dems alike – cannot communicate.They talk right by each other on important matters like reining in our spiraling entitlements obligations, how we are going to rebuild our outdated infrastructure, the best way to rationalize our immigration system and improve our public schools, how to simplify and improve our tax code, how to reboot job creation and make sure our institutions are protected from cyberthreats. 

We have real problems, and a legislative body – and White House – that seems unable to get the nation’s business done. As a result, Americans are ever more anxious about our future. They say politics makes strange bedfellows. Sadly for the country, Beltway insiders have apparently taken a vow of chastity.  

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/11/watching-obama-and-boehner-is-like-watching-war-roses-2013/#ixzz2HpkXxtHq

America is watching 'War of the Roses' 2013-style starring Obama and Boehner

Top Senate Dems Urge Obama to Take Unilateral Action on Debt Ceiling

foxnews

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

WASHINGTON –  If President Obama were to break the impasse with Republicans over raising the debt limit by taking unilateral action, such a move would have the potential to set off a firestorm of controversy and spark a protracted legal battle.
Top Senate Democrats say, go for it.
The White House has dismissed talk that Obama would rely on unusual measures to raise the nation's debt limit without Congress' approval, but administration officials also have warned that the country could default on its debt and trigger a new economic crisis if lawmakers don't increase the limit on borrowing.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is among those urging Obama to consider options like invoking the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to find ways around the $16.4 trillion legal cap on government borrowing. The amendment states that the "validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned," which some lawmakers believe permits a way out of the debt limit jam.
The government hit the debt limit last month and is juggling the books to buy additional time for Congress to act. But those moves only buy a few weeks of wiggle room, which requires Congress to act -- likely by mid- to late-February -- to avoid a market-quaking default on U.S. obligations.
The White House has said emphatically that it does not believe that the 14th Amendment permits Obama to ignore the debt cap on U.S. borrowing, though it considered the question during the 2011 debt crisis.
"There is no Plan B. There is no backup plan," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday. "There is no alternative to Congress raising the debt ceiling."
A letter to Obama on Friday from Reid and Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., doesn't mention the 14th Amendment, but aides to the senators said that's what they have in mind in urging the president to consider unilateral action.
"We believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis -- without congressional approval, if necessary," the letter said.
Battling House and Senate leaders have made virtually no progress on a strategy for legislation to lift the debt cap. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, insists that any debt increase be matched by equivalent spending cuts. Obama, buoyed by his re-election victory, says he won't negotiate as he did in 2011, when he traded a $2.1 trillion debt increase for tight spending limits on agency budgets and automatic, across-the-board spending cuts if a congressional "supercommittee" failed to reach a budget agreement.
"Senate Democrats cannot ignore their responsibilities for political convenience -- and the American people will not tolerate an increase in the debt limit without spending cuts and reforms," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
The impasse has people on both sides scratching their heads over how it will be resolved. The anxiety is such that some on the left are urging Obama to mint a coin worth perhaps $1 trillion to be deposited at the Federal Reserve and drawn upon to meet government obligations.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/11/top-senate-dems-urge-obama-to-take-unilateral-action-on-debt-ceiling/#ixzz2HjZi3tYm

Top Senate Dems Urge Obama to Take Unilateral Action on Debt Ceiling