Stanton: Why John Boehner Will (Probably) Be Fine

Pat Dollard

Excerpted from Buzzfeed: WASHINGTON — Democrats and some conservatives are dreaming this weekend of a late Christmas present: House Speaker John Boehner’s head on a platter.

But that probably won’t happen, for several reasons. First, legislative coups are risky, and the fiscal cliff talks are still playing out. Meanwhile, Boehner is personally popular. The opposition has no clear leader.
But perhaps most important of all, it’s not clear that it’s in the interest of the conservative Republicans leading talk of the coup to dive into the messy business of making deals with a Democratic president and Senate, or assuming responsibility for the 2014 midterm elections.
“I’m not,” Boehner said Friday, asked whether he was worried about his speakership following the collapse of his attempt to rally Republicans around an alternative tax increase plan to President Obama’s. “They weren’t taking that out on me — they were dealing with the perception that they were raising taxes,” he said.
In theory, a coup is possible: many conservatives would gleefully support such a move — and few Democrats would shed a tear. And it would only take a handful of his conference to throw the election for speaker into chaos. As National Journal points out, it would take just 17 Republicans voting for anyone other than Boehner to throw the election into chaos.
But while he may have lost control of his conference, Boehner has a lot of reasons to not be worried about actually losing the speakership when the House convenes January 3rd to hold elections.
Keep reading…

Democrat Party Leader Claims Call to Shoot NRA Supporters Not a ‘Death Threat’

examiner.com

John Cobaruvvias, the Texas Democratic Party leader who issued a tweet advocating violence against NRA members, told Houston ABC affiliate KTRK Monday that his call to shoot supporters of the pro-gun group was not a death threat. “Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?” he tweeted after the Connecticut school shootings. [...]  Keep reading on visiontoamerica >>

Obama on cliff deal: 'Still think we can get it done'

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

Read >>

Fiscal Crisis Nears After 'Plan B' Fails

Foxnews

After House Speaker John Boehner's "Plan B" for averting the fiscal crisis withered Thursday night in the absence of enough Republican support, one question echoed through Washington -- what now?
Americans are facing a gut-punch of tax hikes in just 11 days without a deal. But there's no real working plan. Talks between Boehner and President Obama aimed at crafting a compromise are on ice. The House won't pass the bill, which contains tax hikes, that Senate Democrats want. The Senate won't pass the bill, which contains zero tax hikes, that House Republicans want.
And Boehner's plan, to extend current rates for all but those making more than $1 million, may be dead.
Boehner, sending his members home for the holidays, on Thursday night pressed the Senate to act.
"The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass," Boehner said in a statement. "Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff."
But the reality remains that any package to avert the crisis must pass both chambers. Boehner may be facing the balancing act of his political career. Democrats claimed that without a robust coalition of Republicans behind him, Boehner would have to compromise with them.
But if the speaker goes too far to the left, he could easily lose Republicans.
Boehner's Republican allies were fuming Thursday night at the course of events.
"It's the same 40 chuckleheads that screwed this place up," Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, said, referencing the conservative lawmakers who were opposed to raising tax rates at any level. "(Boehner's) done everything to make nice to them."
During an emergency conference meeting Thursday night, Fox News is told that Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., jumped up and implored members to reconsider. He asked: "Is this the best we can do? Is this the best we can do for John Boehner?"
Stock futures tumbled on the news out of Washington Thursday night, as some lawmakers expressed concern about what the development would mean for trading.
The House was able to pass a plan Thursday to replace automatic spending cuts set to hit next month. But in a sign of trouble ahead, it passed narrowly on a 215-209 vote. The House was later called into recess before the vote on the tax bill, and shortly afterward Boehner pulled the bill.
The tumult raised even more questions about how lawmakers, if at all, might be able to avoid the crushing wave of tax hikes and spending cuts poised to hit at the beginning of January.
In a statement Thursday night, the White House said the "President will work with Congress to get this done and we are hopeful that we will be able to find a bipartisan solution quickly that protects the middle class and our economy."
The House bills, though, had been adamantly opposed anyway by Democrats in both chambers.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that the Senate would not take up the House bills.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reiterated that "the president would veto it if it got to his desk."
After the House passed its first bill, to replace sweeping cuts to defense with cuts elsewhere in the budget, the White House again issued a formal veto threat.
Boehner and Obama had until early this week been engaged in seemingly productive talks toward a compromise package. The move to draft a "Plan B" might have been aimed at strengthening Boehner's negotiating position, as he tries to extract more spending cuts and more modest tax rate hikes from the White House as part of any deal. But Democrats were so angered by the new proposal that the future of talks is unclear.
On the sidelines, senior administration officials were claiming Thursday that Boehner turned to "Plan B" because he concluded he couldn't garner enough support for Obama's counterproposal in the House. That proposal would raise taxes only on income above $400,000, though Carney indicated that might not be Obama's final offer.
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel called the theory "stupid and untrue." He said Boehner was always clear "that he could not support the president's plan, let alone recommend it to members of the House."   
Boehner claimed Thursday that the problem is Obama is "unwilling to stand up to his own party" and demand serious spending cuts. "I did my part -- they did nothing," Boehner said, referencing his willingness to discuss raising tax rates.
It's unclear whether Boehner and Obama will return to the negotiating table -- or, as Boehner's statement implied, the House might simply await action on the Senate side.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/21/what-now-plan-b-stall-out-leaves-fiscal-crisis-solution-in-doubt/#ixzz2Fha3atvy

Lacking support, House pulls last-ditch cliff fix, heads home

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

By Carrie Dann, NBC News

Updated 9:41 p.m. ET -- After a cancelled vote on a contingency bill and a dramatic defeat for Republican leadership, United States House members will head home for the Christmas holiday without legislative action to halt a mix of automatic spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect in just 11 days.  

Lacking enough support to pass a backup proposal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, House Republican leaders on Thursday night were forced to pull from the floor a vote on 'Plan B' legislation that would have preserved Bush-era tax rates for all earners making less than $1 million but raised rates on the country's top earners.

At the end of a week that began with high hopes for compromise on a bargain to correct the nation's fiscal course, Washington now appears further apart than ever.  

House Speaker John Boehner intended that his last-ditch tax effort, coupled with revised spending reductions, would give the GOP-dominated House continued leverage in its negotiations with the White House and the Senate, both controlled by Democrats. But it was ultimately brought down by conservative Republicans reluctant to raise tax rates on any Americans, even the nation's top earners.

The House will now recess for the Christmas holiday, leaders said. Members have been advised that the House will return "when needed" before the end of the year.

"The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement. "Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff.  The House has already passed legislation to stop all of the January 1 tax rate increases and replace the sequester with responsible spending cuts that will begin to address our nation's crippling debt.  The Senate must now act."

The Senate is expected to return to session after the Christmas holiday on December 27.

In a statement, the White House promised continued work with Congress.

"The President’s main priority is to ensure that taxes don’t go up on 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses in just a few short days. The President will work with Congress to get this done and we are hopeful that we will be able to find a bipartisan solution quickly that protects the middle class and our economy."

Boehner proposed the "Plan B" legislation Tuesday, saying that it would provide a backstop to prevent middle class tax rates from jumping if a larger deal was not reached by the cliff's deadline at the end of the year.

But the measure was panned from both sides, with the White House calling it a political ploy that would be subject to a presidential veto and Senate Democrats pledging that it would not even be taken up for a vote in the upper chamber.

Tax watchdog Club for Growth also urged Republicans to vote "no" on the measure, as did conservative group Freedomworks -- which originally supported the Plan B effort before abruptly switching to opposition on Thursday afternoon. The socially conservative Family Research Council also scolded that "Congress should know better" before the vote.

Boehner and other GOP leaders had firmly indicated earlier Thursday that they had sufficient support to pass the Plan B legislation, along with another package of spending cuts. "We're going to have the votes to pass both the permanent tax relief bill as well as the spending reduction bill," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., told reporters at a press conference at the Capitol."

But a breakdown became evident after the GOP-dominated House only narrowly passed the package of spending reductions, which was intended to replace automatic defense cuts, or "sequestration." That measure, meant to encourage possible conservative dissenters to support the tax proposal, squeaked to victory by a margin of 215-209, with twenty-one Republicans voting against the bill.

The House then immediately went into an unexpected recess, with members huddled behind closed doors before announcing the end of votes for the evening.

A source in the room tells NBC News that Boehner made an impassioned plea for his members to support the bill, saying they would lose their negotiating power if they didn't pass it. But his pleas - and urging from an emotional Mike Kelly, R-Penn., were not enough to muster the needed votes.

Freshman lawmaker and public Boehner critic Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, called the measure's defeat “a victory for Republican principles,” saying the GOP should not have to vote for "a show bill."

But fellow Republican Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio struck a mournful tune after the vote was abandoned.

"It's unbelievable, this is horrible," he said. "I'm angry, I'm sad for my friend the Speaker, and I'm sorry for the country.  We deserve better."

GOP intends to plow ahead with ’Plan B’ despite Dem opposition

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

Read >>

Fiscal crisis deal could spell disaster for America's fragile economy

By Peter Morici

pakistankakhudahafiz.com

Washington has always made lots of things—bureaucratic regulations and hot air to name two—and it even prints money that instigates inflation.  Now in the names of fairness and fiscal responsibility, President Obama and Speaker Boehner are cooking up a deal to avert the fiscal cliff that could easily thrust the economy into a deep recession.

Taxes are going up.

Just about everyone agrees the two percentage point temporary reduction in the payroll taxes will lapse—it is too much of a drain on the solvency of Social Security. That will raise about $125 billion in revenue for 2013.

It is now apparent the Bush era income tax reductions for many wealthy families will not be extended. Mr. Obama is now willing to settle for raising rates on families earning over $400,000, whereas Mr. Boehner wants to set the threshold at $1 million. The cutoff that will likely emerge is about $500,000 and would generate another $50 billion a year in income taxes.

Clearly, Messrs. Obama and Boehner know a lot about getting elected but on economics they are spread thin. Like the sorcerer’s apprentice, they are courting disaster.

The administration would also like to limit the value of itemized deductions and other tax breaks, including the tax-free status of municipal bonds. Mr. Boehner is inclined to go along, and if he accepts the president’s framework, it should generate another $50 billion in income taxes.

Republicans want spending cuts that at least match tax increases. The question is what tax increases will they get matched—$100 billion in additional income taxes or that sum plus the additional $125 billion obtained by letting the payroll tax holiday lapse.

Given how stubbornly President Obama defends the rapid growth in entitlements and his desire to extend long-term unemployment benefits, the likely target for Republicans is $100 billion in cuts from permanent reductions in entitlements and some trimming in other domestic areas and defense.

hg.scimth.net

The president also wants some jobs creating temporary infrastructure spending in the range of $50 billion but that will take at least years to actually be effected.
Hence, overall taxes will rise about $225 billion and spending will be cut by about $75 billion, subtracting at least $300 billion from GDP in 2013—or nearly 2 percent, and owing to the ripple effects through the economy, about $450 billion from GDP in 2014.

The economy was growing at two percent until nervousness about the fiscal cliff recently dampened business spending and hiring.

Though some economists were optimistic that the housing recovery and stronger auto sales could spell better times, with such a new large drag on the economy, GDP growth in 2013 and 2014 will likely be below 2 percent for the next several quarters.

At that pace, businesses can easily handle most new demand by increasing productivity, and even trim payrolls to further boost profits. Hence, growth below 2 percent for several quarters could easily instigate a negative feedback cycle—layoffs cut household income and consumer spending, and in turn, the latter begets more layoffs.

What is going on in Washington these final weeks before the New Year is the kind of fiscal fundamentalism that is making Greece, Italy and Spain economic train wrecks.

With unemployment so high, real wages falling and so many folks working part time for lack of full time work, the unemployment rate could easily surge into the teens, and no amount of stimulus spending could bring it back.

Clearly, Messrs. Obama and Boehner know a lot about getting elected but on economics they are spread thin. Like the sorcerer’s apprentice, they are courting disaster.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/19/fiscal-crisis-deal-could-push-our-economy-into-recession/#ixzz2FcMmSxrs

Sen. Rubio Discusses the Fiscal Cliff with Sean Hannity

SenatorMarcoRubio

GOP Readies 'Plan B' Vote Showdown

foxnews/

House Republicans are charging ahead Thursday with a pair of votes aimed at averting tax hikes scheduled to kick in 12 days from now -- but the move is fraught with tactical risk, as Democrats have effectively boycotted the legislation. 

The bills expected to come for a vote by Thursday evening amount to what House Speaker John Boehner is calling a "Plan B." One bill would prevent tax hikes for everyone save for those making more than $1 million. In a late decision, Republicans also introduced a bill that would temporarily replace automatic spending cuts set to hit in January. 

But while GOP leaders are gradually winning the support of their rank-and-file, Democrats in both chambers, as well as President Obama, are adamantly opposed. The White House on Wednesday issued a veto threat. 

Boehner and Obama had until early this week been engaged in seemingly productive talks toward a compromise package. The move to draft a "Plan B" could be aimed at strengthening Boehner's negotiating position, as he tries to extract more spending cuts and more modest tax rate hikes from the White House as part of any deal. But Democrats were so angered by the new proposal that the future of talks is unclear. 

Boehner on Wednesday put the onus on the president to get Democrats on board with "Plan B." 

"Tomorrow, the House will pass legislation to make permanent tax relief for nearly every American," Boehner said, during a press conference that lasted less than a minute. "Then the president will have a decision to make. He can call on the Senate Democrats to pass that bill or he can be responsible for the largest tax increase in American history." 

Later in the evening, Democrats boycotted the meeting where lawmakers were setting the terms for debate on Thursday. Democrats, in a written statement, called the process "outrageous and empty," and a "hoax." 

Senior administration officials accuse Boehner of at least temporarily derailing fiscal talks with the "Plan B" move. During his own press conference Wednesday, Obama urged Republicans to "peel off the partisan war paint." 

Republicans, though, said the White House was being unreasonable. 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/20/republicans-plan-showdown-votes-on-fiscal-crisis-over-dem-opposition/#ixzz2FbTpsB11

Fiscal cliff talks reach make-or-break point

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

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower

*** What is Boehner doing? That’s our question after House Speaker John Boehner yesterday unveiled “Plan B” -- legislation that would raise tax rates on household income above $1 million but keep them status quo for everyone else -- which the House is scheduled to vote on Thursday. Is Plan B, which comes after President Obama made some of his biggest concessions in the fiscal-cliff debate (chained CPI, moving the income marker to $400,000), a way to strengthen Boehner’s negotiating hand with the White House? Is it to prove a point to his rank-and-file members that they can’t have their entire way in these negotiations? (It’s highly doubtful that Boehner even has the votes to pass Plan B.) Or is it a way to scuttle the talks with the White House? Here’s the answer from Boehner’s office: “Making sure we protect 99.81% of Americans from a tax hike.” What we’re watching today: Do Boehner and House GOP leaders spend more time trying to get votes for Plan B, or do they spend more time negotiating with the White House?

*** Three reasons why the move is so puzzling: There are three reasons why Plan B -- if it’s a serious effort -- seems so puzzling. One, as we wrote yesterday, the two sides are thisclose in getting a deal done. (Where the two sides are publicly is not where they were Monday night; they have both moved in each other’s direction further.) Two, if we go over the fiscal cliff (and time is running out, folks), Republicans might not realize the extent to which President Obama will own the bully pulpit in January. After all, there’s a certain inaugural address on Jan. 21, as well as the State of the Union. And three, are enough House Republicans really going to cast a tough vote -- raising taxes -- without getting any spending cuts or resolution on the sequester in return? And are they going to cast a vote for legislation that breaks a longstanding pledge on taxes that has zero chance of becoming law simply to give Boehner leverage? If Boehner and leadership do pull this off and convince their rank-and-file to vote on legislation that is designed just to give Boehner leverage, it would be quite the political feat. But for what end? Boehner already had one big piece of invisible leverage over the White House: a 2013 domestic agenda. The White House knows not getting a deal now, while politically more damaging for Republicans, probably means he’ll get very little down legislatively next year -- perhaps his ONLY year in a second term to focus on passing legislation.

Keep reading >>

It's the spending, stupid -- the GOP must stay on message

Fox By Liz Peek

John Boehner held a press conference Thursday, at which he accused President Obama for “just not being serious about cutting spending.”  It’s about time.

Republicans are being hammered in the court of public opinion, and they have only themselves to blame. Americans are sick to death of political bickering, and want to see a deal done to avoid the fiscal cliff. Most people think a tax hike on the wealthy is part of a reasonable approach to narrowing our budget deficits. Republicans bucking this popular notion continue to drag out the tired arguments about hitting small businesses where it hurts; most people don’t imagine that the local barbershop is in the top one percent – and they’re right.

Here’s what the GOP should be talking about: our ever-increasing spending. For the first two months of the current fiscal year, federal spending is up 16%. No one has broadcast that figure -- and it is a stunner. Because spending is up more than revenues, which have climbed 10 % so far this fiscal year, our budget deficit is higher – by 25% -- than a year ago. That’s right—higher. Even as President Obama claims to have cut spending.

Republicans need to tap into America’s innate conservatism, and they have failed to do so.

Imagine: our budget deficit for the first two months equals $292 billion. Not long ago, Americans would have swooned over that much red ink.  In fact, our annual deficit has exceeded that amount only eight times in our nation’s history – and four of those have been under President Obama.

Americans don’t like deficits; they consistently rank as a top priority reining in spending. Voters know that we are borrowing heavily – one of every three dollars we spend – to finance our red ink, and in the process debasing our dollar. 

They know the Federal Reserve is spinning out new money at an unprecedented rate to keep the ship of state afloat; that institution now has a balance sheet of more than three trillion dollars.

They are unhappy that our federal debt now tops $16 trillion – and that President Obama is now demanding free rein to raise our debt limit even further. They know it is only a matter of time before some investor, somewhere, decides that the U.S. is no longer the best of a bad bunch, and starts demanding higher returns on his loans to Uncle Sam.

Republicans need to tap into America’s innate conservatism, and they have failed to do so. They have allowed President Obama to tag them as the party of “no” -- weapons of mass obstruction. It’s time the GOP got some new talking points, and told Americans the truth about our budget and this White House.

During the election, the back-and-forth between Mitt Romney and President Obama became a bewildering swirl of facts and figures, with both parties denouncing the other for misleading the public.  Both candidates very nearly accused the other of lying.

The truth is that budget projections are based on myriad assumptions and projections; the data is confusing. Here’s what is not confusing: the record. Had the GOP focused on what Obama has actually spent, and not on his fanciful visions of the future when mythical cuts to Medicare (which really are poppycock) and to other programs take hold, they would have scored higher. As it was, a newly cynical public got bored and tuned out. What voters remembered was that Obama pledged to go after the wealthy – and not them.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/13/it-spending-stupid-and-gop-must-start-to-deliver-message/#ixzz2FKaCg2EM

Boehner offers to lift debt limit for 1 year

WP/ By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane 

House Speaker John A. Boehner has offered to push any fight over the federal debt limit off for a year, a major concession that would deprive Republicans of leverage in the budget battle but is breathing new life into stalled talks over the year-end “fiscal cliff.”
The offer came Friday, according to people in both parties familiar with the talks, as part of the latest effort by Boehner (R-Ohio) to strike a deal with President Obama to replace more than $500 billion in painful deficit-reduction measures set to take effect in January.

With the national debt already bumping up against the $16.4 trillion cap set last year, Congress risks a government default unless it acts to raise the debt ceiling in the next few months.
Many Republicans had argued that party leaders should use the threat of default to demand additional spending cuts from Obama. But Boehner’s offer would head off that potentially nasty fight — at least until the end of next year.
Boehner’s offer also includes a proposal to raise tax rates for millionaires, generating $460 billion over the next decade — about half what Obama has demanded from the wealthy, according to official estimates.
The White House rejected the offer, saying it would raise too little cash to significantly dent record budget deficits and do nothing to extend emergency unemployments benefits into the new year, according to a Democrat familiar with the talks.
But the tax offer was viewed as a breakthrough, the Democrat said. Senior White House officials remained in contact with Boehner’s staff throughout the weekend in a sign that serious negotiations had finally begun after weeks of stalemate and partisan posturing.
“Recognizing the importance of raising tax rates is a big, positive and important step,” said former White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers, who emphasized that he was not speaking for the Obama administration.
“The evaluation of any deal should depend on how much total revenue is raised, whether adequate demand is maintained to sustain the recovery and whether we are restoring confidence or just marking time until another debt-limit crisis,” Summers said.
Boehner and Obama have not spoken directly since the Friday afternoon phone call when Boehner extended his latest offer. With Obama in Newtown, Conn., to attend a Sunday-night service for victims of Friday’s elementary school massacre, aides were uncertain when their next meeting would take place.
All told, Boehner’s proposal would generate about $2 trillion in savings over the next decade, split equally between new taxes and spending cuts, according to a Republican familiar with the talks. On the tax side, about $460 billion would be locked in by letting the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire on income over $1 million a year.
That would boost the top rate from the current level of 35 percent to 39.6 percent for about 400,000 families in the 2013 tax year. The rest of the tax revenue would come through a rewrite of the tax code next year aimed at limiting deductions and other tax breaks. More >>

Obama elegibility: So fishy, even a Democrat can smell it

WND/ Bob Unruh
Florida, the battleground for many elections, has an opportunity right now to resolve the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility, according to a court filing in a case brought by a Democrat under state law that allows such challenges.

“On Nov. 6, 2012, the state of Florida held its 2012 general election. On Nov. 10, 2012, defendant Barack Hussein Obama was declared the official winner of the Florida general election. Yet defendant Obama has never established his eligibility for the presidency of the United States,” says a filing today from attorney Larry Klayman.

“Indeed, neither defendant Obama, nor the Democratic Party of Florida, has even stated that defendant Obama is a ‘natural born citizen,’” the filing said. “The only evidence of defendant Obama’s alleged birth within the United States has come in the form of an electronic version posted on the Internet. However, there has been evidence to show that this ‘birth certificate’ has either been altered or is entirely fraudulent.”

The filing was a response to state officials’ motion to dismiss the case brought on behalf of Michael C. Voeltz. The case was filed before the election, and was thrown out by a judge who said it wasn’t timely. It was refiled after the election, and the current document seeks an immediate hearing, as provided by state law.

“Section 102.168(7), Florida statutes, provides that ‘any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest to a circuit judge in entitled to an immediate hearing,” Klayman wrote. “Plaintiff Michael Voeltz specifically requested an expedited hearing in his prayer for relief. … Yet even if he had not specifically requested such relief, which he did, the Florida statutes still mandate that plaintiff is entitled to an immediate hearing by law simply through the act of filing the lawsuit in front of a circuit judge.”

The case challenges Obama’s presence on the 2012 presidential election ballot because of questions over his constitutional eligibility.

“Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States, and its Constitution, which plaintiff must protect and defend by oath,” according to the complaint.

As WND reported, Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” has challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the “natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.

Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue

The original case sought to exclude Obama from the 2012 ballot. Klayman and Voeltz claimed that Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, because he was born a British subject.

The case cited the evidence produced by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s special investigative unit, which has asserted that the birth documentation from Hawaii that Obama claimed was “proof positive” of his Hawaiian birth is not real.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/democrat-demands-obama-eligibility-hearing-now/#GiyhEpdebhHDAGKP.99

The Fiscal Cliff & Obama responsability

EconomistMagazine

Boehner: ’Serious differences’ separate GOP from Obama

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

Read >>

Fiscal Cliff a piece of fiction - Kotok

ReutersVideo

Cumberland Advisors' David Kotok says concern over the looming fiscal cliff is unwarranted and says the U.S. stock market is poised for a multi-year run.

Obama, Boehner launch fiscal cliff endgame

The “fiscal cliff” end game… If there’s going to be a deal, Obama, Boehner, and Congress need to start the heavy lifting ASAP… Kristol vs. the Wall Street Journal on caving on the tax rates… Motoring! Obama delivers remarks at 2:00 pm ET at a Detroit Diesel plant in Redford, MI… And in Michigan, the president will set foot in the state featuring the nation’s latest labor battle… The hits keep on coming for Susan Rice… The upcoming immigration push… Hillary and 2016… And meet Markwayne Mullen.

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

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower

*** The end game: We’ve told you that the last couple of weeks in Washington’s fiscal debate have mostly been about P.R. and posturing. Like a student in college or a reporter working in the news business, the real work in Congress typically doesn’t happen until there’s a real deadline that’s rapidly approaching. Well, we’ve now entered that deadline phase in the negotiations between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner. If the plan is to get something passed by Friday, Dec. 21 (right before the Christmas holiday), then the legislation has to be written by Dec. 18. And that means that Obama and Boehner must reach an agreement by Dec. 14-15, if there’s going to be a deal. So the time for posturing and P.R. is over. This week, we’ve reached the phase where both sides will begin rolling up their sleeves to do the heavy negotiating. Both Obama and Boehner know this, which is why they did meet behind closed doors yesterday. The question now is: Will there be a BIG deal that includes serious entitlement hits in addition to major tax reform? Or will it be JUST taxes and a punt until the debt ceiling? There’s not much of an “in between” at this point.  Keep reading >>

Eric Holder for president in 2016?

Jerome R. Corsi

WASHINGTON – Before Hillary Clinton decides what she will do after resigning as Secretary of State, she ought to consider that top Democratic operatives are already positioning a leftist challenger who could disrupt her presidential hopes every bit as much as Barack Obama did in 2008.

Very quietly, support is building behind the scenes among the left-wing radicals who have gained control of the Democratic Party to position Attorney General Eric Holder to run for president 2016, expressing a determination to succeed Barack Obama with another equally committed radical.

On Nov. 19, approximately two weeks after the 2012 presidential election, Fox News announced Holder had decided to honor President Obama’s request to remain on as attorney general “for about a year” into the start of Obama’s second term.

Then, on Dec. 3, Fox News reported Eric Holder’s chief of staff, Gary Grindler, a “top adviser” to Holder who had played a key role in negotiations obtaining from BP a $4 billion settlement over the BP oil spill, had decided to leave the Justice Department.

Before serving as chief of staff for Holder, Grindler served as acting deputy attorney general, the No. 2 position within the Justice Department.

According to the Fox News report, a Justice Department spokesperson attributed Grindler’s departure to be the result of a normal turnover between administrations.

Yet, congressional Republicans investigating the Fast and Furious scandal had targeted Grindler for not acting after receiving a law-enforcement briefing on the gun-walking operation on March 12, 2012, several months before the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives launched its investigation.

A report by the Justice Department’s inspector general concluded Grindler was negligent in failing to notify Holder when he learned guns found at the scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder in December 2010 traced back to Fast and Furious.

Cynically viewed, Grindler’s departure removes a target from the sights of Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigating Fast and Furious.

Should Holder run for president in 2016, his candidacy would provide a strong counter to any presidential campaign Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might decide to launch.

As Secretary of State during Obama’s first term in office, Clinton could reasonably expect to have Obama’s endorsement for her presidential run, an endorsement that would be complicated for Obama if Holder decided to run.

With Holder’s nomination for president in 2016, the political left controlling the Democrat Holder could also expect to hold together the modern-day version of FDR’s New Deal coalition that voted Obama a second term in this year’s presidential election.

Holder is likely to draw similar percentages to Obama among minority inner city African-American voters.

Given the Justice Department’s strong opposition to Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on immigration issues, Holder is likely to repeat Obama’s gains with Hispanic voters, including any illegal immigrants who might be deemed eligible to vote in 2016.

Holder’s enforcement of workplace rights should also appeal to single women including single mothers and radical feminists, as well as union workers including SEIU government workers.

Democratic Party insiders expect Holder to stay in the Justice Department for at least one year, or as long as it takes to defuse any continuing investigation of Fast and Furious that Issa might yet have the political capital to sustain into Obama’s second term.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/eric-holder-for-president-in-2016/#vfVJtgG1XzjdD63D.99

Boehner: ’No progress’ toward resolving fiscal cliff

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

Read >>

Analyst Slams 'One Of The Most Dangerous Ideas Circulating In Washington'

Joe Weisenthal 

businessinsider.com

On Bloomberg TV this morning, columnist Josh Barro expressed alarm that more and more liberals are saying: "Just go over the cliff."

BofA/ML analyst Ethan S. Harris is not a fan.

We’ve written about this before, but it bears repeating: One of the most dangerous ideas circulating in Washington is that it is okay to go over the cliff temporarily. This increasingly popular view is that going over the cliff will make it possible to strike a better deal.

Harris is correct that this idea is circulating more and more. Liberals like it because the thinking is that it will force the GOP to be in the position of taking the blame for the tax hikes, and that they will have to capitulate on lowering taxes on the middle class, while leaving the tax hikes in place.

Even if you assume that we could go slightly into January without harming the economy much, Harris sees four reasons to be skeptical

They are:

• It's a contradiction that going over the cliff will induce a deal without hurting the economy. If we don't feel pain, what induces the deal? If we do feel pain, then it was a blunder.
• There's no reason a better deal would happen post cliff. More likely going over triggers a blame game.
• The GOP may take a hard line on reversing spending cuts.
• Going over the cliff will represent a dangerous way Washington does business.

What we really need is some number that indicates the kind of damage going into January could do to the economy.

But Harris makes interesting points, especially on the matter of assuming that a deal would be easy once we go over. It could make both parties dig in and wait until there's real damage.

SEE ALSO: If we go off the Fiscal Cliff, the GOP will get blamed >

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of-america-on-one-of-the-most-dangerous-ideas-circulating-in-washington-2012-12#ixzz2E6H4ULQP