Greenspan: Markets will crater if fiscal cliff unsolved

(Bloomberg) Allowing taxes to rise would be a small price to pay to get U.S. lawmakers to accept spending cuts on entitlement programs, even if it leads to a “moderate recession,” former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said today during an interview on Bloomberg Television and also at a panel discussion in Washington.

“Even if we have to pay the cost of a significant rise in taxes to get a significant slowing, and then decline, in social benefits that is a very cheap price,” Greenspan said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop” with Betty Liu. “A large increase in taxes required to fund what is currently in the books is going to cause a recession,” he said. “If we can get away with that as the only cost to this whole problem, I think that’s a pretty good deal.”

The Fiscal Cliff Draws Near

FrontPageMag.com/ Matthew Vadum

Emboldened by his class warfare-fueled reelection victory, President Obama is demanding $1.6 trillion in tax hikes as congressional leaders scramble to prevent the country from falling over the so-called fiscal cliff.

fixthedebt.org

In this high-stakes game of poker, Obama is holding fast to his original budget blueprint, which includes $1.6 trillion in new revenue generated by raising taxes on households earning more than $250,000. Obama’s progressive preening comes as the outgoing 112th Congress meets in a lame duck session to deal with unfinished business. At the top of the list are whether the Bush-era taxes rates should be extended and if the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts approved by the congressional “super committee” on fiscal affairs will be avoided. If current tax rates are not extended, the already fragile economy will almost certainly nosedive.

Together the tax rate expirations and the spending cuts constitute the fiscal cliff, a term coined by Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, whose protracted cheap money policy has contributed to the nation’s economic doldrums. Unless Washington comes up with a solution, taxes will skyrocket on New Year’s Day and the planned spending cuts will take effect.

Although the stock market has been rising since Obama took office, buoyed artificially by the Federal Reserve’s protracted easy money policies, market participants have been signaling that the growing national debt is a huge problem. It now stands at $16.2 trillion and climbing, upon from $10.6 trillion on Inauguration Day 2009.

The U.S. dollar is slowly collapsing, eroding Americans’ purchasing power, and the price of gold, historically a barometer of economic anxiety, has doubled since Obama took office, rising from $853.25 an ounce to $1,710.00 as of yesterday.

But President Obama remains as determined as ever to raise taxes. During a Wednesday press conference, Obama said he will not “extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent that we can’t afford, and according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy.”

In a scene perhaps anticipated by the 1979 book, Drunk Before Noon: The Behind-the-Scenes Story of the Washington Press Corps, Obama called on one of the many friendly reporters in the White House audience, CNN reporter Jessica Yellin.

She threw this class-warfare softball at the president: “Mr. President, on the fiscal cliff, two years ago, sir, you said that you wouldn’t extend the Bush-era tax cuts, but at the end of the day, you did. So, respectfully, sir, why should the American people and the Republicans believe that you won’t cave again this time?”

Of course they’re no longer tax “cuts.” They were enacted a decade ago in 2001 and 2003. They are current law, but journalists like Yellin prefer to call them “cuts” in order to de-legitimize them.

President Obama reassured the doe-eyed Yellin that he would hold fast, explaining that his previous support for extending the Bush-era rates “was a one-time proposition.”

“We cannot afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy,” he said. “What we can do is make sure that middle-class taxes don’t go up.” Obama may as well have patted Yellin on the head for a job well done.

At the end of the relatively brief media event President Obama showed off for his adoring fans. To the obvious delight of the White House press corps whose members can be heard laughing in a Politico news video, the president smirked and smiled while refusing to answer what sounded like a meaningful fiscal cliff question shouted by Bloomberg reporter Hans Nichols.

“That was a great question, but it would be a horrible precedent for me to answer your question just because you yelled it out,” Obama said. “So thank you very much, guys.” There was love in the East Room that afternoon.

Economic illiterates on the Left such as the leaders of MoveOn and AFL-CIO’s Marxist president Richard Trumka, are keeping the pressure on Obama. They argue that the cliff is a figment of accountants’ imagination. “What we’re facing is an obstacle course within a manufactured crisis that was hastily thrown together in response to inflated rhetoric about our federal deficit,” Trumka said in a speech yesterday.

If Bush-era tax rates in effect since 2001 and 2003 come to an end as scheduled on Dec. 31, “Taxmageddon” –the largest tax increase in U.S. history— will descend on America. Earners at all income levels will be hit by the fiscal hurricane.

The Heritage Foundation defines Taxmageddon as “a one-year $494 billion tax increase slated to strike the economy” on Jan. 1, 2013 that “is made up of several expiring tax policies and the beginning of some major tax increases from Obamacare.” Taxes will be hiked by $3,800 on the average American household in 2013 alone. Taxes levied to pay for Obamacare will be phased in over the following decade but will begin with a hospital insurance 3.8 percent surtax on income over $250,000. The expiration of Bush-era tax rates will account for a third of the tax increases; a quarter, from the expiration of current payroll tax rates.

Taxmageddon will affect middle- and low-income Americans the most because those two groups received 60 percent of the Bush tax cuts. The “patch” on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will also expire. Taxmageddon will hurt all Americans because it will retard job creation and wage growth.

The cuts in the fiscal cliff fall heavily on the Department of Defense, which faces an automatic across-the-board cut of a $55 billion a year for 10 years.

During the election cycle, many Republicans assumed a strangely Keynesian posture, attacking the Pentagon cuts because they would eliminate jobs. On the other hand they embraced the Austrian school of economics, applauding possible entitlement and welfare cuts while railing against further economic stimulus packages.

They missed the point. Cutting defense spending is not bad because it will harm the economy. In fact, as Milton Friedman argued, government spending for the most part doesn’t benefit the economy. It is inherently inefficient and wasteful. We spend taypayers’ money on defense because we have to – only the government can fulfill that mission – and not to create jobs. The better argument against defense cuts, one that was heard less frequently on the campaign trail, is that with all the challenges America faces abroad, now is not the time to be cutting back on defense.

There is also the prickly issue of the national debt ceiling. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said after the election that if the current $16.394 trillion legal limit on federal borrowing needs to be raised in coming months by another $2.4 trillion, “We’ll raise it,” according to CNSNews.com. Many Republican lawmakers, especially those associated with the Tea Party, have said they plan to fight vigorously against such an increase.

Given the political situation, it seems highly unlikely that any reforms to entitlement programs will come out of the lame duck session. Preventing tax increases seems to be the most Republicans can hope to accomplish in the coming weeks.

The day after President Obama won reelection, Boehner seemed receptive to some tax increases. He said House Republicans were willing to consider “some additional revenues via tax reform.” The successful tax reform compromise of 1986 that President Ronald Reagan reached with a divided Congress could be a model for any tax deal that might be reached, he said. “We’re willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions,” he said.

The Speaker took heat from members of the Republican House conference for telegraphing his strategy early and seeming to wave the white flag.

The next day a chastened Boehner said in a TV interview that “raising tax rates is unacceptable.”

“Frankly, it couldn’t even pass the House,” he said. “I’m not sure it could pass the Senate.”

Since Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has come out more definitively against tax increases than Boehner has.

With both sides digging in for a fight, right now the odds seem to favor going over the fiscal cliff. Make sure you pack a parachute because it’s a long way down.

Romney and McCain slam Obama who fight back imperious

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

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

What is and How to Solve the "Fiscal Cliff"

MidweekPolitics --Richard Wolff, Economist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, joins David to explain what exactly the so-called "fiscal cliff" now in the news actually is, what the possible outcomes and solutions are, and its potential effect on the economy.

From the Vault: Deficit Deal Stalemate

PBS Newly re-elected, President Obama has to find a way to get a divided Congress to reach an agreement to prevent a fiscal crisis or risk pushing the country into recession. We look in the vault to November 2011 when the the supercommittee failed to reach a budget deal affecting national politics and the economy.

The looming ’fiscal cliff’ -- cataclysm or compromise?

businessweek.com

By NBC's Mike Viqueira

While no can say for sure how the negotiations to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" -- the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and impending across-the-board spending cuts -- will unfold, the betting here is it will get ugly before it gets better.

First, virtually no one believes what happened last time will happen this time: President Obama won't cave on extending tax cuts for upper income earners.

So will House Republicans come to the table voluntarily, before the first of the year? Or will it require all hell breaking loose -- an expiration of the income and payroll tax cuts, sequestration, the estate tax, and the AMT kicking in, cap gains and dividend rates rising -- before they are forced to come kicking and screaming to an agreement?  More >>

Republicans, Democrats draw lines in fiscal cliff fight

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

Estados Unidos: lo que se viene/ Alvaro Vargas Llosa

earthjoynow.com

El Independent/ Alvaro Vargas Llosa

Pasada la euforia del triunfo, el Presidente Obama enfrenta ahora el dilema de todo presidente reelecto: si dedicarse a llevar hasta las últimas consecuencias su agenda ideológica o transar con la oposición y comprometer sus instintos más profundos, pero pasar a la historia -al igual, digamos, que un Bill Clinton- como un hombre que supo leer la temperatura de los tiempos y poner lo posible por encima de lo deseable.

Por lo pronto, carece de un mandato categórico que permita tomar la primera vía. Es el primer mandatario de la era moderna en los Estados Unidos que gana su segunda elección presidencial con un margen menor que la primera vez. Pasó de derrotar a John McCain por siete puntos en el voto popular a superar a Mitt Romney por menos de dos puntos. El agravante es que tendrá, como lo tiene desde 2010, una Cámara de Representantes con mayoría republicana, pues la correlación de fuerzas en ese ámbito se mantuvo tras esta elección con una alteración menor, mientras que seguirá con el dominio del Senado, pero con sólo 51 escaños de 100. Todo apunta, pues, a que Obama tendría muy difícil el escenario del todo por el todo. Lo más probable es que tenga que buscar un espacio centrista, lo que pasa necesariamente por una negociación con la derecha.

Esto se da en el contexto de lo que ha dado en llamarse, con lenguaje tremebundo salido de los labios del presidente de la Reserva Federal, Ben Bernanke, el “precipicio fiscal”, un acuerdo que entrará automáticamente en vigor el 1 de enero. Se trata de una combinación de aumento de impuestos y reducción de gastos que, juntos, implicarán retirar de la economía entre 600 y 800 mil millones de dólares. El resultado en el corto plazo podría ser una nueva recesión, con repercusión en todo el globo.

La razón de esto tiene que ver con la dura polarización ideológica. En agosto del año pasado, para aceptar el pedido de Obama en el sentido de aumentar el límite de la deuda, el Congreso republicano exigió al gobierno un compromiso de reducción de gastos. La comisión que se creó a resultas de este pulso político debía proponer una reducción de 1,2 billones de dólares en 10 años. Si no se lograba un acuerdo en la comisión bipartidista, entraría en vigor el 1 de enero de 2013, por exigencia de Obama, lo ya mencionado: un aumento de impuestos, básicamente, consistente en derogar las rebajas decretadas por George W. Bush en su día y un recorte de gastos en más de mil programas gubernamentales, incluidos algunos del sector de la Defensa y el seguro sanitario llamado Medicare, que beneficia a ciudadanos de la tercera edad. Sólo ciertas áreas, como la seguridad social y las pensiones federales, quedarían protegidas.

Esto, que puede parecer una discusión abstrusa o menor, tiene a medio planeta en vilo, porque provocaría precisamente lo que ha dado en llamarse el “precipicio fiscal”. Los cálculos más espeluznantes hablan de una caída de cuatro puntos del PIB si esto llega a ocurrir. Otros, más realistas, hablan de la mitad. En cualquier caso, la sombra ominosa de una recesión ha empezado a planear sobre Obama, porque el tiempo apremia y no hay visos de negociación.

Para impedir la hecatombe, el presidente tiene que negociar con los republicanos, léase con el hombre que preside la Cámara de Representantes, John Boehner, un acuerdo antes del 1 de enero, cuando entrará en funciones el nuevo Congreso recientemente elegido. Dado que ese nuevo Congreso seguirá en manos republicanas y con Boehner a la cabeza, no es inconcebible que, de no haber un acuerdo ahora, los recortes y los aumentos de impuestos se den en enero, pero luego se interrumpan si llega a producirse un acuerdo posterior. En cualquier caso, esta será la prueba de fuego de la administración Obama y -de no mediar una gran crisis internacional- el asunto que definirá su segundo gobierno. ¿Por qué? Esencialmente, porque para evitar el “precipicio fiscal”, Obama tendrá que renunciar a su agenda ideológica parcialmente y entenderse, como lo hizo Clinton, con un Congreso de derechas, aceptando una drástica reducción del gasto público y renunciando a aumentar una buena parte de los impuestos que quisiera subir. Lo que está en juego no es sólo un asunto fiscal: es la orientación filosófica del país.

En el plano externo, la agenda estará marcada, siempre a condición de que no surjan imprevistos de gran calibre, por Irán, Siria y China. En el primer caso, el reto de Obama es frenar a Benjamin Netanyahu, líder israelí que, una vez que renueve mandato en enero, presionará para un bombardeo militar. Obama deberá mostrar logros mediante el uso de las sanciones drásticas que ha impuesto en meses recientes, junto a Europa, para impedir esa escalada. En cuanto a Siria, el reto es elevar sustancialmente la eficacia de la rebelión armada para evitar que la OTAN se involucre militarmente, como lo hizo en Libia. Esto no parece al alcance de la mano, a juzgar por el éxito del régimen sirio en su política de tierra arrasada contra la rebelión (con el soporte de Rusia). Por último, en materia de las relaciones con China, Obama tendrá que establecer una relación con un nuevo Presidente, Xi Jinping, que está a punto de asumir el mando, en un momento de mucha tensión por la política exterior cada vez más afirmativa de Beijing en el Asia y su conflicto con Japón en torno a las islas Senkaku (el conflicto involucra además a Taiwán, que también mantiene un reclamo sobre esas ínsulas).

¿Qué sucederá, mientras tanto, con el Partido Republicano? Porque esa será la otra gran cuestión de la política en los Estados Unidos durante el próximo cuatrienio: qué efecto tendrá lo sucedido en el partido de Lincoln. Las elecciones han confirmado lo que ya se presentía: que el Partido Republicano se ha enajenado a tres grupos de votantes muy significativos y tiene insuficiente aceptación en un cuarto grupo. El conservadurismo asumía que, en vista de la crisis persistente y los escasos logros concretos del mandatario, los hispanos, los afroamericanos, los jóvenes y las mujeres solteras no saldrían a votar con el mismo nivel de intensidad que hace cuatro años. Esto no se cumplió. En 2008, el voto negro representó 11 por ciento del total y ahora ha representado un 13 por ciento. El ocho por ciento del voto fue hispano en 2008 y ahora lo fue el 10 por ciento. En 2008, 17 de cada cien votantes fueron menores de 30 años y esta vez la cifra lo han sido 19 de cada cien. Y un alto 18 por ciento de los votantes fueron mujeres solteras. El voto afroamericano de Obama fue 12 veces superior al de Romney. Entre los hispanos, el 70 por ciento se inclinó por el presidente. Entre los menores de 30 años, Romney obtuvo siete votos por cada 12 que obtuvo el mandatario y la ventaja de Obama entre las mujeres solteras fue de 2 a 1. Esta coalición social, por así llamarla, explica el triunfo de Obama y representa, al mismo tiempo, el tremendo desafío de los republicanos.

En el caso del voto joven, la diferencia no ha sido tan abrumadora como en los otros grupos. Pero, en el caso de los hispanos y las mujeres solteras -aceptando que el voto afroamericano es abrumadoramente demócrata desde hace mucho tiempo-, es evidente que la línea duramente hostil a la inmigración y la posición vertical en los temas valóricos, especialmente los relacionados con la salud reproductiva, han minado seriamente al Partido Republicano. A diferencia de Obama, cuya coalición es hoy representativa de país (obtuvo un 39 por ciento del voto blanco, que se combinó con los otros segmentos sociales mencionados), la votación de los republicanos es básicamente unidimensional. El viejo partido de Lincoln está quedando confinado en un sector social representado por la herencia anglosajona de cierta edad. Su implantación en las fuerzas emergentes de la política estadounidense es escasa y podría significar su alejamiento de la Casa Blanca por mucho tiempo.

Esto puede parecer una exageración, dado que Romney obtuvo la mitad de los votos del país. Pero lo cierto es que con cada elección crece la proporción de votantes que pertenecen a los grupos mencionados. Por tanto, el riesgo es que el problema se agrave en el futuro. La pesadilla conservadora es que pase con los hispanos y las mujeres solteras lo que pasó con los afroamericanos: que dejen de forma permanente el Partido Republicano.

La pregunta obvia respecto a este partido es si veremos una renovación traumática del ideario en ciertos temas como la inmigración, el aborto, el matrimonio gay, la investigación con células madre y otros asuntos valóricos. Ya hay tendencias dentro del partido, hasta ahora minoritarias, que apuntan, por ejemplo, a una modificación de la línea partidista respecto a la inmigración.

Líderes como Jeb Bush y Rudy Giuliani llevan años recordándoles a sus compañeros de partido que Reagan fue un defensor de la inmigración y otorgó la amnistía a más de tres millones de indocumentados. Más complejo es el escenario valórico: la derecha evangélica, que es clave en la base del partido, no aceptaría nunca una modificación. Ello podría implicar, en el futuro, el riesgo de una fractura e, incluso, de una escisión o cisma.

En lo inmediato, las cabezas visibles del partido serán los líderes de las bancadas republicanas en las dos cámaras del Congreso, John Boehner (que acaba de decirle al presidente: “Este es su momento”) y Eric Cantor. Pero poco a poco veremos a la nueva camada de líderes -un Bobby Jindal, gobernador de Luisiana; un Marco Rubio, la estrella cubana de los conservadores, o un Chris Christie, el gobernador de Nueva Jersey que elogió a Obama con ocasión del huracán Sandy y se ganó críticas conservadoras, pero que es una fuerza en ascenso- asumir roles cada vez más prominentes. Ellos tendrán la misión de ir desplazando a la vieja guardia y adecuando al partido a una realidad que está dejándolo en offside: la realidad de una sociedad multicultural y multirracial, y de una generación que ve las cuestiones morales a través de un prisma menos religioso.

Es demasiado prematuro pronosticar lo que se sucederá, entre otras cosas, porque no sabemos cómo puede reaccionar la base ante un intento por “modernizar” al partido en estos y otros asuntos. Pero una cosa es clara: empieza a cundir entre muchos líderes republicanos la sensación de que algo está cambiando a su alrededor y ellos han tardado demasiado en entenderlo.

Obama’s demographic edge

Gerber baby: Mary Jane Montoya

By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Browerbama’s demographic

*** Obama's demographic edge: Yes, the auto bailout mattered in Ohio. Sure, Hurricane Sandy helped the president. And, yes, the economy was the No. 1 issue. But make no mistake: What happened last night was a demographic time bomb that had been ticking and that blew up in GOP faces. As the Obama campaign had assumed more than a year ago, the white portion of the electorate dropped to 72%, and the president won just 39% of that vote. But he carried a whopping 93% of black voters (representing 13% of the electorate), 71% of Latinos (representing 10%), and also 73% of Asians (3%). What’s more, despite all the predictions that youth turnout would be down, voters 18-29 made up 19% of last night’s voting population -- up from 18% four years ago -- and President Obama took 60% from that group. The trend also played out in the key battleground states: The president won about 70% of the Latino vote in Colorado and Nevada, and he won 60% of it in Florida (a high number given the state’s large GOP-leaning Cuban-American population). On Monday, we wrote that demography could determine destiny. And that’s exactly what happened. While the campaign’s turnout operation deserves all the credit for getting these voters to the polls, the most significant event of this presidential contest might very well have been the 2010 census.

*** And the GOP’s demographic dilemma: Obama’s demographic edge creates this dilemma for the Republican Party: It can no longer rely on white voters to win national elections anymore, especially in presidential cycles. Indeed, according to the exit poll, 89% of all votes Mitt Romney won last night came from whites (compared with 56% for Obama). So the Republicans are maximizing their share with white voters; they just aren’t getting the rest. And come 2016, the white portion of the electorate will probably drop another couple of points to 70%. Politico’s Martin puts it this way: “Battling a wheezing economy and a deeply motivated opposition, Obama still managed to retain much of his 2008 map because of the GOP’s deficiencies with the voters who are changing the political face of once conservative-leaning Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Republicans face a crisis: the country is growing less white and their coalition has become more white in recent years. In 2004, George W. Bush won [about 40 percent] of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics.”

NBC's Chuck Todd discusses how Florida may be used as a model for the rest of the country to show how changes in demographics, particularly an influx of Hispanic voters in key counties, affected the outcome of the election.  

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

*** Hard for the GOP just to turn to the Midwest: Now Republicans might argue, “Look, we can win back the Midwest -- Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin.” Yet those account for 34 electoral votes. But the Sun Belt states where Obama campaigned and which have more diverse populations (Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia) have a total of 57 electoral votes. And then there are Arizona, Georgia, and Texas. Do those states come into play in 2016? What about 2020? Come 2016, you could argue that Arizona and Georgia become for Democrats what Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania are for Republicans -- just slightly out of reach.

*** Last night’s results: The morning after, here are the results (so far) from last night: Obama holds 303 electoral votes and Romney 206. (NBC News has yet to call Florida and its 29 electoral votes, but Obama leads there 50%-49%.) In the popular vote, it’s Obama 50%, Romney 48%. Also, Democrats have held on to their Senate majority and might add to it -- with undecided races in Montana (where Democratic incumbent Jon Tester leads 48%-48% with 77% in) and North Dakota (where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp is ahead by about 3,000 voters with 93% in). But Republicans held on to control of the House, holding 237 seats vs. 197 for the Democrats, plus-minus four seats.

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

*** Does status-quo control = status-quo governing? So in the end, we got a status-quo result -- with Obama holding on to the White House, Democrats keeping control of the Senate, and Republicans maintaining their grip on the House. But here’s the question with the “fiscal cliff” negotiations coming up: Will the governing be status quo, too? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released this statement last night: “To the extent [Obama] wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we’ll be there to meet him half way. That begins by proposing a way for both parties to work together in avoiding the ‘fiscal cliff’ without harming a weak and fragile economy, and when that is behind us work with us to reform the tax code and our broken entitlement system.” And House Speaker John Boehner makes a statement on the “fiscal cliff” negotiations at 3:30 pm ET. But who holds the mandate here? The GOP? Or a president who waged a national campaign on raising taxes for the wealthy, and who won? And here’s another question: Do Boehner and McConnell take advantage of the lame duck to compromise? 

*** Obama’s swing-county swagger: Turning back to last night’s presidential contest, Obama beat Romney in almost all of the swing counties (won by Bush in ’04 but by Obama in ’08). Indeed, Obama won three of four swing counties in Florida (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Osceola), four of six in Ohio (Hamilton, Wood, Ottawa, Sandusky), 11 of 14 in Virginia (including Loudon, Prince William, and Henrico), and all six in Colorado (including Jefferson, Arapahoe, and Larimer). And despite losing North Carolina, Obama may have proved that the state is changing, becoming more “Mid-Atlantic” but not quite all there, as Charlie Cook has said. Obama won nine of 13 swing counties in the Tar Heel State (including the large counties of Wake, Forsyth, Cumberland, and Buncombe).

*** And his tactical dominance: But it was more than winning the swing counties for Obama; it was tactical dominance. Romney made inroads all across the country from previous GOP performance. What happened, however, was that the Obama campaign exploited the census and changed the margins. The best example of this was in Florida.

*** Making history: Finally, it was an historic-making election. With Obama’s re-election, we now have the first time since Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe that Americans have elected three two-term presidents in a row… Tammy Baldwin will become the Senate’s first openly gay member… The Senate will have at least 19 female members -- the most ever -- and there’s a chance that number could increase to 20 if Heitkamp wins… Maryland and Maine became the first states to approve of gay marriage at the ballot box… And initiatives to legalize marijuana passed in Colorado and Washington state.

#Conspiracy on House Floor : Why Did A Congressman Wear A Hoodie?

Dem. Rep. Causes Chaos on House Floor After Giving Speech in a Hoodie

Read >>