Reid on the Fiscal Cliff: "We're Not Going to Do Anything"
Raise your hand if you're the least bit surprised. Harry Reid's Senate has perfected the art of doing nothing; from not passing budgets to not taking up President Obama's various proposals.
They also do quite a bit of not debating or voting on legislation --
due to a record number of Republican filibusters, triggered by Reid's historic abuse
of shutting down the amendment process. So with America on the
precipice of devastating across-the-board tax hikes, Harry Reid is
promising to do precisely nothing unless President Obama gets everything
he wants. Two quotes from today's press conference:
Senate Republicans have culled a list of choice quotes from Reid over the last three weeks, demanding that the House act to protect the middle class while "compromising" on rates for the "richest of the rich:"
Reid conveniently disregards the fact that the House has already voted to avert the roster of economic ruin that is the fiscal cliff, including the maintenance of all current tax rates for the middle class. Nevertheless, with Democrats refusing to budget, House Republicans are gearing up to vote on Speaker John Boehner's "Plan B," which would permanently extend more than 99 percent of all current tax rates, but would allow Democrats to raise taxes on families on businesses making more than $1 million per year. The GOP opposes this outcome, but they're willing to put it on the table in the interests of avoiding the cliff. Reid prattles about "millionaires and billionaires" and "the richest of the rich" in the quotes above, all of which are plucked from earlier this month. "Plan B" offers the majority leader's party the chance to finally stick it to the very people he describes. As we explored yesterday, the $1 million compromise threshold has been touted by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in the not-so-distant past. It can't be dismissed as "radical." Indeed, the proposal is rather controversial on the Right: Americans for Tax Reform has given it a clean bill of health, Freedomworks signaled tentative support for the idea before reversing their position, and both the Club for Growth and Heritage Action remain staunchly opposed. As Katie reported earlier, Boehner and Cantor are expressing confidence that they have the votes to pass "Plan B" later this evening. We'll see if they receive any Democratic tallies, as Pelosi is expected to whip her caucus hard against voting her own previous proposal (which she now boasts was a "ploy" all along).
If Boehner does muster enough support to pass the plan, Republicans' next move will be telling. If everyone sticks around and lingers in town, it will signal that Boehner is hoping to use the vote as an eleventh-hour leverage power play to influence behind-the-scenes negotiations with Obama. I continue to worry that any resulting "bargain" would be no such thing for conservatives, and I'm dubious about the wisdom of whipping GOP members for an on-the-record vote to allow tax hikes simply as a bargaining chip. On the other hand, if the GOP caucus passes "Plan B," then heads home for the holidays, they're playing some real hard ball. It would suggest that the Boehner/Obama talks are stuck in the mud, and that Republicans are finished with negotiating against themselves. I would strongly prefer the latter scenario, the success of which would depend on Republican messaging. Gulp. They would have to make it crystal clear that they have offered plan after plan, incorporating ideas that Obama himself has backed in the recent past, but to no avail. They would have to flood the zone with the (accurate) talking point that Republicans have compromised twice in Plan B. First, by permitting Democrats to hike tax rates on millionaires, which Republicans have fought for economic reasons. Second, by keeping $1.2 trillion in sequestration cuts intact, including major cuts to the US military. Conservatives detest these defense cuts, which were originally suggested by the White House during last summer's debt debate. The House has voted to offset those reductions, but the Senate has refused to act, and Obama threatened a veto. So all of those bipartisan cuts remain in place. Republicans should say that they are not happy with the compromise by any stretch of the imagination, but Democrats left them no choice. They acted to prevent 99 percent of taxpayers from seeing a significant tax hike on January 1. They acted to avoid the cliff. They acted in a way that gave up some key Republican demands. "Your move, Democrats -- we're finished." Would Obama have the cajones to follow through on his latest veto threat? He may very well be bluffing. Will Republicans call him on it?
UPDATE - House Republicans are currently proposing another bill to avoid the sequestration cuts. They're quoting Obama's promise to the American people during the final presidential debate:
Liberal journalist Bob Woodward has confirmed that Obama's White House, not Congress, proposed the sequester.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/12/20/reid-on-the-fiscal-cliff-were-not-going-to-do-anything-n1471498
(1) "We are not taking up anything they are working on over [in the House]."
(2) "We are not going to do anything."
Senate Republicans have culled a list of choice quotes from Reid over the last three weeks, demanding that the House act to protect the middle class while "compromising" on rates for the "richest of the rich:"
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "We are willing to compromise, but we also will not consign the middle class to higher tax bills while millionaires and billionaires avoid all the pain." (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.7364, 12/4/12)
REID: "…waiting for them to do something that will help the middle class. … All the president is asking - all we're asking is take care of the middle class and do something about the richest of the rich." (Sen. Reid, Press Conference, 12/13/12)
REID: "Generally during a negotiation, each side brings an offer or demand to the table. That is how it has always worked. Then the two sides sit down and find middle ground. It is not always easy and it is rarely fun. True compromise means no one gets everything they want, but unless both sides come to the negotiating table with an offer, you can't even begin the negotiation. In fact, unless both sides come to the table with an offer, there is no negotiation."
Reid conveniently disregards the fact that the House has already voted to avert the roster of economic ruin that is the fiscal cliff, including the maintenance of all current tax rates for the middle class. Nevertheless, with Democrats refusing to budget, House Republicans are gearing up to vote on Speaker John Boehner's "Plan B," which would permanently extend more than 99 percent of all current tax rates, but would allow Democrats to raise taxes on families on businesses making more than $1 million per year. The GOP opposes this outcome, but they're willing to put it on the table in the interests of avoiding the cliff. Reid prattles about "millionaires and billionaires" and "the richest of the rich" in the quotes above, all of which are plucked from earlier this month. "Plan B" offers the majority leader's party the chance to finally stick it to the very people he describes. As we explored yesterday, the $1 million compromise threshold has been touted by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in the not-so-distant past. It can't be dismissed as "radical." Indeed, the proposal is rather controversial on the Right: Americans for Tax Reform has given it a clean bill of health, Freedomworks signaled tentative support for the idea before reversing their position, and both the Club for Growth and Heritage Action remain staunchly opposed. As Katie reported earlier, Boehner and Cantor are expressing confidence that they have the votes to pass "Plan B" later this evening. We'll see if they receive any Democratic tallies, as Pelosi is expected to whip her caucus hard against voting her own previous proposal (which she now boasts was a "ploy" all along).
If Boehner does muster enough support to pass the plan, Republicans' next move will be telling. If everyone sticks around and lingers in town, it will signal that Boehner is hoping to use the vote as an eleventh-hour leverage power play to influence behind-the-scenes negotiations with Obama. I continue to worry that any resulting "bargain" would be no such thing for conservatives, and I'm dubious about the wisdom of whipping GOP members for an on-the-record vote to allow tax hikes simply as a bargaining chip. On the other hand, if the GOP caucus passes "Plan B," then heads home for the holidays, they're playing some real hard ball. It would suggest that the Boehner/Obama talks are stuck in the mud, and that Republicans are finished with negotiating against themselves. I would strongly prefer the latter scenario, the success of which would depend on Republican messaging. Gulp. They would have to make it crystal clear that they have offered plan after plan, incorporating ideas that Obama himself has backed in the recent past, but to no avail. They would have to flood the zone with the (accurate) talking point that Republicans have compromised twice in Plan B. First, by permitting Democrats to hike tax rates on millionaires, which Republicans have fought for economic reasons. Second, by keeping $1.2 trillion in sequestration cuts intact, including major cuts to the US military. Conservatives detest these defense cuts, which were originally suggested by the White House during last summer's debt debate. The House has voted to offset those reductions, but the Senate has refused to act, and Obama threatened a veto. So all of those bipartisan cuts remain in place. Republicans should say that they are not happy with the compromise by any stretch of the imagination, but Democrats left them no choice. They acted to prevent 99 percent of taxpayers from seeing a significant tax hike on January 1. They acted to avoid the cliff. They acted in a way that gave up some key Republican demands. "Your move, Democrats -- we're finished." Would Obama have the cajones to follow through on his latest veto threat? He may very well be bluffing. Will Republicans call him on it?
UPDATE - House Republicans are currently proposing another bill to avoid the sequestration cuts. They're quoting Obama's promise to the American people during the final presidential debate:
President Barack Obama startled Washington during Monday night's foreign policy debate when he said billions in automatic Pentagon cuts “will not happen" — a line that could weaken his bargaining power during an epic spending and tax fight expected when Congress returns. Obama was responding to criticism from Republican rival Mitt Romney that American national security is at risk if the defense cuts are triggered in early January. "First of all, the sequester is not something I proposed, it's something that Congress proposed," Obama said. "It will not happen."
Liberal journalist Bob Woodward has confirmed that Obama's White House, not Congress, proposed the sequester.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/12/20/reid-on-the-fiscal-cliff-were-not-going-to-do-anything-n1471498
Commerce Department without a leader for five months
I guess a cabinet department whose mission statement reads, in part, that it is responsible for "job creation, economic growth, and improved standards of living for all Americans..." isn't that important to the economic recovery to warrant naming a replacement for John Bryson who resigned suddenly on June 21.Rep. Lee Terry writing in the Washington Times:
We have heard a lot from President Obama about raising taxes, health care reform, Republican obstructionism and controversial nominees for Cabinet posts that currently are filled. However, we have not heard much from him about whom he plans to nominate to lead the agency tasked with implementing important policies that affect American workers and businesses every day. Coincidentally, this is the only agency without a leader in Mr. Obama's Cabinet. It is unfortunate that the American people have been left to rely on vague media reports detailing conversations the president may have had with candidates who won't confirm or deny they spoke with him. If the president thinks the Commerce Department is a serious agency, it is time for him to get serious about filling this vacancy with a qualified candidate.
America's economy is in a delicate state. Unemployment has remained stubbornly high at around 8 percent for the past several years. The U.S. trade deficit in September was measured at $41.5 billion - more than $10 billion higher than it was two years earlier, in September 2000 - and our nation's industrial production has been stagnant. These indicators, taken in concert with each passing day edging us closer to the "fiscal cliff," should serve as not-so-subtle reminders to the president that now, more than ever, is the time for decisive leadership, both at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and at the Commerce Department.
The American business sector needs a secretary of commerce who can help create the consistency needed to create jobs domestically and give businesses the assurance needed to take risks, expand operations and make investments in capital. Our government doesn't need a "secretary of business," as the president suggested recently during his campaign. Our government needs a commerce secretary, someone who can bring to bear significant experience in the business world and serve as the chief advocate in Washington for business owners. We need someone who can help bureaucrats and many in Congress understand that patchwork fixes are not the answer but part of the problem. We need a leader who will create policies encouraging job creators, fixing unemployment, creating a trade surplus and jump-starting manufacturing and industrial production.Not that Obama has noticed that there is no Commerce Secretary. He meets with star athletes and celebrities far more often than he meets with his cabinet. Priorities, don't you know. Why bother asking what the Commerce Department can do to boost the economy when you've got Jay-Z to advise you?
For sure, Commerce is not one of the sexier cabinet departments. All those numbers and graphs and stuff. Perhaps the president is having a hard time finding a pro-business supporter of his who wants the job. There aren't too many of them to choose from.
Then again, maybe we have a lazy president who keeps putting the decision off because he'd rather play golf or go on vacation. So let's not rush him. Lord knows who he might choose if he's under pressure.
WE KNOW HOW TO STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS
By Ann Coulter
In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's
mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn.,
elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have
been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.
Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime rates, and on and on.
The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.
Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime rates, and on and on.
The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.
If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.
It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)
In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."
This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.
The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.
If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.
In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones' methodology:
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.
If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-12-19.html
No comments:
Post a Comment