Pages

Saturday, June 25, 2011

New York Senate passes same-sex marriage bill




  -  


Celebrating? Do share!

@Clarknt67

@JamilSmith
They're singing in front of the Stonewall.

Death toll expected to rise in Amtrak collision

LOS ANGELES | Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:50pm EDT

(Reuters) - Federal transportation safety investigators on Saturday were investigating the Nevada crash between a tractor-trailer rig and an Amtrak train, where authorities believe more bodies may be found in the wreckage.
At least two people were confirmed killed and dozens injured in the Friday morning collision at a crossing of U.S. Route 95 near the town of Lovelock, about 70 miles east of Reno, the Nevada Highway Patrol said.
Nevada Highway Patrol spokesman Dan Lopez said further fatalities may be discovered during a search that was proceeding slowly because the burned-out train cars were considered unstable and dangerous to enter.
"We know that people have seen bodies, but we can't get to them in the wreckage," Lopez said. "The biggest thing right now is the safety of the workers."
The two people known to have died in the collision were the driver of the truck, which hauled gravel, and the train's conductor, he said.
"Preliminary reports are that there have been fatalities to passengers, an Amtrak train crew member and the operator of the truck," Amtrak said in a written statement, which seemed to raise the death toll at four or more.
A spokeswoman for the passenger rail line, which is partly owned by the U.S. government, declined to elaborate on the statement.
DRIVER TRIED TO STOP
Lopez said National Transportation Safety Board officials, who took over the investigation on Saturday, were trying to determine why the truck driver barreled through closed signal arms before smashing into the side of the train.
He said skid marks indicated that the driver had tried to stop in the seconds before impact.
The fiery crash sent a plume of black smoke billowing into the air over the scene.
"The truck did in fact strike the train at the fourth car and according to witness statements the gates and lights were operational," Lopez said.
The injured were taken to local hospitals.
A spokeswoman for Renown Regional Medical Center in Reno said the hospital received nine people from the accident, including one listed in critical condition on Saturday.
A second patient was listed in serious condition and two were in fair condition, the spokeswoman said. Five others had been discharged.
Another 60 people were taken to Banner Churchill Community Hospital in Fallon, about 30 miles away, spokeswoman Aimee Fulk told Reuters.
The 10 most seriously hurt patients were admitted and treated in the hospital's emergency room, she said, while the remaining 50 were treated for lesser injuries and released.
Fulk said she had no further information on the condition of the patients in the emergency room but was not aware of any life-threatening injuries among them.
Passengers who were not injured, some of whom spent the night in local shelters, were taken to their destinations by bus.
The westbound California Zephyr was en route from Chicago to Emeryville, California with 204 passengers and 14 crew members on board when it was hit.

Two killed, dozens hurt in Amtrak collision (1:01) 

June 24 - Two people are dead and dozens injured whens a tractor-trailer rig collides with an Amtrak train on a rural Nevada highway east of Reno, Amtrak officials say. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).

Exclusive: Jon Stewart on 'Fox News Sunday'



'Daily Show' host talks politics, media bias in extended, unedited interview

 
 

Chris Wallace schools Jon Stewart.


You know, I think that I want Chris Wallace to be in charge of the 2012 debates. He deserves a reward for giving Jon Stewart the business in this one:
The fun really starts at about 5 minutes in: Stewart tried what Ace calls the “Clown Nose On / Clown Nose Off” (after stating, more or less, that conservatives are incapable of understanding liberals’ motivations) and Chris Wallace demonstrated that he was expecting precisely that answer. Because, really, nobody is as smart as they think that they are. As Jon Stewart demonstrates, over and over and over again; his repeated insisting that he wasn’t being ruled by his biases kind of lost power with every counter-example that Wallace put up on the screen. But then, it’s rare on television that people are actually grilled on things.

Watch the whole thing; it’s fifteen minutes of pure political entertainment, and Stewart probably should have quit about eight minutes in. Mostly because Wallace maneuvered him into a position at the end where Stewart himself had to admit that conservatives are routinely attacked - INCLUDING BY HIM - for a variety of things that we, in point of fact, are not actually guilty of. Which would have been… nice… of him to admit, except that nowhere did Stewart actually promise to reform his ways. As Wallace demonstrated at the very end, by cheekily accepting an apology that Stewart did not actually offer. Which is illustrative of Stewart’s pseudo-detached style in general; only, it’s a lot uglier without the laugh track.
So, let Wallace be in charge of the debates; I’d be interested to see what he’d do with them.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: “You.. ah, planning a remake of Amos & Andy?” - In response to Jon Stewart’s imitation of Herman Cain. Jon visibly did not like being treated like a conservative who did the same thing would have been treated; and his response - whether Wallace would have asked the same question about Stewart’s New York voice, or his Chinese Guy voice, fell flat partially because he was definitely stung. But it mostly fell flat because conservatives aren’t actually allowed to do funny Chinese Guy voices, either, without getting raked over the coals for it. Heck, we’re not even allowed to have New York accents.
PPS: I actually like Jon Stewart. But he’s not going to remember this interview fondly.

SUNDAY, JUNE 19, 2011

All the news that escapes Jon Stewart

I'm enjoying a sunset, checking some tweets, having missed FNS this morning, when I see the clip of the Stewart interview.

He's a likeable guy, is low key to people on his show, so I was surprised when he got really, really angry in response to Chris Wallace and stated that FoxNews viewers are "consistently misinformed", after claiming MSNBC was only perhaps trying the Fox model for the left and that the NY Times was not biased, just "sensationalist". But how come the PC media is only sensationalist in one direction? (As Wallace points out, Weiner is pretty indefensible) The NY Times has really been hard-charging on the Obama years at Columbia.

He also talked down to Chris Wallace and said his snarky comedy was harder to do than Wallace's job. 

Well, it seems to me he's had pretty much the same sophomoric shtick for years. I'd say he's stuck in a rut. Perhaps that's why he came on FNS, I give him credit for that.

I mean, what's a disillusioned leftist to do?

Stewart is smart enough to know Obama has screwed up. But not smart enough to figure out the difference between news and opinion-- after all, the left has muddled up the two for the last generation or so. He's still getting his news from the NY Times, no wonder he's confused. But we're the ones who are misinformed. Everything is happening so unexpectedly with such unexpectedconsequences.

Stewart says Chris Wallace on FNS is balance to Hannity, and compliments him for that. He's done the same with O'Reilly. Fine. But shouldn't Stewart be able to figure out FNS during the day isnews. Special Report is news, with a clearly labeled analyticalpanel. FNS is news. Then there are the opinion shows. O'Reilly is populist, Hannity is conservative/establishment R, Greta is centrist.

Stewart is left-leaning with sparks of independence.

He doesn't recognize classic journalism--actually covering the news as it is. Wow, what a concept.

I think Wallace has it right that Stewart wants to be a political player. Stewart hides behind comedy to pretend he's a serious social critic, when he's pretty much just another leftie. 

I give him credit for coming on FNS, though. He's probably worried he will lose his job like Katie Couric. Or Keith Olbermann. And might have to go on the Al Gore network along with that other really funny guy, Anthony Weiner. You might know him, Jon. Or maybe that's news to you.

A closer look at Huntsman’s fiscal record


June 22, 2011


Jon Huntsman’s fiscal management of Utah saw annual balanced budgets, a rainy day fund that grew by one-third and the largest tax cut package in state history. Yet anyone reading media reports about The Club for Growth’s white paper unveiled today might come away with a decidedly more negative impression.
This is to be expected. The Club (which is arguably the most effective conservative advocacy organization in the nation) issues white papers for each of the announced presidential candidates. Nobody gets a free pass. Everybody has a few blemishes. Still, it’s important to put things in context, and the central complaint — in terms of Huntsman’s actual record as governor — is Utah’s increase in spending. And here it is important to keep in mind that, unlike, say, Massachusetts or Minnesota, Utah’s population has seen an enormous surge — jumping 23.8 percent in the last decade — at a pace more than double the national population growth of 9.7 percent.
When population spikes, as it did during Huntsman’s time in office, one could assume expenses would also rise. This does not entirely excuse the increase in spending, but it should be taken into consideration.
Additionally, unlike other states, Utah spends about 50 percent of its revenue on education. This may not make a difference to fiscal hawks, but it is at least worth noting.
On the positive side, Gov. Huntsman’s fiscal management saw Utah’s rainy day fund grow from $146.1 million in 2006 to $418.5 million in 2010. Even as the national economic outlook soured, the fund remained untouched in large measure thanks to the $600 million dollars Huntsman slashed from the state’s 2009 budget.
What is more, Huntsman engineered the largest tax package cut in state history, for which the Utah Taxpayers Association awarded the governor the “Taxpayer Advocate” award. The Cato Institute likewise praised Huntsman and put Utah atop its ranking of best state tax regulatory structures in 2008.
The same year, the Pew Center pegged Utah one of the best-managed states in the union. “Utah has been a clear leader in sound government based on smart planning and effective performance management that emphasizes long-term results,” the 2008 report reads.
But the accolades for Huntsman and his steering of the Beehive State don’t end there. Utah captured Forbes coveted top ranking for business and careers when they found in 2010 the state had expanded its economy 3.5 percent annually in the last-half decade, a rate which outpaces all but one other state.
It is fair to say that some of Huntsman’s past rhetoric concerning controversial issues like cap and trade, climate change, TARP, etc., leaves room for skepticism. Huntsman strikes me as the kind of guy who is intellectually curious and open to considering a myriad of policy solutions — which means he doesn’t immediately dismiss even bad ideas. Dogmatic conservatives may lake little solace in this, but Huntsman’s actions probably serve as the best predictor of future behavior. And, in this regard, his pro-growth stance and record of tax cuts is encouraging.
No Republican presidential candidate stirs more curiosity than Jon Huntsman. "What about Huntsman?" You hear it all the time. Who is Jon Huntsman and where is he coming from? On the morning after he announced his presidential bid in front of the Statue of Liberty this week, we hitched a ride on his campaign plane to South Carolina, seeking answers.
Mr. Huntsman is addressed as "governor" because he was the two-term governor of Utah. Lots of governors run for president. What causes curiosity about Mr. Huntsman is that he has accumulated a remarkably full and intriguing biography in his 51 years. Mr. Huntsman became fluent in Mandarin Chinese during two years he spent in Taiwan as a young Mormon missionary. He worked in the Reagan White House. In the George H.W. Bush administration, he worked first on trade matters and then as Mr. Bush's ambassador to Singapore.
For the second Bush presidency, he was deputy trade representative. In 2004 he was elected governor of Utah, re-elected in 2008 and then most famously and curiously, accepted President Barack Obama's offer in 2009 to be the U.S. ambassador to China.
His father is Jon Huntsman Sr., the now-billionaire founder of Huntsman Corp., a chemical company. His father's first company, Huntsman Container, hit the jackpot by creating the "clamshell" burger box, which was adopted by McDonald's.
It's no surprise that a man with this résumé, notably similar to that of George H.W. Bush, would—what else?—run for president.
"I'm a conservative problem-solver," Gov. Huntsman said over the engine roar of his campaign charter, on which the reporters in back were outnumbered by family members filling the aisles—his wife, four of their own children (most of them grown) and two younger adopted daughters.
If there's a short version of Mr. Huntsman's core message, it is that America needs to start competing again, and aggressively, in the global marketplace. "We need to get back in the game," he says, citing the lapse of free-trade momentum as a primary failing of the Obama years. "If we don't do it, China will move ahead with free-trade agreements as they are in Latin America, built around procurement practices that benefit Chinese companies."
In step with the other candidates, Mr. Huntsman wants to downgrade our military commitment in Afghanistan, but here, too, the argument is linked to regaining the U.S.'s competitive edge:
"Now we have one out of every six defense department dollars going to Afghanistan. We've achieved much of what we set out to do. We've been able to rout the Taliban from power. We've been able to disrupt to a large extent al Qaeda. We've had free elections going back to 2004. And we still have 100,000 troops on the ground. The future well-being of the United States is likely not going to be fought on the prairies of Afghanistan. It's likely to be the result of our ability or inability to compete competitively across the Pacific against the rising giants."
Terry Shoffner
He adds he is "not suggesting pulling out completely" but would "leave behind a very capable fighting force that is appropriately positioned given the asymmetric threat that we face—the intelligence-gathering capability, the special forces capability, the training of Afghan forces capability, and the ability to work with friends in the region who believe as we do that those who are coming after us, we should go after very aggressively."
He is preoccupied with Asia: "I've seen the rise of Asia as a business guy, I've seen it as a diplomat. I think every day how we're going to better position ourselves to compete in the next century with the likes of China and India."
Mr. Huntsman believes the answer to this grand challenge lies in Utah. Not Utah alone, of course, but in the 50 individual states. Nothing he said in our conversation, at least, suggests he has grand plans for Washington: "I think the appropriate role of the federal government is to carefully measure out the nation's competitiveness. When are taxes too high and making us less competitive than our major trading partners? When do we reach the point of onerous regulation and have to throttle back so we can maintain a competitive posture?"
The states, he says, know how to compete and like to compete: "As a country we should maintain a level playing field for the states. Equip them with what they need to survive and be competitive and then be attentive enough to learn from them when it comes to possible national models," for example, health care. Mr. Huntsman says he favors repeal of the Obama health-care law—"this behemoth."
One model he has in mind is Utah under Gov. Huntsman. "I'm not running from my record," he says, letting his interlocutor figure out who in the race he thinks is. The record he cites is a new, 5% flat income tax ("We took 30% out of the income tax"), a lowered sales tax and a robust, high-growth state economy. Anticipating the inevitable observation that governing Utah isn't the same as running, say, Texas, the governor offers an analogy: "Sure it's a state with only three million people, but Singapore is a country of only five million people and it tops the world's best over and over again in terms of how to compete."
Over the next few months, Mr. Huntsman is going to try a national version of the problem-solving approach he used in Utah: "Gather together stakeholders who have something invested in our economic well-being, whether small business people, bankers, traditional investors. I want to gather them together as I did in the election of 2004 when I ran for governor. Our economy was OK, but it was tired, and our entrepreneurs weren't deploying their capital in our market. We went through a very rigorous exercise in 2004 before the election and did a very specific 10-point plan, and after the campaign I said, 'This is our bible. Don't try to sidetrack me; it's the most important thing for the state.' We went through all 10 points."
He wants to move that approach "to the national stage, with businesses West Coast to East Coast. I want to know in specific terms what needs to be done on day one, so there is no misgiving about how we revive this economy and get it moving forward in a sustainable direction."
Mr. Huntsman says, "Our priorities need to revolve around ensuring that we have a competitive environment that speaks to the attraction and aggregation of capital, the deployment of capital." To that end, he cites three policy goals: tax reform, regulatory reform, "and I want to mention a third I think is going to be extremely important for our economy long-term, and that's energy independence. It's a low hanging fruit." What comes next isn't quite what one expects. He's talking about natural gas.
"Everybody wants more sun, everybody wants to use more wind," for which they had special zones in sunny, windy Utah. "But it's going to take years and years to perfect those technologies and distribution systems. We're going to need a transitional product to get us from here to the decades of the future when these things will be more viable. I can't think of a better product than natural gas."
He thinks the recent natural gas finds in the U.S. "completely change how we operate and how we view our economy. I believe this is just revolutionary." He favors drilling to get it. "Why not take advantage of something we control, when it's derived from our reserves, it employs our people and enhances our economic base?"
He qualifies the "energy independence" goal: "Look, we're never going to be totally energy independent. You can talk in those terms but we're always going to be accessing raw materials from elsewhere in the world. But we can do better than 60% of imported oil."
Subsidies for energy? "I don't like subsidies. I'd like to see us phase out all subsidies. Maybe a nudge in terms of a tax incentive like we did in Utah to convert cars to natural gas." A great enthusiast of natural-gas-powered vehicles, Mr. Huntsman argues that his tax credit for them was a huge success in Utah: "They were in demand in such numbers that car dealers couldn't find any more natural-gas cars for sale in the U.S."
He'd block-grant Medicaid back to the states. "Let states determine what the percentage of poverty levels are, and let public officials rise or fall on how local citizens feel about those decisions. They're in a much better position to understand their vulnerable populations than at the federal level."
Our conversation keeps coming back to Asia. When I sat down, I brought the former ambassador to China news that the Chinese said they were releasing dissident artist Ai Weiwei. "That's good," he says. "Now at least 500 more to go." Mr. Huntsman talks animatedly about how we "need to redefine what it means to be a friend and ally of the United States." Looking beyond the traditional allies of Japan and South Korea, he thinks there are "other countries in Southeast Asia, in South Asia and perhaps in the Indian Ocean who would want to shore up a relationship that would constitute a new model going forward." I suggest, India? He answers, "Vietnam?"
What would China think? "They are not going to like that at all. Any move we make on their periphery, they are going to take as a step toward encircling them. . . . But our longstanding commitment in the Pacific region is to keeping the sea lanes open first and foremost, from which the Chinese have benefited enormously." He thinks "we have an opening there because of the concerns people have about China's military."
I ask what this means for his thinking on the role of the defense budget in the spending debates. "I'm consulting with some of the experts on exactly what a reconfigured asymmetric posture would mean to overall defense spending," he replies. That said, it sounds like defense cuts would be in the mix: "If you're willing to look with a critical eye at every aspect of government, whether we're talking about entitlements or were talking about the defense department, we can't take one off the table and say you can't touch this. It's intellectually indefensible."
Jon Huntsman, a discursive talker, brings a lot to the table. What remains to be seen is how he presents it all in a way Republican voters will want to buy. He's been pegged as the man running toward the middle—with past positions in favor of cap-and-trade regimes (now repudiated) and gay civil unions. But to win, he still has to pull votes from the conservative base. How?
"When people look at what we've done," he says, "they're going to say, 'He's a conservative problem solver.' I'm going to point people in the direction of what we've done as governor. I'm pro-life, strongly pro-Second Amendment. I think there are enough voters who will say, 'I may not like everything, but there's enough here to like.'"
It's time to let the governor finish a sandwich before he visits a TEC outdoor-grills factory in Columbia, S.C. He adds a final point on his own behalf: "I'm not trying to make things up as we go. I'm drawing from my own experiences, where I've seen it work. I want to make sure that what we advocate and say we believe in can be tied back to real-world experience. So when people say, 'What do you stand for, what do you want to do?' I can say, 'Here, 1,2,3, here's what I did as governor of a state.' I think that's going to help people to connect the dots."
Mr. Henninger is the deputy editorial page editor of The Journal.

GOP Debt Ceiling Temper Tantrum: So Much for 'Acting Like Adults'



Shortly after the 2010 midterms, John Boehner looked ahead to how he'd deal with the debt ceiling as the Speaker of the House. "I've made it pretty clear to [my caucus] that as we get into next year, it's pretty clear that Congress is going to have to deal with [the debt limit]," Boehner said. "We're going to have to deal with it as adults. Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations and we have obligations on our part."
Is anyone, anywhere, willing to make the argument that House Republicans are dealing with this issue "as adults"?
Yesterday, with leading Republican negotiators in the bipartisan debt-reduction talks quitting the process, we didn't see political maturity; we saw a dangerous temper tantrum.
The two Republicans in the talks, Representative Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, and Senator Jon Kyl, the minority whip, had no intention of actually negotiating. Negotiations require listening to those on the other side and giving them something they want in exchange for some of your goals.
That's what this seems to boil down to: Republicans were incensed that Democrats want something out of this deal. It was as if Cantor was saying, "You don't understand, this is our hostage strategy. You're not allowed to ask for anything."
That's not really an exaggeration. As far as GOP leaders are concerned, they picked the game, so they also get to pick the rules. Republicans choose the policy goal (debt reduction); Republicans choose the solution (massive spending cuts); Republicans choose what gets taken off the table (tax increases); Republicans choose what Democrats are permitted to propose; and Republicans choose when the negotiations end.
After making all of this clear, Republicans urged President Obama to go along with what they perceive as "a bipartisan plan."
For those who've succumbed to madness, "bipartisan" apparently means "Republicans get what they want and Democrats shut up."
As things stand, Dems have reportedly agreed to about $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. Though accounts vary as to exactly what Democrats want in exchange, they seem to be looking for roughly $400 billion in new revenue, including ending tax subsidies to Big Oil and capping deductions for the very wealthy.
These savings would, of course, be applied directly to deficit reduction, which Republicans claim as their top priority. But it's never that simple -- they want to reduce the debt, but only on their terms.
At this point, GOP leaders insist they won't even consider talking to Dems until the party agrees to take the increased revenue off the table. If Republican "adults" still exist, they're hiding well.

Republicans Walk Out on Budget Talks




June 23, 2011
Congressional Republicans walked out of budget talks on Thursday over how to extend U.S. borrowing and avoid a looming debt default. "The Republican walkout should not result in the president and vice president capitulating to Republican demands," Sen. Bernie Sanders said.
 
"Poll after poll shows that the American people do not agree with the Republican approach, which suggests that the wealthiest people in the country and the largest corporations should be exempt from participating in deficit reduction.
"The American people do not believe, as the Republicans do, that the budget should be solely balanced on the backs of the middle class, the elderly, the sick, the children and the poor.  The American people want shared sacrifice and President Obama must not yield one inch from that principle." 

Why Eric Cantor Bailed

The GOP leader ostensibly walked out of budget talks with Joe Biden because the Democrats wouldn’t budge on tax hikes. But the move was also part of a tug-of-war with House Speaker John Boehner, who reportedly received word of the pullout only moments before it was leaked to the press. Patricia Murphy on the tensions inside the GOP—and why the final negotiations will come down to Obama and Boehner.

June 23, 2011 11:19 PM EDT
In the end, Eric Cantor took a hike—away from the interminable budget talks with the Democrats, and perhaps from his own House speaker as well.

The majority leader, the GOP’s go-to guy in negotiations with Joe Biden over the looming debt-ceiling crisis, infuriated Democrats on Thursday by announcing he is bowing out of the discussions. That is, until the other party abandons the idea of any tax increase whatsoever to bring down the ballooning national debt.
By single-handedly bailing out, Cantor puts the onus of finding an elusive deal back on John Boehner, the man who assigned the majority leader to the thankless task in the first place. The fact that Cantor reportedly gave the House speaker just a moment's notice of his decision before the news leaked to the press only reinforced the widespread belief on Capitol Hill that the two men are more rivals than teammates, especially when it comes to the loyalties of the large and powerful freshman class.
No one could imagine Steny Hoyer doing such a thing to Nancy Pelosi, despite their political differences.
One indication of why Cantor may have abruptly pulled out of the talks came when White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed that Boehner and President Obama met privately Wednesday night. Carney said the meeting was "following up on conversations they had on the golf course on Saturday” during their 18-hole summit.
With the two principals already at the table, aides say the inevitable endgame ofObama and Boehner hammering out the final deal appeared to already be under way—rendering moot anything that Cantor could have done in the six-way talks with Biden.

After news broke of the majority leader's surprise maneuver, Boehner and Cantor hardly presented a united front.
Congress Cantor
J. Scott Applewhite / AP Photo
Cantor issued a statement explaining his blockbuster move but kept an unusually low profile for the rest of the day. At one point in the afternoon, when the House visitors’ gallery was cleared by Capitol police to eject a protester, reporters joked that Cantor must have put the man up to it to distract journalists from his comings and goings.
Boehner, on the other hand, stayed out front during the day, hosting his regularly scheduled Thursday press conference, where he was bombarded with questions about Cantor’s decision.
When asked if he had encouraged Cantor to break off the negotiations, Boehner said only that he sympathized with Cantor, clearly distancing himself from his deputy’s move. “I understand why he did what he did,” Boehner said. “But I think those talks could continue if they're willing to take the tax hikes off the table.” By bailing on the talks, Cantor has effectively shifted the negotiations from the congressional working group to Obama and Boehner, leaving anxious House Democrats without a representative in the negotiations and openly concerned that the president will strike a deal they won’t like. “We’re worried,” said Rep. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, who compared Cantor’s withdrawal from the talks to playing Russian roulette with a loaded gun. “First, do we play brinkmanship until the end and risk doing real damage to the economy? And two, what kind of deal is it going to be?”

“Cantor is basically saying to Boehner, ‘Now it’s your problem.’”
House Democrats are still angry with Obama for cutting a deal with Boehner last December to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, over the loud objections of much of his party.
With that history casting a shadow on the current negotiations, Welch said Democrats are not prepared to support the president on any agreement he achieves. “If they come back with a deal that is draconian, both to individuals and the economy, that’s a problem,” Welch said. “I support negotiations and I oppose default, but it’s not a blank check.” 
Democratic House members say they are most concerned about cuts to Medicare benefits under a possible Boehner-Obama compromise. Divisions over Medicare have even made their way into the White House, where aides say the economic team wants cuts to the program to speed deficit reduction, but Obama’s political team is insisting that protecting Medicare for seniors is too powerful a campaign issue for the Democrats to surrender before the 2012 elections.
Beyond heightening worries among House Democrats, Cantor’s move saddles Boehner with the nearly impossible task of finding a deal that will significantly cut the deficit without raising taxes. Cantor has repeatedly made the point that House Republicans do not have the votes to increase taxes to any degree, especially with almost 90 GOP freshmen who have pledged to oppose any hike.
“Cantor is basically saying to Boehner, ‘Now it’s your problem,’” a Republican aide said.
Rep. Scott Garrett, the No. 2 Republican on the House Budget Committee, said the GOP would be willing to end some tax breaks and subsidies to increase government revenue, but agreed with Cantor that rank-and-file Republicans would probably never vote to pass an agreement that increases taxes on individuals or corporations.
“This is a teachable moment for the White House,” Garrett said. “In the eight years that I’ve been here no one has convinced me that you can raise taxes and not hurt the economy.”
So what drove Cantor out the door of the Biden talks?
A Democratic aide who has been briefed on the negotiations said Cantor removed himself from the working group when Democrats proposed that tax increases be part of the equation to cut at least $2 trillion from the deficit over the next several years.
“He was engaged, I think he wanted to be there,” the aide said. “But when revenues came up, he shook his head and leaned back and said, ‘That’s it.’”
From the beginning of the year, Cantor and other House leaders have insisted that tax increases on individuals or businesses not be part of the discussions to raise the debt ceiling, even as they repeated that “everything must be on the table,” in the Biden negotiations.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Biden group, said he learned of Cantor’s decision when he was at the White House on Thursday morning—only after the news had broken in the press and Cantor called the vice president to tell him of his decision. Van Hollen said he was “disappointed.”
“The speaker of the House said it was time for an adult moment,” Van Hollen said. “Adult moments mean it's time for making tough decisions.”
With the gulf between Democrats and Republicans as significant as when the Biden talks began, Boehner said he expected to hear from the president about launching one-on-one negotiations.
But the speaker would not entertain questions about what Republicans would be willing to agree to cut in order to meet the looming August 2 deadline, when the American government will reach its debt limit and be forced to default on its obligations.
“If ands and buts were candy and nuts,” Boehner said, “every day would be Christmas.”