E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) both spoke on the Senate floor this morning to tee up their positions ahead of the deficit meetings at the White House Thursday.
Reid said it’s up to the Republican Party to compromise and move away from their position of no tax revenues in a deficit deal. He said these talks will determine the character of the GOP.
"Will they be the party that came to Washington to help govern, to craft solutions to difficult issues facing this nation in cooperation with patriots on both sides of the aisle?” Reid said. “Or will they be the kind of single-issue, ideological party who walks away from reasonable compromise for the sake of politics? That is the question.”
He quoted from New York Times columnist David Brooks yesterday, "The Mother of All No-Brainers," that challenged "responsible Republicans" to step up and make a deal.
"David Brooks, conservative columnist, said this,” Reid said. “The Republican Party has been taken over by ideologues either devoted to or terrified by Grover Norquist and his no-tax pledge."
McConnell defended the Republican position against raising taxes.
"We're eager to meet with the president to see if he's really willing to do something big here for the country,” McConnell said. “We don't think it's absolutist to oppose stimulus spending. We don't think it's maximalist to oppose hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes in the middle of a jobs crisis. We'd have a better term for it: common sense."
Leave a Comment:
And so it goes on. Harry Reid may be one of the worst Majority Leaders ever and McConnell isn't much better on the minority side.
Harry is sure worried about what the GOP can and can't do. Maybe he should be more concerned in coming up with a budget, a debt ceiling agreement, and entitlement reform, that can get a majority of votes in the Senate.
Hi Kirby. Sadly, you may be totally correct about Reid.
On the other hand, all those smart Republicans haven't managed to slip one past him yet, have they?
From afar you may wonder how the hell Sharon Angle got so close to winning the election, but then you see the man in action. Is this the best Nevada can do? Harry Reid or Sharon Angle? What is scarier is that in the Senate we have the choice of Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell. If that is not a false choice I don't know what is. Harry Reid makes Dick Durban attractive and Rand Paul and Tom Coburn are the voice of reason.
Teapublicans can't add for sh1t !?! So how the hell can they govern without the most minor of common sense ?!? Proof / Example: Um, they are Teapublicans !!!
common sense = foreign concept to Teapublican's...
It's a shame even with all their money they still can't BUY any... lol
Welcome to ConservatiVille - Land of the ignorant and home of the afraid...
It is Federal Law that the Senate pass a budget every year. Yet Reid has failed to do so.
Reid therefore is in violation of the law. Yet here he is spewing forth about someone else's abilities to lead.
I'm no psychologist, although I do sometimes play one on TV, but that is called projection.
The budget is not up to Reid alone...
Reid has been AWOL for years. He's AWOL today. Instead of being critical of the GOP, what's Senate Majority Leader Reid's plan for a budget? He's had months to answer the question, but yet he refuses to do so, instead he uses his time to be critical of others, others that do have a plan.
True fielden... hence the need for him to lead!
Well SPANKY. they do pass a bugdet every year, just not a balanced budget.
IF the GOP had passed balanced budgets when the were in charge for TWELVE (12) years they were in charge, we wouldn't be seeing the mess we have now.
The TRILLIONS of dollars the GOP dwindled away on god knows what, put us in the position we are in today.
Maybe it is a foreign concept but at least it is a concept unlike what the lotus eating liberals believe.
What are all of you talking about. Harry Reid did pass a budget for 2011 and now working on 2012. Just because it is written does not make it so. Come on people! Republicans come on these posts and tell you Obama was born in Kenya, Exxon is a "small business" and needs tax subsidies, and it is not in your best interest to have health care and you buy it all? Let's wake up a little!
Well CCHuck, They don't pass a budget every year. Congress when it was under total democratic control last year neglected to pass a budget to cover this FY. The Republician house has already passed a FY 2012 budget, but the Senate controlled by Democrats voted it down.
And as a FYI, nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that Congress has to pass a balanced budget!
Let's see the National Debit under President Bush only increased a little over 5 trillion in his 8 years in office. obama has made it go up 4+ trillion in his just 3 years in office. The largest FY deficit ever under the 8 years of President Bush's leadership was 480 billion. obama has had 2 straight years of 1.6 trillion yearly deficits & his project defict for next year is 1.3 trillion.
So please it you want to play the blame game for the national debit, let's not forget to include your looney president!
It is becoming more apparent every day that the conservatives cannot govern. They want to destroy the very government that they have been elected to serve.
Part of governing is coming up with a budget. Something the Democrats seem totally befuddled about accomplishing for years now.
Ahh yes... and the primary goal of any party is to remove the sitting president by making him fail, thus making america fail. Yeah, that's a great strategy... for the people right? GTFOH!
Ron, Ron, Ron ...
Don't you know? Of course, you know.
Conservatives don't WANT to govern.
Conservatives want government to die, but preferably slowly, so that they can pillage it first.
Ron, was that a Freudian slip? LOL!
Ron... Politicians are elected to serve the people, not the government!
Good point Joey:
The government's job is to serve the people. Those in government need to be finding solutions to problems, not playing childish games. The debt issue is real with very significant consequences.
Ron the government's job used to be to serve the people, that has changed over time, I can not remember any policy or law that was designed and passed to "serve the people", now all the legislation is created to hoodwink the people into thinking they are being served while actually serving our wealthy masters, Capitalism can be an evil all destroying force when allowed to run a muck, it ruined our nation and made us the laughing stock of the world.
One wonders how Mr. Brooks feels about the hundreds of billions that were given to the unions from the Obama's bailouts.
Why are Republicans signing pledges to Norquist, who has ties to radical Islamists who wish to do the USA harm.? Shouldn't patriotic Republicans take their oath to "defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America" more seriously than the pledge they made to Norquist and his jihadist buddies? Whose side are the Republican on anyway? Whose side are you on?
americanthinker.com/2010/03/grover_norquists_jihad.html
Grover Norquist's ties to Islamic supremacists and jihadists have been known for years. He and his Palestinian wife, Samah Alrayyes -- who was director of communications for his Islamic Free Market Institute until they married in 2005 -- are very active in "Muslim outreach." Just six weeks after 9/11, The New Republic ran an exposé explaining how Norquist arranged for George W. Bush to meet with fifteen Islamic supremacists at the White House on September 26, 2001 -- to show how Muslims rejected terrorism. Wrote TNR author Franklin Foer:
Unfortunately, many of the leaders present hadn't unambiguously rejected it. To the president's left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas "freedom fighters." Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that "we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list." And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans that "America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come."
I think it's silly signing any "pledges". A representative can pledge to do anything he/she wants without signing a meaningless piece of paper. That, and their voting record, is what their constituents can use to deem them worthy, or not worthy, to be re-elected.
Some of Grover Norquists affiliations:
Looks like this guy is going to be criticized no matter where he goes.
Let's support the President. Don't give in Sir.
Yes! I'm with you Job1. Hang tough, Mr. President.
It may be "common sense" to people who have no clue about economics but it isn't to actual economists, Mr. McConnell.
The talk about a balanced budget amendment has also raised it's ugly head in these 'talks'. Even Alexander Hamilton, arguably the first free market capitalist economist in the US, fought to preserve the ability for the US government to acquire debt. Do we have too much debt, now? In absolute terms, yes. As a percentage of the GDP, no, but it does need to be lower and interest rates a little higher so that the government has some breathing/working room to ease unemployment and recession, when they occur. (Yes, I do know that we are in a recession and unemployment is too high, I'm talking in general terms, but because of the Bush caused recession, they do not have those tools available to them.)
Despite the pronouncement from the right, we do not have a spending problem (other than we are not spending enough, just take a look at our crumbling infrastructure), we have a revenue problem. Too many high income people and corporations are not paying their fair share. (Here comes the canard about 47% are paying no income taxes, never mind they are too poor to afford decent housing or proper nutrition. According to the people screaming about this the loudest, we should be taking even more from them than the payroll taxes they do pay. The term 'heartless' comes to mind.)
Matthew -
What strikes me as odd is that the 'usual' Congressional negotiators could NOT come up with a 'deal' to raise the debt limit, and 'kicked it' upstairs to the President and the Speaker of the House to make the deal.
Now WHY would they do that?
IMHO, All of these 'negotiations' is kabuki theatre. There were never any 'negotiations' in the first place. All of this was 'planned' because we ALL know that Eric Cantor is a lousy negotiator. We also know that John Boehner is not the greatest negotiator either.
So the question is this - why is THIS PARTICULAR debt limit battle so important?
The sticking point is raising taxes on the top 2% of this country. OK, fine.
So who has the most to GAIN or LOSE from us NOT raising the debt limit?
Has anyone even thought about WHOM is GRANTING this 14 TRILLION dollar debt service? Who do we know has enough 'juice' to 'cover' 14 TRILLION dollars in debt?
Eric Cantor? Please.
John Boeher? Are you serious?
President Obama? You have got to be kidding, right?
So who REALLY has the 'juice' to cover this debt if we do raise the debt ceiling?
So who would benefit if we do not raise the debt ceiling, which would result in the crashing of the American economy?
Can anyone answer the above question as to WHOM is granting this 'debt' (that would assume that they would have enough money to cover 14 TRILLION DOLLARS), then we can argue the merits of what the Republicans and Democrats are planning on doing to OUR economy. We can then extrapolate what BENEFIT the raising of the debt ceiling would be for our benefactor(s) that are carrying - and making money on - our debt.
Anyone?
You people need to get off the "Bush caused recession" mantra because you come off as being totally clueless. If the real cause of the recession is forgotten then we are doomed to repeat it.
Well, Pietro, according to CEPR, China owns about $1.6 trillion of it (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/chinas-purchase-of-us-treasury-bonds-keeps-the-dollar-over-valued) but from what I understand (don't have time to research it more right now), most of it is 'the US public' through Treasury 'paper' (look at the money in your pocket, it is a Treasury note).
This report also gives some indication but it is kind of indirect: http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-21-10bud.pdf
But your point of 'following the money' is so true is so many things, especially politics.
P.S. Sorry, Rick, denying the facts doesn't make them any less true. Bush's policies pushed the economy over the edge into recession. Deal with it.
Matthew, most informed people say the sub prime meltdown caused the recession. Do you not agree and if you do can you tell me what part George W. Bush played in the sub prime meltdown?
I did not think you could.
I agree that the sub-prime meltdown was the main cause, but it was not the only cause. It was Bush defunding the regulatory agencies and the deregulation that allowed it to happen. Not to mention the monetary policies his administration followed. There were quite a few contributing factors, but the Bush policies and their results are what pushed it over the edge . . . some, including myself, would say it was on purpose, but that's another discussion and I have to get back to work.
Impatient much, Rick?
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999
as the name implies was passed in 1999 a full two years before Bush took office. To get it out of committee, the republicans allowed the democrats to attached a beered up version of the CRA which required lending institutions to prove they were not redlining. That is what caused the whole mess. Brooksley Born warned that the derivatives market was opaque and could be a castastrophe looking for a place to happen but Clinton ignored her. Bush warned twice and his administration warned at least 17 times but attempts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack were thwarted by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Charles Schummer and the congressional black caucus.
The only purpose your insistance serves is to lay blame on the republicans and smacks of liberal democrats methods of misinformation for political gain.
Here is the link for your perusal:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm
That old canard has been laid to rest long ago. Talk about being stuck on a mantra. You are not worth the time since all you have are a few Republican talking points.
Take some time to read a few books about economics history (it started long before the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act . . . wait a minute! Phil Gramm was a Republican! in fact, they were all Republicans! oopsy, there, Rick . . . and I never said I thought Clinton should have signed it) and then we can talk.
And you are a typical lotus eating liberal automaton. I think you should stop chowing down on the tapioca you are getting down at the local party meeting house.
Rick-312779 -
I love how a GOP collaborative bill was the DEMS fault! Classic! Then you have the long-winded assumptive rationalization that follows. What's your next work of creative fiction? LOL.
I think Matt hits it dead on. Oh, love how you ran from the Fox News debate. Not that I blame you.
So you are saying Bush's tax cuts and wars was responsible for a world wide recession? It is lotus eaters like you that got us into this mess in the first place. Peraonally I'm more than tired of the democratic party using our tax dollars to buy votes. And I did not get my information from Fox News and I definitely did not get it from one of your biased sources. I had enough ambition to actually go out and research it instead of just being spoon fed like you people. The source I posted since you obviously did not bother to check it out is the San Jose State University Department of Economics. Please explain how that was "creative" fiction. You all are worse than dumb, you don't want to know.
OK, I will. That is not a properly prepared research paper. Far from it. I don't see any references. I don't see a name. I don't even think I saw a date. Put another way, if I give you a link to one of my papers will you accept it as fact, or as anything other than creative fiction...
Rick, I'm not going to attack you from here but simply make the point, that it is you who are being mislead and you are accusing others of what you yourself have fallen pray to.
You are being mislead. I am not a liberal. My stand on abortion, gun control, immigration, and other issues is conservative. My understanding of economics comes from years of study and an advanced college education.
I'm sure we both have our country's best interests at heart. The GOP are lying to you on a scale far beyond that of the Dems. Both are profoundly flawed.. but the GOP are lost in their own ideology and seem unable to see THEIR failed policy for what it is.
I'm sorry you can't see the truth.
I believe President Obama to be a good man, but he is the poorest haggler that has ever been President, he has caved into the Republicans ridiculous demands on every major issue that has come up, turning many useful and fair bills into worthless giveaways for the rich and powerful, there is no reason to believe the debt ceiling fiasco to be different, why would the Republicans think otherwise? I personally got involved in the efforts to get Obama elected, I have been disappointed repeatedly in the Presidents lack of conviction and unwillingness to fight the good fight, he has given into the rich and powerful without fail and it will be the poor and middleclass that have to shoulder the burden of his actions for years to come. At this point I will vote for Obama in the next election but I will not be a vocal supporter, he has made it difficult to get enthused about his accomplishments, missed opportunities for positive change is what I remember. Obama should be skeptical about his handlers advising him that the base will vote for him regardless, if Obama let's the Republicans make cuts without removing the ludicrous tax loopholes for Corporations and Wall Street traders, doesn't require the wealthy to feel their fair share of pain, come election day I for one will just grab a six-pack and watch a good movie instead of going to the polls, it will be time to abandon our political system all together and begin looking for alternative methods to bring about change.
Unfortunately, I have to agree...
When my wife broke her back and was off work for 3 months, we used common sense.
Unless we wanted to lose our home, we had to cut spending AND raise revenue. We sold a car and several items so that we could pay the bills. I took on additional work to increase revenue.
Every business understands that expenses and revenue are part of the same equation. When a business relies too much on one side, they lose business. Every member of Congress who is a business person should be forced to show their business books. Let's see if they increased revenue since 2008?
First; Ms Smith?? "the hundreds of billions that were given to the unions from the Obama's bailouts" Really?? You have any proof of that, or just making crap up?
Second; as far as the GOP being fit to govern: What were they doing during the presidents newser last week?? Not working on the budget--but holding a dog and pony show regarding another big push for a Balanced Budget Amendment. Thse guys won't compromise on closing tax loopholes on the owners of corporate jets, yachts, and racehorses--but they want to waste time on trying to get 2/3 agreement in both houses--then 3/4 of the states. Given the current political climate we couldn't get 2/3 of each House in Congress to agree that puppy hamburgers are bad idea.
And today?? Is the GOP Leadership working on the budget??? Nope. Too busy playing third graders by trying to crash the presidents "Tweet Town Hall". And they wonder why no one takes Boehner, Cantor, or (#1 Priority? Not Jobs, but to defeat the president) McConnell.
Senator Reid has been reborn. He now sees the need to compromise. Of course, it only involves compromise by the Republicans. Maybe he hasn't changed much at all.
To quote the article, "Will they (the Republicans) be the party that came to Washington to help govern, to craft solutions to difficult issues facing this nation in cooperation with patriots on both sides of the aisle?" Reid said. "Or will they be the kind of single-issue, ideological party who walks away from reasonable compromise for the sake of politics? That is the question."
My only question is this. Is Senator Reid willing to re-open the National Health debate and allow for revisions to scale it way back as the Republicans desire? Certainly leave in the ban on pre-existing conditions; add medical tort reform; eliminate the mandates to buy insurance or be fined (which is nothing more that a driving force toward government single payer mandates); fund government audits of Medicare and Medicaid to cut out waste and fraud perpetrated by health care providers. Yes, Senator Reid, I for one would like to see you compromise your hard line positions on National Health. But I won't hold my breathe (and suffer cardiac arrest) waiting. You have not demonstrated the ability to compromise on any important issues.
So Senator Reid, I apologize in advance for ignoring your view. It is not worth the digital space it has used up.
Sen Reid is stating the obvious, the GOP will not be able to run the senate because of the type of challenges they have used against the democrats. Sen McConnell's whole plan is based on the GOP having a large enough majority to nullify democrat objections. Imagine how he will feel when he has an even smaller minority block.
Senator Reid is a complete IDIOT.
Compromise is when two parties who have similar but slightly different views about how to solve a problem come together and each give a little to accomplish the common goal.
It is impossible to compromise with crap. Crap is all we have seen from the Democratic side. I salute the stalwart stance of our Republican leaders.
There are 22 Democratic senators coming up for re-election this cycle. Republicans only need a net win of three of those seats to gain the majority in the Senate. That will push old Whorehouse Harry Reid to the back of the bus. Way in back.
It would seem obvious that the Republicans are irresponsibly stubborn and completely arrogant in their loyalty to the very few, their strong supporters, and bold and even 'cocky' in their belligerent neglect of concern for the majority, including the total middle class. The question then is how can they have any confidence in surviving their totally biased and irresponsible position? Clearly they believe that the support provided them by Special Interests and the influential, powerful and very wealthy will get them through by providing them the power and substantial finances they depend on to con and manipulate public opinion ... and it is totally apparent that they have become greatly emboldened by recent successes with that support (2000, 2004 & 2010). Said another way, with the backing they have they think they can do whatever they want and just take for granted that they can con and manipulate the public.