Will policymakers find a compromise before the fiscal cliff?

Note: text highlighted in gray and within brackets is my own opinion:
[Finally, a political story that tells it straight. Does anyone else ever get tired of stories about political posturing? I want to know what our policymakers are talking about and doing, not reporters' speculations on their motives. The latter is usually just depressing/frustrating for everybody, anyway.]

PROGRESS SEEN IN LAST-MINUTE 'FISCAL CLIFF' TALKS
By ALAN FRAM and JULIE PACE (Associated Press) — Dec. 31 11:45 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — Working against a midnight deadline, negotiators for the White House and congressional Republicans narrowed their differences Monday on legislation to avert across-the-board tax increases.

Congressional officials familiar with talks between Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said one major remaining sticking point was whether to postpone spending cuts that are scheduled to begin on Jan 1.

Republicans want to replace across-the-board reductions with targeted cuts elsewhere in the budget, while the White House and Democrats want to offset at least some of the so-called sequester with the revenue from tax increases. Senate Democrats were pushing hard against a GOP proposal for just a three-month delay in the across-the-board cuts.

[As far as I can see, so far Republicans and Democrats agree they need to spend less, but D want to cut spending a little bit across the board while R want to concentrate cuts on targeted areas. To cushion the blow to all government agencies/projects' budgets, D also want to raise taxes. D also want to start with the spending cuts right away, while R want to delay the cuts. For what, I don't know.]

At the same time, Democrats said the two sides were closing in on an agreement over taxes. They said the White House had proposed blocking an increase for most Americans, while letting rates rise for individuals with incomes of $400,000 a year and $450,000 for couples, a concession from President Barack Obama's campaign call to set the levels at $200,000 and $250,000.

[Thank heaven for some evidence, at least, of a willingness to make some concessions. Concessions are essential in finding compromise. The politics of this country were purposefully set up under the idea that people with different views would be able to balance one another and find good, reasonable compromises. We sorely need people with a variety of opinions, but at the same time those people have to be willing to listen to other ideas and, at times, compromise a few of their own. Just because you give ground on some issues doesn't necessarily mean your ideas are flawed. It might just mean the country isn't ready for them yet.]

Any overall deal was also likely to include a provision to prevent a spike in milk prices with the new year, extend unemployment benefits due to expire and protect doctors who treat Medicare patients from a 27 percent cut in fees.

Despite the movement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned that differences remained without spelling out what they were and said cooperation would be needed by both sides.

[It's frustrating not to fully understand what's going on in these talks because we don't have all the pieces. I want to know what differences remain and what overtures of cooperation policymakers from both sides are making.]

"Negotiations are continuing as I speak," said Reid, D-Nev., as the Senate began an unusual New Year's Eve session. "But we really are running out of time. Americans are still threatened with a tax hike in just a few hours."

Liberal Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, took to the Senate floor after Reid to warn Democratic bargainers against lowering levies on large inherited estates and raising the income threshold at which higher tax rates would kick in.

"No deal is better than a bad deal. And this look like a very bad deal the way this is shaping up," said Harkin.

He suggested instead letting tax rates revert to the higher levels that existed when the economy was strong under President Bill Clinton, adding, "I ask, what's so bad about that?"

[It kind of sounds like Harkin is telling D not to make any more concessions on taxes. He also supports the raise taxes idea. See above.]

Both the House and Senate were on meeting on the final day of the year, although there was no expectation that a compromise could be approved by both houses by midnight, even if one were agreed to.

[Wow, we have become a cynical people indeed.]

Instead, the hope of the White House and lawmakers was to seal an agreement, enact it and send it to Obama for his signature before taxpayers felt the impact of higher income taxes or federal agencies began issuing furloughs or taking other steps required by spending cuts.

Regardless of the fate of the negotiations, it appeared all workers would experience a cut in their take-home pay with the expiration of a two-year cut in payroll taxes.

Officials who described the negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, citing the confidential nature of the discussions.

[Why are they confidential? This is something that affects all of us.]

A spokesman for McConnell, Don Stewart, said the Kentucky lawmaker and Biden "continued their discussion late into the evening and will continue to work toward a solution." Underscoring the flurry of activity, another GOP aide said the two men had conversations at 12:45 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday.

Unless an agreement is reached and approved by Congress by the start of New Year's Day, more than $500 billion in 2013 tax increases will begin to take effect and $109 billion will be carved from defense and domestic programs.

Though the tax hikes and budget cuts would be felt gradually, economists warn that if allowed to fully take hold, their combined impact — the so-called fiscal cliff — would rekindle a recession.

[Economists? What economists? Citing vague sources isn't helpful.]

"This whole thing is a national embarrassment," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said Monday on MSNBC, adding that any solution Congress would swallow at this late stage would be inconsequential. "We still haven't moved any closer to solving our nation's problems."

In a move that was sure to irritate Republicans, Reid was planning — absent a deal — to force a Senate vote Monday on Obama's campaign-season proposal to continue expiring tax cuts for all but those with income exceeding $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.

In one sign of movement on Sunday, Republicans dropped a demand to slow the growth of Social Security and other benefits by changing how those payments are increased each year to allow for inflation.

[Again, some evidence of concessions being made. But it's not yet enough.]

Obama had offered to include that change, despite opposition by many Democrats, as part of an earlier, failed bargaining with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, over a larger deficit reduction agreement. But Democrats said they would never include the new inflation formula in the smaller deal now being sought to forestall wide-ranging tax boosts and budget cuts, and Republicans relented.

"It's just acknowledging the reality," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said of the GOP decision to drop the idea.

There was still no final agreement on the income level above which decade-old income tax cuts would be allowed to expire. While Obama has long insisted on letting the top 35 percent tax rate rise to 39.6 percent on earnings over $250,000, he'd agreed to boost that level to $400,000 in his talks with Boehner. GOP senators said they wanted the figure hoisted to at least that level.

[Thank you for that much, Mr. President.]

Senators said disagreements remained over taxing large inherited estates. Republicans want the tax left at its current 35 percent, with the first $5.1 million excluded, while Democrats want the rate increased to 45 percent with a smaller exclusion.

[Ten percent seems like a big hike, D, but I like the line of thought. Could there be room for compromise here?]

The two sides were also apart on how to keep the alternative minimum tax from raising the tax bills of nearly 30 million middle-income families and how to extend tax breaks for research by business and other activities.

Republicans were insisting that budget cuts be found to pay for some of the spending proposals Democrats were pushing.

These included proposals to erase scheduled defense and domestic cuts exceeding $200 billion over the next two years and to extend unemployment benefits. Republicans complained that in effect, Democrats would pay for that spending with the tax boosts on the wealthy.

"We can't use tax increases on anyone to pay for more spending," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

Both parties also want to block an immediate 27 percent cut in reimbursements to doctors who treat Medicare patients. Republicans wanted to find savings from Obama's health care bill as well as from Medicare providers, while Democrats want to protect the health care law from cuts.

Watch full Obama-Romney debate

By now, there are dozens of analyses and summaries of the presidential debate available from various media outlets. I will not provide another here. Instead, I invite you to watch (or read) the debate yourself, in full, and come to your own conclusions. My advice is that you at least watch the closing statements.

Oct. 3, 2012 Presidential Debate at the University of Denver, provided by 2012 Election Central:
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/10/video-watch-the-first-presidential-debate-from-the-university-of-denver/

Topics Covered: (times are approximate because they include the mediator's questions)
00:00-22:40		The economy: job creation and taxes
22:40-36:20		The economy: national deficit, taxes and Medicaid
36:20-47:04		The economy: entitlements (social security, Medicare)
47:04-52:10		The economy: level of federal regulation on the economy
52:10-1:09:08		Health care: Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")
1:09:08-1:14:20		The role of government (in general)
1:14:20-1:20:16		The role of government in education
1:20:16-1:24:19		What would you do about gridlock in legislature?
1:24:19-1:26:42		Obama's closing statement
1:26:42-1:28:50		Romney's closing statement

Watch for the next debate Oct. 11 between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan!

Brush up on Biden's and Ryan's political histories:
Joe Biden, WhiteHouse.gov
Paul Ryan, GovTrack.us

FOIA Online now live

Today, the Sunshine in Government Blog announced the launch of a new system that it says should help government agencies keep better track of record requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and "make the FOIA process more efficient."

I highly encourage anyone who has ever used FOIA or plans to use it in the future to read more about the new system, FOIA Online, on the blog: "FOIA Online goes live; new tool to track FOIA requests, responses."

Or you could go straight to FOIA Online: foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home

Who is Paul Ryan? Romney's 2012 running mate

	Republican Serving 7th term in the House representing the 1st Congressional District of Wisconsin Chairman of the House Budget Committee Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, "which has jurisdiction over tax policy, Social Security, health care and trade laws." Member of the Subcommittee on Health
Paul Ryan

For more information, see my sources: paulryan.house.gov and govtrack.us

Do you know your congressman? And other legislative questions

Find My Congressman

www.govtrack.us
A great, easy-to-use resource for checking on your local senator or representative- or any senator or representative, for that matter. This site includes links to bills each member of Congress is currently sponsoring (as well as a history of bills he or she has sponsored in the past) and the bill's status, the congressman's political views as compared to the views of all other senators or representatives, how long they've served in their position, what committees they're on and their voting record- how often they miss a vote.

Track a Bill

thomas.loc.gov
This site includes the full text of each bill, a list of related bills, the names of Congress members who are co-sponsoring the bill, and the bill's status, including amendments made. You can also subscribe to updates on the bill's status via email through an RSS feed.
Tweet

Epiphany! On the presidential election

I've always felt a little overwhelmed by the vast information provided by the media coverage of each presidential election. I've thought many times in exasperation, All I want, as a voter, is a comprehensive list of each candidate's views and proposed solutions to key issues (this summer, they appear to be health care, illegal immigration and the economy, with the most emphasis on the last) and a varied sample of situations where they were successful and an analysis of how successful they were based on the circumstances. Is that so hard? Anyone know of a place that has that?

While reading TIME magazine's article "The Real Story of Romney's Olympic Turnaround," a thought suddenly hit me: what I want from the media is roughly equivalent to a resume. A brief overview of why each candidate thinks he (or she) should be elected president of these United States, maybe include a few references (ha, wouldn't you like that job- I wonder if Romney and Obama would be able to come up with enough people to handle the workload it would impose. I guess that's why nobody's ever done it before). The whole election process is like the world's longest, most expensive, complicated, important interview.

As a United States citizen, that makes me feel empowered. We, the citizens, are the ones who decide who to employ. All politicians are supposed to be public servants. The system we have is incredibly smart! Even if it isn't always that way in reality.

"They are not a liability, they are an asset"

CNN en español published an editorial today by columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. about how people who came to the United States illegally should not take offense at the term "illegal immigrant" because, in his words, "Es el saco que le queda." Literally (as far as I could tell), "It's the jacket that fits." A good (not literal) translation would be "It hits the nail on the head." This was an eye-opening editorial for me because I didn't realize some people were offended by the term "illegal immigrant," and after reading what Navarrette wrote I will also promise not to refer to illegal immigrants just as "illegals." But, since I agree with his opinion on the matter, I will keep using the term "illegal immigrant."

For those of you who speak español, I highly recommend the article: OPINIÓN: La incómoda verdad de que los llamen inmigrantes "ilegales"

For those of you who speak a little español, I still highly recommend it- it's good practice, well written, and relevant.

For those of you who don't speak any español, I guess you'll have to be content with the summary I presented above. If you want to know more of what it said, let me know with a comment and I'll expand.

By the way, the title of this post "They are not a liability, they are an asset" is also a quote from Navarrette's editorial. I translated it into English to share because I liked it, and I agree. "They" of course refers to "illegal immigrants."

Follow-up on yesterday's Supreme Court decision

Arizona police face questions after court ruling

Elliot Spagat, Associated Press

TUCSON, Ariz. — Arizona's police chiefs and county sheriffs hoped a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would settle their long-running debate on what role, if any, they should play in immigration enforcement. Instead, the justices' decision to uphold the state's "show me your papers" statute has left them with more questions than answers.

Read the article

More on immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court recently took Arizona's immigration law down a few notches, according to an article by Yahoo! News (see also an excellent Yahoo! blog). A post taken from the real-time conversation-via-Facebook-thread between a Yahoo! reporter and readers summarizes the points the court struck down:

Liz Goodwin Christopher! Hello! The Supreme Court struck down three parts of the law: 1) Making it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work 2) Requiring all immigrants to carry their papers or face a state fine 3) Letting police officers arrest people they suspect are in the country illegally and deportable. So, under the Court's decision, local police officers can ask about immigration status, then call the federal government [ICE] and ask them if they want to deport someone. If the federal government says no, they have to let them go.
Monday, June 25, 2012 about an hour ago

Something I never knew/realized:

Liz Goodwin Hi Angelea, you are pointing out exactly what's so complicated about this case! Even though the commonly used term is "illegal immigrant," it's not actually a crime, federal or state, to lack status in this country.[Not true, because technically, a misdemeanor is considered a crime- albeit one of a minor degree.] (It's a misdemeanor to cross the border illegally, and it's not a crime at all to overstay a visa.) So just because an illegal immigrant is deportable, does not mean he or she is a criminal in any sense of the word.[I absolutely agree with this; I only crossed it out because again, it is technically untrue.] Part of the reason why the justices struck down Arizona's law is that it was trying to criminalize certain things, like seeking work if you are an illegal immigrant, that the federal government specifically chose not to criminalize. The justices ruled that states cannot make their own immigration policies, even if they don't like the federal government's.
Monday, June 25, 2012 at 2:28pm

And because I believe in the importance of representing both sides, and am impressed and gratified by the courtesy Angelea shows. May we all take a note from the "just be nice!" (especially while debating sensitive issues) book:

Angelea Thank You Liz..... but I respectfully disagree with your points that it is not a crime to cross the border illegally. We have laws for great reason's and if 'anyone' breaks those laws..... no matter how small some think they are (misdemeanor) it's still 'illegal' and we must enforce all laws of our land.... The Federal Government's law is that there is a process to come to America 'Legally' yet they refuse to enforce it and that's why the problem has... evolved so greatly.....In order for 'Everyone' to have a Fair chance in coming to America..... Everyone must abide by the correct and legal manner in becoming a 'Legal U.S. Citizen'.... for which I myself Welcome with open arms.... but I don't favor cutting in line.... for want of a better way of putting it.....
Monday, June 25, 2012 about an hour ago

Policy change to deportation of illegal immigrants

This just in from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, announced Friday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

READ THE ARTICLE: Immunity offered to younger immigrants

I don't care if Obama is trying to win more Latino voters with this move, although it seems probable with the upcoming 2012 presidential race. I hope he had other motives to enact the policy change besides that, but that discussion belongs in another post.

The point of this post is merely to state my opinion of this change: I approve. It seems I've been opining on news a lot recently, and I wish I had more time, day to day, to devote to writing my opinions. Unfortunately, since I don't really (have time) my current mindset is: write what I have to say as quickly as possible and clarify (if necessary) later.

I have to admit, the immigration debate- specifically the way the U.S. government handles illegal immigration- is one issue where I have difficulty seeing from one side's point of view. On one hand, the pro-mercy arguments make sense to me: I don't believe we should split up families by deporting a parent while leaving a child, for example. I don't believe immigrants "take away" as many jobs as some people believe, and I certainly don't believe immigration is bad. To me, the term "American" is applicable to a wide population: how many of you that are reading this right now have ancestors, or close family members, that are immigrants? The chances are good. We have people who originate from all over the world, and yet we call ourselves Americans. We call the U.S. our country and our home, and so it is, but it wasn't always that way.

Time to leave off that particular point, since I could go on all day and I think you take my meaning, which is that we could and should stand to be a little more tolerant of the people we see as illegal, since we were once outsiders ourselves.

Related article: Changing the conversation on immigration

I have more difficulty understanding the pro-justice side, aka all those people who are so protective of our borders that they would throw out undocumented immigrants who have been here most of their lives but never caused a criminal (nor, I contend, an economic) problem. I do understand the reasoning behind deporting undocumented individuals with a criminal history, but I definitely don't believe in breaking up families, sending people back who may not even remember their birth country, and deporting workers who are just trying to make ends meet (whether for themselves, here, or for their families elsewhere), if we can help it.

For that reason, I support the DREAM Act, and I approve of the recent policy change that was the inspiration for this post. I sincerely hope this change stays in place (after all, I have yet to hear the Grand Old Party weigh in on it, and there will likely be a lot of backlash from the pro-justice people, maybe providing enough pressure and criticism to alter the policy again in the future) because I believe it's a step in the right direction.

What is the DREAM Act?

---

With respect to my admitted confusion over what I call the "pro-justice side," there are some good levelheaded comments and points made here. Justice and mercy can still have equal parts of the nation's immigration policies.

Calling for peace between religions

His Highness Tui Atua Tupua Tamasese, the head of state in Samoa, recently quoted the Swiss Catholic priest Hans Küng to the participants of a conference on religious diversity at National University of Samoa in April 2012: "There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions; and there will be no peace among the religions without dialogue and cooperation among the religions and civilizations."

I thought of this quote this morning when I read the New York Times' article about an Egyptian court ordering the immediate dissolution of the Islamist-led parliament, a move that practically begs for malcontent between the supporters of the old president and the supporters of the new government. And judging by the article, a lot of people agree with me.

Question is, what does this court hope to accomplish?

Further explanations for "an old hurt"

So, based on the feedback I've been receiving for my post "Opening up an old hurt: the importance of learning from your mistakes," it appears I need to clarify some of the details of the story.

1. My Des News editor's comment was not directed at me, it was just a remark he made in our writer's meeting a couple weeks ago after he assigned deadlines to us for some of our stories. To quote the full quote: "Sports reporters know how to make deadlines. That's why Trent never misses one, because he was a sports reporter for so many years."

   After he said that, I immediately thought to myself, I was a sports reporter, and felt proud. It wasn't until later, the day I wrote "an old hurt," that I realized how terrible I really was at making deadlines in the beginning. (I realized this as I was searching the Web for URLs of my old sports stories to update my newsreel, and it struck me so deep I stopped in the middle of my Web searching and wrote that post.)

2. The editor who pulled me aside and told me I wasn't meeting expectations was a full-time adult staff member, not the professor who was teaching the Daily Universe class. A quick lesson on DU hierarchy: the professor teaching the DU class doubled as editor-in-chief of the paper. Under him were three full-time adult editors, one for digital, one for sports, and one for everything else. Below them were an army of older journalism students employed as editors, designers, and more. Note this hierarchy has been revised since the Daily Universe became simply the Universe.

Any more questions, feel free to ask me. And for the record, just in case this wasn't clear in "an old hurt," I bear no ill will towards the sports editor who pulled me aside and told me I could do better. I hope I'll be able to carry his lesson with me my whole life. I also hope none of my current or future editors will ever be shy about telling me how I can improve.

The internship debate

Just found out I was in the Universe Tuesday: "Paid vs. unpaid: The internship debate." It doesn't look like they used my Excel file with the list of BYU majors that require internships, but the article is there.

Opening up an old hurt: the importance of learning from your mistakes

"Sports reporters know how to make deadlines," my Deseret News editor commented last week.

At the time, I was proud. Today, as I attempt to track down where in the Web universe my old sports articles have ended up, I remembered how truly terrible I was at making deadlines those first two months. I have an excuse- I didn't own a laptop then and it took me that long to find out the HBLL lent laptops to students for free- but I bet my tendency to be late had something to do with the less-than-peachy relationship I first had with my Universe editor and the women's basketball SID (Sports Information Director). I can't believe it took me this long to figure that out, but there it is. And with it returns the unhappy memory of my editor taking me aside one day and telling me I wasn't meeting expectations. I knew I could be better at making deadlines, but up to that point none of my editors had ever complained. I thought they understood my laptop limitations (and I did get much better at making my deadline after I started bringing the HBLL's laptops to the court with me), but I had no idea they also thought my writing was lacking.

Why didn't you tell me? I want to ask. Why didn't you give me things to work on and tell me where I was failing? When I asked what I needed to do better, you said something about my personality maybe not being a good fit for reporting- all I heard was, everything you have done up to now is second-rate, and you will never be able to fix it.

My only consolation that day was a good friend who was there when I needed her, and the knowledge that if I had listened every time somebody told me, you can't do this, I would not be where I am today.

I have many weaknesses. Two in particular keep coming to mind as I sit here writing this: 1) I don't have a very thick skin. I hope to change that, bit by bit, in the coming years. 2) I am very easily distracted. Look at all the time I just wasted getting this little chip off my shoulder when I should have been trying to write an advance for Merrill Osmond's pioneer pageant coming up in July! (I've been putting it off because I'm lacking information I can only get in the interview scheduled for next week, but I can at least look over what I do have again and see if I can prepare any more for it.)

One last thought: I do learn from my mistakes. I'm excellent at it because I'm so well practiced.

And I know how to make deadlines.

Men's role in the Egyptian feminist movement

David Kirkpatrick describes the women's rights issues in Egypt in this January New York Times article. Mozn Hassan, the executive director of Nazra for Feminist Studies, a group which is protesting for women's rights, expressed her frustration that the participants in a past march had to be protected by men. Hassan may be right to worry that calling on men to protect them reinforces the strong patriarchy the group is trying to temper, but I don't think she should limit her resources by not allowing men to help the group. I think it's great that there's a group of men working with the women, and Hassan needs that support or her goal of stopping the abuse of women (traditionally by men in the Egyptian military) will be much more difficult, and longer in coming. Many of the men are husbands and fathers concerned for the welfare of their wives and daughters. I say, good for them! Egypt needs them!

We are the champions!

BYU wins the WCC championship title 78-66, earning spot in NCAA Tournament by Hailey Nickell

Now that I'm no longer the women's basketball reporter, I can say this: I'm so excited for the BYU women's basketball team!

Do electronic billboards distract you?

Two bills from both sides of the state legislature, HB 87 and SB 136, would effectively free billboards from city and county government.

Senate bill would deregulate electronic billboards
Pending legislation frustrates Salt Lake City

Utah County Commission to repay $52M to UTA, speeding FrontRunner South construction

The FrontRunner line to Provo may open in December thanks to a $52M bonds deal the Utah County Commission just authorized.

Family, friends mourn loss of Powell children

Family, friends mourn loss of Powell children
Charlie, 7, and Braden, 5, died in the tragedy

I first heard the news yesterday morning when I picked up the newspaper. When I arrived at my Advanced Print Reporting class, Professor Campbell announced that we were going to "swarm" the story - meaning we were going to cover this breaking news with an article for the Universe. I volunteered to write, others volunteered to interview different people, and we saw what we could accomplish in an hour. My classmate Rebecca finished writing the story when I had to go to work. She ended up writing most of it.

Sad news; good learning experience.

Comedy Sportz reprint

My feature on COMEDY SPORTZ was reprinted in the Daily Universe today; the whole Friday 411 was dedicated to Twenty Provo, the website we started in Dr. Randle's class.

COMEDY SPORTZ: Where random rules