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."