Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-30/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Negotiations to avoid the "fiscal cliff" continue. A fight over U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice heats up. And President Obama lunches with former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The week’s top national stories: what happened and why.
Guests
David Leonhardt
Washington bureau chief for The New York Times.
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.
Ari Shapiro
White House correspondent for NPR.
Friday News Roundup Video
President Barack Obama and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney met for lunch Thursday at the White House. Ari Shapiro of NPR said the menu was one of the only known details of their meeting, which was closed to reporters. "I can't think of a story in my recent memory that had so much interest and so little information," Shapiro said. Wall Street Journal correspondent Laura Meckler said Obama hosted a similar meeting in 2008 when he dined with his Republican challenger, Sen. John McCain. David Leonhardt, Washington bureau chief for The New York Times, added that these sorts of bipartisan meetings are a good thing. "It's a sign of the way things should work in a democracy," Leonhardt said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Government caused financial disaster is on the horizon, what would your panel suggest we do to shelter our savings?
Thank You
I had high hopes that President Obama and the Republicans in the House would agree on a "balanced approach" to the debt problem as outlined in the bipartisan Bowles Simpson or Rivlin Domenici proposals. This would be something like $1 in tax increases and $2 or $3 in real spending cuts. According to CNN this morning, the presidents proposal is only 25 cents in unspecified future spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases. It even includes 50 billion in new stimulus spending increases.I agree with the president that no serious person thinks that we can solve the deficit problem without raising taxes but I haven't seen any serious bipartisan proposals that use anything close to this low number of spending cuts either .Does this have any chance of passing either the house or the senate?
Wouldn't it be a better approach for one side or the other to lay out a balanced plan like 1.6 trillion in tax increases and 4 trillion in real spending cuts ( not fake ones like counting last years "cuts" or counting the savings from ending the two wars) and challenge the other side on it?
For example, the democrats would say "OK here's your 4 trillion in real cuts. We will agree to this as long as you agree to this 1.6 trillion in tax increases. Now its up to your party to be responsible and either vote for it or propose other tax increases instead."
Don't you think the responsible Americans would get behind something like this?
Isn't it high time for the Republican or Democratic Party to be called on EVERY instance of political obstructionism such as the Susan Rice issue? Is every single element of doing the country's business going to have to yield to this sometimes ridiculous kind of bickering? How someone could have the audacity to call Susan Rice "not too bright" given her extraordinary education, credentials and experience and not be shown to be a grandstanding obstructionist, is proof that the media is not exposing the gridlock, waste of time, and tragic deterioration that has befallen truly great and beautiful statesmanship that use to represent constituents?
Hasn't the Benghazi tragedy has been scrutinized to the point where it is fairly obvious that it was nothing more than a very unfortunate event that could probably not have even been avoided? We elected our President and that officeholder deserves our and Congresses respect. Rarely in history has a President had such obstructionism interfere with their choice of cabinet member, particularly Secretary of State. With the challenges in the world, that could have a HUGE impact on our lives here, don't we need the cabinet member that an experienced President thinks is best?
With truly urgent and critically important issues facing us here, like tweaking the health care programs and getting the health care industry to where it is excellent AND fiscally sound, why are these so-called representatives allowed to be wasting time, money, and our patience instead of working toward solutions?
The more important question may be why are we, the voters, and the media that has the ability and responsibility to show and report these abuses allowing the disgraceful IDIOCY that has become American politics?
Jeff
Indianapolis, IN
This whole economic crisis was created by the T-party/Republicans last year. With each T-Party/Republican solution,that Obama has accepted,things keep getting worse. A ratings down grade then,now the fiscal cliff. Their solution this week? Have the debt ceiling increase on a monthly basis instead of annually.I swear I think the T-Party/Republicans are the U.S. Branch of alQaeda. They look like Mr. Potter of "It`s a Wonderful Life",demanding the economy be crashed,so he can buy up everything for pennies,and pay desperate and frightened employees less.
Look at Europe and their right wing 'Austerity' program.The NeoCons there are elated,with unemployment over 11%.
I would like your guests' comments on two ideas.
First, I'd like to see the president go on tv directly to the American people and do what he should have done six weeks or so into his presidency: Make a clear, concise case for his policies, with special emphasis on the stagnation of middle class wages and on how the major risks/events of life--education, medical care, and retirement--and more and more being borne by individuals rather than collectively, as they once were. He needs to make clear that only when we all prosper can our society work, and also to make clear EXACTLY HOW his policies, especially his health care plan, are ways to ensure the prosperity of all.
Second, I'd like to see a Nixon-to-China moment. I'd like the president to reach out to business owners and assure them that he wants them to succeed, and that he is ready to discuss tax, fiscal, and regulatory policy, to ensure that they are not only sensibly written but fairly and sensibly enforced. And then he must add that business must produce their goods and services bearing in mind that they have responsbilities to more than their shareholders, but also to their employees, to the larger community, and to the planet.
I think if he can do these two things well and persuade some influential people, his presidency will flourish and we will all benefit as a result. What are your guests' thoughts?
I had great hope when I heard House and Senate Republicans express an openness to negotiation on a hike in income tax rates. I was even more encouraged when I heard the White House say they were open to negotiating the rate of increase. However, these hopes were dashed when the White House put forward an initial offer that was so ridiculous it served as a non-starter.
How can productive negotiations proceed when such an initial offer appears to be obstructionist and tone deaf? Shouldn't the White House have attempted a legitimate first pass?
THX- $11.38- So if you gut the government by defunding its legimate roles you negate the "full faith and credit of the United States" (social contract) and make your currency play money. You can have all the moopoly money you want for ten Euros... so hoard it up.
Clifford wrote: "This whole economic crisis was created by the T-party/Republicans last year"
The following and the $16,000,000,000,000.00 federal debt were caused last year by the T-party? Gee how did I miss that!
"The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues is $200 trillion, nearly thirteen times the debt as stated by the U.S. Treasury.
Notice that these figures, too, are incomplete, since they omit the unfunded liabilities of state and local governments, which are estimated to be around $38 trillion."
Several here have recommended 50/50 compromise, but the T-party fascists will only move right on their demands the more slack socially responsible politicians give. This parallels Weimar in the late 20s.
When are the folks in Washington going to figure out that the 80% of middle class people outside the Beltway could care less about posturing "for the base" and just want the White House and Congress to roll up their sleeves and reach agreement on resolving our fiscal future? We have Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of Eight. Lock 'em all in a room and let's have an "up or down" vote by the middle of December.
My estimation is that the character of our high earners would be greatly improved by paying higher taxes. I do not have the same hope for transnational corporations. Some charters need to be revoked for failure to report income and pay their fair share. Going over the fiscal cliff would be worth it if people were woken up to income and wealth polarization and how it cripples commerce and justice simultaneously.
I'm not sure why you'd have Grover Norquist as a guest again. He stonewalls questions, playing verbal games with any serious interviewer. He should just be one of those figures that just fades away, much like your mentions of Glen Beck have diminished...
The only reason Susan Rice/Benghazi issue is still out there is because the White House refuses to answer basic questions on the how and why four Americans including our ambassador died in Lybya.
Solution: Obama should nominate Scott Brown Sec. of State to eliminate him from Mass. politics. Romney would have nominated John Bolton, so how bad could it turn out? Brown would vote against Palestine dependably, just like Susan Rice or Hillary Clinton would. Scott could take his pick-up truck and drive around Libya wearing his flannel shirt and Levis. (We all know how that works.)
How does the Administration justify the Mother Jones story regarding Susan Rice's extensive Canadian Oil wealth as related to her role as Secretary of State? She would be overseeing the Keystone XL permit at a substantial potential benefit to herself.
THX- Even General Petraeus can't answer those sorts of questions.
We'll never know who killed JFK or Christopher Stevens.
That's how Empire rolls.
FW652- The standard procedure (Romney) is to place such holdings in a blind trust until term of office expires. That's Capitalism! (not democracy)
Ha, ha, ha, is this panel still drunk with joy on the Obama win?
Don't answer, it's obvious.
@StLouis: Frankly, I'm surprised at your comment. Because during his first term, Obama kept starting the negotiations with openly stated compromises and offers that were already in the center. I think he thought the GOP would see such reasonableness and respond in kind.
We all know how that turned out.
So I think Obama simply learned some key lessons from his first term -- mainly, how to negotiate.
ANY negotiation starts with each side presenting their most favored position: "This is everything I want." That's what Obama has done with his initial offer here -- and now it the GOP's turn to present their counter-offer. But all they've done so far is complain, without offering a single specific on what they want to do with taxes or spending.
Filibuster Reform - In keeping with the idea of checks and balances I think that the senate should keep the current 'loose' filibuster rules WHEN the same party holds the majority in both the senate and the house. It should revert to the older, tougher rules when the senate minority party has the majority in the house. More can get done without the minority party losing all of it's influence.
Who needs Susan Rice, another neo-interventionist SOC? Apparently Obama does, and what other considerations?
He didn't go to the mat for Dawn Johnson, and equally abandoned Elizabeth Warren. Oh, I forgot, they're both relatively progressive, and Obama is, uh, not.
Why is President Obama pushing for Rice when Kerry is far more qualified and does not have the Benghazi talking points that Rice pushed that were so wrong on his plate?
Did Senate filibuster rules change to enable this current situation that is different from the past? If so, is a change back to previous rules really so out of line?
Many bloggers who dig deep were writing about the strong possibility that the Behghazi killers of Ambassador Stevens and the other three Americans were more than likely affiliated with Al Qeada. Over a year ago the "Telegraph" and other outlets had reported about former Al Qeada members being in lead positions among the Libyan rebels that Ambassador Stevens was working with. So what do your guest really think about how Ambassador Rice approached the American public on those Sunday talk shows?
And is the Benghazi a case of the US strategy of working with the enemy of my enemy is my friend coming back to bite the US in the hind end?
Totally abandoned Elizabeth Warren being at the head of the organization that she created. Obama was a coward. But on Rice he is sticking like glue. What gives when there are far more qualified individuals available for the job. Makes one question Obama's allegiances. Warren was the best possible candidate for the job that Obama and abandoned her. Susan Rice is not the most qualified and he is clearly pushing for her...hard
Some of us are pretty damn sure Obama wants to go off the cliff. In his previous four years he a shown zero interest in helping the economy. Union vote buying doesn't count, sorry.
Create a new deduction for paychecks called, War Tax.....
The only way to collect the money for the debt wars create,is to have them paid for.
The way most of the Congress acts, they are not serious about solving anything. The first thing they should do is give up their life time Cadillac health care plan and when no longer in office, pay for their own health care, and go into the same pool as everyone else. Next cancel all automatic raises for 5 years, and never recieve a raise if the budget is not finished and balanced
I would LOVE to see the invited media guests here -- and the entire media, period -- speak to the GOP canard about how raising the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans would "hurt small businesses."
It has been repeatedly proven that only about 3% of ALL small businesses would ever be affected by such an increase, period. Yet every single media outlet keeps letting Republicans repeat this "mis-characterization" over and over and over without a single challenge.
Secondly, the media never bother to question the GOP claim that those businesses would prefer to see loopholes closed and deductions eliminated -- despite the fact that these moves would create the exact same reduction in working capital that the GOP claims is so hurtful in the tax increase scenario.
Thirdly, there is a quite credible argument that raising taxes on those incomes (post-deductions, of course!) would actually encourage small businesses to reinvest, hire new workers, etc. -- all to AVOID paying that tax.
Where is the AMT issue mentioned in this and thousands of other discussions? Ask the "upper middle class" tax payers trapped in the AMT fog if paying an effective rate nearing 41% is enough.