Senate panels endorse Obama budget nominee Burwell

Published April 17, 2013

Associated Press

President Barack Obama's nominee to run the White House budget office appears heading toward easy Senate confirmation after back-to-back approval by two key panels.

A former deputy budget director and top White House aide during the Clinton administration, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, won voice vote approval by the Budget and Homeland Security and Government Reform panels on Wednesday.

If confirmed by the full Senate, Burwell would be thrust into Washington's roiling budget debate. At her confirmation hearing last week, she stressed the need to work in a bipartisan manner and her experience in helping craft bipartisan budget agreements in the late 1990s.

More recently, Burwell was president of the Wal-Mart Foundation and a top executive at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

View the original article here

Cornyn says Obama budget makes only 'modest progress' toward entitlement reform

Published April 14, 2013

FoxNews.com

• 

A top Senate Republican expressed only guarded optimism Sunday about a potential grand bargain with Democrats based on the budget President Obama submitted that includes entitlement reform but additional tax increases.  

“I give the president credit that he did put (a budget) on the table,” Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn told “Fox News Sunday."

The Texas senator, in charge of wrangling Republican votes in the Democrat-controlled chamber, called Obama’s plan to chain Social Security increased to the Consumer Price Index only “modest progress” toward entitlement reform.

However, the president’s 2014 budget also suggests raising taxes another trillion dollars and is not balanced, he said.

His comments are similar to those made last week by House Speaker John Boehner after Obama released the budget.

The Ohio Republican said Obama wants to hold hostage “modest reforms” for another round of tax increases, referring to increases his party agreed to in December 2012 as part of a deal with Democrats to keep the country from going off the so-called fiscal cliff.

Later on Fox, Sen. Dick Durbin, who counts votes for Democrats in the chamber, said Boehner simply dismissed the plan because the word “tax” was included.

He said Republicans “have to put everything on the table” if they are indeed serious about dealing with the budget deficit.

“For goodness sakes,” Durbin said, acknowledging he has supported the chained CPI concept and that it could be part of the Social Security reform plan if it gives the program long-term solvency.

View the original article here

Yes, Virginia, there really is a way to balance the budget

• 

• • 

    White House makes big push for 2014 budget

  • 

    Will president's budget appease both sides?

  • 

    $800 billion in tax hikes frustrates GOP

President Obama is set to propose his “compromise” budget plan on Wednesday. His budget is reported to trim the deficit by $1.8 trillion over the next ten years, with nearly $600 billion in savings coming from additional revenue and $1.2 trillion coming from domestic program and entitlement cuts.

To be sure, his proposal offers Republicans more entitlement reform than before – a move that many on the left are against. But the President’s proposal still includes $580 billion in new taxes on the wealthy, a position that Republicans have consistently and unwaveringly opposed since taxes went up as a result of the fiscal cliff deal in January. It follows that we are still on the same long, hard path to a grand bargain. And this week brings yet another proposal that does little to get us there.

But new survey data, collected and financed by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC and in collaboration with the Campaign to Fix the Debt, shows a path towards a deal and how one can be reached.

There remains a solid majority willing to rein in entitlements—so long as voters believe that there will also be economic growth and job creation along with fiscal stability.

The American people are in a profoundly pessimistic and angry mood. The Republican Party’s approval ratings stand at a 20-year low, with 66 percent judging it unfavorably compared to 33 percent favorably. The Democrats are viewed in a more favorable light, but are still not in good stead (43 percent favorable to 53 percent unfavorable).

Fifty-two percent of voters believe the country is off on the wrong track, and 50 percent say the same about the economy. Close to a majority say we will not be able to balance the budget anytime soon.

Against this backdrop, Democrats and Republicans have offered up competing budget proposals—the Democrats in the Senate, the Republicans in the House—to address the nation’s mounting fiscal challenges. 

The two budgets are roughly $1 trillion apart on taxes and $750 billion apart on military spending over the next ten years. They are fundamentally at odds on Medicare and entitlement reform as well as deficit reduction: the Republican plan would balance the budget over the next 10 years, while the Democratic plan reduces the deficit to an amount equivalent to 2.2% of GDP by 2023.

With such stark differences, it’s no surprise that the plans have had a polarizing effect—we face, yet again, a seemingly intractable budget stalemate in Washington. Neither side wants to compromise. And Americans are enthusiastic about neither plan.

Our new poll shows that Americans view the Republican plan, which makes draconian spending cuts and fundamentally alters Medicare, favorably, but only by a tepid 46-37 margin. By a broader margin (56-31), they favor the Democratic plan, but neither plan inspired much confidence in our respondents. 

When we asked whether they thought that either the Democrats or Republicans had a realistic plan to reduce the deficit, just 20 percent said that the Republicans did, while 25 percent said that the Democrats did. But 49 percent believe that neither side has a realistic plan.

So what do the American people want? It’s clear. They want a bipartisan, compromise plan. By an overwhelming margin—80 percent to 8—our respondents support the new Simpson-Bowles plan, which cuts wasteful spending, reforms our outdated tax code, and makes the necessary changes to entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security in order to protect them for future generations of Americans. 

This plan would reduce our debt by $2.4 trillion.

In practice, this new version of Simpson-Bowles raises close to $1.3 trillion through tax reform including the fiscal-cliff deal. It saves $600 billion from health-care programs and generates $600 billion in new tax revenue from ending or curbing deductions and breaks. And it makes $1.3 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending.

The plan stood up to scrutiny. When we told respondents that it would cut their Medicare and Social Security, they still supported it, 56 percent to 24 percent. What’s more, when we said that cuts to Medicare and Social Security would only affect higher income retirees, including millionaires, the plan’s support increased, with 65 percent in favor and 20 percent opposed.

Our survey respondents showed a strong desire here for a broad-scale deal that will reduce the debt and deficit, cut spending, and reform the tax code. Indeed, there remains a solid majority willing to rein in entitlements—so long as voters believe that there will also be economic growth and job creation (which remains their highest priority), along with fiscal stability.

To date, very few surveys have examined this issue in any great detail, comparing the actual details of the Democratic, Republican, and compromise plan and gauging American attitudes. Our findings offer compelling evidence that, while there is a great divide between the two parties, what the public wants is a clear, bipartisan fix to our nation’s fiscal situation.

Contrary to all of the doomsaying in Washington and the pervasive message that finding a solution is impossible, there is a clear path to a balanced budget, to deficit and debt reduction, and to achieving fiscal well-being. The results of our poll unequivocally show this. But the question remains whether the nation’s political leadership will put aside their partisan differences for a chance at the real agreement that the American people strongly support.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

Jessica Tarlov is a political strategist at Douglas E. Schoen, LLC.

Related Stories

Senate OKs Democratic Budget Plan

White House pushes Obama budget, warns Republicans about 'my way or highway' tactic

House Works on Budget Outline

GOP Spending Cuts Likely to Start Congressional Budget Battles

View the original article here

WH touts Obama budget, says Republicans want to 'double down' on rejected Romney plan

Published April 07, 2013

FoxNews.com

• 

  FILE: April 4, 2013: President Obama waves after his arrival at Buckley Air Force Base, Colo.AP

A senior White House adviser on Sunday defended President Obama’s forthcoming budget by saying it won’t be like the House Republican proposal – a rehash of the Romney plan that Americans have already rejected.

“The American people rejected it,” Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer said on “Fox News Sunday.” “And (Republicans) shouldn’t be doubling down on it.”

The president is scheduled to release a budget Wednesday that is expected to include a mix of tax increases and cuts to such entitlements as Social Security and Medicare.

“You can do both,” Pfeiffer said. “That’s what you’ll see.”

Pfeiffer also told ABC’s “This Week” that Obama will not “enact a Romney economic plan,” which he said was essentially drastic cuts to entitlement programs with tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

“What we won’t do is cut our way to prosperity,” he said.

On Saturday, the president said his budget was not his “ideal plan,” but it was a compromise that he would be willing to accept.

House Speaker John Boehner said last week said the Obama budget blueprint holds reforms “hostage” to tax increases.

View the original article here

White House pushes Obama budget, warns Republicans about 'my way or highway' tactic

• 

  FILE: June 8, 2012: President Obama talks at a press conference inside the White House Briefing Room, in Washington.AP

The White House tried Sunday to win support for President Obama’s forthcoming budget, arguing the plan is a balanced approach to economic prosperity and warning Republicans about stonewalling negotiations and pushing a “rejected” Romney plan.  

“Right now, the approach of many Republicans, particularly the leadership in the House, is my way or the highway,” senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer told “Fox News Sunday.”  “Their view is the only acceptable plan is to try to … essentially enact the Romney economic plan. The American people rejected that, and Republicans shouldn't be doubling down on it.”

The White House effort comes three days before Obama releases his 2014 budget, which is expected to include a mix of tax increases and cuts to such entitlements as Social Security and Medicare.

“You can do both,” Pfeiffer said on ABC’s “This Week.” “That’s what you’ll see. …  What we won’t do is cut our way to prosperity.”

However, the outline of the plan has already been criticized by Republicans and some of the president’s staunchest supporters.

The release of the budget Wednesday, which will be followed by Obama meeting for dinner with Senate Republicans, is just part of a busy week in Washington.

Congress returns from a two-week break with the Senate attempting to reach a bipartisan agreement on immigration-reform legislation, and the leaders of the Democrat-controlled chamber trying to finish a gun-control proposal that might or might not include the contentious universal background checks for buyers.

Pfeiffer told Fox the meeting with Senate Republicans is simply an attempt to find a “caucus of common sense,” not end run leaders of the Republican-controlled House.

Last week, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Obama’s budget blueprint holds reforms “hostage” to tax increases. Organized labor also expressed its disappointment in the plan.

"The president should drop these misguided cuts in benefits and focus instead on building support in Congress for investing in jobs," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said.

Obama supporters disagree particularly with the part of his spending plan that calls for a new inflation formula that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a range of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans.

Still, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham expressed optimism Sunday about the plan, suggesting it was at least a starting point toward an elusive, long-term budget deal between Democrats and Republicans.  

"The president is showing a little bit of leg here,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “This is somewhat encouraging. We're beginning to set the stage for the grand bargain.”

Among the highlights of the president’s plan is spending cuts and tax increases that would reduce the deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years, replacing the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, known as sequester, over the same period.

The proposal also is expected to include new spending for public works projects, early education and job training, as well as $580 billion in new taxes that Republicans oppose.

Counting reductions and higher taxes that Congress and Obama have approved since 2011, the 2014 budget would contribute $4.3 trillion to total deficit reduction by 2023.

On Saturday, the president said his budget was not his “ideal plan,” but it was a compromise that he would be willing to accept.

The House and Senate have already passed their own budget plans. The House plan cuts $5.7 trillion in spending and balances the budget in 10 years while the Senate plan increases taxes by $1 trillion.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

White House pushes Obama budget, warns Republicans about 'my way or highway' tactic

• 

  FILE: June 8, 2012: President Obama talks at a press conference inside the White House Briefing Room, in Washington.AP

The White House tried Sunday to win support for President Obama’s forthcoming budget, arguing the plan is a balanced approach to economic prosperity and warning Republicans about stonewalling negotiation and pushing a “rejected” Romney plan.  

“Right now, the approach of many Republicans, particularly the leadership in the House, is my way or the highway,” senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer told “Fox News Sunday.”  “Their view is the only acceptable plan is to try to … essentially enact the Romney economic plan. The American people rejected that, and Republicans shouldn't be doubling down on it.”

The White House effort comes three days before Obama releases his 2014 budget, which is expected to include a mix of tax increases and cuts to such entitlements as Social Security and Medicare.

“You can do both,” Pfeiffer said on ABC’s “This Week.” “That’s what you’ll see. …  What we won’t do is cut our way to prosperity.”

However, the outline of the plan has already been criticized by Republicans and some of the president’s staunchest supporters.

The release of the budget Wednesday, which will be followed by Obama meeting for dinner with Senate Republicans, is just part of a busy week in Washington.

Congress returns from a two-week break with the Senate attempting to reach a bipartisan agreement on immigration-reform legislation, and the leaders of the Democrat-controlled chamber trying to finish a gun-control proposal that might or might not include the contentious universal background checks for buyers.

Pfeiffer told Fox News the meeting with Senate Republicans is simply an attempt to find a “caucus of common sense,” not end run leaders of the Republican-controlled House.

Last week, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Obama’s budget blueprint holds reforms “hostage” to tax increases. Organized labor also expressed its disappointment in the plan.

"The president should drop these misguided cuts in benefits and focus instead on building support in Congress for investing in jobs," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said.

Obama supporters disagree particularly with the part of his spending plan that calls for a new inflation formula that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a range of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans.

Still, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham expressed optimism Sunday about the plan, suggesting it was at least a starting point toward an elusive, long-term budget deal between Democrats and Republicans.  

"The president is showing a little bit of leg here,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “This is somewhat encouraging. We're beginning to set the stage for the grand bargain.”

Among the highlights of the president’s plan is spending cuts and tax increases that would reduce the deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years, replacing the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, known as sequester, over the same period.

The proposal also is expected to include new spending for public works projects, early education and job training, as well as $580 billion in new taxes that Republicans oppose.

Counting reductions and higher taxes that Congress and Obama have approved since 2011, the 2014 budget would contribute $4.3 trillion to total deficit reduction by 2023.

On Saturday, the president said his budget was not his “ideal plan,” but it was a compromise that he would be willing to accept.

The House and Senate have already passed their own budget plans. The House plan cuts $5.7 trillion in spending and balances the budget in 10 years while the Senate plan increases taxes by $1 trillion.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Obama nominates economic aide to 2nd budget slot

Published April 01, 2013

Associated Press

President Barack Obama has nominated one of his senior economic advisers as deputy director of the White House budget office.

Obama has chosen Brian Deese as his nominee for the number two slot at the Office of Management and Budget, a key position as Obama and Congress confront ongoing fiscal challenges.

Deese has been deputy director of Obama's National Economic Council and was a main administration figure during auto bailout negotiations in 2009.

Last month, Obama nominated Wal-Mart's Sylvia Mathews Burwell to lead the budget office. If confirmed by the Senate, Burwell and Deese would assume their roles as the government continues to deal with automatic spending cuts that took effect at the beginning of March.

The budget office also plays a crucial role in shepherding through government regulations.

View the original article here

Budget banquet needs some humble pie

• 

  In this video image from Senate Television, senators speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate during voting on an amendment to the budget resolution at the Capitol on Washington, Friday, March 22, 2013. (AP Photo/Senate Television)AP2013

The Senate did something this past weekend it hasn’t done in four years: passed a budget. The law requires the Senate to pass a budget, but Congress often ignores its own laws. For most of Barack Obama’s presidency, a series of continuing resolutions kept the money -- your money -- flowing. Now the Senate wants to add a trillion dollars of new taxes, even more than President Obama seeks. Despite our growing debt, the Senate wants to fund things like the Senate barbershop, which loses a third of a million dollars every year.

It’s like they live in a private bubble.

Politicians say, “I’m going to Washington to serve others.” Maybe they mean to. But after most “serve,” they never leave. When I visit Washington, I see politicians and bureaucrats serving themselves.

As long as Washington spends other people’s money, there will be little incentive for them to be prudent -- or humble.

When the housing bubble burst, home prices dropped in most of America, but not in Washington. Our capital feeds off federal spending, and politicians won’t allow that bubble to burst.

One result is that, today, for the first time, most of America’s richest counties are in the Washington area. About 43 percent of “the 1 percent” -- the top earners leftists say they hate -- now live in 14 counties that surround the District of Columbia.

Nick Sorrentino, creator of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org, notes that average total compensation for a federal employee is now about $120,000, and the gap between government pay and private pay has been growing.

It’s not that Washingtonians are smarter or more productive than the rest of us. It’s that as government grows, more money flows to lobbyists, trade groups and others who live close to those who pass out your money. Government is a parasite -- but a parasite that helps its friends. The way people get rich in Washington is not by inventing things, but by being good at schmoozing and manipulating the bureaucrats who control your money.

Tourists visit Washington and admire the beautiful buildings. All that marble once made me feel patriotic, too, but now I get angry.

Unions claim workers are “under”-paid. But today’s union headquarters resemble palaces. The biggest teachers union, the National Education Association, built a $100 million Washington headquarters that it calls “an environmental oasis.” The AFL-CIO’s beautiful lobby features a giant mosaic made of marble, glass and gold. When I tried to take pictures, so TV viewers could see the elegance, I was told to leave.

Government buildings are grand, too, even new ones like the Reagan office building. “It’s very much like Versailles before the French Revolution,” says historian John Steele Gordon. Washingtonians have become like the French nobility, who spent their lives in the palace at Versailles “and didn’t know much about what went on outside that world.”

 “But the real royalty is not in Washington, D.C.,” Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., tells me. “It’s on Wall Street.”

It’s true that there’s more wealth on Wall Street, but Gordon points out that there’s a big difference between those fat cats and Washingtonians. “In the private sector, if you find a way to cut costs, you’re a hero. If you find a way to cut costs in the (government) bureaucracy, you’re a goat.”

You’re a “goat” because cutting waste hurts the lobbyists who feed off taxpayers. With trillions of dollars at stake, corporations and special interests would be crazy not to lobby. Lobbyists and taxpayer-funded special privilege won’t go away unless big government does.

We could improve America’s future just by recognizing what so-called “public choice” economists started to realize around the time of World War II: that government isn’t just a “public servant.” It’s not a demon, either. But government and its employees are selfish,   like anyone else. That explains most of their behavior better than occasional shifts to the political left or right.

We all tend to overspend and act lazy when we can get away with it. In the private sector, though, that eventually means that you get fired or realize you’re depleting your bank account. In Washington, the Fed just prints more money.

As long as Washington spends other people’s money, there will be little incentive for them to be prudent -- or humble.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of  "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at johnstossel.com.

View the original article here

Senate Dems' budget accused of double-counting spending cuts

• 

• • 

    Budget battle heats up on Capitol Hill

  • 

    Political Insiders 3/18/13

  • 

    Power Play 3/18/2013

Senate Democrats' budget plan is coming under increasing criticism from Republicans, who say it effectively pats itself on the back twice for savings that were only achieved once -- and even then, promises another $7.3 trillion in debt over the next decade. 

The Democrats' plan passed out of committee last week on a party-line vote. It serves as the party's response to the Republican plan introduced in the House by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Last week's announcements were complemented by a fast-paced round of partisan crossfire. Republicans accused Democrats of ignoring the national debt. Democrats accused Republicans of wanting to gut entitlements to preserve tax rates for top earners. 

But there was a major disconnect in the way each side was calculating its numbers. 

Democrats claimed all along their plan would achieve $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, half through spending cuts and half through tax hikes.

But the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, argues the plan is taking credit for the reduced spending level already achieved when mandatory, across-the-board cuts known as sequester took effect March 1. 

The Democrats' plan would replace the sequester and build on that savings for a total of $975 billion in alternative cuts and $975 billion in tax hikes over 10 years. But, as Democratic staffers acknowledged during committee testimony last week, their plan also counts the replacement cuts toward their total deficit-reduction figure.

"I believe you're using the money twice," Sessions said, arguing that the true savings is more like $700 billion.  

Despite Democratic objections that Ryan's plan did something similar, Republicans deny that. 

Rather, the Ryan plan says it would achieve $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade -- on top of the sequester cuts, which Ryan's proposal would still shift around to shield the Pentagon. 

"Every dollar in savings in the House Republican budget is the result of new policy proposals," a Ryan spokesman told FoxNews.com on Monday. "There is no double counting in our budget." 

The discrepancy means it's difficult to compare the two plans in terms of deficit reduction. "Placing these numbers side-by-side gives the highly misleading impression that the difference between the two plans is $2.6 trillion, rather than $4 trillion," Sessions' office said Monday. 

A representative for Senate Budget Committee Democrats did not return a request for comment. 

The disagreement over the basic facts could sully the negotiating waters, as President Obama tries to reach out to rank-and-file Republicans as part of what some call his charm offensive. 

Neither budget document is likely to clear the full Congress, and so Obama is trying to once again bridge both sides toward a compromise plan. 

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., speaking on "Fox News Sunday," praised Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., for teeing up bigger-picture talks. 

"Patty Murray has done an extraordinarily good job," Durbin said. "And then we're going to move to the next stage, and that is the grand bargain stage." 

Murray blasted Ryan's budget for its changes to Medicare and Medicaid -- as in prior plans, Ryan proposes offering future retirees the option of taking government subsidies to buy health insurance. 

"Their budget doubles down on the policies the American people rejected last election. It would be devastating for the middle class and the economy, it would dismantle Medicare and the programs families depend on -- and it would do all that while protecting the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations from paying their fair share," she said in a statement. 

But The Washington Post editorial board blasted the Senate plan as a "partisan" document that does not recognize America's fiscal straits. 

"There is literally nothing -- not a word -- suggestive of trimming Social Security," the editorial said, adding: "In short, this document gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for - or even a responsible public assessment of -- the country's long-term fiscal predicament."

View the original article here

Senate Dems' budget accused of double-counting spending cuts

• 

• • 

    Budget battle heats up on Capitol Hill

  • 

    Political Insiders 3/18/13

  • 

    Power Play 3/18/2013

Senate Democrats' budget plan is coming under increasing criticism from Republicans, who say it effectively pats itself on the back twice for savings that were only achieved once -- and even then, promises another $7.3 trillion in debt over the next decade. 

The Democrats' plan passed out of committee last week on a party-line vote. It serves as the party's response to the Republican plan introduced in the House by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Last week's announcements were complemented by a fast-paced round of partisan crossfire. Republicans accused Democrats of ignoring the national debt. Democrats accused Republicans of wanting to gut entitlements to preserve tax rates for top earners. 

But there was a major disconnect in the way each side was calculating its numbers. 

Democrats claimed all along their plan would achieve $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction over the  next decade, half through spending cuts and half through tax hikes.

But the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, argues the plan is taking credit for the reduced spending level already achieved when mandatory, across-the-board cuts known as sequester took effect March 1.

The Democrats' plan would replace the sequester and build on that savings for a total of $975 billion in alternative cuts and $975 billion in tax hikes over 10 years. But, as Democratic staffers acknowledged during committee testimony last week, their plan counts the replacement cuts toward their total deficit-reduction figure.

"I believe you're using the money twice," Sessions said. 

Despite Democratic objections that Ryan's plan did the same thing, Republicans deny that. 

Rather, the Ryan plan says it would achieve $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade -- on top of the sequester cuts, which Ryan's proposal would still shift around to shield the Pentagon. 

"Every dollar in savings in the House Republican budget is the result of new policy proposals," a Ryan spokesman told FoxNews.com on Monday. "There is no double counting in our budget." 

The discrepancy means it's difficult to compare the two plans in terms of deficit reduction. "Placing these numbers side-by-side gives the highly misleading impression that the difference between the two plans is $2.6 trillion, rather than $4 trillion," Sessions' office said Monday. 

A representative for Senate Budget Committee Democrats did not return a request for comment. 

The disagreement over the basic facts could sully the negotiating waters, as President Obama tries to reach out to rank-and-file Republicans as part of what some call his charm offensive. 

Neither budget document is likely to clear the full Congress, and so Obama is trying to once again bridge both sides toward a compromise plan. 

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., speaking on "Fox News Sunday," praised Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., for teeing up bigger-picture talks. 

"Patty Murray has done an extraordinarily good job," Durbin said. "And then we're going to move to the next stage, and that is the grand bargain stage." 

Murray blasted Ryan's budget for its changes to Medicare and Medicaid -- as in prior plans, Ryan proposes offering future retirees the option of taking government subsidies to buy health insurance. 

"Their budget doubles down on the policies the American people rejected last election. It would be devastating for the middle class and the economy, it would dismantle Medicare and the programs families depend on -- and it would do all that while protecting the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations from paying their fair share," she said in a statement. 

But The Washington Post editorial board blasted the Senate plan as a "partisan" document that does not recognize America's fiscal straits. 

"There is literally nothing -- not a word -- suggestive of trimming Social Security," the editorial said, adding: "In short, this document gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for - or even a responsible public assessment of -- the country's long-term fiscal predicament."

View the original article here

Senate Democrats release first budget in four years, includes $1 trillion in tax increases

The Senate on Wednesday presented its first budget in four years, a proposal by leaders of the Democrat-controlled chamber that calls for nearly $1 trillion in tax increases but includes no strategy to make federal revenue match spending in the coming years.

The plan calls for $975 billion in new tax revenue through closing loopholes and ending deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country’s highest wage earners.

It also calls for $100 billion in new stimulus spending and cutting $1.85 trillion from the deficit over 10 years.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray said the budget takes a balanced, “pro-middle-class” approach and argued the country’s economic problems started long before fellow Democrats entered the White House in 2009.

 “Despite some of the rhetoric you may hear from my Republican colleagues, the Great Recession didn’t start the day President Obama was elected,” said Murray, D-Wash.

The plan also calls for replacing the recent, $85 billion in spending cuts with more measured cuts.

Committee members will begin voting and submitting amendments Thursday, with a full Senate vote expected by next week.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Session, the committee’s ranking Republican, immediately criticized the proposal.

“It’s anything but balanced,” he said. “Raising taxes and spending is anything but balanced.”

The budget was presented one day after the Republican-controlled House rolled out its fiscal 2014 budget -- a plan to balance the budget in 10 years largely by slowing the rate of spending and adding in the roughly $600 billion in tax increase Democrats got in January.

The upper chamber announced the details as President Obama met with House Republicans.

Obama said after the meeting that it was "good” and “useful."

However, the recent optimism about Democrats and Republicans perhaps agreeing on a mix of tax increases and spending cuts to craft a single budget – or a so-called “grand bargain” – appears to be fading.

"Ultimately, it may be that the differences are just too wide," the president told ABC before going to Capitol Hill.

View the original article here

US budget deficit jumps in February by $204B

The U.S. federal budget deficit jumped in February from January, though it is still running well below last year's pace. Higher taxes and an improving economy are expected to hold the annual deficit below $1 trillion for the first time since President Obama took office. 

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the deficit grew in February by $203.5 billion. That followed a small surplus of $2.9 billion in January. And February's gap was $28 billion smaller than the same month a year ago. 

Through the first five months of the budget year that began on Oct. 1, the deficit is $494 billion. That's nearly $87 billion lower than the budget gap for the same period a year ago. 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the deficit will total $845 billion for the entire year. That would be down from $1.1 trillion in the 2012 budget year and the lowest since 2008. 

Even with the improvement, the government would be required to borrow 24 cents of every dollar it spends this year. 

The CBO's estimate doesn't reflect the $44 billion of across-the-board spending cuts that kicked in March 1. Those cuts many reduce the deficit further. 

Higher Social Security taxes have contributed to a smaller deficit. The tax on nearly all Americans who draw a paycheck rose 2 percentage points this year. That increased revenue in February by $8 billion. The tax increase is projected to raise about $10 billion more a month in revenue for the rest of the budget year, which ends Sept. 30. 

The government is also receiving more in income taxes. As part of a deal between the White House and Congress to avoid the fiscal cliff, tax rates rose on individual incomes above $400,000 a year and incomes for couples above $450,000. That is expected to raise $620 billion in revenue over the next decade. 

Individual income tax receipts rose more than $75 billion to $500.6 billion in the first five months of the budget year. 

Part of the increase reflects fewer tax refunds this budget year. So far, refunds are $20 billion lower than during the same five-month period last year. The key reason: the IRS delayed processing refunds by two weeks this year because tax policy wasn't set until the fiscal cliff was resolved on Jan. 1. 

Modest economic growth has also boosted federal tax receipts. Last year, the economy grew at a modest 2.2 percent and generated an average of about 180,000 jobs a month. Job growth has topped 200,000, however, for the past four months. More jobs mean more income, which generates more tax revenue for the government. 

The monthly budget update from the Treasury Department comes as both the White House and GOP leaders in Congress are renewing their efforts to reach agreement on a broad deal to reduce the deficit. But so far, there are few signs of progress. 

Obama met with House Republicans Wednesday and plans to meet Senate GOP leaders Thursday. 

The deficit is the amount the government must borrow when its expenses exceed its revenue. Each month's deficit is volatile and can be affected by calendar quirks that shift government spending or revenue from one month to another. 

The deficits hit a record $1.41 trillion in budget year 2009, which began four months before Obama took office. That deficit was due largely to the worst recession since the Great Depression. Tax revenue plummeted. And the government spent more on stimulus programs. 

The budget gaps in 2010 and 2011 were slightly lower than the 2009 deficit as a gradually strengthening economy generated more tax revenue. 

President George W. Bush also ran annual deficits through most of his two terms in office after he won approval for broad tax cuts and launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

The last time the government ran an annual surplus was in 2001.

View the original article here

Ryan: New House Republican budget includes ObamaCare repeal

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, said Sunday that his new budget includes the repeal of President Obama’s health-care reform law known as ObamaCare.

Ryan told “Fox News Sunday” that the new proposal will make enough cuts to balance the federal budget in 10 years, compared to his previous one that tried to achieve that goal in 25 years.

“We think we owe the American people a balanced budget,” the Republican congressman said.

Ryan said the focus of the ObamaCare repeal would be to stop the expansion of Medicaid, the federal program that provides medical services to low-income U.S. families.

“Our budget does promote repealing ObamaCare,” said Ryan, who was not clear whether he intended to call for a full repeal.

Ryan, the Republican 2012 vice presidential nominee, said he wants states to run Medicaid through federal block grants.

Ryan said his proposal attempts to reach a balanced budget, in part, by slowing the rate of federal spending from 4.9 percent to 3.4 percent. Other parts include consolidating federal job-training programs and reforming the federal Food Stamp program to ensure only qualified applicants receive the benefits.

“I’ve very confident this is the way to go,” said Ryan, whose budget would have a better chance of passing the Republican-controlled House than the Democrat-controlled Senate.

View the original article here

As budget battles resume, Republicans hope Obama 'sincere' in compromise efforts

After a week of President Obama extending lunch and dinner invites to congressional Republicans, ahead of the next budget battle, party leaders are expressing cautious optimism about the president being sincere – not just leading a so-called charm offensive.

The invites appear to be a change in political tactics for Obama, who, since elected in 2008, has largely avoided courting Congress, preferring as of late to instead make his case to the public with campaign-style events.

He also plans to keep up the effort this week with three scheduled trips to Capitol Hill to visit Democrats and Republicans in both chambers, an effort to broker a “grand bargain” on tax and spending instead of another short-term fix.

"I hope that this is sincere," Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, who had lunch Thursday with Obama at the White House, told “Fox News Sunday.” “We had a very good, frank exchange. But the proof will be in the coming weeks as to whether or not it's a real, sincere outreach to find common ground."

Obama’s apparent courtship follows $85 billion in spending cuts that kicked in March 1 and the next deadline, March 27, when the current short-term budget extension expires and a government shutdown looms.

Ryan, R-Wis., also told Fox his proposal for 2014 would balance the federal budget in 10 years, but is based in the unlikely repeal of the president’s Affordable Care Act.

Senate Democrats said they will also present a budget in the coming days, their first in four years.

Though Republicans appeared optimistic, they also expressed concern that the president’s second-term efforts might be too late.

“I think he is sincere,” said Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who attended the hotel dinner with 11 other Republican senators on Wednesday night.  

“But you know, you’ve got a lot of scabs and sores on people. And it’s going to take a while for that to heal,” Coburn told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The president will have to work quickly to achieve even a shorter-term deal, considering Congress is scheduled to leave town March 22.

Senate Democrats said they were ready to pass a spending measure to pay for day-to-day federal operations through September. The measure would impose automatic cuts of 5 percent to domestic agencies and 7.8 percent to the Pentagon.

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said leaders of the Democrat-controlled Senate are also going to be working this week on a fiscal 2013 budget and expressed optimism about an eventual Hill deal.

“The two (chambers’) budgets will be different,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “We're going to have to find a balanced solution, and it will involve all elements. It will involve talking about revenues, talking about expenses, talking about entitlements, we have to do that.”

View the original article here

As budget battles resume, Republicans hope Obama 'sincere' in compromise efforts

After a week of President Obama extending lunch and dinner invites to congressional Republicans, ahead of the next budget battle, party leaders are expressing cautious optimism about the president being sincere – not just leading a so-called charm offensive.

The invitations appear to be a change in political tactics for Obama, who since elected in 2008 has largely avoided courting Congress, preferring as of late to instead make his case to the public with campaign-style events.

He also plans to keep up the effort this week with three scheduled trips to Capitol Hill to visit Democrats and Republicans in both chambers, a likely effort to broker a “grand bargain” on tax and spending instead of another short-term fix.

"I hope that this is sincere," Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, who had lunch Thursday with Obama at the White House, told “Fox News Sunday.” “We had a very good, frank exchange. But the proof will be in the coming weeks as to whether or not it's a real, sincere outreach to find common ground."

Obama’s apparent courtship follows $85 billion in spending cuts this year that kicked in March 1 and before the next deadline, March 27, when the current short-term budget extension expires and a government shutdown looms.

Ryan, R-Wis., also told Fox his proposal for 2014 would balance the federal budget in 10 years, but is based in part on repeal of the president’s Affordable Care Act, which appears unlikely.

Though Republicans appeared optimistic, they also expressed concern that the president’s second-term efforts might be too late.

“I think he is sincere,” said Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who attended the hotel dinner with 11 other Republican senators Wednesday night.  

“But you know, you’ve got a lot of scabs and sores on people,” Coburn told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And it’s going to take a while for that to heal.”

The president will have to work quickly to achieve even a shorter-term deal, considering Congress is scheduled to leave town March 22.

Senate Democrats said they already have a spending measure ready for passage that would pay for day-to-day federal operations through September. The measure would impose automatic cuts of 5 percent to domestic agencies and 7.8 percent to the Pentagon.

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said Sunday that leaders of the Democrat-controlled Senate also are working on full budget for passage, the first in four years. And he expressed optimism about an eventual Hill deal.

“The two (chambers’) budgets will be different,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “We're going to have to find a balanced solution, and it will involve all elements. It will involve talking about revenues, talking about expenses, talking about entitlements. We have to do that.”

Still, some Republicans seem unconvinced about the president's recent efforts.  

"I hope that he's genuine,” Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., told NBC. “But I don't think we're going to be doing the Harlem Shake any time soon together."

Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy question whether Obama’s efforts were about winning over the Republican-controlled House or “governing for all of America.”

“Only time will tell,” the California congressman told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

View the original article here

US calls out UN diplomats for coming to budget meetings drunk

UNITED NATIONS -- The United States thinks the United Nations has a drinking problem.

Ambassador Joseph M. Torsella, who represents the U.S. on the U.N.'s budget committee, said in remarks Monday that the tense process of negotiating the world body's annual budget is made more complicated by the number of diplomats who turn up drunk.

The U.N. budget is finalized in December, when holiday parties apparently lead to some revelry spilling over into budget negotiations.

Torsella said the U.S. is making "the modest proposal that the negotiating rooms should in future be an inebriation-free zone."

Some tipsy negotiating partners have left the U.S. "truly grateful for the strategic opportunities," he said.

But Torsella said the committee should "save the champagne for toasting the successful end of the session."

View the original article here

Recurring budget crises could put squeeze on Obama's second-term priorities

The automatic spending cuts that kicked in over the weekend effectively added another administrative headache for a White House and Congress that have struggled with even the most perfunctory tasks. 

At a certain point, something's got to give. 

The day-in, day-out debate and speechifying and crisis management are getting to a point where they could overshadow the other planks of President Obama's second-term agenda -- for now, anyway. 

"He has a very ambitious agenda with both the sequester and his separate policy priorities, and there is a bandwidth issue at the end of the day," said John Ullyot, a longtime senior Senate aide and Republican strategist. 

For starters, agencies must now figure out how to trim their fiscal waistlines, while the president tries anew to negotiate a more "balanced" deal out of Congress -- all while trying to avert a government shutdown and secure another debt-ceiling increase. 

Still, all the items from the president's campaign and State of the Union address supposedly remain on the docket: immigration reform, gun control, policies to curb climate change, an increase in the minimum wage and expanded access to preschool. 

Over the weekend, President Obama stressed his commitment to pursuing all those items. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reiterated that message Monday from the briefing room. 

But while administration officials have insisted that Washington can walk and chew gum, the president's first term stands as a cautionary tale. The president devoted his political capital and time to passing the health care overhaul, while other legislative items were pushed off. 

Obama has revived some -- immigration reform -- and introduced others -- gun control -- at the start of his second term. But politics and a crowded agenda could already be tainting the Washington waters. 

Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, was quoted over the weekend saying: "The president understands that, to get anything done, he needs a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives." 

The comment appeared to write off the next two years. 

Ullyot said that perhaps Obama's biggest challenge for his second-term agenda will indeed be the 2014 elections, and convincing moderate Democrats to bend on hot-button issues like gun legislation. 

But in terms of time management, Ullyot said Obama may soon realize that pursuing a "balanced" package of tax revenues and spending cuts to replace the $85 billion in sequester cuts may not be worth his time. 

"In the end, the president may back off on spending a lot of time on replacing the sequester" so he can press the other issues, he said. 

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a vocal advocate for immigration reform, voiced confidence Monday that the administration and Congress could handle the busy agenda. 

"The spirit of bipartisan cooperation that is keeping the immigration issue moving forward has not been poisoned by the sequester and budget stalemate, so far," he said in a statement. "The two sets of issues seem to exist in parallel universes where I can disagree with my Republican colleagues strenuously on budget matters, but still work with them effectively to eventually reach an immigration compromise.  ... I remain extremely optimistic that immigration reform is going to happen this year." 

Immigration reform efforts are still marching along despite the budget drama. Obama met last week on the issue with Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who both are part of a bipartisan group crafting legislation. 

However, work on gun control before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week was postponed. 

Carney on Monday voiced optimism that the president could pass new legislation even with a divided Congress. 

Obama, at the first Cabinet meeting of his second-term, said Monday that his administration would try to manage the sequester's impact "the best we can." 

The president said Friday: "We can't let political gridlock around the budget stand in the way of other areas where we can make progress." The president said that, "even with the sequester unresolved," Washington could make progress elsewhere. 

"I'm going to keep pushing for high-quality preschool for every family that wants it. I'm going to keep pushing to make sure that we raise the minimum wage so that it's one that families can live on. I'm going to keep on pushing for immigration reform, and reform our voting system, and improvements on our transportation sector. And I'm going to keep pushing for sensible gun reforms because I still think they deserve a vote," he said. 

He reiterated the message in his Saturday radio address.

View the original article here

Obama to nominate Walmart's Sylvia Matthews Burwell for budget chief

WASHINGTON –  President Barack Obama on Monday will nominate Walmart's Sylvia Mathews Burwell as his next budget director, a senior administration official said.

If confirmed by the Senate, Burwell would take the helm at the Office of Management and Budget at a time of heated budget battles between the White House and congressional Republicans. She would also bring more diversity to Obama's second-term Cabinet following criticism that many top jobs were going to white men.

The president will announce Burwell's nomination during a White House ceremony Monday morning, said the official, who requested anonymity in order to confirm the nomination ahead of Obama.

Burwell is a Washington veteran, having served as OMB's deputy director in the Clinton administration and chief of staff to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Burwell currently runs the Walmart Foundation, the retail giant's philanthropic wing, and previously served as president of the Gates Foundation's Global Development Program.

The official credited Burwell with being a principal architect of a series of budget plans in the 1990s that led to a budget surplus.

Burwell's nomination signals that the White House is trying to get back to normal business after the president and Congress failed to avert $85 billion in automatic spending cuts that took effect Friday. While the president has warned of dire consequences for the economy as a result of the cuts, the White House does not want to the standoff with Congress to keep the president from focusing on other second-term priorities, including filling out his Cabinet and pursuing stricter gun laws and an overhaul of the nation's immigration system.

Obama made quick work of filling key national security openings in his administration, but has been slower to fill other Cabinet openings, including the OMB post. Vacancies also remain at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commerce and Energy Departments, and the U.S. trade representative.

Burwell would replace acting OMB director Jeffrey Zients, a well-liked figure in the Obama administration, who has been discussed as a contender for other top jobs.

View the original article here

Chris Christie's $32.9B New Jersey budget expands Medicaid

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie proposed a $32.9 billion budget Tuesday that allows more poor residents to enroll in Medicaid and increases public school aid but defers property tax rebates for three months.

Christie's proposal for the fiscal year that starts July 1 comes as the state rebounds from Superstorm Sandy, the worst natural disaster in state history. The budget counts on federal funding to stimulate the state's still-sluggish economy and help coastal communities rebuild. Some 25 municipalities lost at least 5 percent of their tax base after Sandy, because of destroyed homes and closed businesses.

The budget also adds nearly $100 million to public education and expands the Medicaid rolls by 300,000 by allowing the federal government to take over costs.

However, many homeowners expecting property tax rebates in May will have to wait. Seniors, the disabled and low-income homeowners will see them in August.

The deferral will allow the state to cover for a projected $407 million shortfall in the budget that expires in June. New Jersey's constitution doesn't allow deficit spending.

The budget also makes a $1.6 billion payment to the public employee pension system, a commitment the administration made when landmark pension and health benefits changes were enacted two years ago. Those changes required union workers to pay more for retirement and medical benefits, changes Christie said were necessary to shore up the underfunded systems.

Christie's proposed budget contained no major surprised but could be thrown into turmoil by the end of the week -- to the peril of the state's property holders -- if President Barack Obama and Congress fail to strike a deal on looming federal budget cuts.

The first $1.8 billion in Sandy aid is due in April. But New Jersey could see $100 million less than expected unless there's a deal in Washington to eliminate federal cuts set to take effect Friday. Preschool classes and regional airports could also be shuttered.

Christie proposed adding $40 million to the current-year budget to cover expenses not reimbursed by the federal government.

"This will ensure that we can move ahead with maximum speed, and that those things that fall through the cracks will not bankrupt families, businesses and local governments," Christie said.

The Republican governor has told residents of hard-hit towns whose homes survived the storm to expect to pay higher property taxes. But that could be a bitter pill for New Jerseyans recovering from Sandy. State residents already pay the highest property taxes in the country, averaging $7,870 per household.

Budget Officer Declan O'Scanlon, who represents some of the shore towns, said a portion of the Sandy aid was earmarked for property tax relief to cushion the blow.

"Regarding Sandy and property taxes, the way we're going to hopefully resolve that is with federal money," O'Scanlon said. "That's been done before in other jurisdictions where they've had massive storms like this."

In a video clip released ahead of his 3 p.m. speech to the Legislature, Christie offered up a theme but no budget details.

In the clip, titled "Saving Lives Lasts Forever," the governor said, "budgets come and go. Taxes go up and down. But saving lives ... that lasts forever."

View the original article here

Sequestration is budget freefall neither party can afford

In order to understand the political battle over deficit reduction and automatic spending cuts looming on March 1, it is necessary to visit the voting history of the Budget Control Act of 2011, a bill crafted to reduce the deficit and avoid default.

That bill created a supercommittee on deficit control, with the provision that if the supercommittee did not come to an agreement, automatic spending cuts -- sequestration -- would be imposed on all discretionary spending, including the military.  The expiration of various tax cuts would also mean tax increases for millions of Americans. 

On Aug. 1, 2011, an overwhelming majority of Republicans (174-66) in the House voted for the bill.  House Democrats split down the middle, 95-95. Republican leaders John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy voted yes. Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn voted yes. The bill passed the Senate the following day, with 45 Senate Democrats supporting the bill, joined by 28 Republicans and one Independent.

President Obama immediately signed the bill -- the product of bicameral, bipartisan leadership in cooperation with the White House -- into law.

So you can imagine the surprise of Republicans when, in the October 22 presidential debate last year with Mitt Romney, President Obama denied he had anything to do with the sequester. He even poked fun at Romney, suggesting he was woefully ignorant and behind the times in his assessment of U.S. military readiness.

We need to get our $600 billion trade deficit turned around.  We need to start taking care of things back home. 

“The sequester is not something that I proposed,” the president declared. “It’s something that Congress has proposed.  It will not happen. The budget we are talking about is not reducing our military spending. It is maintaining it.”

It was a key moment in the final debate, which was generally scored in favor of the president. It could have gone the other way if Romney had known sequester would also create a spike in unemployment, up to 9.1 percent by the end of 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which released the report just a little more than 24 hours after Romney conceded the election.

In fact, the idea of draconian cuts to the Defense budget came from the White House. Bob Woodward, in his book “The Price of Politics,” traced the sequester idea as a negotiating strategy that moved from the executive office to the Democratic leader of the Senate to Republican leaders, culminating in mutually flawed assumptions that a bipartisan agreement on the supercommittee would be reached because Republicans didn’t want defense cuts and Democrats wanted to avoid cuts in social programs.  The supercommittee could not agree, and the automatic spending cuts of sequestration are now on the way. 

As a member of the 112^th Congress, I voted against the Budget Control Act of 2011. Is there waste in government? Yes! Do we need to cut spending? Yes. We need to cut spending for wars, interventions and any foreign aid that sets the stage for interventions. We borrowed money from China to wage an unnecessary, wrongful war against Iraq.  We need to get our $600 billion trade deficit turned around.  We need to start taking care of things back home. 

The White House promoted sequester because it is prepared to agree to cut spending on important domestic programs, even to the extent of falsely injecting Social Security into the debt debate. Is this what a "Liberal" administration looks like? The American Taxpayer Relief Act, 2013, passed on January 1 this year, recovered for taxpayers a substantial amount of money that would have been lost due to the expiration of tax cuts, reducing the adverse impact of substantial tax increases on the economy.

With automatic spending cuts looming, the president will continue to distance himself from the sequestration process, and Republicans will try to bring him back to where he started: As the Initiator. After all, it was his idea and he signed the bill.  

Watch for the White House to shift to a “share the pain” approach to deficit reduction, but perhaps not in time to avoid sequester. The Democrats will attack Republicans for sequestration.  Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has gone into high gear in attack mode, last week saying that if Democrats were in charge, sequestration would not happen -- although he voted to begin the process, as did other Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. 

Senate Democrats ask for more tax revenue, or they refuse to pass a budget. They have, in fact, refused to pass a budget for years, so this latest move may not inspire their Republican colleagues to action. 

House Republican leaders who voted for the sequester process will not even bother to bring new revenue issues to the floor of the House, mindful of the fact that on New Year’s night, their conference voted 151-85 against tax increases for people in the highest brackets. 

On sequester, everyone is in.  And everyone is out.  But if congressional Democrats and Republicans are grappling with each other as they go over the sequestration falls, they may learn they have precipitated one crisis too many for an American electorate worried about the economy.

Dennis Kucinich (@Dennis_Kucinich, info@KucinichAction.com), a Fox News contributor, served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from January 1997 to January 2013.

View the original article here