Here we go again. Republicans are very clear about their latest extortion threat to the American people: Unless you cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, within the next two months we will throw the U.S. economy back into recession; by refusing to allow the U.S. raise the debt ceiling and pay our bills; or by pushing the economy over another fiscal cliff of deep spending cuts and tax increases; or by shutting down the government by refusing to pass a continuing budget resolution.

But it is very important for progressives and politicians to remember that most Americans hate what the Republicans are doing here. Who but the right-wing could support pushing the economy back into recession, throwing millions of Americans out of work? That's what Republicans are threatening. And huge majorities also hate the price Republicans are demanding to prevent their threat of manufactured chaos: the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Republicans can get their way only if Democrats fail to realize they have the American people on their side. And once Republicans are clear about their proposals, Americans turn against them.

During the election, Paul Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher was so unpopular that candidate Mitt Romney ran away from his Vice Presidential nominee's proposal. Democrats won the election.

Now, Tennessee Republican Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander have dared to unveil a proposal (called their "dollar-for-dollar plan") that would only allow the debt ceiling to be raised by the amount we allow them to cut what they term "entitlements." How many Americans would embrace these changes?:

• They would privatize Medicare by creating competing private options giving seniors greater choice of healthcare plans. Shades of the plan Mitt Romney endorsed and then ran from.
• They would also give states more flexibility to cut Medicaid programs.
• And they would gradually raise the Social Security retirement age and immediately impose the "chained CPI" formula to cost-of-living adjustments -- a cut to retirement benefits of today's seniors.

"Unfortunately for America, the next line in the sand is going to be the debt ceiling," Corker told The Hill, laying out his leverage strategy for negotiations with Democrats. These guys couldn't be more explicit

Over the next two months, everyone who loves our country must rise up and say 'no' to this Republican nihilistic extortion. We must isolate them, ridicule and shame them. And we must force the Democrats to have the backbone to stand with us and reject Republican extortion and economic terrorism.

President Obama campaigned for re-election on his pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $250,000, but he backed down and agreed to raise taxes only on people making more than $400,000. In return, he got an extension of unemployment benefits and important low-income tax provisions. But he could only get Republicans to postpone for two months the fiscal cliff tax increases and spending cuts known as "sequestration." And he failed to get them to give up the threat to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States that their refusal to raise the debt limit ceiling would bring on. Their refusal to support the once-routine legislation insuring we can pay our debts is already causing the Treasury Department to juggle accounts and will reach crisis stage by the end of February.

President Obama has pledged that he will not bow to Republican extortion over the debt limit:

"I will not compromise over ... whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they've already racked up. If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it. Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again."

But remember that President Obama did negotiate the last time Republicans threatened to crash the economy by refusing to raise the debt limit, in September 2011. Obama was willing to offer up Social Security benefit cuts (in the form of a new "chained CPI") and a change in the Medicare eligibility age (from 65, when many people are forcibly retired, to 67). It was only because Republicans refused to accept tax increases that Obama's dangerous offer was not accepted. Instead, in return for Republican votes to lift that last debt ceiling, the draconian fiscal cliff sequestration budget cuts scheme was created (now postponed until early March).

So while President Obama may refuse to negotiate with Republicans over their latest manufactured debt limit crisis, he could end up negotiating to avoid the threat of sequestration. And Social Security and Medicare cuts could be on that table.

A Powerful Coalition Reminding Democrats What Americans Want -- And Don't Want.

President Obama and other Democrats need to listen to the voices of the groups who helped get them elected in 2012 -- unions, community organizations, groups representing women, African Americans and Hispanics, and online activist groups like MoveOn and the Campaign for America's Future.

On November 8, many of these groups placed an ad in the Washington Post making a set of demands on the president and Congress. These demands have served as unifying principles for a powerful organizing and outreach coalition. Signed by organizations including the AFL-CIO, SEIU, Center for Community Change, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the Campaign for America's Future, the ad was accompanied by an open letter to the White House and Congress signed by 146 national organizations.

If the president and the Democrats in Congress listen to these principles -- and to these groups who have been communicating with them before and after the election -- they will refuse to cut Medicare and Social Security in response to the Republicans' threat reject the debt ceiling and tank the economy. And they will discover they have the vast majority of Americans on their side.

Here what the ad said, in part:

To the President and The Congress.

As you face urgent budget decisions, you must keep the election results in mind and resist budget cuts that slow our economy and hurt families. The best way to reduce the deficit is to put people back to work and get our economy going again. That's why we are calling on national leaders from both parties to stand up for the middle class and demand that any budget agreement:

Asks all Americans to pay their fair share of taxes.

Prioritizes job creation first. It's time to grow -- not slow -- the economy.

Does not cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits and does not shift costs to beneficiaries or the states. Voters loudly and clearly spoke up for these programs.

Protects the safety net and vital services for low-income people.

Stops the sequester. The scheduled automatic budget cuts threaten our fragile recovery and put huge numbers of people out of work while cutting education, child care, job training and dozens of vital services people and communities need.

The groups involved have helped the American Majority of working families communicate these demands to the President and the Congress. So far, we have kept Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid off the chopping block. We are redoubling our efforts to prevent Democrats from capitulating to Republican hostage-taking. And we are turning our campaign to opposing conservative austerity -- and fighting for jobs and robust economic growth.

MIDDLETOWN, N.J. -- While Superstorm Sandy did highly visible damage to homes, boardwalks and roads, it also walloped the Northeastern fishing industry, whose workers are hoping for a small piece of any future disaster assistance that Congress might approve.

The storm did millions of dollars' worth of damage to docks, fish processing plants and restaurants. But it also caused millions more in lost wages to boat employees who couldn't work for two to three weeks, to truck drivers who had nothing to transport, and to other assorted industries that service commercial fishing.

The $9.7 billion measure to fund the National Flood Insurance program, passed by Congress on Friday, did not include anything for the fishing industry; a bill the Senate passed in December would have allocated $150 million for that purpose.

Some of the worst damage to fisheries in the region occurred at the Belford Seafood Cooperative on the Raritan Bay shoreline in Middletown, where the pounding waves destroyed a 75-foot-long dock, gutted a popular restaurant, and ripped away all five garage doors and parts of the exterior of office and storage buildings. The co-op's manager, Joe Branin, estimates the damage at close to $1 million.

"We went three weeks before we were able to pack a fish," said Branin, whose business was still without electricity in mid-December. "We lost almost all our equipment. It was three weeks before anybody could do anything."

The restaurant, where diners could eat scallops and fillets literally right off the boat, had provided $5,000 to $8,000 a week in revenue that is now gone.

The co-op supported 50 families who either work directly for it or in supporting roles. Many of those workers simply did without a paycheck for weeks afterward. The situation was the same at New Jersey's Viking Village port on Long Beach Island's Barnegat Light, where boats were idled after the storm.

"We couldn't get to work for two weeks because the infrastructure was all torn up here," said Bob Brewster, who owns three of the port's 45 fishing boats and estimates he lost between $10,000 and $20,000 in lost catch. "We were just twiddling our thumbs, waiting to get back out on the water. Everybody wants to make a living, and for a while, we couldn't."

In Hampton Bays, N.Y., Doug Oakland estimated two marinas he owns suffered between $800,000 and $1 million in damage. He estimates about a dozen other marinas in the eastern Long Island community were similarly affected.

"The marinas got beat up pretty hard. There's a 75-foot section of our pier that's just gone," he said.

"There was about three to four weeks right after the storm where all the fish kind of disappeared," he said. "The first two weeks, fishermen couldn't even get out because a lot of their gear was buried in sand. With the gas shortage, there were no fuel trucks, and there really was no market to sell the fish to because nobody had power. There was no sense in even trying to catch them."

Though most of the individual boats up and down the East Coast escaped damage, they were forced to stay at the dock because of a combination of problems.

That included damage to their home ports; torn-up roads that forced street closures and kept workers, truck drivers, and customers from reaching the docks; the disruption to normal fishing patterns after the storm that saw many profitable species chased away until the following year; and even difficulty in getting in and out of ports because of new sand bars.

A strong nor'easter a week after Sandy just made things worse.

"We couldn't get trucks to transport the product," said Dwight Kooyman, who manages two of Viking Village's scallop boats. "I have five guys that work for me that couldn't work that entire time. If they don't work, they don't get paid."

They're all waiting to see whether Congress includes them in the billions of dollars in storm reconstruction aid it is considering. Less than three weeks after the Oct. 29 storm, the U.S. Commerce Department declared a fishery resource disaster for New Jersey and New York. But all that did was authorize the federal government to disburse any aid that Congress approves. Specific plans for applying for and distributing any aid to fishermen still have to be formulated.

Dale Parsons is a fifth-generation fisherman at the Jersey shore, who owns a shellfish business in Tuckerton, and who used to own a commercial hatchery for tiny clams and oysters on the edge of Barnegat Bay – until Sandy destroyed it, causing several hundred thousand dollars' worth of losses.

"It was millions of oysters and clams that won't be spawned next year," he said. "Even if we rebuild right now, it will take a good year, year and a half to get it together. It's going to take a long time coming."

The damage to seafood processors and docks is only part of the industry's problems, Parsons said; he also fears reduced business from restaurants who see fewer tourists this summer and order less seafood.

"I'm just waiting to see what kind of business there's going to be in the spring," he said. "No one knows yet."

Sandy also affected recreational fishing businesses, including coastal bait and tackle shops that were flooded. New Jersey officials are soliciting damage reports from individual businesses to help make the case that they need direct federal grants, not just loans. The state's recreational fishing industry estimates it lost $160 million from the storm.

Bonnie Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, said charter fishing boats suffered greatly because people were just not taking fishing trips in the weeks following the storm.

"The trains weren't running, there was no gas to get out to the docks, so I'd say they lost substantial income," she said.

In some places, Sandy actually appears to have helped, rather than hurt, the fishing industry. Maryland environmental officials say an influx of fresh water into the Chesapeake Bay may benefit the oyster population by helping to keep the disease known as dermo in check.

Gibby Dean, president of the Chesapeake Bay Commercial Fishermen's Association, said the oyster harvest is the best it's been in a long time – so good that people are giving up crabbing to go after oysters.

___

Associated Press writers Frank Eltman in Hampton Bays, N.Y., and Randall Chase in Baltimore contributed to this report.

___

PORTLAND, Ore. — For more than two years, the only image the public has had of the man accused of plotting to detonate an 1,800-pound bomb at a Portland Christmas tree-lighting ceremony is this: A sullen-faced, sunken-eyed terrorism suspect in a mug shot taken just hours after his arrest.

At the trial that begins Thursday, Mohamed Mohamud's attorneys will attempt to present a different image, one of an impressionable teenager lured by undercover agents with the FBI, which snared one of its youngest terrorism suspects with his arrest in November 2010.

At issue is whether Mohamud was entrapped, as his defense claims, when he gave the go-ahead for the detonation of what he thought was a bomb at the Christmas tree-lighting ceremony. The bomb was a fake, provided by FBI agents whom the 19-year-old thought were his jihadist co-conspirators.

It was one in a series of high-profile FBI terror stings dating back to the Justice Department's directive to ramp up its terror prosecutions and informant network after the 9/11 terror attacks.

Based on pretrial filings, one of the avenues Mohamud's attorneys are likely to pursue is based on an undisputed fact: Mohamud was a teenager when he was arrested, and his attorneys allege he was still a minor when the FBI began to focus on him.

This, his attorneys say, made him much more vulnerable to FBI enticements, and a jury should consider him an unwilling pawn of a Justice Department hungry for a conviction that demonstrates its regard for terrorism as its highest priority.

This, too, is not in dispute: Mohamud pushed a button on a cellphone that he thought would set off a bomb placed in a van and kill thousands.

The FBI alleges in court documents – and backed it up with transcripts of conversations secretly recorded by undercover agents – that Mohamud picked the time and place of the detonation. The high school graduate from Beaverton, Ore., knew the area and knew that the event would be well-attended.

"It's gonna be a fireworks show," the FBI says he told undercover agents. "A spectacular show."

Prosecutors also allege Mohamud "explained how he had been thinking of committing some form of violent jihad since the age of 15," according to the affidavit filed in connection with his arrest.

Mohamud's attorneys have a high bar to cross, said Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School.

"The entrapment defense is really difficult, much more difficult when it comes to terrorism cases," Greenberg said.

Juries are being asked to weigh heavy legal questions of predisposition against more visceral evidence like secret audio recordings of the defendant praising violent jihad. "Once you're accused of terrorism (in front of U.S. juries), you're presumed to be guilty," Greenberg said.

Attorneys from both sides are forbidden from speaking about the case publicly.

For a time, Mohamud was able to live two lives – as a young immigrant trying to fit in, and a Muslim who had become radicalized.

Mohamed Mohamud's family emigrated from Mogadishu, Somalia, where he was born in 1991. He moved to the U.S. when he was about 5 years old.

Mohamud professed aspirations of becoming an engineer, like his father. As a student at Oregon State University, he spent his freshman year studying, playing basketball and partying but eventually dropped out.

As a senior in high school, Mohamud had begun writing articles for an online English-language jihadist magazine called "Jihad Recollections" under the pen name Ibn al-Mubarak, advocating physical fitness for the mujahedeen in places where they couldn't find exercise equipment.

He wrote three articles, including one praising the content and presentation of al-Qaeda's media arm, As-Shabab Media.

The FBI began monitoring Mohamud's emails. In the summer of 2010 FBI undercover agents set up the first in a series of meetings with Mohamud, who talked about a dream in which he led a group of fighters into Afghanistan against "the infidels."

According to the prosecution's version of events, Mohamud's undercover handlers offered him several choices in the service of jihad. They ranged from simple prayer to full-on martyrdom. Mohamud chose a step short of killing himself, saying he wanted to "become operational," according to the FBI.

This, they say, should show that Mohamud was more than an unwitting teenager.

Journalist Trevor Aaronson found a common thread in such sting cases, documented in a forthcoming book, "The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism," which spends a chapter on elements of the Mohamud case.

"(The stings) all have minor variations, but they're all pretty much the same in that they involve people who don't have the capacity to commit the crimes" for which they're prosecuted, Aaronson said.

Aaronson said Mohamud didn't have access to bomb-making materials and, while he espoused anti-Western views, showed no capacity for carrying out acts of terror.

"If you're going to prosecute every loudmouth," Aaronson said, "our courts would be clogged."

___

Reach reporter Nigel Duara on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/NigelDuaraPro

By Alex Dobuzinskis

Jan 5 (Reuters) - Retired Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy is taking aim at what he sees as knee-jerk support for marijuana legalization among his fellow liberals, in a project that carries special meaning for the self-confessed former Oxycontin addict.

Kennedy, 45, a Democrat and younger son of the late "Lion of the Senate" Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, is leading a group called Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) that opposes legalization and seeks to rise above America's culture war over pot with its images of long-haired hippies battling law-and-order conservatives.

Project proposals include increased funding for mental health courts and treatment of drug dependency, so those caught using marijuana might avoid incarceration, get help and potentially have their criminal records cleared.

Kennedy wants cancer patients and others with serious illnesses to be able to obtain drugs with cannabinoids, but in a more regulated way that could involve the U.S. Food and Drug Administration playing a larger role.

The eight-term former congressman from Rhode Island and the group he chairs will put forth their plan on Wednesday with a media appearance in Denver.

Their efforts follow the November election that saw voters in Washington state and Colorado become the first in the nation to approve measures to tax and regulate pot sales for recreational use. Kennedy's group is seeking to shift the debate and reclaim momentum for the anti-legalization movement, in part by proposing new solutions with appeal to liberals, such as taking a public health approach to combat marijuana use.

Legalization backers have argued that the so-called War on Drugs launched in 1971 by former President Richard Nixon has failed to stem marijuana use, and has instead saddled otherwise law-abiding pot smokers with criminal records that may block their avenues to landing a successful job.

Kennedy faults the U.S. government for allocating too much of its $25 billion drug control budget to law enforcement rather than to treatment and prevention.

"Yes, the drug war has been a failure, but let's look at the science and let's look at what works. And let's not just throw out the baby with the bathwater," Kennedy, who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2011, said in a telephone interview.

The U.S. Department of Justice is still developing a policy in regard to the new state legalization measures.

President Barack Obama said in an interview with ABC News last month that it did not make sense for the federal government to "focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that, under state law, that's legal."


BIPARTISAN APPROACH

Conservative political commentator David Frum, a speech writer for former President George W. Bush, is also a board member on Project SAM, which lends it a bipartisan flavor.

For his part, Kennedy is aiming many of his arguments toward liberals like himself. Polls show Democrats largely favoring legalizing marijuana, and among the 18 states that allow medical marijuana, several are in the West and Northeast and are heavily Democratic.

"The fact is people are afraid on the (political) left to look like they're not for an alternative to incarceration and criminalization, and they're afraid they're not going to look sympathetic to a cancer patient" who might use marijuana, Kennedy said. As a result, he said the legalization position mistakenly comes to be seen as "glamorous."

Kennedy admits to having smoked pot but also said that, as an asthma sufferer, he "found other ways to get high."

In 2006, he crashed his car into a security barrier in Washington, D.C., and soon after sought treatment for drug dependency. He said he was addicted to the pain reliever Oxycontin at that time and suffered from alcoholism. He added that he has been continuously sober for nearly two years.

Kennedy, who was married for the first time in 2011, said he worries his 8-month-old son might be predisposed to drug abuse - due to a kind of genetic "trigger" - and that is part of his fight against legalization.

He also said he wants to "reduce the environmental factors that pull that trigger," such as marijuana use being commonly accepted.

Meanwhile, another prominent figure from Rhode Island, the newly crowned Miss Universe Olivia Culpo, is making waves by also objecting to legalization. She told Fox News this week there are "too many bad habits that go with the drug."

In Washington state, Alison Holcomb was campaign director for the legalization measure, which billed itself as having a public health element to help people dependent on marijuana.

The measure, which is not set to go into full effect until after state regulators spend most of 2013 setting guidelines, would allow adults 21 and older to buy marijuana at special stores.

Holcomb argued that drug dependency courts are more geared toward users of hardcore drugs, and that the approach her group put forward is the sensible one.

"I don't know what a public health approach without legalization looks like, if you're still arresting people," she said.

Taxes on marijuana sales would generate, at the high end of estimates, over $500 million a year with $67 million of that going to a state agency that provides drug treatment, said Mark Cooke, policy adviser for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state, which supported the campaign.

Also included in the tax revenue would be $44 million for education and public health campaigns - including a phone line for people wanting to quit using marijuana, Cooke said. (Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Daniel Trotta and Gunna Dickson)

Kathleen Parker, Washington Post
The new year has begun with an avalanche of Republican retrospectives: What went wrong? What must the GOP do?In attempting to navigate my own thoughts, I keep bumping into advice my father gave me a long time ago: “Learn Spanish. You will need it to survive in the world you will inherit.”

Matea Gold, Los Angeles Times
Fresh off this week’s last-minute “fiscal cliff” deal, President Obama on Saturday dug in as the prospect of another budget clash with congressional Republicans loomed, warning that he will not negotiate over raising the nation’s debt limit.“One thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up,” Obama said in his weekly address. “If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire...

Annie Lowery, NY Times
WASHINGTON — With 2013 bringing tax increases on the incomes of a small sliver of the richest Americans, the country’s top earners now face a heavier tax burden than at any time since Jimmy Carter was president.House Speaker John A. Boehner and President Obama worked together to avert a fiscal crisis at the start of the year.

Jonathan Alter, Bloomberg
You can already hear the rumbling in the distance -- a train of noisy liberal Democrats barreling straight for the White House. They should arrive just in time for President Barack Obama's second inauguration.The president already has his hands full dealing with angry and unrealistic Republicans. Now he's getting reacquainted with their counterparts on the left -- a less ideologically inflexible bunch but not necessarily any more susceptible to reason.

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Republicans in Congress who took the politically risky step of voting this week to raise taxes now find themselves trying to fend off potential primary challenges next year from angry conservatives.

These lawmakers wasted little time in attempting to deliver an explanation that would be acceptable to the tea party and the GOP's right flank, and, perhaps, insulate themselves from a re-election battle against a fellow Republican. They've started defending the vote as one that preserves tax cuts for most Americans, while promising to fight for spending cuts in upcoming legislative debates over raising the nation's borrowing limit.

"In the end, he ensured that over 99 percent of Kentuckians will not pay higher income taxes," Mitch McConnell's campaign wrote in an email message to Kentucky voters the day after the Senate Republican leader supported the measure.

It was the first time in two decades that a significant number of Republicans voted for a tax increase; 33 Senate Republicans did so and 85 House members who broke with their GOP majority to support the bill that avoided the nation going over the so-called fiscal cliff but that also raises taxes on upper incomes.

"The ones that voted for it, I think they will rue the day," Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby proclaimed after opposing the bill. And Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, put it this way: "It's not too early to be looking at 2014. I think there are going to be a lot of primary challenges. People are fed up."

Most if not all of these Republicans who voted to raise taxes are likely mindful of their party's recent history of nasty primary battles that have pitted incumbents against tea party-backed insurgents. And none of them is likely to be immune to the scrutiny – rising stars, powerful committee chairmen and Republicans in reliably Republican seats – expected to confront them when they return to their districts to stand for re-election in November 2014.

The vote was a dilemma for Republicans, who have pledged for decades not to raise taxes, but faced being blamed with raising taxes on all Americans, had Congress and the White House not reached a deal on legislative to avert the scheduled increases on most Americans. The party got some cover from Grover Norquist, a leading anti-tax figure who described the bill, which preserved a series of tax cuts for most incomes, as "clearly a tax cut."

Even so, the tea party wasn't on board. Neither were many of the party's most conservative lawmakers in Washington.

"It's a really tough vote. And it's a really tough vote to explain to Republicans," Michigan Republican consultant Stu Sandler said.

Lawmakers who could be vulnerable to a challenge include Michigan Rep. Dan Benishek and South Dakota Rep. Kristi Noem, who bucked her tea party base and backed the bill, calling it "damage control."

"This makes her vulnerable and there will be discussion that she should have a primary challenge," former South Dakota Republican chairman Joel Rosenthal said. "Whether it materializes depends on votes down the road."

Some Democrats who opposed the deal also might be called to account by their own liberal bases for voting for spurning President Barack Obama and refusing to go along with his election-year pledge to raise taxes on America's top earners.

Among those who voted "nay," were liberals like Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin. He sharply criticized the bill as overly generous to wealthy Americans, and had supported Obama's original proposal to raise taxes on people earning at least $250,000 a year.

Harkin has not ruled out seeking a sixth term in 2014. And while his vote would likely prevent a primary challenge, it could be tricky for him in a general election.

Republicans – and specifically in the House, where tea party fervor is strong – seem more vulnerable.

While House Republican delegations, such as New York's and Pennsylvania's voted for the bill, they did so likely with impunity because the GOP bases in their states aren't nearly as ideologically conservative as those in other parts of the country.

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, also voted for the measure. It won't likely be an obstacle to his re-election in his swing-voting district, but it could cause him trouble with conservative primary voters, should he run for president in 2016.

Rep. Steve Womack, in just his second term representing heavily conservative northwest Arkansas, could be forced to answer to tea party concerns over his yes vote if he seeks a third term. And he will almost certainly face questions about it should he run for U.S. Senate or governor, the subject of GOP speculation on which Womack has been silent.

Michigan Rep. Fred Upton's backing of the measure might rile up conservatives enough in his right-leaning district in the western part of the state that he could face a challenger. But his stature may be enough to prevent a serious one: he has easily fought off recent primary opponents and, as chairman of the Energy and Commerce commission, would likely have the fundraising edge.

Upton's Michigan colleague, Benishek, also voted for the bill and could have a bigger concern. He eked out re-election to a second term in November, carrying less than 50 percent of the vote in his northern district, and spurning tea party activists there could invite a threat from an opponent.

Among Senate Republicans, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia backed the measure and may have further agitated conservatives who were already cranky with him over his participation last year in the so-called "Gang of Six," a bipartisan group that discussed fiscal plans including tax increases and changes to entitlement programs.

After the vote, Chambliss pointed quickly to the next phase of the fiscal fight as the place for redemption for what he called a flawed but necessary measure.

Chambliss and others say they will press for tying dramatically lower spending to support for raising the nation's debt limit.

"This is just the first step in a major, major fight," Chambliss' senior adviser Tom Perdue said.

The swift defense from those who backed the increases is a response to GOP primary challenges from conservatives last year that proved costly to Republican members seen as dealmakers. Six-term Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar lost his primary to tea party favorite Richard Mourdock, and House Republicans Jeanne Schmidt of Ohio and John Sullivan of Oklahoma lost in primaries last year, attacked in part for voting to raise the debt ceiling.

___

Associated Press writers Bill Barrow in Atlanta and Alan Fram in Washington contributed to this report.

So, did we all have fun over the holidays?

The fiscal cliff fight went right up to the last minute, then we all momentarily Thelma-and-Louised over the cliff, and then Congress actually voted on a federal holiday. This last bit was so stunning, Congress is now going to take a two-week vacation just to recover (you know, from actually having to do their jobs). We missed commenting on most of this because we were busy doing our two-part year-end awards show (while also taking time to note that your constitutional right to flip the bird to a police officer has just been reaffirmed).

If we had a "best quote" awards category, we'd certainly have to nominate what outgoing House Republican Steven La Tourette had to say about the whole situation, after the Senate had voted 89-8 to approve the fiscal cliff avoidance deal: "We should not take a package put together by a bunch of sleep-deprived octogenarians on New Year's Eve." Now that's funny!

Humor aside, though the deal went through and immediately a contest erupted between left and right to see who could denounce the deal in highest dudgeon possible. We are not going to join in this flagellatory orgy, however, and are going to use our Friday Talking Points this week to point out why this deal is not just a pretty darn good one, but actually downright historic.

For those who may not agree with the previous statement, here's something we can all agree upon, in the spirit of entering the new year cheerfully -- Congress is now 100 percent Lieberman-free! Woo hoo! Not so sorry to see you go, Joe. Now please get off my teevee screen on Sunday mornings, okay?

 

While Democrats in general were showing a surprising amount of backbone in the entire fiscal cliff negotiation process, including folks like Harry Reid and Barack Obama, the one man being given credit for actually cutting the deal is the one who deserves this week's award.

Vice President Joe Biden is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week, for hashing things out with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Speaker of the House John Boehner pretty much threw up his hands and took himself out of the deal-making process when his own House Republicans wouldn't back him up, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was likewise sidelined when McConnell got frustrated with him and called up Biden instead.

Biden, you'll recall, used to be in the Senate. He knows how the chamber operates, and he knows how to bargain. He also knows the value of an actual deal, as opposed to the value of partisan posturing for the base or the media. So he broke the logjam and cut a deal with McConnell that sailed through the Senate (a vote of 89-8 is pretty rare on substantive issues, these days), and was then rammed through John Boehner's House -- forcing him to break the "Hastert Rule" (which is a pretty silly "rule" to begin with).

Was the deal perfect? Well, no. Could it have been better? Yes. Could it have been more progressive? Oh, certainly. Nonetheless, it passed. What you and I might consider the "perfect" bill likely would not have made it through Congress.

Which is the whole point. Joe Biden got what he could, gave where he had to, and still produced a deal which passed into law. There's even now a petition to "authorize the production of a recurring television show featuring Joe Biden" up on the White House website (which you can vote for yourself, if this sort of thing would interest you).

For achieving an agreement with the congressional Republicans which avoided the fiscal cliff (if you don't count the few hours we walked off the cliff in true Wile E. Coyote fashion, looked around, looked down in shock, and then ran back to solid ground before falling), for sealing a deal when all other Democrats had failed, and for the possibility we'll be seeing him in a reality show soon (heh), Vice President Joe Biden is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Vice President Joe Biden on his White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

The news today that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi just inserted a few House members into a group photo who didn't actually show up on time for the photo shoot is a little disturbing, we have to admit, but doesn't even rise to the level of a (Dis-)Honorable Mention, sorry.

The fiscal cliff deal itself was disappointing in a number of ways, not least of which was the failure to extend the payroll tax holiday for another year (or, at the very least, step it back up only one percent more a year). This is going to be shocking news to many Americans as they listened to Democratic politicians and the media tell them that the deal "would not raise taxes on middle class Americans" -- even though it will do precisely that. Whether or not there's a backlash from this realization will take a few weeks to play out. And that's just one of the disappointments in the whole deal.

But our real Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than President Barack Obama. While Obama is riding a huge wave of positivity in the job-approval polls at the moment, and while he's got a pretty favorable schedule to look forward to this month (what with his second inauguration and the upcoming State Of The Union address), we still have to single him out this week for some very quiet caving on national security issues.

Lost in the fiscal cliff media frenzy was something else Congress put on Obama's desk recently: the reauthorization of the Pentagon's budget, known as the National Defense Authorization Act (or "NDAA"). As usual, Congress included several things in this year's NDAA that Obama does not support, such as restrictions on closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Also included was the authorization to indefinitely detain American citizens, which is truly extra-constitutional tyranny of the first order. Obama had issued a veto threat to Congress on the NDAA, but he went ahead and signed it anyway. Obama also approved the massive continuation of warrantless wiretapping, another civil liberties fiasco.

Now, we realize that the Pentagon needs a budget and all of that, so we understand Obama was in a pinch with the bill Congress sent him. We are also (as are many, it's worth pointing out) feeling rather jaded on the entire subject of Obama seemingly channelling his inner George W. Bush on national security and civil liberties issues. It's not that we've given up on the issue, but we do see it as being firmly in the "beating a deceased equine" category, at this point. Obama doesn't seem willing to muster the political backbone to fight on any of these issues, and hasn't since his first days in office, so we're not expecting him to change any time soon.

But beyond this defeatism, we are awarding Obama the MDDOTW award this week not so much for signing a bill with bad things in it, but for issuing a toothless veto threat in the first place. The veto threat is arguably the president's strongest legislative weapon. It is only rarely used, and only rarely even threatened. But the rule of thumb should be that any time a president threatens a veto, he should be absolutely willing to follow through on that threat -- or else he loses respect and leverage with Congress for the future. Every time a president threatens a veto and then does not follow through, he is seen as weaker by his congressional opponents. It's just a fact of political life in Washington.

Which is why President Obama is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. Don't make threats you aren't going to follow through on, Mister President. You just weaken yourself by doing so. If you're going to cave in the end, then refrain from making the veto threat in the first place -- it's that simple.

[Contact President Barack Obama on the White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Volume 239 (1/4/13)

All week long, the punditocracy has been fulminating over the fiscal cliff deal. From the left and from the right, there has been much garment-rending and gnashing of teeth. But you know what? This isn't such a bad deal, when you put it into proper perspective.

Our talking points this week are all in support of the deal, so be warned. Politically, it is hard to see how this is anything but damaging for Republicans, since their factional civil war in the House broke out into the open for all to gawk at. In the end, the Tea Partiers and Norquistians very publicly lost the battle. Perhaps this will reduce their influence in future debates, who knows? Even if it doesn't, the left should be basking in the schadenfreude right about now, while casting their eyes over the wreckage of what used to be the lockstep-Republican House, and their now-weakened leader John Boehner.

Sure, the left didn't get everything it wanted. But it could have been one whale of a lot worse. Consider all the things that didn't make it into this deal, in other words. Oh, sure, things like slashing Social Security and Medicare will be fought over again inside of the next two months, but none of it happened in this deal. That's a political victory, right there. Obama -- before the deal was even finalized -- appeared in one of the most cheerful official announcements he's ever gotten, and tossed down the gauntlet for the next round of negotiations. Obama will be looking for more tax revenue in the next deal, and he (so he says) will not be held hostage by the debt ceiling battle. He may, in fact, have a trillion-dollar platinum coin or two up his sleeve in that fight.

But let's look at what happened, as we'll have plenty of time later to pick apart the next deal, when it comes down the pike. Here are some suggestions for Democrats to use in explaining why the fiscal cliff deal wasn't just a pretty good one, it was downright historic.

 

   The first time in a generation

This is the main thing which truly puts the deal just cut into proper perspective.

"You know, you can pick nits all you want about the deal, but let's look at the larger picture instead. This deal is the first time in a generation that Congress has raised marginal tax rates. The last time Congress did so was in 1993 -- 20 years ago. The last time a tax hike passed with any Republican support at all was even further back -- a full 23 years ago. There are House members who have served ten full terms in office who have never seen this happen before, to put it in perspective. Did Democrats get everything they wanted? No, they did not. But they did manage to break the power of Grover Norquist and get an astounding number of Republicans on board with raising income tax rates on the wealthy. This was, in fact, a monumental achievement. Just look at the last two decades to see why."

 

   Washington ends a Big Lie in the budget

I have to admit, I called this one wrong. To me, this was the most stunning part of the deal, although the media didn't really stress it at all (due to most in the media being absolutely incapable of performing basic math).

"I am encouraged that Congress showed some real honesty in this deal, by permanently fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax. For years, Congress has played 'make-believe' with the AMT numbers, even though every single one of them knew that it was nothing more than a Big Lie in the budget projections. Each and every year, Congress pretended that they were only going to 'fix' the AMT for a single year, and that for the nine years after, it would remain unfixed. But everyone knew that was nonsense, because the AMT was 'fixed' every single year, like clockwork. Nobody wanted to see the real numbers. But when you hear the scoring on the fiscal cliff deal that was just signed into law, please remember that almost $2 trillion of the costs of this bill are nothing more than finally admitting that that $2 trillion was nothing more than smoke and mirrors in the first place; money that was never actually going to appear in the federal government's coffers. I applaud Congress for finally biting this bullet and getting back to some honest accounting rather than including make-believe and fairy dust in the 10-year budget projections. It took political courage, and it deserves a lot more attention than the media has been giving it."

 

   Thirty-nine-point-six percent

This is an important aspect of the deal that has been overlooked by the legion of critical voices out there.

"Yes, I would have preferred Obama had realized his campaign promise to raise tax rates on those making above $250,000 a year, but you never get everything you want in any particular bill. What Obama did hold firm on was another figure that had been rumored to be on the negotiating table. A few weeks before the deal was cut, the conventional wisdom in Washington was that the Republicans were going to get Obama to lower the highest tax rate from 39.6 percent to only 37 percent. I know it's tough for pundits to remember back that far, but this was indeed what everyone was saying inside the Beltway a few short weeks ago. The final deal that was cut did not lower this rate -- Obama got the full 39.6 percent for the upper tax bracket. So while he had to move on the $250K limit, he didn't budge on the tax rate itself -- something not many people have given him credit for."

 

   Cutting loopholes for the wealthy

This is where Obama could indeed gain further concessions in the next round of budgetary deal-making, but again, it's been given short shrift so far by the talking heads.

"Another thing few have noticed is that Obama did indeed raise taxes on those making a quarter of a million dollars per year. Deductions and exemptions and other loopholes will be limited for taxpayers above this threshold. This is something I expect Obama to revisit in the next round of budget negotiations, now that the tax rates themselves have been raised. Cutting loopholes for wealthy taxpayers should be very much on the table next time around -- but any agreement should preserve tax benefits for the middle class below the $250,000 line, as the fiscal cliff deal does."

 

   A step towards solving the Buffett problem

Lefties are complaining about the deal's treatment of capital gains and dividends, but once again, this should be seen as a step forward toward an ultimate goal.

"The fiscal cliff deal moves the tax system one step towards fairly treating all income the same, and solving the problem of Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. Capital gains and dividends for upper-income taxpayers will now be taxed at a base rate of 20 percent rather than 15 percent. That's a rate hike of one-third, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. Remember, the Paul Ryan budget wanted to move this tax rate to zero, folks. So while Buffett may now pay only slightly more than half the rate than he would if it was regular income, this is still a big step in the right direction."

 

   Estate tax hike

Once again, this is an area being widely criticized, but again, let's put it into some perspective.

"The fiscal cliff deal raises the estate tax from 35 to 40 percent on the wealth passed from generation to generation. Now, while I would have liked to see the rate even higher than that and the exemption limit lower, I still have to score this one as a minor victory for Democrats. Remember, the original Bush tax cuts reduced this tax rate to zero. So where we are today is a big step down the road to where we should be. And please don't bring up the mythical family farmer. Republicans have been searching high and low for a family farmer who lost his land due to having to pay the estate tax -- searching for over a decade -- and yet they've never managed to find a poster-child family farmer to trot out in front of the cameras. It's a myth -- the way the tax is structured allows family farmers to cope with it when passing their land on to their children, so please, let's not even go there. The estate tax not only survived the fiscal cliff deal, but it has been increased. I'd like to see it changed even further, but it's hard to see how that's a bad outcome, for now."

 

   Ask an unemployed person

This one is for all those who aver that going over the fiscal cliff would somehow have been better than cutting a deal to avert the worst consequences of doing so.

"I know many Democrats were urging President Obama and congressional Democrats to just go over the cliff and be done with it. Obama, from new reports on the negotiations, actually used the threat of doing so quite effectively in the bargaining. But Obama doesn't have the luxury of treating the situation like a parlor game. Going over the cliff would have had some real-world consequences that were impossible for him to just ignore. So, to any Democrats grumbling that we should have Thelma-and-Louised right off the fiscal cliff, I have one thing to say: ask an unemployed person whose benefits were about to run out if they agree with you or not. Ask them whether they would have cheered Obama on while facing their own economic ruin. There were harsh realities involved in going over the cliff that have now been averted. While the deal certainly isn't what I would call perfect, it did save a lot of folks a lot of very real harm. Obama should be commended for his leadership in not allowing that to happen."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

 

A thumb-nail assessment of the fiscal cliff bill: Much sound. Some fury. Simplifying nothing.

Nonetheless, those members of Congress who worked together in a bi-partisan fashion to construct and pass the "cliff deal" are to be commended. The major presenting short-term problem of the expiration of "middle class" tax cuts was addressed. Significantly and appropriately, tax rates for the "wealthy" were increased. In addition, the alternative minimum tax was corrected, expiring jobless benefits were extended, and cuts to Medicare reimbursements were prevented.

The congressional compromise pulled us back after we went over the cliff for a very short period of time. The sad truth, however, is that we are still cliff dwellers. Much more remains to be done than got done with this bill.

Consider the following: The sequestration process for automatic budget cuts to defense and domestic programs has been extended by only two months. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare solvency and management remain wide open issues. The debt ceiling debate has raised its ugly head again. And, most importantly, job creation and economic growth do not appear to be central to the ongoing deficit and debt discussions.

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairs of the Deficit Reduction Commission stated that the fiscal cliff bill was "truly a missed opportunity to do something big to reduce our fiscal problems." We agree with Bowles and Simpson that the bill was not "something big".

In no way could this be considered a grand bargain. On the other hand, given the composition of the 112th Congress and its track record over the past two years, a grand bargain in this constrained a time period was probably impossible because of the grand canyon - i.e., the ideological chasm - that separated the extreme tea party conservatives in the House from the Democrats and even their more moderate Republican brethren.

Looking at it objectively, the fiscal cliff bill contains elements and produces consequences that offend partisans on both sides of the aisle. While the middle class tax breaks were protected, the payroll tax break was eliminated. It is estimated that this will cost "an average of $1,000 for a household at the national median income." While "new taxes" were on the table, spending cuts were off. The bill generates $620 billion in new tax revenue which seems like a lot but pales in comparison to what is required. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will reduce revenues over 10 years by $3.64 trillion and increase spending by $332 billion.

So, the bad news is that we are still cliff-dwellers. The good news is that the cliff is no longer the exclusive province of those within the Beltway. It is now occupied by the American public and voters as well.

The results of the national elections sent a loud and clear message that the public is expecting and demanding compromise. They also sent a message that it would be unacceptable to extend the Bush era tax cuts uniformly. Finally, they sent the message that the voters are and will pay close attention to the negotiation processes surrounding the cliff and the behavior of our elected officials in resolving the debt and deficit crisis.

The passage of the fiscal cliff bill with an overwhelming bi-partisan majority in the Senate and a sound bi-partisan majority in the House is a clear sign that many in Congress have gotten the message. Let us hope that this collaborative action by the departing 112th Congress is a harbinger for the 113th.

Right after the elections, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey that revealed that in general the voters were "pessimistic about partisan cooperation" in politics going forward. As we start this New Year, Congress has given the citizenry a small reason to replace this healthy skepticism with guarded optimism.

As it continues its cliff-work over the next 100 days, Congress will determine whether that optimism is warranted. It should be aware that the cliff dwellers will be watching. The dwellers will also be anxiously waiting for Congress to move off the cliff in order to scale the economic summit.

A year-end Washington Post-ABC poll showed that 75 percent of the registered voters responding felt that the "economy is still in a recession." If that is the perspective from those at the bottom and the middle of the cliff one to two years from now, all of the pick and shovel work done to try to address the debt and deficit crisis by only focusing on cost-cutting and shrinking government will have been in vain.

Congress needs to be about more than green eye shades and expense reduction. It also needs to be about investing and revenue generation. Congress needs to finish its fiscal work successfully and quickly and then pass legislation that will stimulate job creation and growth and development of the economy for the middle class and the working poor.

The American people deserve this. They should be given the opportunity to be mountain climbers rather than cliff dwellers.

To get regular updates on what Ed, George and Frank are writing and reading, subscribe to their newsletter by going to the following link: http://bit.ly/pivotsignup

Some Republicans don't know a victory when they see one. All you hear out of presidential hopeful Marco Rubio and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is doom and gloom but this is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Tuesday the House passed the Senate's bill avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff -- the first time the house had a vote on New Year's Day since the Korean War. We know that the Senate passed this on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan basis with only eight "no" votes but in the House the vote was much more fractious at 257-151 with only 85 Republicans joining 172 Democrats.

What the 151 GOP "no" voters don't want to see is that they essentially scored a major victory for themselves and the American people, but blind ideology, churlish demagoguery and primary-election posturing has kept these Members of Congress from realizing it.

In a Washington world where the White House and the Senate are firmly in Democratic hands, the Democrats actually contorted themselves to please the Republicans by making the Bush-era tax rates permanent for nearly all Americans. The Democrats and the President changed their definition of "the rich" from $250,000 a year to $450,000 a year for families. And these families won't pay the higher marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent on income below $450,000, only above it and income after exemptions and deductions. In a place like New York $200,000 isn't rich but I think it's safe to say that those earning a half million anywhere in the nation have graduated out of the middle class.

The Democrats caved mightily on inheritance taxes. Estates of $5 million or below will be excluded from taxation. This is an increase of the exemption ceiling from the current $3.5 million. Family farms and certain family businesses get a $10 million exemption. Yes, above the $5 million threshold the tax rate rises to 40 percent from 35 -- but $1.5 million more is now exempt, or $525,000 in taxes that will no longer have to be paid on that $1.5 million. If you inherited $5.5 million your estate taxes will be $200,000 instead of $700,000 at the old rate. How is this a bad thing for Republican philosophy? Democrats should be upset!

Also the bill permanently, automatically increases the Alternative Minimum Tax bar which removes the annual taxation Sword of Damocles from tens of millions of upper middle class Americans. How is this a Democratic victory? Lastly, dividend income will no longer be taxed at the same marginal tax rates as earned income, it will be taxed at a flat 20 percent (more like capital gains). Is this not a victory for Wall Street and corporate America?

But if you listen to all the braying and whining particularly from Tea-Party affiliated Republicans in the House you'd think the world has come to an end and the GOP has surrendered whole cloth to President Obama.

What really happened is that finally at the eleventh hour senators acted senatorial and most representatives in the House came to their senses on behalf of the American people and our economy.

The GOP has got to find some things to offer the American people beyond draconian plans to cut the life out of everything. Let's see some ideas to bring prosperity and the good life to the Average Jane or Joe. What about Republicans advocating for three weeks paid vacation for everyone in the interests of increasing worker satisfaction and productivity?

Speaker John Boehner and Rep. Paul Ryan deserve a lot of credit for bringing the Senate bill to a vote in the House and for voting in favor of the legislation themselves. We need folks in Congress who are going to get things done not pretend to be Moe from The Three Stooges. Let's see what the new Congress can do, hopefully the fiscal cliff vote can set a positive momentum in motion for Congress and the country.

Alec MacGillis, TNR
President Obama's decision to agree to a "fiscal cliff" deal that doesn't address the debt ceiling was premised on the thinking that congressional Republicans will not be as successful at holding the economy hostage in the coming months as they were in the summer of 2011. For one thing, the administration believes the business community, and elite opinion more broadly, will be much more vocal than they were last time around in cautioning Republicans against debt-ceiling hijinx.Is this a fair assumption to make? Well, there are already signs that business leaders...

Paul Krugman, NY Times
The centrist fantasy of a Grand Bargain on the budget never had a chance. Even if some kind of bargain had supposedly been reached, key players would soon have reneged on the deal — probably the next time a Republican occupied the White House. Paul Krugman For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT. For the reality is that our two major political parties are engaged in a fierce struggle over the future shape of American society. Democrats want to preserve the legacy of the New Deal...

Kurt Eichenwald, Vanity Fair
As news of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary played out around the country, the mantra from the gun-rights folks was fairly consistent: now is not the time to discuss how the government should deal with controls on firearms. It’s politicizing tragedy to talk about it, they whine.O.K., I’ll agree. Let’s not talk about policy when it comes to Sandy Hook.Instead, let’s consider the San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre in 1984. Following the shooting of 40 people at that time, gunnies also said it was too soon to discuss new firearms laws; it would...

Caitlin Huey-Burns, RealClearPolitics
Although John Boehner watched most of his fellow Republicans, including his top lieutenants, cast votes against the fiscal-cliff-averting measure he brought to the House floor -- and supported -- on New Year's Day, the speaker appears poised to retain his leadership post.The 113th Congress will convene for the first time Thursday, and Republicans will vote then on whether to let Boehner keep the lower chamber's gavel. Congressional budget and deficit showdowns, especially the most recent one over how to prevent substantial tax increases and spending cuts from kicking in, have...

* "Fiscal cliff" fight proved wrenching for Republicans

* Next fight ahead - the debt limit

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, Jan 2 (Reuters) - In the wake of bruising fights in their own ranks over the "fiscal cliff" and aid for victims of superstorm Sandy - Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives open a new Congress on Thursday more divided than ever.

While their leader, Speaker John Boehner, seems in no danger of losing his position because of the divisions, his ability to speak for his membership in the House appears greatly diminished.

That could not come at a worse time for Republicans as they prepare for their next attempt to get more spending cuts out of President Barack Obama. They will try to use the debt ceiling - and Obama's request to raise it - as leverage, as they did in 2011.

But if the final days of this Congress were indicative of things to come, Republicans will have a rough time effectively using their majority in the House against Obama, who even Republicans acknowledge is at the top of his game following the Democrat's re-election in November.

The fiscal cliff battle to avert steep tax hikes and spending cuts that were due to kick in at the start of this year proved gut-wrenching for Republicans.

Obama's demand for a tax hike on the rich challenged a core principle that has guided Republicans for decades: No new taxes. Ever.

Yet, late on New Year's night, 85 Republicans in the House did just that, voting to raise income taxes on household income of more than $450,000 a year.

Some of the Republican Party's biggest stars were among the 85 - including Boehner and Paul Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate, who is seen as a conservative anchor.

But 151 House Republicans stood in defiance, leaving Boehner in the unenviable position of having to rely on opposition Democrats to pass major legislation.

Earlier in the fiscal cliff fight, Boehner suffered a humiliating defeat when his "Plan B" solution - which would have limited the tax hikes to income of $1 million a year or more, got so little support he had to cancel the vote.

No sooner had the fiscal cliff battle ended than Boehner found himself in trouble with other Republicans over aid for victims of Sandy, the second costliest storm in U.S. history, which smashed New York and New Jersey coastal communities in late October.

Legislation providing disaster relief to New York, New Jersey and other East Coast states was delayed. A House Republican aide said that given Republicans' frustration with the fiscal cliff bill and its lack of significant spending cuts, "it was not a good time to immediately vote on $60 billion in new spending."

"I don't enjoy saying this. I consider myself a personal friend of John Boehner's," said Republican Representative Peter King of New York. "It pains me to say this, but the fact is that the dismissive attitude that was shown ... toward New York, New Jersey and Connecticut typifies, I believe, a strain in the Republican Party."

Earlier, King had condemned House inaction on Sandy as a "knife in the back."

Republican Representative Michael Grimm, also of New York, said of Boehner's refusal to bring the disaster bill to a vote: "There was a betrayal. There was an arrogant judgment that is going to cost I think the trust of the American people."

Ironically, Grimm first won his seat in Congress in 2010 with the help of conservative Tea Party activists who sometimes show displeasure with disaster aid spending.

By midday on Wednesday, Boehner had changed course, promising a House vote by week's end on a $9 billion down payment in storm assistance, with a second bill providing $51 billion to be voted on Jan. 15.


TEA PARTY EFFECT

Paul Light, a New York University professor and a specialist on Congress, said the vote on the fiscal cliff bill could mark the start of a "major realignment" in the run-up to the 2014 congressional elections and the 2016 presidential race.

Republicans who voted for the legislation "are going to have to find a home. They're not going to find it with the Tea Party," Light said.

He said that Republicans who were uncomfortable with the Tea Party could begin aligning themselves more closely with a dwindling band of centrist Democrats.

Congressional Republicans, especially in the House, have been buffeted for two years by the Tea Party, which helped them win control of the House in 2010.

Boehner had to navigate Tea Party demands throughout the 2011 fight over raising U.S. borrowing authority or risking a historic government default.

In rapid succession, Tea Party-fueled battles were waged over infrastructure investments, farm subsidies, payroll tax cuts and the fiscal cliff.

At the core of the disputes was whether the government should be made smaller, forcing Boehner to balance that demand with the need to govern and keep the federal government operating in an orderly way.

For all the heartache over the past several weeks as Republicans fought with one another over whether to let taxes on the rich go up, many see better days ahead.

"By and large, people are probably happy to have it behind them. This was obviously the worst part of the fiscal debate," said one House Republican staffer, referring to the tax hikes.

The staffer added, "Republicans get to point out that we still have a $1 trillion deficit and ask Democrats what kind of spending cuts, entitlement reforms they are willing to do to fix it."

Republicans feel that will be an easier lift for them - one that they can sell to the American public as they move on to the fight over the debt ceiling. (Editing by Fred Barbash and Peter Cooney)

NEW YORK –- Time Warner Cable pulled the plug on Current TV just hours after news of the cable channel's sale to Al Jazeera became official.

"This channel is no longer available on Time Warner Cable," read an on-screen message where Current TV used to be found.

Al Jazeera took a major step into the U.S. cable market Wednesday by acquiring beleaguered Current TV and announcing plans for a U.S.-based news network to be called Al Jazeera America. But while the new channel will soon be available in 40 million households, Al Jazeera faced a setback when Time Warner Cable -- which reaches 12 million homes -- announced it was dropping the low-rated Current, which occupied a spot that could have been switched to Al Jazeera America.

Joel Hyatt, who co-founded Current TV with former Vice President Al Gore, told staff in a Wednesday night memo that Time Warner Cable "did not consent to the sale to Al Jazeera."

"Consequently, Current will no longer be carried on TWC," Hyatt wrote. "This is unfortunate, but I am confident that Al Jazeera America will earn significant additional carriage in the months and years ahead."

A Time Warner Cable spokesman said in a statement that "our agreement with Current will be terminated and we will no longer be carrying the channel."

Some media observers interpreted the move as motivated by politics.

"Time-Warner cable shows abject political and journalistic cowardice by dropping Current because of Al Jazeera deal," tweeted Dan Gilmor, a technology writer and founding director of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University.

The Time Warner Cable spokesman would not comment on politics when reached by The Huffington Post, but said via email that "we do have an agreement with [Al Jazeera English], though we have no plans to launch it at this time."

Al Jazeera America will be separate from Al Jazeera English, although roughly 40 percent of the new network's programming is expected to come from the English-language channel, which is based in Doha, Qatar.

New York Times reporter Brian Stelter reported that Time Warner Cable had warned it might drop Current due to low ratings. On Twitter, Stelter noted that Al Jazeera will acquire Current's carriage deals with other cable providers, including DirecTV, Comcast, Dish, Verizon and AT&T.

Al Jazeera English http://bit.ly/12ZcMjR" target="_hplink">received awards and acclaim for its comprehensive coverage of the Arab Spring protests in 2011, yet it has still faced an uphill battle in gaining cable distribution in the U.S., likely due to lingering fears of anti-American programming raised in the George W. Bush years. The Bush administration condemned Al Jazeera for its Arabic-language network's coverage of the Iraq War and broadcasting of al Qaeda tapes, even targeting its headquarters in Baghdad during the Iraq War. Perceptions that the news organization, which is funded by Qatar's government, is anti-American continue even as U.S. political leaders such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have praised the network's reporting abroad.

While major U.S. cable companies have refused to carry the network, it has made some progress in getting Al Jazeera English in front of American viewers. For instance, the Al Jazeera English broadcast is currently carried in New York City over the RISE network (Ch. 92), even though it doesn’t have its own place on the dial.

Al Anstey, managing director of Al Jazeera English, acknowledged to The Huffington Post in August 2011 that "in the United States of America, there were myths and misconceptions that needed to be tackled about what Al Jazeera stood for and what Al Jazeera English stood for and stands for."

However, Anstey said, the network was making progress and "getting known, building the reputation, establishing ourselves for the unique content that we put out there ... By doing that, we obviously addressed many of those misconceptions that existed in the past."

On Wednesday, Al Jazeera management expressed confidence that there's strong demand for its programming in the U.S., which already accounts for 40 percent of the viewership of its streaming English-language network.

"U.S. viewers have clearly demonstrated that they like the way Al Jazeera provides compelling, in-depth news to audiences across the world," said Al Jazeera's director general, Ahmed bin Jassim Al Thani, in a statement. "Everyone at Al Jazeera takes great pride in the independence, impartiality, professionalism and courage of our journalism. I look forward to bringing these standards to our new American audiences and working with our new colleagues at Current."

Al Jazeera America will be headquartered in New York City, and the network said it plans to double its U.S.-based staff to more than 300.

The fight to expand the definition of family to encompass the diversity of actual families continues in 2013. Legislators in Illinois, Minnesota and Rhode Island are preparing marriage equality bills.

On another front, Immigration Equality's efforts paid off recently when the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, in a move praised by the White House, included protections for binational same-sex couples in its guidelines for comprehensive immigration reform. That effort has gained new traction as the GOP tries to mend its disastrous alienation of Hispanic voters.

The year's top billing in the struggle for marriage equality goes to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which in March will hear oral arguments in two marriage cases: Hollingsworth v. Perry (regarding California's Proposition 8), appealed from the Ninth Circuit; and United States v. Windsor, appealed from the Second Circuit, which knocked down the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage in Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The Ninth Circuit, instead of endorsing U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's sweeping 2010 decision that Prop 8 was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses" of the 14th Amendment, narrowed it to declare that rights previously granted cannot be taken away. SCOTUS could uphold this, which would not affect states that have not allowed gay marriage. Or it could sweep away all 31 state constitutional amendments barring gay marriage and impose marriage equality nationwide. Or it could rule that there is no constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.

This array of options is a bit scary with such a closely divided court. At the same time, a sign of our growing success is the fact that David Blankenhorn, an expert witness for Prop 8's proponents in 2010, has changed his mind and now accepts gay marriage.

A key question raised by the high court in both cases concerns standing -- whether Prop 8's proponents have the right to appeal Perry (state officials having declined), and whether House Republicans have the right to appeal Windsor (President Obama having refused to continue defending DOMA). If the appellants lack standing, the case is thrown out and the pro-gay trial court ruling stands.

I agree with marriage equality advocates who favor upholding the Second Circuit on DOMA and either upholding the Ninth Circuit on Prop 8 or denying standing. This gets federal recognition for gay marriages in states that allow them, without compelling other states. If the court imposes marriage equality on all the states now, the resulting backlash could keep dozens of state legislatures in obstructionist hands for a long time. Many liberal jurists warn against getting ahead of ourselves. A more modest ruling affirming states' rights would allow the political process more time to work. After another decade of rising public support for equality, a SCOTUS ruling granting equality nationwide would be less of a provocation.

This high-stakes court battle occurs against a broader backdrop. Despite the election, Republicans continue pursuing their alternate America in which plutocrats replace the middle class with a fend-for-yourselves feudalism; white heterosexual men claim a divine right to perpetual dominance; the bossiest form of Christian fundamentalism is the state religion; and know-nothingism cripples our ability to compete internationally in industries that depend on science and its application.

Endurance was a crucial virtue in carrying us this far. We must remain engaged and clear-eyed for the battles ahead, even as we represent our families in the public arena. Those committed to a more intolerant America have not laid down their weapons. As I finished writing this, I read that the Kansas Department of Children and Families has sued a sperm donor for child support because it doesn't recognize the relationship of the child's lesbian parents. Happy new year.

This piece also appeared on Bay Windows and Metro Weekly.

John Stossel, FOX Business
In the short time since President Obama was re-elected, government has issued hundreds of new regulations. The bureaucrats never stop. There are now more than 170,000 pages of federal regulations.President Obama wants still more rules. Cheering on increased financial regulation, he said, "We've got to keep moving forward." To the president, and probably most Americans, "forward" means passing more laws.It is scary to think about a world without regulation. Intuition leads us to think that without government we'd be victims of fraud, as I explain in my latest...

Zachary Goldfarb, Wash Post
Americans are all but certain to face a broad hike in taxes on Tuesday for the first time in at least two decades, ending a prolonged period of declining taxation that has become a defining characteristic of the American economy.Regardless of whether President Obama and Congress reach an agreement to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” many Americans will see a higher tax bill because of the expiration of the payroll tax cut, which was enacted in 2011 as a temporary measure to boost economic growth. The tax holiday was preceded by a similar temporary cut in 2009 and 2010.

Rick Klein, ABC News
The fiscal cliff is just the beginning. Regardless of whether Democrats and Republicans reach some kind of last-minute bargain to avoid the worst effects of tax hikes and spending cuts, the disaster that has been the fiscal cliff negotiations has broad implications for the Washington agenda in 2013 and beyond.The tone has been set for the new year, and possibly for the rest of President Obama’s time in office: Washington’s divisions are the only point that matters anymore. Call if dysfunction or call it just plain broken, just don’t call it capable of even small...

As the final scene of Thelma and Louise seems to be playing out these last few days, it might be a good time to recall the dramatic end of that movie.

It's true that some think the fiscal cliff is real while others say it's just a mirage. Some in the U.S. want to just "keep goin'" as Thelma urges. But most of us probably don't see much of a choice -- it seems more like we are trapped in a car with its gas pedal stuck in the full speed ahead mode and someone has disabled the brakes. For even at this 11th hour, almost no one in the Punch and Judy Show in Washington is able to home in on, much less intelligently discuss, the real problem.

As President Obama meets with congressional leaders at the White House in last-ditch efforts to reach a budget deal, however, one clarion voice, that of Representative Dennis Kucinich was heard on Democracy Now . Here are some of Kucinich's parting words of wisdom about the phoniness of the entire fiscal cliff debate, ignoring as it does the terrible elephant in the room, the war machine:

So, you know, this is -- we really have to decide who we are as a nation. We're spending more and more money for wars. We're spending more and more money for interventions abroad. We're spending more and more money for military buildups. And we seem to be prepared to spend less and less on domestic programs and on job creation. This whole idea of a debt-based economic system is linked to a war machine... We're increasingly dysfunctional as a nation because of our unwillingness to challenge the military-industrial complex, which Dwight Eisenhower warned about generations ago. And so, we really have to look at America's role in the world. We have a right to defend ourselves, but we have no right to aggress. And we're continuing to aggress. And that's coming at a cost to our domestic priorities here, this idea of guns and butter. We are now thoroughly mired in an economy that's based on guns. We are not providing for the practical needs of the American people. And this budget and this fiscal cliff does in no way get into that debate.

Also amidst the darkness comes a news flash of a way by which ordinary people can still make a difference: "DULUTH CITY COUNCIL JOINS SAINT PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS PASSING THE MN ASAP RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PENTAGON SPENDING REDUCTIONS: the MN ASAP resolution connects the dots between federal military spending, cuts to city council budgets, and the debate about sequestration and the fiscal cliff."

As part of the Minnesota Arms Spending Alternatives Project (MN ASAP), citizens in Minnesota have effectively begun pointing to U.S. war machine spending as the elephant in the room that needs to be noticed, then discussed and addressed. We have found that our city councilpersons and mayors, on the whole, seem more clear-headed, more approachable, less corrupted by the Military Industrial Complex and less defensive than the federal characters responsible for getting us into the costly wars and fiscal mess. As a result, on December 17, the Duluth City Council passed the resolution, calling on Congress for a reduction and redirection of Pentagon spending back to local communities.

(Click here for TV news coverage.)

The resolution initiative is getting real traction not only in Minnesota but around the country! The Saint Paul City Council unanimously passed a similar resolution, October 10th, 2012. And the Minneapolis City Council unanimously passed a similar version of the MN ASAP resolution on December 7. (Just a few days before, Des Moines, Iowa joined a growing group of larger U.S. cities that have passed or are passing similar resolutions.)

We have to start somewhere and everyone can do this! For instance on December 13, I requested, for the second time, that the MN ASAP resolution be put on (my own) Apple Valley City Council's agenda warning that the wars are bankrupting America and that the "fiscal cliff" is unlikely to go away as long as the U.S. continues to spend more on the Pentagon, its wars abroad and its military occupations, than on programs of social uplift. I intend to keep knocking on my city's door until they wake up and open it and put this discussion on their official agenda.

Guns or butter is of course the real issue. It's unfortunate, all these decades after Eisenhower's warning about the pernicious, corrupting influence of the Military Industrial Complex, that we cannot count on those in Washington to heed the dangers. In fact, their plan seems to raise taxes on everyone to pay for more wars. More citizens and grassroots efforts like the successful actions of MN ASAP and the National Priorities Project are therefore necessary. People who care about their children and grandchildren's future need to replicate these type of presentations in cities and state legislatures all over the country if we are ever to end the unethical, illegal wars and get our priorities back in order.

And if we citizens choose to do nothing but go along? Note that the old movie mercifully spared its audience of watching crazy Thelma and Louise hit rock bottom. Rest assured, however, that in real life, Washington's collective euphoria and currently prevalent belief that war is the answer will undoubtedly come to a very sad crashing end.

John Fund, National Review
In Star Wars, Obi-Wan Kenobi used an old Jedi mind trick on Stormtroopers to deflect them from their real quarry: “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” It worked.It looks as if another mind trick, well known in the Congress — delay and deflection — will now work to make Americans forget one of the biggest scandals of our time: the housing collapse that triggered the 2008 financial meltdown we are still suffering from. We shouldn’t just gaze over the fiscal cliff everyone else is scrutinizing; we should also examine...