Republicans Walk Back "Redefining Rape" in Bill Defunding Abortions

Looks like the Republicans in the House have walked back their controversial verbiage in the HR3 bill that would defund Planned Parenthood any any other organization that performs abortions. Many have argued that they were "redefining rape" by only including "forcible" rape in the list of exemptions:

"The word 'forcible' will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," a spokesman for Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), one of the sponsors of H.R. 3. The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act," told Politico.

The Hyde Amendment is the existing measure meant to bar the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.

This is no big surprise. It should have never been put in the bill in the first place. They should've that this would only inflame the public with virtually no upside to including it.

Boehner Makes Bill Banning Federally-Funded Abortions A Priority

In the spirit of making even more spending cuts, Speaker Boehner announced that he will put forth a bill written by Rep. Smith (R-NJ) that will cut all federal funding of abortions:

Calling it a top priority of the Republican agenda, House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday gave a top designation to a bill introduced by New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith that would ban the use of any federal funds from being used for abortions.

The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," given the numerical designation H.R. 3 to emphasize its prominence, would make permanent in existing law any language that bans abortion. It also would provide medical workers with "conscientious protections" that allow them to refuse to participate in abortion procedures against their will.

The legislation will "ensure that the taxpayers -- through huge majorities clearly show do not want their money being used to pay for abortions -- no longer are coerced into using taxpayer funding to subsidize the killing of an unborn child and the warping of his or her mother," Smith said in a press conference with Boehner on Capitol Hill

"Our members feel very strongly about the sanctity of human life. We listened to the American people. We made a commitment to the American people under the Pledge to America and we're continuing to fulfill our commitment," Boehner said.

Separately, Reps. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., and Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill., are introducing a bill to prohibit any money from the new health care law from going to fund abortions.

Again, this is appealing to the base. Even some that are pro-choice are against federal taxpayer money going to the procedure. So, this would be easily palatable by the majority of Americans. Democrats will, of course, ferverently oppose the bill, but given the current political climate and the winds of change blowing towads reducing the deficits, they’ll have a hard time defending it.

However, with the Democrats in the Senate and Obama in the White House, the chance of this passing is minimal, unless it is included in some sort of compromise down the line. Abortion is one of the main tenents of the Democratic party, and they’ll be hard-pressed to do anything that would upset the pro-choice lobby.

House Republicans to Introduce Bill That Will Cut Spending By $2.5T Over 10 Years

Now that the Republcans have passed the ObamaCare repeal in the House, they are moving onto the next promise: massively cutting spending and bringing down the deficit. This new bill will be introduced by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH):

A number of the House GOP’s leading conservative members on Thursday will announce legislation that would cut $2.5 trillion over 10 years, which will be by far the most ambitious and far-reaching proposal by the new majority to cut federal government spending….

Jordan’s “Spending Reduction Act” would eliminate such things as the U.S. Agency for International Development and its $1.39 billion annual budget, the $445 million annual subsidy for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the $1.5 billion annual subsidy for Amtrak, $2.5 billion in high speed rail grants, the $150 million subsidy for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and it would cut in half to $7.5 billion the federal travel budget.

But the program eliminations and reductions would account for only $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion in cuts. The bulk of the cuts would come from returning non-defense discretionary spending – which is currently $670 billion out of a $3.8 trillion budget for the 2011 fiscal year – to the 2006 level of $496.7 billion, through 2021.

Going back to 2006 levels would reduce spending by $2.3 trillion over ten years. It is a significantly more drastic cut than the one proposed by House Republican leadership in the Pledge to America last fall, which proposed moving non-defense, non-mandatory spending for the current fiscal year back to 2008 levels, which was $522.3 billion. Jordan’s proposal includes the recommendation from the Pledge for the current fiscal year, which ends in September.

The proposal would cut the federal work force by 15 percent and freeze automatic pay raises for government employees for five years.

This will definitely be popular with the most Americans, especially the base. Defunding NPR, PBS, and Amtrak are easy targets, even though the left will give a very spirited defense. In the end, I think that their days of receiving money from the federal government are over.
If you break down the bill, it will come to about $250,000 in cuts a year, and that is only one-sixth of this year’s deficit. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a great start, but it is still just a start. Only cuts to the entitlement programs will make a long-term impact on the deficit. Only when they take on entitlements will there be any chance for long-term solvency.

The bill will, also, not be very popular with Democrats because it will cut the legs out from under what is left of the Stimulus money and funding for ObamaCare:

And don’t expect cheers from the White House in any case. Jordan’s bill ends the stimulus program and sends its remaining $45 billion back towards deficit reduction, which means the end of $6 billion earmarked for states already in budgetary crises. Another $16 billion meant to bolster Medicaid will make that situation even worse, since it will transfer more costs to the states (or more accurately, keep the states from transferring costs to the federal government) and set back the ObamaCare rollout. Expect Democrats to ramp up attacks on spending cuts using the same anecdotal strategy they attempted with the ObamaCare repeal vote this week.

Still, this is an excellent start to the new Republican majority in the US House. Let’s hope that it continues.

Republicans in the Senate should follow suit, as well. Sen. Jim DeMint has expressed an interest in introducing a similar bill in the Senate soon.

Tax Compromise Survives US House, Goes to White House For Signature

Obama’s tax compromise with the GOP survived liberal opposition in the House, late last night.

Congress approved the most significant tax bill in nearly a decade late Thursday, overcoming liberal resistance to continue for two more years tax breaks enacted under president George W. Bush and to provide a fresh boost of federal support to the tepid economic recovery.

The package, brokered by President Obama and Republican leaders in the wake of the November elections, angered many Democrats, who have long argued that the Bush tax cuts were skewed to benefit the wealthy. But their last-minute campaign to scale back the bill's benefits for taxpayers at the highest income levels failed, and the House passed the measure 277 to 148, with 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voting "no."

"This bill, the president of the United States believes and I believe, will have a positive effect on the economy," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). "I will vote for this bill because I don't want to see middle-income working people in America get a tax increase, because I think that will be a depressant on an economy that needs to be lifted up."

The $858 billion package now goes to the White House. With his signature expected as soon as Friday, Obama will prevent taxes from rising on New Year's Day for virtually every American household. The measure also will guarantee unemployed workers in hard-hit states up to 99 weeks of jobless benefits through the end of next year. And it will create major new incentives for business and consumer spending in 2011, including a two-percentage-point reduction in the Social Security payroll tax that would let workers keep as much as $2,136.

The package breezed through the Senate earlier this week on a vote of 81 to 19, giving Obama his strongest bipartisan victory on a major initiative since he took office.

This was a bit of a victory for both sides, really. The GOP was able to get all of the tax rates extended for two years, and Obama and the Democrats were able to get unemployment compensation extended for another year.

However, what ever benefit that Obama would have received from being able to broker this compromise was largely negated, when he called the Republicans “hostage takers” and Democrats “sanctimonious”.

While some on the right might argue that it would have been better to let the tax cuts lapse, in order to get a better deal, next year, when the Republicans gain control the House and get stronger in the Senate. However, I don’t believe that letting taxes go up, even if it is just for a month, is a good idea, when we are still struggling economically. It could have been a disaster and cause businesses to panic, and unemployment could have gone up a few points. This was the best thing that we could do, at this point in time.

Breaking: Democrats to Add "Fix" to Tax Cut Compromise That Would Could Seriously Jeopardize Passage, Update: Pomeroy Failed

In order to ensure that the liberal Democrats will vote for the tax compromise, leaders have are attempting to pass an amendment that will likely kill the bill in the Senate:

Moments ago, House Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.) told reporters “we are going to put an extra vote in” to the rule governing debate on the tax deal.

House Democrats say there will likely be a total of four votes tonight related to the tax bill:

1) A vote to amend the existing rule to include a simple up-or-down vote on the tax deal.

2) A vote on the rule itself

3) A vote on the Pomeroy amendment, which would increase estate tax rates from the levels in the Senate bill.

4) A vote on final passage of the bill.

If 1-4 all pass, the bill would go to the Senate, where it is likely dead in the water. If the Pomeroy amendment fails, and the Senate version of the bill is passed unchanged, it would go directly to the president’s desk.

If this passes, they would raising the estate tax in the House version of the bill, which would be an ender in the Senate.

Update: Pomeroy failed:

Opposition in the House crumpled in the face of that overwhelming showing, though House liberals insisted on offering an alternative that would levy a higher tax on estates than the Obama-GOP compromise will impose. That effort failed shortly before midnight, 194 to 233.

Rep. Gohmert: Repealing DADT Will Lead to End of America or Something

In response to the passage of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the US House, Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas, pontificated that he is worried that letting gays serve in the military openly will be the end of the United States, as we know it:

To my friend who said that history would judge us poorly, I would submit if you would look thoroughly at history -- and I'm not saying it's cause and effect -- but when militaries throughout history of the greatest nations in the world have adopted the policy that "fine for homosexuality to be overt" -- you can keep it private and control your hormones fine, if you can't, that's fine too -- they're toward the end of their existence as a great nation.

If you’re not saying that it is cause and effect, then, why say it? Of course, that is what he was insinuating. I hate to break it to him, but gays are already in the military. We haven’t been made any weaker because of it, and we won’t be any weaker, if they came out of the closet to their fellow soldiers.

Now, he has a point that some restrictions on their freedoms are put on soldiers that civilians don’t have to deal with on an everyday basis, but there would be no harm done by letting this policy go away. Restrictions should obviously be put on these relationships, just like they do with male/female relationships, but not so much that they have to hide what they are.

Many worry that, if gays came out, then, soldiers would be less likely to watch their backs or vice versa, when they are in the heat of battle. I will admit that there would be a few that might be uneasy, at first, but they would learn to deal with it. There may be a few idiots that might react in a homophobic way, but they should be dealt with, just as anyone would be that made a racist comment to a fellow soldier.

Many worried about the same thing, when Dwight Eisenhower integrated the races in the military. Nothing major came of it, and I believe that there was much more to fear, at the time, from integrating the races than letting the gays that are already in the military come out. Believe me, when they are getting shot at, the last thing that they are thinking about is what orientation their buddies are.

Boehner Pledges That Repeal of ObamaCare Will Be One of First Votes of New House

The future Speaker of the House John Boehner made a pledge in a tweet in response to the combination of the factors: the "individual mandate" provision being declared uncontitutional in a Virginia court and a new poll from ABC that shows an all-time low of support for ObamaCare and that 60% of those polled favored repealing, at least, part of the bill:

Republicans will fight to repeal this job-killing health care law, will be one of the first votes of new majority #pledge #hcrcostsjobs

He, later on, elaborated on that in a released statement:

“Today’s decision is an encouraging sign for families and small business owners who have revolted against President Obama’s job-killing health care law and called for its repeal.  Instead of appealing this decision, the Obama Administration should work with Congress to repeal this job-killing health care law so we can replace it with reforms that lower costs and protect jobs.  This would be the easiest way to keep ObamaCare from costing our economy more jobs.  Republicans have made a pledge to America to repeal this job-killing health care law, and that’s what we’re going to do.

“The individual mandate at the heart of ObamaCare puts the federal government in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and taxing you if you don’t.  This is unwise, unaffordable, and as we have argued all along, unconstitutional.  If Washington thinks it can get away with this kind of power grab, it will think it can do anything.  Cash-strapped states should carefully weigh the benefits of investing time and resources in ObamaCare’s implementation now that its central mandate has been ruled unconstitutional.”

This would have some chance in the House with the new majority, but the Senate would be much tougher with the Democrats still being in control. However, it is all moot because there is no way that Obama would admit failure and repeal his most significant legislative victory to date. So, this would, ultimately, be an exercise in futility. He's just doing this to restate their official stance on the bill. What is more likely is that they'll focus more on defunding the bill rather than repealing it, for now.

Pelosi, House Democrats Re-Take All Americans Hostage, Deny Vote on Obama's Tax Compromise

The Democrats in the House won't even entertain the idea of passing Obama's tax compromise. It was strongly rejected by the Democrats in a House vote, today:

Defying President Obama, House Democrats voted Thursday not to bring up the tax package that he negotiated with Republicans in its current form.

"This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It's as simple as that," said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

"We will continue to try and work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs, and a balanced package as we go forward," he said.

The vote comes a day after Vice President Biden made clear to House Democrats behind closed doors that the deal would unravel if any changes were made.

"Wow did the [White House] mishandle this," a senior House Democratic Source told CNN. "Breathtaking. Members have major substantive concerns and they should have gently guided people to the finish line."

This has been mishandled very badly by the president. Why in the world did Obama not get the Democrats in a room and explain to them why this is a good deal for them and the country? Could he not set aside sometime to sit Pelosi and Reid down and convince them to back this deal? This whole left-wing revolt could have been avoided, if he would have made a little effort to do that.

It is also interesting that, after years of labeling the Republicans as the party of no and uncompromising their ideals to appease their base, it is now the Democrats that are taking this hardline stance to appease their hard-left base.

This will be a disaster for all, if some sort-of compromise isn't reached in time and everyone's taxes go up in January.

House Passes "Chicken Crap" Tax Bill That Will Likely Die in Senate, Update :Max Baucus St to Introduce His Own "Chicken Crap" Bill in Senate

Here's John Boehner expressing his displeasure with the bill that Pelosi introduced and was passed by the House. The vote was split largely on partisan lines:



This "chicken crap" bill was just a form of posturing and a drawing a line in the sand by outgoing Speaker Pelosi. The Republicans in the Senate and maybe some moderate Democrats will no doubt filibuster this to death in the Senate, and Pelosi knows it and did anyway:

This bill is as dead in the Senate as the Democrats’ chances are of taking back Congress in 2012, but Madam Speaker wants to remind her base that she’ll be fightin’ for the cause next year after having led the party to utter ruin last month, so here she is forcing a meaningless vote to give Democrats a few days of “party of the rich” talking points. I wonder if, when the inevitable deal is struck extending all the cuts temporarily, she’ll be willing to bring that new bill to the floor or if she’ll refuse out of spite and force Boehner to do it himself when he takes the gavel next year. That’ll be a bureaucratic hassle for taxpayers and the IRS, but Nancy’s got to prove her worth somehow.

Basically, Pelosi just wasted everyone's time, today, so she can get some good talking points for 2012. What she needed to do is focus on a bill that she knows will pass both the House AND Senate.

Update:

I just saw this, right after I hit post. It looks like Sen Max Baucus is set to introduce a similar bill in the Senate, but as I said before, it has very little chance of passing.

Heath Shuler to Symbolically Challenge Pelosi for House Minority Leader

Earlier today, Blue Dog Democrat, Heath Shuler (NC), has announced that he will challenge Nancy Pelosi, if she doesn't step aside and let someone else lead the House Democrats:

North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler said Sunday he would challenge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the leadership of the Democratic minority in the next Congress although he acknowledged that he does not have the votes to win.

"We've just come off the largest ... loss for the Democratic Party in almost a century," Shuler said on CNN's State of the Union. "And to be able to put Speaker Pelosi as minority leader is truly ... unacceptable for our party."

"If she doesn't step aside then ... I'm going to press forward," he said. "I can add and subtract pretty well. I don't have the numbers to be able to win, but I think it's a proven point for moderates and the Democrat Party that we have to be a big tent. We have to be all-inclusive. We have to invite everyone into the party."

Considering that almost half of the blue dogs were voted out last week, the Congressional Democrats will become increasingly liberal than before. Therefore, he will definately be an uphill battle for him to win over Pelosi, unless the liberal Democrats wake up and realize that they need to change leaders, if they want to come back anytime soon. I'll set the odds at 100-1 that Democrats will wise up and move back to the center like they did in 1994.

Good News for Republicans: Pelosi Announces Her Desire to Become Minority Leader of House Democrats

Pelosi was being coy about it yesterday, but this really shouldn't a huge shocker to anyone. With the House Democratic Caucus being more liberal than before, there really isn't much shot that she'll be replaced with a more moderate Democrat:

WASHINGTON — Despite steep losses for her party in Tuesday’s elections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said on Friday that she would run to remain the leader of the House Democrats, even as some of her colleagues urged her to step down.

In a letter to her caucus, Ms. Pelosi, who engineered the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006 but became a favorite target of Republicans, said that many of the remaining House Democrats had encouraged her to try to stay on as the leader after the new Republican majority replaces her as speaker — an unusual move in light of the rebuke her party received at the polls.

“Based on those discussions, and driven by the urgency of protecting health care reform, Wall Street reform, and Social Security and Medicare, I have decided to run,” Ms. Pelosi wrote in her letter.

The announcement, made after days of deliberation by the speaker, was intended at least in part to stem a quickening revolt among more moderate and conservative House Democrats who wanted her to step aside. Several lawmakers went public with their opposition in recent days, and many others were expressing reservations privately.

But the party’s loss of 60 seats in the election — many of them held by moderates — has left the remaining Democratic caucus more liberal than before, giving her a good chance of retaining her position if she chooses.

Of course, since her approval ratings are so low, the Republicans are more than "jubilant" over the prospect of Pelosi reprising her role as the face of the Democratic party:

"Given that there are now 60-plus defeated Democrat House members urgently seeking jobs due to Nancy Pelosi’s failed leadership, we welcome her decision to run for House Minority Leader based on her proven ability to create jobs for Republican lawmakers," said National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) communications director Ken Spain.