Parties still far apart on supercommittee deficit deal

Parties still far apart on supercommittee deficit deal
craft stores
After two months of near daily negotiations, the gulf between Democrats and Republicans on the deficit-cutting supercommittee remains deep.

The two sides remain hundreds of billions of dollars apart with both parties dug in on protecting their cherished priorities — GOP leaders are refusing to consider tax increases, while Democrats are insisting that increased revenues be part of a final deal.

On top of that, there’s intraparty fighting: Many Democrats don’t like the offer their party has made, and some Republicans aren’t happy with the GOP’s initial proposal.

Rank-and-file Democrats are sniping at the nearly $3 trillion budget-cutting proposal put forth by members of their party who are on the supercommittee; Republicans are taking shots at their own leadership; and House Speaker John Boehner’s top aides advised members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that the Democratic offer is “not a serious proposal.”

Boehner’s opposition to the Democratic plan — outlined in a memo by his policy staff Thursday to the supercommittee — means the bicameral panel is rolling into the end of October, just weeks shy of its Nov. 23 deadline, with no deal in hand and no clear path toward one.

In addition, the House and Senate can’t seem to line up their schedules, further complicating the political calculus surrounding the supercommittee’s negotiations. The House has only eight legislative days scheduled in November, with both the supercommittee and a government-funding resolution needing to be addressed.

“I’m not surprised that, you know, we’re having some difficulty, because this isn’t easy,” Boehner told reporters Thursday. “It’s going to be very hard. But I do think it’s time for everybody to get serious about this.”

At this point, some House Democrats are not falling in line with their party’s proposal. A look around the House Democratic Caucus — generally more liberal than the Senate counterpart — shows a healthy dose of frustration.

Rep. Bill Pascrell, a New Jersey Democrat who serves on the Ways and Means Committee, said that on Thanksgiving — just after the supercommittee’s Nov. 23 deadline — Congress will be “thankful for a lot of things: our family [and] our country. But we will not be thankful for having resolution [on the supercommittee], because it was never intended.”

The Democratic “plan was orchestrated. I think that it has absolutely no chance of being the law of the land, and therefore, I don’t think they’ll have a resolution of this before Thanksgiving,” Pascrell added.

“They need to do stuff that’s real,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a former chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said of the supercommittee. “Deficit reduction is fine. But first things first — create jobs; that will reduce the deficit. If they’re not moving in that direction, I am very, very worried.”

House Republicans are also nervous on what is being floated by their side.

GOP defense hawks, led by Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon of California, are exerting strong pressure on leadership to reject any proposal with additional Pentagon budget cuts. This is coming into play during Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy’s listening sessions with rank-and-file GOP lawmakers, in which the impact of automatic budget cuts is being explained.

There’s even growing chatter in some parts of the House Democratic Caucus about trying to dismantle the so-called trigger that mandates across-the-board spending cuts if $1.2 trillion in savings isn’t achieved by the supercommittee, lawmakers said. Boehner said allowing the trigger to go off would not be acceptable, in any form, and that there needs to be a resolution, which leadership is aiding.

The three House Democrats on the supercommittee — Reps. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, Xavier Becerra of California and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland — met privately with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California on Thursday, according to Hill sources.

This intraparty divide isn’t the only concern. Any agreement the supercommittee reaches will have to be reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office before being released, meaning the real deadline for the panel is well in advance of Nov. 23. And at this point, the chances of a grand bargain being reached are slim, despite assurances from all lawmakers involved that they want to achieve an accord. The proposal has to pass both chambers of Congress unamended and be signed by President Barack Obama.

“Even as this late stage, there is no firm ground. Nobody is standing on any kind of firm ground,” said a senior House GOP leadership aide. “There is some middle ground [for a compromise]. There is some far off, maybe imagined glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel but not anything you’d want to place a bet on.”

Democratic and Republican members of the supercommittee exchanged proposed deficit-reduction plans on Wednesday, the details of which quickly emerged.

Democrats outlined a package worth roughly $3 trillion, including about $475 billion-plus in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and $400 billion in cuts to other programs. An additional $250 billion would come from other federal benefits, such as farm subsidies or the retirement system for federal workers. Democrats offered to look at changes in the consumer price index, which would hit Social Security. Democrats are also estimating $1.3 trillion in net tax revenues.

The GOP offer is at about $2.2 trillion, with only $640 billion in additional revenues from “loophole closures” and other tax provisions. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have refused to consider any tax increases.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Boehner have discussed a third proposal — a $1.2 trillion plan that aligns closely with the framework created over the summer by Boehner and Obama. The summer talks set a ceiling for $800 billion in revenue, which falls short of the $1.3 trillion that Democrats are asking for.

Top Republicans and Democrats have rejected each other’s offers as unacceptable.

“The Democrats’ proposal for tax increases would have a negative impact on the economy and jobs; it’s not a serious effort at compromise,” Boehner’s policy staff wrote in its memo on the Democratic plan. The memo, obtained by POLITICO, says the tax proposal Democrats are floating “is far more than Obama and Boehner ever discussed” during their secret talks this summer.

The Boehner memo says more Pentagon cuts are unacceptable, as well as arguing that Medicaid cuts pushed by Democrats don’t address the program’s ballooning spending problems.

Boehner was asked Thursday about potential GOP concessions on tax and revenue increases, but he refused to be pinned down.

“I expect that it’s going to be very difficult to get to an outcome, but I am committed to getting to an outcome,” the speaker said of the supercommittee.

Leaders in both parties have generally been mum on what their sides are proposing. Clyburn, who Democrats say has been against his party’s proposal, told POLITICO that wasn’t the case.

craft stores
Asked about the GOP offer, McCarthy also ducked the question: “I’m not on the [supercommittee].”

vor 08.11.2011 09:42
permalink
Giant asteroid to pass near Earth
Giant asteroid to pass near Earth
craft stores
An 400m-wide (1,300ft) asteroid will pass by the Earth on Tuesday, closer to it even than the Moon.

It poses no danger to the Earth and it will be invisible to the naked eye.

Asteroid 2005 YU55's closest approach, at a distance of 325,000km (202,000mi), will be at 2328GMT. It is the closest the asteroid has been in 200 years.

It is also the largest space rock fly-by the Earth has seen since 1976; the next visit by such a large asteroid will be in 2028.

The aircraft-carrier-sized asteroid is incredibly darkly coloured in visible wavelengths and nearly spherical, lazily spinning about once every 20 hours as it races through our neighbourhood of the Solar System.

It will trace a path across the whole sky through to Thursday.

"This is the closest approach by an asteroid that large that we've ever known about in advance," said Lance Benner of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

But he stressed that there was no chance that the pass would be anything other than a close encounter.

"2005 YU55 cannot hit Earth, at least over the interval that we can compute the motion reliably - which extends for several hundred years," he said.

Instead, the pass gives astronomers a rare opportunity to study the asteroid in detail.

Chinese art
In particular, two radio telescopes - the Goldstone Observatory in California, US and the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, US - will be tracking radio echoes off it in a bid to understand better what it is made of and how it is shaped.

The precise details of the asteroid's path will also help scientists to predict where it will go much farther into the future.

Amateur astronomers may catch a glimpse of it with telescopes of 15cm or larger, Nasa suggests.

The Earth has several regular visitors like 2005 YU55 - most famously the Apophis asteroid. Apophis has in the past been claimed as a possible future impactor when it returns to our neighbourhood in 2029 and again in 2036.

home decorators coupon
There is, according to the latest calculations, no danger from Apophis either. However, it will pass much closer to the Earth on 13 April 2029 - at a distance of just 29,500km (18,300mi).
vor 08.11.2011 09:32
permalink
In Israel talk of a strike on Iran sparks public debate
In Israel talk of a strike on Iran sparks public debate
craft stores
Hints that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear sites may have been an attempt to intimidate Iran. Instead they have exposed public ambivalence, government division and a surprising politicization.
Reporting from Jerusalem— It's not the first time Israel has hinted it might strike Iran's nuclear facilities. Whisper campaigns about a possible surprise attack have leaked out before and sometimes appear timed to help U.S. efforts to rally international support for sanctions against Tehran.

But the current round of speculation about an airstrike — fueled by recent statements by anonymous Israeli officials and some high-profile missile and military flight tests last week — sparked an unusually public debate here about whether Israel should take such a step at this time.

What many suspect began as an attempt by Israel to intimidate Iran and motivate the West to do more to crack down on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program has instead inadvertently exposed public ambivalence, government division and a surprising politicization over one of Israel's most pressing security threats.

On one side are Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who, according to Israeli media reports, are pushing to move against Iran. But other Cabinet members and several prominent security experts, including two recently retired security agency heads, worry a strike now would spark a regional war, potentially causing greater damage to Israel.

It's a dispute that's been raging quietly for several years but now has burst into the open.

"It was inane, unnecessary and damaging," Alan Baker, Israel's former ambassador to Canada, said of the recent public discussion over whether to launch a strike against Iran. "Iranians must be thinking how stupid these people are. It sent a message to Iranians that there is a huge debate in Israel."

Privately, government officials expressed shock that this sensitive an issue would erupt in such open fashion. Israel prides itself on avoiding public airings of divisions over military matters, usually displaying a united front to the world when it comes to its security.

"It's been a very feisty and even verbally violent debate," said one government official who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. "Everything that we used to say behind closed doors came out in the open."

The official said Israel's attempt to signal to the world that its military option against Iran remains on the table "might have backfired a little. I think this complicates the decision" about an airstrike.

There's even a debate about the debate itself. Many officials say such issues should not be subject to open discussion. Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 were carried out without warning.

Dan Meridor, a member of Netanyahu's Likud Party and minister of intelligence and atomic energy, called the recent public back-and-forth "scandalous."

But opposition lawmakers say such discourse should be expected in a democracy, particularly concerning such an important security matter as one that could lead to war with Iran or attacks on Israel by militant groups allied with Tehran, such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

"If no debate is held about an existential threat to the state of Israel, then what is one going to be held about?" asked Kadima party lawmaker Avi Dichter, a former director of Israel's Shin Bet domestic security agency.

Most Israelis agree that Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear bomb and must be stopped. But differences are emerging about how and when Israel should act.

A recent poll in the Haaretz newspaper found Israelis essentially split on the question of whether to strike Iran. But more than 80% of respondents agreed that such a strike would probably lead to war with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Even Netanyahu's inner Cabinet disagrees, with some arguing for Israel to act alone and others urging the government to coordinate with the U.S. and wait for tougher international sanctions, according to Israeli media.

Earlier this year, Meir Dagan, who retired from Israel's Mossad spy agency in January, began publicly questioning the need for Israel to strike Iran, calling such a plan "foolish." Other former security officials have echoed the comments, privately and publicly, in what many see as an attempt to make it more difficult for Netanyahu to launch an attack.

Last week, when the government conducted military tests and news leaked that the prime minister was discussing an attack with the Cabinet, the Iranian question dominated the headlines for several days.

Netanyahu's critics accused him of being reckless and gambling with Israel's future. Supporters responded by accusing the critics of betraying national security and using the issue to damage the prime minister's credibility.

To some, the public debate is a sign that Israel is not actually preparing for an imminent attack. If plans were underway, Israel's military censors — who have broad powers to block news coverage that could endanger national security — would have killed the stories, many say.

craft stores
"The assumption is that if there is a decision to go to war with Iran, then this wouldn't be discussed," said Hebrew University political science professor Gadi Wolfsfeld. "Since it is being discussed, the assumption is that it is saber-rattling."

Parties still far apart on supercommittee deficit deal

Giant asteroid to pass near Earth

In Israel talk of a strike on Iran sparks public debate