“Republicans should give Congress true flexibility – flexibility to cut wasteful subsidies, flexibility to close unnecessary tax loopholes and flexibility to ask the richest of the rich to contribute a little more.”

“As usual, Republicans have put the demands of special interests over the needs of middle-class Americans.

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding across-the-board sequester cuts that will take effect tomorrow. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Today the Senate says goodbye to a valued and accomplished staff member, Rick DeBobes, who is retiring after ten years as staff director of Chairman Levin’s Senate Armed Services Committee. Rick DeBobes came to the Senate more than two decades ago, after a distinguished, 26-year career as a Judge Advocate in the United States Navy. He has spent his entire Capitol Hill career with the same committee – a rare occurrence in the Senate – working first for Chairman Sam Nunn and then for Chairman Levin.

For the last decade, Rick has led the committee’s oversight of two of our longest-running wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, working to reward the dedication of military personnel and their families. Under Chairman Levin’s guiding hand, he has also filled the ranks of the Armed Services Committee staff with the next generation of national security professionals.

Rick’s expertise, integrity and commitment to public service will be missed by Republicans and Democrats. And on behalf of the Senate community, I thank him for his service and wish him well in retirement.

Rick’s departure from the Senate Armed Services Committee comes during a trying time for our nation’s military – as deep, across-the-board spending cuts are set to strike. Hundreds of thousands of civilian employees of the Defense Department will be furloughed in coming weeks and months. Families and businesses across this country are also bracing for the pain of deep cuts to programs that keep our food safe, our water clean and our borders secure.

But it’s not too late to avert these damaging cuts – cuts for which the overwhelming majority of Republicans in both houses of Congress voted. Democrats have a balanced proposal to remove the threat of the sequester. Our proposal would reduce the deficit by making smart spending cuts. It would also close wasteful tax loopholes that allow companies that outsource jobs to China or India to claim tax deductions for doing so. Our plan would stop wasteful subsidies to farmer, some of whom don’t even farm anymore. And it would ask the wealthiest among us – those making millions each year – to pay just a little more to help reduce the deficit.

Almost 60 percent of Republicans around the country favor this balanced approach to reduce the deficit with a combination of revenue and smart spending cuts. But because this proposition would ask millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations to contribute even a tiny fraction more, Republicans here in Congress won’t support it. Republicans in Congress are going after our proposal because it goes after special interests.

Now, after days of infighting, Senate Republicans have announced their own so-called “plan.” Instead of replacing the pain of the sequester with something smarter and more reasonable, their plan would embrace these devastating cuts, while abandoning any of the responsibility that goes along with them.

Republicans call the plan “flexibility.” But let’s call it what it really is: a punt. As President Obama said Tuesday, it would simply raise the question: “Do I end funding that helps disabled children or poor children? Do I close this Naval Shipyard or that one?”

It is not a solution. And even members of the Senate Republican caucus have questioned the wisdom of this proposal.

Republicans should give Congress true flexibility – flexibility to cut wasteful subsidies, flexibility to close unnecessary tax loopholes and flexibility to ask the richest of the rich to contribute a little more. Instead, they’re completely inflexible – insisting we risk hundreds of thousands of American jobs, as well as programs that strengthen families and small businesses across this nation.

But that should come as no surprise. As usual, Republicans have put the demands of special interests over the needs of middle-class Americans.

“A clean debt ceiling increase that allows the United States to meet its existing obligations should be the standard.”

“Congress will continue to work to reduce the deficit. But we’ll do it without the threat of default over our heads.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today about the Senate’s upcoming vote on the House-passed legislation to suspend the debt ceiling. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery.

Later today, the Senate will vote on the House-passed legislation to suspend the debt ceiling until this summer and remove the specter of default hanging over the nation’s economy. I expect this legislation will pass on a strong, bipartisan vote – sending the message loud and clear that, while we are willing to negotiate on many things, we will not engage in another irresponsible debate over whether the United States government should pay its bills. I would remind my Republican colleagues that most of them voted to incur the debts now coming due. And suspending the debt limit won’t authorize a penny of new spending – but it will ensure we pay the bills we’ve already incurred.

I was reassured by House Republicans’ decision last week to back off their reckless threat to hold the debt ceiling hostage. The legislation before the Senate sets an important precedent – that the full faith and credit of the United States will no longer be used as a pawn to extract painful cuts to Medicare, Social Security or other initiatives that benefit the middle class. A clean debt ceiling increase that allows the United States to meet its existing obligations should be the standard.

Congress will continue to work to reduce the deficit. But we’ll do it without the threat of default over our heads. We have already made nearly $2.5 trillion in historic, bipartisan deficit reduction. Democrats believe we should do more. And it’s critical that we use a balanced approach that couples smart spending cuts with revenue from the wealthiest Americans and from closing wasteful tax loopholes.

Obviously, Democrats would prefer a longer suspension of the debt ceiling, which would provide additional economic stability as we continue to find ways to decrease the deficit. Raising the possibility that the United States could default on its obligations every few months is not an ideal way to run a government. But a short-term solution is better than another imminent, manufactured crisis.

Even Republicans admit default would rock our financial system to its core. However, injecting uncertainty into the system every few months also has a chilling effect on the economy. This insecurity doesn’t just affect big investment banks or wealthy investors. It costs jobs. And all around the country, ordinary Americans with 401k’s and college savings accounts are affected.

I am glad Republicans set aside their plan to gamble with default. It was bad politics and even worse policy. Middle-class Americans remember the last time Republicans put us through a protracted fight over the debt ceiling in an effort to force deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other programs important to the middle class. They remember how the Tea Party forced the nation to the brink of default in 2011 – sending the stock market into a tailspin and prompting a historic downgrade of America’s credit rating. They remember how the economy suffered, and their own bottom lines suffered with it. They remember the consequences of Republicans’ willingness to threaten a national default. I’m relieved that this time Congress was able to reach a compromise and avoid a fight, so middle-class families get the certainty they badly need.

“No major legislation can pass the Senate without the votes of both Democrats and Republicans. During the 113th Congress, the Speaker should strive to make that the rule in the House of Representatives, as well.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today marking the beginning of the 113th Congress. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

It is my pleasure to convene the 113th Congress and welcome my colleagues back to the place we love, the United States Senate.

In particular, I would like to welcome Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, who has been away for a year recovering from an illness. We are all grateful for his recovery. He’s an inspiration to us. Senator Kirk, you have been missed.

I also offer a special welcome to the 13 new members of the United States Senate. I am confident they will treasure their memories in this historic legislative body, and that they will serve their states and our nation with distinction.

All of the members of this freshman class are accomplished in their own right. But I trust that serving in the United States Senate will be the most rewarding experience of their lives.

In this Chamber, in the 113th Congress, they will face the most significant challenges of their careers. To turn those challenges into triumphs, I urge all Senators – new and experienced – to draw not only on their varied experience at every level of government and public service, but also on each other’s experience – regardless of political party. As Senator Daniel Webster said, “We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people.”

Today, as we begin a new Congress, we are afforded the opportunity to reflect upon the successes and failures of the past Congress. It has been said that the 112th Congress was characterized by some of the sharpest political divisions in recent memory. But during the last Congress, there were also many commendable examples of compromise.

The recent effort to avert the fiscal cliff was an example of both the divisions and the collaborations that mark this moment in history. Although the process of resolving some of the fiscal issues facing this country was a difficult and protracted one, in the end our two parties came together to protect America’s middle class. That is something of which we can all be proud.

As we advance the debate over the best way to strengthen our economy and reduce our deficit during the 113th Congress, Democrats will continue to stand strong for the principle of balance. Any future budget agreements must balance the need for thoughtful spending reductions with revenue from the wealthiest among us and closing wasteful tax loopholes.

Unfortunately, our political differences prevented us from accomplishing as much as we all hoped during the 112th Congress.

But we also passed very important legislation, such as a transportation jobs bill to keep 2 million people working and begin the restoration of our crumbling infrastructure. We made strides to reduce the nation’s deficit and prevented a tax increase for 98 percent of American families and 97 percent of small businesses. We reformed our patent system for the first time in six decades, gave small businesses owners access to the capital they need to compete and reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration – keeping 300,000 workers employed.

And not a single piece of that legislation became law without the votes of both Democrats and Republicans. All those legislative initiatives were bipartisan. Unfortunately, many other worthy measures that passed the Senate with strong, bipartisan support then languished, awaiting action by the House of Representatives.

In the 113th Congress, it will be incumbent upon the House Republican leadership to allow bipartisan bills passed by the Senate to come to a vote before the full House of Representatives –not before the Republican members only, but before Democrats and Republicans, all 435 of them. Too many good pieces of legislation have died over the last two years because House Republican leaders insist on passing legislation with a majority of the Majority, that is, only Republicans. Democrats were ignored.

For example, postal reform, the Violence Against Women Act, the farm bill and relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy all passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis after extensive deliberation and debate. Yet the House failed to act on all four of these measures.

As Speaker Boehner saw on New Year’s Day, when he allows every member of the House to vote – and not only the Republican members of the House to vote – Congress can enact bills into laws. No major legislation can pass the Senate without the votes of both Democrats and Republicans. During the 113th Congress, the Speaker should strive to make that the rule in the House of Representatives, as well.

Still, it is true that the 112th Congress left much undone. That is why I am resolved to pick up where we left off in a few short weeks. The first crucial matter we’ll address long-overdue aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy.

But striving to be more productive will do little if we do not address the major reason for our inefficiency. The Senate is simply not working as it should. That is why, in the last Congress, I made plain that Democrats would do something to fix these issues.

The beginning of a new Congress is customarily a time that the Senate addresses changes to its rules. In the last Congress, Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Tom Harkin and Sheldon Whitehouse made the majority’s case for change. I commend these passionate leaders. They have made compelling arguments for reform.

In recent months, Senators on both sides of the aisle set about trying to broker a compromise. This group was led by Democratic Senator Levin and Republican Senator McCain. I thank them for their many hours of work and negotiation.

But in the waning weeks of the last Congress, Senators were justifiably occupied with other matters, including a resolution of the fiscal cliff. And I believe this matter warrants additional debate during the 113th Congress. Senators deserve additional notice before voting to change Senate rules.

So today I will follow the precedents set in 2005 and again in 2011. We will reserve the right of all Senators to propose changes to the Senate rules. And we will explicitly not acquiesce in the carrying over of all the rules from the last Congress. It is my intention that the Senate will recess today, rather than adjourn, to continue the same legislative day, and allow this important rules discussion to continue later this month.

I am confident the Republican leader and I can come to an agreement that allows the Senate to work more efficiently.

I was pleased to hear Speaker Boehner say last week that he will bring the Senate-passed middle class tax cut to the House floor for a vote.

The nation is one vote away from avoiding the fiscal cliff for middle class families.

Every member of the House of Representatives should have the opportunity to show where they stand: with millionaires or with the middle class.

Members can support Democrats’ plan to cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans while reducing the deficit by almost $1 trillion.

Or they can support the Republican plan to hand out more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires while increasing taxes for 25 million families struggling to put kids through college and food on the table.

The two approaches demonstrate a glaring difference in priorities.

But there’s another difference between the two plans: Democrats’ proposal is the only one with a chance of actually becoming law.

President Obama has said he would sign it tomorrow. What he won’t do is sign into law any more wasteful giveaways to the wealthiest two percent.

And the Senate has already defeated the Republican proposal in a bipartisan vote, so it’s simply a waste of time for House Republicans to continue to pursue their middle-class tax hike.

House Republicans should stop holding the middle class hostage to extract more tax cuts for the richest of the rich. They should pass our middle class tax cut now.

American families can’t afford to wait until the last moment to find out what their bottom line will look like come January 1.

They’re sitting around the kitchen table today figuring out whether they can afford to buy their first house, send their kids to college or retire.

Republicans shouldn’t force 114 million families to guess whether they’ll have $1,600 less to spend or save next year.

They need certainty now. And one simple vote can give them that certainty.

Today the Senate also continues work to address a problem national security experts call the most urgent threat to our country: weaknesses in our defenses again cyber attack.

Cyber terrorism could cripple the computer networks that control our electrical grid, water supplies and sewers, nuclear plants, energy pipelines, transportation networks, communications equipment and financial systems.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said “a cyber attack could stop this society in its tracks.”

But cyber espionage doesn’t just threaten our national security – it threatens our economic security.

Hackers have already attacked most major corporations and the NASDAQ stock exchange.

Attacks like these cost our economy billions of dollars a year and thousands of jobs.

General James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, said Chinese cyber theft of American intellectual property is “the greatest pillaging of wealth in history.”

“That’s our future disappearing in front of us,” added General Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Administration.

In a report released last year, the Chamber of Commerce said government and the private sector should work together to develop incentives for businesses to voluntarily act to protect our nation’s critical infrastructure.

This legislation will do exactly that – establish a public-private partnership to make our nation safer and protect American jobs.

I hope that the Chamber will join the effort to pass this important legislation.

While I personally believe this bill could go further to address threats to critical infrastructure – the networks that operate our electric grid, our water supply and other life-sustaining systems – it is a tremendous first step.

I applaud Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Senator Feinstein and Senator Rockefeller for their work on this legislation.

The bill managers are compiling a list of relevant amendments for consideration. I hope we can cooperate to work through that list and pass this legislation by the end of the week.

We can’t afford to fail to address what experts call the greatest security challenge since the dawn of the nuclear age.

Today the Senate will vote on whether to end a filibuster of Judge Robert Bacharach, a nominee from Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

By any measure, Bacherach is the type of non-controversial nominee the Senate would routinely confirm with broad, bipartisan support.

He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote.

And he has the support of the two Republican Senators from his home state of Oklahoma.

Senator Coburn, the Junior Senator from Oklahoma, said Friday, Bacherach is “just a stellar candidate, and he ought to get through.”

Yet Republicans have signaled they may block his confirmation.

If they hold up this consensus candidate, it will be the first time an appeals court nominee with bipartisan committee support has ever been successfully filibustered on the floor.

If Senator Coburn and Senator Inhofe withdraw their support for this qualified nominee, blatant partisanship will be to blame.

But don’t take my word for it. Senator Coburn said Bacherach is “an awfully good candidate caught in election-year politics.”

“It is pretty galling for Speaker Boehner to be laying down demands for another debt ceiling agreement when he won’t even abide by the last one. The last thing the country needs is a rerun of last summer’s debacle that nearly brought down our economy.”

This week the Senate resumes debate of a measure to improve innovators’ access to capital.

This bill passed the House on a bipartisan vote, and has President Obama’s support.

We could make this legislation even better by passing the modest consumer protections included in the substitute amendment we’ll consider tomorrow.

But member of both parties agree we should pass it quickly. We will finish work on this legislation this week.

It’s nice to see Democrats and Republicans standing on common ground for a change.

But while this IPO proposal will be good for businesses – helping give startups the flexibility they need to hire and grow – experts agree that its impact on job creation will be limited.

So it’s important Congress also reauthorize the Export-Import Bank – or Ex-Im Bank – right away.

Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank will help American exporters compete in a global economy and sell more of their products overseas.

Last year, Ex-Im Bank financing helped 3,600 private companies add almost 300,000 jobs in more than 2,000 communities.

That’s why the Ex-Im Bank has always enjoyed broad, bipartisan support.

The last time the Senate considered Export-Import Bank legislation, it was offered by a Republican Senator and passed by unanimous consent.

The reauthorization legislation we’ll vote on tomorrow is also bipartisan. It passed the Banking Committee unanimously.

It has three Republican co-sponsors and the strong backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet I have read that some of my Republican colleagues don’t want to advance this bipartisan measure.

Instead they want to start yet another drawn-out fight over a proposal that passed unanimously last time the Senate considered it.

So let’s review what’s at stake. Unless Congress acts, the Ex-Im Bank may hit its lending limit this month.

American exporters could no longer rely on an even playing field with global competitors.

The Ex-Im Bank loans money to American outfits when private lending is not available. Its investments made $41 billion in U.S. exports possible last year alone.

That’s why Ex-Im Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg [Haak-berg] says our competitors abroad “are licking their chops” at the idea that America would stop backing businesses that sell their products overseas.

Many of the companies that are growing and hiring because of Export-Import Bank financing are small businesses. But the CEOs of large outfits such as Boeing, American Express, Johnson and Johnson, Caterpillar, GE and Motorola are also on record supporting the Em-Im Bank.

American entrepreneurs can’t afford for Congress to give up on them now. China already provides three to four times as much financing as we do to help to their exporters.

We must continue to give American businesses a fair shot to compete in a global market.

Since the Ex-Im Bank doesn’t add a penny to the deficit, there is no excuse for Republicans not to support it.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says this common-sense legislation would actually reduce the deficit by almost $1 billion.

It’s critical we pass the IPO bill to help businesses access capital. But it’s even more important we reauthorize the job-creating Export-Import Bank, which helps those companies compete abroad.

The Ex-Im Bank proposal will support hundreds of thousands more jobs than the small business capital bill.

Democrats brought this measure to the floor in an effort to find more common ground.

And passing it together would be another accomplishment both parties could be proud of.

Republicans in Congress claim they’re the only thing standing against a wave of deficit spending.

But where were those Republicans when President Bush pushed for trillions in unpaid-for tax cuts for the rich? Many of them were right here in Congress, that’s where.

So, instead of pointing the finger at Democrats, Republicans should examine their own track record of extravagant spending: a prescription drug plan, two wars and tax breaks for the rich all paid for with borrowed money.

Bush’s tax cuts were the single largest contributor to ballooning budget deficits during his administration.

And no one benefited more from those tax breaks than millionaires and billionaires.

Tax breaks for the richest Americans piled nearly a trillion on our debt over the last decade.

Yesterday the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report showing those tax cuts will continue to push deficits to unsafe levels.

Extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans – people making more than $1 million – would add another trillion dollars to the deficit in the next 10 years.

We can no longer afford to bankrupt our nation to give more tax breaks to people who don’t need them.

Republicans are right about one thing: we do have a deficit problem in this country. And there are two ways to ease the crisis.

We could cut more jobs for teachers, firefighters and police. We could cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for seniors after a lifetime of hard work. We could put off repairing our crumbling roads and bridges. And we could continue to let our schools fall into disrepair and our students fall behind.

Or we could end wasteful, unnecessary tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

This is the choice we face. But it shouldn’t be difficult a choice.

This country has limited resources, and we must use those resources wisely.

Investing in the middle class is a wise use of resources.

When you put money back in the pockets of middle class families, they spend it.

They spend it on groceries and gas. They spend it repairing the family car. They spend it fixing the roof.

That spending boosts business, spurs hiring and helps the economy. Rigging the tax system to favor the richest of the rich doesn’t.

Rigging the system doesn’t create jobs. It doesn’t spur growth. And it’s just not a wise use of resources.

“The American people are tired of their elected leaders listening to the extreme voices in their party instead of the voices of reason. I am disappointed that Republicans never found the courage to ignore Tea Party extremists and millionaire lobbyists like Grover Norquist, and listen instead to the overwhelming majority of Americans – including the vast majority of Republicans – who want a balanced approach to deficit reduction. For the good of our country, Democrats were prepared to strike a grand bargain that would make painful cuts while asking millionaires to pay their fair share, and we put our willingness on paper. But Republicans never came close to meeting us halfway.

“Instead, Republicans relentlessly sought to end Medicare as we know it by privatizing the program and putting seniors and future generations at the mercy of insurance companies. In addition, Republicans insisted on expanding President Bush’s tax giveaways to millionaires, an approach that would have made our deficit problems bigger, not smaller, while increasing the gap between the top one percent of taxpayers and everyone else. Democrats are open to reforming our tax code, but we will not go along with efforts to provide even more giveaways to millionaires at the expense of the middle class.

“Make no mistake: we will achieve the more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction we agreed to in August. The sequester was designed to be painful, and it is. But that is the commitment to fiscal responsibility that both parties made to the American people. In the absence of a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by at least as much, I will oppose any efforts to change or roll back the sequester.

“I commend Senators Murray, Baucus and Kerry for their unflagging commitment to this process. They worked until the final hours to try and forge a reasonable compromise, and validated the trust that I placed in each of them to seek a balanced deal while protecting the fundamental guarantees of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

“With millions of Americans out of work, we must stay focused on creating jobs. Economists have estimated that failing to extend the payroll tax cuts for the middle class and provide support to Americans who continue to look for jobs in this tough economy could plunge us back into a recession. Democrats will continue to pursue these kinds of common-sense, bipartisan proposals to put Americans back to work. In the weeks ahead, I hope the fear of the Tea Party and millionaire lobbyists like Grover Norquist will not prevent Republicans from forging common-sense compromises with Democrats to get our economy back on track.”

At a news conference today, Speaker Boehner sought to claim that Democrats had failed to offer a deficit reduction proposal:

“There’s been exactly one proposal on the table, in the committee, and that came from the six Republican members,’ Boehner said, dismissing Murray’s counter offer as merely one from members’ ‘individual’ discussions. ‘It is very clear to me there has not been one Democrat position. Not one,’ he added.”  [Roll Call, 11/17/11]

Huh?

Well, there was this …

• Los Angeles Times: Democrats on ‘super committee’ propose a ‘grand bargain’ [10/26/11]
• Washington Post: Congressional Democrats offer $3 trillion debt deal [10/26/11]

… and this …

• AP: Dems present offer to cut deficit by $2 trillion [11/9/11]
• Bloomberg: Democrats Offer 2.3 Trillion Deficit Plan With Tax Trigger [11/9/11]

… and oh yes, this …

• AP: As Debt Panel’s Deadline Nears, Secret Dem Offer Disclosed [11/17/11]

… and, way back at the start of the supercommittee process, there was this …

• Politico: Barack Obama unveils $3 trillion deficit-cutting plan [9/18/11]
•  Wall Street Journal: New Obama Deficit Plan [9/19/11]
• New York Times: Obama Offers Plan to Cut Deficit by Over $3 Trillion [9/19/11]

Note to Speaker Boehner: just because Republicans keep rejecting every balanced offer coming from Democrats doesn’t mean they never existed.

I was saddened to hear of a terrible accident on Friday at the Reno air show, which killed 10 people and injured many more.

My heart goes out to those who were hurt. And my thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives, including the pilot of the World War II-era plane that crashed into spectators.

I commend the many first responders who rushed to the scene Friday. Their quick thinking and skillful assistance saved many lives.

While this crash was devastating, I am glad the pilot took quick action to prevent additional loss of life by avoiding a grandstand packed with thousands of spectators.

My four grandchildren attended the show on Thursday. And my oldest grandson, Mitchell was at the even with his scout troop earlier on Friday.

Although officials are still investigating the crash, initial reports indicate that a piece of the plane’s tail broke off prior to the accident.

I hope this terrible event – the first of its kind in this nation – will not deter people from attending air shows in the future.

Thousands of people enjoy these shows every year. The late Senator Ted Stevens attended the Reno show many times and told me it was the best of its kind.

I will continue to monitor the investigation.

This weekend Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, the progressive Republican and father-in-law to our own Senator Rockefeller, died at the age of 91.

Although I did not serve with Senator Percy, I knew him by reputation. He was an independent thinker and a moderate who always put country before political party. The Senate could use more of his brand of pragmatism today.

Senator Percy was a proponent of tougher environmental regulations and consumer protections, an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War and a proponent of nuclear nonproliferation. He was also a Navy veteran and a businessman, and was often mentioned as a presidential contender.

The Senate honors him for his faithful service to his country as a sailor and in Congress. My thoughts are with his family, including Senator Rockefeller and his wife Sharon, today.

Last week, the President presented the country with a roadmap to reduce our jobs deficit – a proposal to create nearly 2 million jobs and reduce unemployment by a percentage point.

Today President Obama laid out a common-sense pathway to substantially reduce our budget deficit as well.

It is a concrete strategy to cut the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade and do it fairly. I congratulate him for his vision.

His plan calls for shared sacrifice from all Americans, including those who can best afford to help. It calls on those who benefited from the tax policies that sunk this country deeper and deeper into debt to help get us out of debt.

Americans know shared sacrifice is the best path to fiscal sustainability. Many of the richest few agree, including Warren Buffet.

That is why the President has proposed the so-called Buffet Rule – that no American making more than $1 million a year should pay a lower tax rate than this nation’s middle-class families.

This rule would apply to the top three-tenths of one percent of Americans – the richest of the rich, like Mr. Buffet.

Warren Buffet believes it is unfair that he pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary. This is what he said: “If you’re in the luckiest 1 percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.”

There are about 22,000 people in this country who make more than $1 million each year, yet pay less than 15 percent of their income in taxes.

The top 400 earners in this country – all of whom make more than $110 million a year – pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than plumbers and teachers and factory workers do.

More than anyone else, these millionaires and billionaires benefited from Bush tax cuts that contributed $3 trillion to our deficit. They helped plunge this nation into a financial hole.

Yet Congressional Republicans believe middle-class families and seniors – not the millionaires and billionaires who have enjoyed trillions in tax breaks – should bear the burden of getting us out of that hole.

A balanced approach to reducing our deficit means those who have benefited the most from policies that created our deficit crisis should also help solve our deficit crisis.

A balanced approach means everyone pays his or her fair share. It means the middle-class, seniors and those who can least afford it will not bear the heaviest burden.

I commend the President for insisting on basic fairness as we address our deficit problem.

Last week was a productive one here in the Senate.

We reached a bipartisan agreement to pass emergency aid for communities affected by devastating floods, tornadoes and wildfires.

We also reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration, keeping 80,000 safety inspectors and construction workers on the job.

And we passed a highway bill that will keep 1.8 million people at work building roads and bridges. Congress has no duty more pressing than to putting Americans back to work, and this highway legislation will do that.

But we can and must do more to ease the unemployment crisis in this country.

That’s why this week the Senate will take up Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation. The TAA program helps U.S. workers who lose their jobs because of international trade to learn new skills so they can reenter a changing workforce. And it helps them pay for health insurance while they’re training for new jobs.

A global economy means fierce global competition. And unless our workforce is flexible and well-trained, we cannot hope to compete.

Between 2001 and 2008, America lost 2.4 million jobs because of trade with China. The TAA program is retraining many of those people, getting them back into the workforce and boosting our economy at the same time.

It’s unfortunate that my Republican colleagues, who say they care so much about free trade agreements, have prevented three such agreements from moving forward because of objections to this TAA legislation.

As we struggle to rebound from the worst recession in generations, it is unthinkable that we would abandon hardworking Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. TAA provides the lifeline they need to get back on their feet.

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer released the following statement Wednesday in response to the budget outlook released by the Congressional Budget Office today:

“This analysis reveals two productive trends—reduced long-term deficits and gains in economic growth—but neither is as robust as is needed to get our economy going again.  This makes the case for immediate jobs measures to boost growth, and for ending tax breaks for millionaires in order to keep us on the path towards a balanced budget.  It’s clear from this report that the Republican approach to the economy is harmful to both growth and deficit reduction, and is holding back the recovery.”

“We are grateful and humbled that Leader Reid asked us to join this Committee to help tackle this critical issue for the American people. While some will argue there is peril in serving on this committee, we believe there is far greater peril in leaving these issues unaddressed. It is long overdue to step beyond the partisanship and politics that have overwhelmed these discussions for months.  The true danger lies in inaction, so we look forward to working with our colleagues to find solutions for our economy and for our country. We very much want this joint committee to be a serious committee because these are among the most serious challenges we’ve ever faced in the Senate.

“This is an important moment for our country. Millions of Americans are struggling in this tough economy, working overtime to pay the bills, find a job, and find a way forward for their families, and they want this Committee to force the federal government to make similar sacrifices without the red hot partisanship and brinksmanship of the last months.

“Every member of Congress knows the importance of getting our fiscal house in order.  We hear every day about the importance of ensuring our country is strong for generations to come, and we look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to address these issues in a balanced, pragmatic and practical way.  This is not going to be easy. Our challenge is to find common ground without damaging anyone’s principles.  We believe we can get there.  This Committee was designed to require bipartisanship, and we are going to work hard with our Republican colleagues to attain it. We know Americans will stand by us if we work together to tackle our debt and deficit and help get our economy back on track.

“This Committee has to tackle the urgent challenge we face today, but it’s also about what we want our country to look like 10 years from now, 20 years from now, and for generations to come. Americans are demanding leadership, and we are going to work hard to deliver it.”

The JSC was originally conceived by Senator Reid during the negotiations that led to passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Act created the JSC to devise a long-term approach to reducing our nation’s deficit. The bipartisan, bicameral committee will be comprised of 12 members, 6 from each Chamber, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. The JSC is charged with developing legislation to achieve at least $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by Thanksgiving. The committee has been given broad leeway to examine all areas for deficit reduction, and its legislation will be given expedited consideration, with a guaranteed up-or-down vote in the Senate before Christmas.

Senator Reid issued the following statement regarding the appointments:

“The Joint Select Committee has been charged with forging the balanced, bipartisan approach to deficit reduction that the American people, the markets and rating agencies like Standard and Poor’s are demanding. To achieve that goal, I have appointed three senators who each posses an expertise in budget matters, a commitment to a balanced approach and a track record of forging bipartisan consensus.

“I have great faith in Senator Murray as the co-chair of the committee. Her years of experience on the Senate Budget and Appropriations committees have given her a depth of knowledge on budget issues, and demonstrated her ability to work across party lines. Senators Baucus and Kerry are two of the Senate’s most respected and experienced legislators. Their legislative accomplishments are matched only by their records of forging strong bonds with their Republican colleagues.

“As the events of the past week have made clear, the world is watching the work of this committee. I am confident that Senators Murray, Baucus and Kerry will bring the thoughtfulness, bipartisanship, and commitment to a balanced approach that will produce the best outcome for the American people.”

For the last few weeks Congress has been locked in partisan gridlock. Today, I am relieved to say that leaders from both parties have come together for the sake of our economy to reach a historic, bipartisan compromise that ends this dangerous standoff. The compromise we have agreed to is remarkable not only because of what it does, but because of what it prevents: a first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the United States.

Sometimes it seems our two sides disagree on almost everything. But in the end, reasonable people were able to agree on this: the United States could not take the chance of defaulting on our debt, risking a United States financial collapse and a world-wide depression. America and the world have been watching our Democracy expectantly. And my message tonight is that this nation and this Congress are moving forward together. Reaching a long-term accord that would give our economy the certainty it needs was not easy.

But our work is not done. Leaders from both parties and in both chambers will present this agreement to our caucuses tomorrow. Senate Democrats will meet at 11 a.m. To pass this settlement, we’ll need the support of Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate. There is no way either party – in either chamber – can do this alone. As President Lyndon Johnson said, “There are no problems we cannot solve together, and very few that we can solve by ourselves.” Democrats and Republicans have rarely needed to come together more than today.

I know this agreement won’t make every Republican happy. It certainly won’t make every Democrat happy, either. Both parties gave more ground than they wanted to. And neither side got as much as it had hoped. But that is the essence of compromise. And the American people demanded compromise this week.

In Closed-Door Meeting Earlier Today, Boehner Told House GOP Caucus Senate Would “Fold” And Accede To His Debt Plan

Boehner Plan Not Only Puts America’s Credit Rating at Risk, But Would Empower House GOP To Hold Economy Hostage Again In 6  Months

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced late Wednesday that the entire Senate Democratic caucus has signed a letter to House Speaker John Boehner stating they will vote against his short-term plan to raise the debt ceiling should it pass the House.

According to published reports, the Speaker, in an effort to quell a rebellion among conservatives in his caucus, pressed his case for House passage by predicting that the Senate would “fold like a cheap suit” and accept his plan.  The letter, signed by all 51 Senate Democrats and two independents, shows otherwise.

“We heard that in your caucus you said the Senate will support your bill,” the Senators wrote  “We are writing to tell you that we will not support it, and give you the reasons why.”

The senators continued: “In addition to risking a downgrade and catastrophic default, we are concerned that in five or six months, the House will once again hold the economy captive and refuse to avoid another default unless we accept unbalanced, deep cuts to programs like Medicare and Social Security, without asking anything of the wealthiest Americans.”

In the last two days, the Speaker’s plan to raise the debt ceiling has faced mounting difficulty. Since Tuesday, the Speaker faced opposition from House conservatives who rejected the proposal in favor of the “Cup, Cap and Balance” plan.  Also, CNN has reported that S&P would likely downgrade America’s credit rating if the Boehner plan was signed into law.

Today, while hastily rewriting portions of the legislation, Speaker Boehner went before his caucus seeking to secure enough votes to pass the measure.  His claim that the Senate would simply pass whatever the House sent them was part of this final pitch. The Democratic caucus’ letter tonight officially disproves that claim.

The full text of the letter is below and available here as a PDF.

July 27, 2011

Speaker John Boehner
U.S. Capitol, H-232
Washington, DC  20515

Dear Speaker Boehner:

With five days until our nation faces an unprecedented financial crisis, we need to work together to ensure that our nation does not default on our obligations for the first time in our history. We heard that in your caucus you said the Senate will support your bill.  We are writing to tell you that we will not support it, and give you the reasons why.

A short-term extension like the one in your bill would put America at risk, along with every family and business in it.  Your approach would force us once again to face the threat of default in five or six short months.  Every day, another expert warns us that your short-term approach could be nearly as disastrous as a default and would lead to a downgrade in our credit rating.  If our credit is downgraded, it would cost us billions of dollars more in interest payments on our existing debt and drive up our deficit.  Even more worrisome, a downgrade would spike interest rates, making everything from mortgages, car loans and credit cards more expensive for families and businesses nationwide.

In addition to risking a downgrade and catastrophic default, we are concerned that in five or six months, the House will once again hold the economy captive and refuse to avoid another default unless we accept unbalanced, deep cuts to programs like Medicare and Social Security, without asking anything of the wealthiest Americans.

We now have only five days left to act.  The entire world is watching Congress.  We need to do the right thing to solve this problem.  We must work together to avoid a default the responsible way – not in a way that will do America more harm than good.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)
John Kerry (D-Mass.)
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)
Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)
Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)
Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
Tim Johnson (D-S.D.)
Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Tom Carper (D-Del.)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Jim Webb (D-Va.)
Bob Casey (D-Pa.)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
Mark Udall (D-Colo.)
Tom Udall (D-N.M.)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)
Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)
Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
Chris Coons (D-Del.)
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

VIEW THE CLIP HERE:

Washington Post: House GOP Leadership Showed Violent Scene From “The Town” Tuesday To Entire Caucus for Inspiration

“House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the party’s vote counter, began his talk by showing a clip from the movie, “The Town”, trying to forge a sense of unity among the independent-minded caucus. One character asks his friend: “I need your help. I can’t tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later.’ ‘Whose car are we gonna take,’ the character says. [Washington Post, 7/26/11]

Controversial Congressman Allen West Responded Enthusiastically to the Video.

“I’m ready to drive the car,” West replied, surprising many Republicans by giving his full-throated support for the plan.  [Washington Post, 7/26/11]

Next Scene In Movie Shows Characters Committing Violent Assault.

“In the movie, the characters then put on hockey masks and bludgeon two men with sticks, then shoot one man in the leg.”  [Think Progress, 7/27/11]

Film’s Director/Star Responded to Video Being Shown, Said It Was Bizarre.

“On Wednesday, Affleck — who wrote and directed “The Town” — said that he too found the whole scenario a touch bizarre. And in a statement his spokesperson provided to The Huffington Post, he suggested that Republicans use a different one of his movies next time they need to whip votes. ‘I don’t know if this is a compliment or the ultimate repudiation,’ said the actor, who is currently in Turkey directing and starring in Argo, an adaptation of the Tehran hostage crisis. ‘But if they’re going to be watching movies, I think “The Company Men” is more appropriate.’ That latter Affleck flick focuses on the plight of middle age men who have been laid off during the recession. [Huffington Post, 7/27/11]

There has been a lot of talk in the last 24 hours about so-called dueling plans to raise the debt limit and avert a dangerous default on this nation’s financial obligations.

As far as I can tell, the only dueling going on in Washington today is between the Republican Party’s multiple personalities.

Last night I introduced an amendment I thought was failsafe – it would prevent default using only proposals Republicans have already supported. Yet House Republicans had harsh words for Democrats’ plan yesterday – odd considering every bit of our proposal was taken from the Republican playbook.

Let me explain the plan.

It would avert default while cutting $2.7 trillion from the deficit in the next decade. It would cut more money more quickly than a competing proposal introduced by Republican leaders yesterday.

The proposal includes no revenues, as House Republicans insisted it must not. It holds harmless even the most wasteful of tax breaks and giveaways to Big Oil and billionaires, who Republicans have vowed to protect even if it costs our economy in the process.

It establishes a Joint Congressional Committee to find additional savings this year, and guarantees that committee’s recommendations will see an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

And every single spending cut in the proposal has already been endorsed by Republicans. The cuts have already been voted for by Republicans in both houses of Congress.

In short, it is everything Republicans have demanded wrapped up in a bow and delivered to their door.

But now Republicans say their demands, which have been met in full, are not enough.

They insist instead that we pass their plan – a very similar plan, save for several crucial details. Their plan also raises the debt ceiling, cuts spending and includes no revenue increases. These are the major differences:

• It does not cut as much from the deficit as the legislation I introduced last night,
• And it is a short-term fix that Republicans know is untenable to Democrats in the White House and Congress.

Not long ago, it was untenable to Republicans, too.

This is what Speaker Boehner said about short-term measures in May:

“I’m not really interested in a short term increase in the debt limit… Our economy won’t grow as long as we continue to trip it up with short-term gimmicks from Washington.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor echoed the sentiment in June:

“I’m not sure how if we’re not willing to make tough decisions now, we’ll be willing to later… It is my preference that we do this thing one time… Putting off tough decisions is not what people want.”

Democrats agree.

This is what the Washington Post said about Republicans’ bizarre about-face yesterday:

“It seems that perhaps the only meaningful difference between the two plans is that the Democratic one gets it done in one fell swoop, while the GOP proposal does a short-term deal followed by another one later – something that financial analysts say could lead to a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and that Republicans themselves once opposed.”

But now Republicans are insisting we relive the endless negotiations and partisan wrangling of the last six weeks again six months from now, with no good outcome guaranteed.

As I’ve said, a short-term solution isn’t really a solution at all. And it puts us right back in this untenable position a few short months from now.

It gives the markets no stability. It gives the American people no certainty. And it gives the credit rating agencies no choice but to downgrade U.S. debt – a move that would cause interest rates to rise and effectively increase taxes for every American family.

Market analysts and credit rating agencies have said a short-term fix would risk many of the same effects as a default, and that’s a risk our economy can’t afford.

If Republicans continue to oppose the reasonable proposal I brought to the floor last night, and which we’ll vote on here in the Senate soon, it will be for political reasons driven by the ideological Tea Party. It will be crystal clear that House Republicans don’t care if we default on the debt.

After all, we’ve given them a plan that should, by all rights, be guaranteed to pass the House and Senate with bipartisan support. Yet they’ve trashed it right out the gate.

Yesterday the Washington Post called this debate over whether to default on the full faith and credit of the United States of America “surreal” and “bizarre.” And this commentary is valid.

Reasonable Republicans have been offered absolutely everything they’ve asked for. Still, they refuse to take yes for an answer, all because of a cadre of unreasonable Tea Party-driven House Republicans.

Every day, people from across this great nation and around the globe come here – to the U.S. Capitol Building – to see the seat of American democracy.

Every day, those of us who are fortunate to have been elected by our home states to serve in Congress also come here to represent this nation and the American people in that democracy.

And every day, a brave and dedicated group of men and women come here to serve on the Capitol Police force, to ensure that whether we’re here to work or to visit we are safe from harm.

In 1998, two of those dedicated police officers gave their lives while protecting the Capitol. They were Special Agent John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut.

Thirteen years ago yesterday, a man entered the House side of the Capitol Building with a gun and shot Officer Chestnut at point blank range. Agent Gibson warned tourists and staff to take cover and then confronted the gunman. Although Agent Gibson was also shot, he prevented anyone else from being killed.

Both officers died that day. They served a combined 36 years on the force protecting their fellow men and women.

When I first came to Washington, D.C., I worked the night shift – the swing shift – as a Capitol Police officer. That’s why I feel a particular closeness to the Capitol Police.

I was never in danger. I was never called upon to put my life on the line. I only hope I would have shown the bravery that Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut displayed.
I was a member of the Senate when Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut gave their lives to save the lives of others.

I know nothing can make up for the loss of a cherished loved one, but I hope their families and friends take some comfort knowing that those of us who were here that day hold them in our memories and in our hearts.

And while I know it is little solace to their families, the tragedy of that day made the Capitol a safer place. It led to the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center, which prevents a madman like the one who shot Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut from entering the Capitol.

We are all grateful for their sacrifice. And we are grateful that every day devoted men and women like them guard these hallowed halls.

Some of those dedicated police officers stood guard Saturday and Sunday as we worked to reach an agreement to avert a default on the national debt. Leaders from both parties were here throughout the weekend.

Differences still separate our two sides, but work toward an agreement continues.

This afternoon I will bring to the floor a proposal I hope can break the impasse. This legislation would put to rest the specter of default. It would cut $2.7 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. It would not raise any new revenue or make any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security benefits. All the cuts included in this package have previously been supported by Republicans.

This proposal provides everything House Republicans have said they needed from an agreement to avert default and cut the deficit.

I hope my colleagues on the other side still know a good deal when they see it. I hope they remember how to say “yes.”

Tea Party-led House of Republicans held up a resolution to these negotiations for weeks because they didn’t want oil companies, corporations that ship jobs overseas or millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.

If they now oppose an agreement that meets every one of their demands, it will be because they have put politics first and the good of this nation and its economy last.

I also hope they will not continue to insist on the kind of short-term fix they opposed a few short weeks ago – and that they know Democrats in the Senate will not pass and the President will not sign.

Economists have already said a short-term solution is no solution at all. It will not give the markets the certainty they need. And the credit rating agencies have said a short-term Band-Aid could have many of the same effects as default: a downgrade of U.S. debt, soaring interest rates and an effective tax increase on every American family and business.

The financial markets don’t trust the right wing, Tea Party-led House of Representatives not to hold this process hostage again in six months, or to make the right decision for our nation and the economy a second time.

This is what one market analyst said about a plan to avert default for only a few months:

“From the markets’ point of view, a two-stage plan is a non-starter because we now know it is amateur hour on Capitol Hill and we don’t want to be painted in this corner again.”

The markets need certainty. America needs certainty. The world needs certainty. And an agreement that provides that certainty is within our grasp.

Democrats have done more than meet Republicans in the middle – we’ve met them all the way. Now we’ll see whether Republicans are against any agreement at all, or whether they remember how to say “yes” when the compromise on the table gives them everything they’ve demanded.

“Republicans have once again proven unable to overcome their ideological opposition to ending taxpayer-funded giveaways for millionaires, corporate jet owners and oil companies. I applaud President Obama for insisting that any deal to reduce our deficit be balanced between cuts and revenues. We must avert a default at all costs, so it is time to reengage in bipartisan talks on an agreement that at least accomplishes that goal.

“I agree with President Obama that a short-term extension is unacceptable.”

Jeff Schapiro
July 17, 2011

Virginia’s young gun apparently shot himself in the foot.

Eric Cantor this past week had an opportunity to define himself for an audience beyond the Beltway as more than a rigid conservative with one word in his vocabulary: no. Instead, the U.S. House majority leader, seen as a deal breaker rather than a deal maker, may have only trivialized himself.

Having walked out of Joe Biden-led budget-and-deficit talks; undercut John Boehner on a big fix and engaged Barack Obama in verbal fisticuffs over the fine print of a possible deal, Cantor looked more the insipid pill than the professional politician. It was, David Weigel wrote for the online publication Slate, the “official Newt-ification of Eric Cantor.”

Cantor’s avuncular, bow-tied mentor-predecessor, Tom Bliley, isn’t sure how his protégé’s shtick is playing outside Washington, crush of crummy press notwithstanding. “He’s a hero to his conference and the right,” says Bliley. “But how far it would go with the independents — I don’t know. The jury’s still out on that.”

Events of the past week may have gone a long way toward casting Cantor the wrong way. Cantor wants to be seen as serious-minded. A trunk-load of degrees, stints in law and finance and a business-fed fundraising machine say as much. But his hissing match with Obama and spending cuts-only approach to budget-balancing strikes Republican plutocrats in his hometown as evidence that Cantor is serious all right — about politics, not governing.

That’s probably why Cantor, in a hurry-up effort at damage control, told The Associated Press, a news service with the widest possible reach, that he meant no disrespect to Obama. Cantor also attempted a show of solidarity with Boehner at a joint appearance that was more PDA — public display of affection — than news conference.

Bliley, a former Commerce Committee chairman-turned-lobbyist who has schmoozed Cantor on behalf of convenience store owners over a cap on debit card swipe fees, dismisses talk of a Cantor challenge to Boehner for the speakership. Cantor — as he did for Bliley’s seat, biding his time as a Henrico delegate in the General Assembly — will “wait his turn,” says Bliley.

But could events mean that Cantor, labeled the “shadow speaker” by New York magazine, won’t have to wait very long? “I don’t want to get into that speculation,” says Bliley. “That’s like asking me what’s going to happen in six months.”

In politics, that’s many lifetimes. And if one flashed before Cantor’s eyes as he was methodically demonized the first part of the week, another rolled out at week’s end, as he and Boehner conferred privately with the treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, and White House chief of staff Bill Daley.

The point being that Cantor — his literal Elvis-like lip curl yielding to a figurative fat lip — remains relevant if only because of his rank: second-in-command of a House Republican Conference infused by tea partiers, who, despite Cantor’s no-no-a-thousand-times-no stance on new taxes, know that his record on fiscal issues is, at best, mixed. He previously voted to raise the debt ceiling, backed the deficit-financed Medicare drug benefit for seniors, two unpaid-for wars, the bank bailout and angled for Obama stimulus bucks for high-speed rail.

Having outmaneuvered Cantor for now, the president — alternately the smooth-talking conciliator and punch-in-the-nose Chicago pol — appears to be practicing an old-school rule: after stranding your adversary on a limb, you have to help him crawl back in.

• A Default Would Cost the Economy Hundreds of Thousands of Lost Jobs Every Year. “According to an analysis by the Federal Reserve, a one-percentage point rise in Treasury yields would reduce economic growth by 0.8 percentage points. That number sounds small, but it is not. Economists tell us it would translate into hundreds of thousands of lost jobs every year.” [Op-Ed by Tom Donohue in USA Today, 7/13/11 ]

• For Every 1 Percent Change in GDP, The U.S. Would Shed 640,000 Jobs. “For every 1% change in GDP growth, there is an estimated 0.46% change in total employment, according to economist William Seyfried. Using his estimation, the U.S. would shed 640,000 jobs.” [Third Way, May 2011 ]

• Bernanke: Default Will Cost Jobs. According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke “the economy may be thrown into reverse and employers would start cutting jobs if Congress fails to raise the nation’s legal borrowing authority.” [Bloomberg, 7/13/11 ]

The Treasury Would Have to Pick Winners and Losers in “Prioritizing” Payments.

• In the Event of a Default, The U.S. Would Have to Defer Paying 44 Percent of Its Obligations. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the U.S. has $306.7 billion in payment obligations due August 2011 and will take in an estimated $172.4 billion in revenue for the month. 44 percent of U.S. government bills would go unpaid if the federal government fails to raise the debt ceiling by the August 2 deadline. [Bipartisan Policy Center, 7/12/11 ]

• In the Event of a Default, The Treasury Department Would Have to Decide Who to Pay. According to Jay Powell of the Bipartisan Policy Center and former Under Secretary of the Treasury for Finance under President George H. W. Bush, “Treasury would exhaust all inflows just by paying six major items: interest, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance and defense vendors. Without cutting from these six, there would be no money for entire departments such as Justice, Labor and Commerce among many others, or for veterans’ benefits, IRS refunds, military active duty pay, federal salaries and benefits, special education, Pell Grants for college students or food and rent payments for the poor.” [Bipartisan Policy Center, 7/12/11 ]

The Treasury Would Have to Pay Higher Interest Rates on U.S. Debt To Attract New Investors.

• If the Debt Ceiling is Not Raised by August 2nd, All Three Ratings Agencies Will Put the U.S. on Watch for a Downgrade, at a Minimum.
  • Moody’s Investors Service: U.S. Rating Placed Under Review. “The United States may lose its top-notch credit rating in the next few weeks if lawmakers fail to increase the country’s debt ceiling, forcing the government to miss debt payments, Moody’s Investors Service warned on Wednesday. Moody’s is the first of the big-three rating agencies to place the United States’ Aaa rating on review for a possible downgrade, which means it is close to cutting its rating.” [Reuters, 7/13/11 ]

• Even Without a Downgrade, It is Likely That Rates Would Increase. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, it is possible that the U.S. Treasury could lose market access during such an unprecedented event and default. [Bipartisan Policy Center, 7/12/11 ]

Failure to Raise Debt Limit Would Deepen Our Deficit By $75 Billion Each Year.

• J.P. Morgan: Default Could Cause a Sustained 50 basis point Increase, Costing Taxpayers an Additional $75 Billion a Year. According to a letter by J.P. Morgan Managing Director Matthew Zames to Treasury Secretary Geithner, “[a] sustained 50 basis point increase in Treasury rates would eventually cost U.S. taxpayers an additional $75 billion each year.” [Letter by J.P. Morgan to Secretary Geither, 4/25/11 ]

Senators Chuck Schumer (NY), Ben Cardin (MD) , Mark Begich (AK) and Chris Coons (DE) warned this morning of a calamitous outcome if the GOP forces the U.S. to default on its debt for the first time in history. The chart below illustrates just how difficult it would be for our country to pay its bills (explanation of chart below).

Download full-size PDF version of these charts.

Senator Schumer, explaining the stakes as shown above, said –

“We are definitely going to want to pay Social Security benefits, and that takes 50 billion dollars off the table.” [He took the Social Security tile off the obligations chart and placed it onto revenue chart]

And we have to make sure America’s seniors continue to get healthcare so we need to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. There goes another $50 billion [He took the Medicare/Medicaid chart off of the obligations chart and placed it onto the revenue chart]

So now we have 72 billion left.  We have to pay our troops, keep our promise to America’s veterans, and fund our  defense priorities. That is going to take us almost up to the limit.  [He then took the troops, veterans, and defense tile off of the obligations chart and placed it on the revenue chart]

And we still have the interest on our debt, and that takes up most of the difference. [He then took the interest on treasury securities tile off of the obligations chart and placed it on the revenue chart]

We wouldn’t have a dime for Student loans, the FBI, Cancer Research, IRS refunds, or border patrol agents… What from this list are you going to remove to fund these jobs that keep America safe?

Do you want to stop paying hundreds of thousands of troops? [He removed the troops tile]. Do you want to stop paying 60 million social security recipients? [He removed the social security tile] That is the choice, and the consequences we face if we don’t raise the debt limit.”

As Senator Coons put it, “This is the most predictable financial disaster in our history. Let’s avoid it.”

Washington, D.C.– Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today on the Senate floor on Democrats’ efforts to cut the deficit and avert a default crisis. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

There are some in the Republican Party who will not listen to the truth no matter who speaks it.

This is my opinion: if we allow this nation for the first time in its history to default on our national obligations, it will be not only a black mark on our reputation but also a massive financial disaster that will sweep the world into global depression.

But it is not my opinion alone. I have come to that belief by listening to the most respected voices in the business community. Default, they say, is a “risk our country must not take.”

And they’re not the only ones who believe that’s true.

The most respected bankers have also said it. JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said default would be “catastrophic.”

Investors have said it. Bill Gross, one of the world’s largest mutual fund managers, sent us a warning yesterday. He said “There should be no question at all. The debt ceiling must be raised and not be held hostage by budget negotiations. Don’t mess with the debt ceiling, Washington.”

Economists have also said it. Ben Bernanke, appointed by President Bush as chairman of the Federal Reserve, has said default would be a “major crisis” that would send “shockwaves” through the world financial markets. And yesterday he said failure to avert default would mean “huge financial calamity.”

Even other Republicans have said it. This is what Speaker Boehner said in April: “Not raising the debt limit would have serious – very serious – implications for the worldwide economy and jobs here in America.”

And – perhaps most telling of all – all three credit rating agencies have already sent warning shots across our bow.

Last night Moody’s cautioned us that America’s AAA rating was already under review for downgrade – with three weeks left until we miss our first payment. They cited the “rising possibility” that we will default. And they said that we could lose this crucial rating – which saves every American money every day – even before we miss a payment.

Standard & Poor’s has told Congress and business leaders that even if the U.S. keeps paying creditors, but delays Social Security checks or veterans benefits, it may cut our rating.

And Fitch Ratings has said a default would “threaten the still fragile financial stability in the US and the world as a whole.”

So why are some Republicans in Congress still saying that a first-ever default on our nation’s financial obligations would be no big deal?

When every financial expert, investor, business leader and banker in the country – and even every reasonable member of your own political party – is telling you the consequence of default would be catastrophe, it’s time to start listening.

Why? Because default won’t just roil the financial markets, push interest rates higher and tank the stock markets. It will affect every American’s wallet as well. Here is what will happen.

Social Security checks and veterans benefits and paychecks to our troops would stop. Some of the most vulnerable Americans would be placed at risk. Our promise to the men and women who protected this nation so bravely – and those who protect it today – would be broken.

Payments on our national debt would stop. American investments and retirement accounts could be decimated. Millions of Americans could lose their jobs.

Interest rates would rise, not only for the government, but for ordinary Americans as well. Those Americans will pay more for their mortgages. They will pay more to use a credit card or buy a car or finance a university education.

They’ll even pay more for their electric bills, groceries and gas. The spike in interest rates and the damage to the U.S. dollar alone could cost the average American family more than $1,500.

It would be the most serious financial crisis this country has ever faced. And it would come at a time when our economy can least afford it.

And in the long run, it would wind up costing the government trillions – a fact Republicans shouting about the debt fail to mention. Every 1 percent increase in interest rates will cost the nation $1.3 trillion.

With so much at stake, even Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell seem to understand the seriousness of this situation. They’re willing to negotiate in good faith.

Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has shown that he’s shouldn’t even be at the table. And Republicans agree.

One House Republican told Politico: “He lost a lot of credibility when he walked away from the table … It was childish.”

Another Republican said Cantor is putting himself first. He said this: “He’s all about Eric.”

The time for personal gain and political posturing is over. It’s time to put our economy and our country first.

The risks we face are simply too great. But don’t take my word for it. More than 300 respected business leaders wrote to Congress this week to make it clear how serious this crisis really is.

“A great nation — like a great company — has to be relied upon to pay its debts when they become due,” they said. “This is a Main Street not Wall Street issue.”

Democrats are listening. It’s time for the irresponsible voices in the Republican Party that continue to deny the truth of this crisis to start listening as well.

Washington, D.C.– Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today on Democrats’ efforts to cut the deficit and avert a catastrophic default crisis. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Sometimes it can be hard to find common ground in Washington. But there is one thing on which Republicans and Democrats agree: it is absolutely necessary that Congress prevent a catastrophic default on the nation’s debt that would put our economy in grave danger.

I have said it. So have many of my Republican colleagues. And now the business community is shouting it.

This week, business leaders wrote to Congress and the White House to ask us, please, to put our differences aside and avert a default crisis before it’s too late. Literally hundreds of CEOs – including executives from some of the nation’s largest companies and most respected business groups – signed the letter.

“This is a risk our country must not take,” they wrote.

They said if we don’t reach a deal soon, the stock market will be in “disarray.” We all know we can’t afford that right now. Our economy is already struggling to stay on a course to recovery.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donahue, who signed the letter, also said this week that a default would have “dire consequences for our economy, our markets, and Main Street Americans.”

Business leaders are begging us to do the right thing, and do it quickly.

That’s why I was shocked to hear the Speaker of the House say yesterday that averting a default crisis was President Obama’s problem.

That’s not what he said a few months ago when he urged us to “deal with this like adults.” And it wasn’t what he said when President George W. Bush raised the debt ceiling seven times, increasing the limit by $4 trillion.

In fact, when the Speaker voted to increase the debt limit by nearly $1 trillion in 2003, he didn’t demand it be accompanied by massive spending cuts. Instead, a Republican Congress approved hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy. They were paid for with borrowed money and contributed to our massive debt.

Congress has raised the debt limit 89 times since it was created in 1939, two-thirds of those times under Republican presidents.

Ronald Reagan asked Congress to raise the limit 18 times, twice as many as any other president. Republicans never claimed then that the issue was the President’s problem alone.

For Republicans to claim now that the deficit is a problem only for the President or Democrats in Congress is just plain irresponsible.

It’s even more irresponsible considering Bush, with the help of Republicans in Congress, nearly doubled the debt while he was President. That’s more than any other president in history.

This problem belongs to all of us in Congress. And it will take all of us working together – political party aside – to make a deal possible.

Theodore Hesburgh, President of the University of Notre Dame for 35 years, said this about making difficult decisions: “You don’t make decisions because they are easy; you don’t make them because they are cheap; you don’t make them because they’re popular; you make them because they’re right.”

It is time for Republicans and Democrats to get together and do what’s right for this nation.

I am glad to hear that the Republican Leader has come forward with a backstop proposal to address the debt limit. I am still studying it and discussing it with Senators.

But I am heartened by what I read. This is a serious proposal. And I commend the Republican Leader for coming forward.

I believe that the Republican Leader’s proposal, combined with ideas he and I have been discussing to force a vote on deficit reduction proposals, could go a long way toward resolving the impasse in which we find ourselves.

In the meantime, this afternoon, Congressional Leadership will again meet with the President and his senior advisors to try to advance our discussions.

Democrats realize finding common ground isn’t always easy. If it were, we would have hammered out an agreement long ago. But reducing the deficit and getting our fiscal house in order is too important to quit when the going gets tough.

I am confident that we will find a way to get this done. We simply cannot allow our country for the first time in its history to fail to pay its bills. The risks to our economy are too great not to.

America’s business leaders put it this way: “Now is the time for our political leaders to put aside partisan differences and act in the nation’s best interests. It is time to pull together rather than pull apart.”

I urge my Republican colleagues to remember this: we are not opponents squaring off across the field. We are all on the same team, with the same goal in mind. But if the catcher doesn’t take the field, it doesn’t matter how good the pitcher’s fastball is. The team doesn’t stand a chance.

It’s time each and every one of us in Congress remembered that. In the words of American business leaders, “It’s time to pull together rather than pull apart.”

MCCONNELL CONTINUES TO STICK TO HIS GUNS ON REVENUE…

McConnell “Slams Shut” The Door on Revenues. “Even as Cantor cracked the door open, however, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) slammed it shut, reiterating the long-standing Republican position that policymakers should consider eliminating tax breaks only as part of a comprehensive effort to rewrite the code and lower income tax rates.”  [Washington Post, 7/7/11]

McConnell Said No to All Forms of Revenue. “President Barack Obama stepped back into deficit-reduction talks Monday, only to be greeted by a double-barrel blast from Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who peremptorily rejected any deal that would include the added revenues Obama wants together with spending cuts. McConnell’s meeting with the president stretched more than an hour, but even before the two men sat down together, the Kentucky Republican had delivered a toughly worded speech on the Senate floor and posted an opinion piece on CNN.com demanding that ‘tax hikes’ come off the table.”  [Politico, 6/27/11]

McConnell: “Talking About Tax Revenue Not Helpful.” [AP, 6/26/11]

…EVEN WHILE HIS ENTIRE PARTY IS SEEMINGLY RUNNING SCARED:

The Hill: “GOP Shifts on Taxes.” [The Hill, 7/7/11]

Politico: “Democrats’ Populist Rhetoric Has GOP Backpedaling.” [Politico, 7/7/11]

NBC First Read: The GOP Revenue Message is Now All Over the Place. [NBC First Read, 7/7/11]

Reuters: Republicans Back New Revenues In Debt Deal: Kyl [Reuters, 7/6/11]

Cantor Open To Closing Tax Loopholes.  “House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told reporters today that there may be some wiggle room in the debt-ceiling negotiations when it comes to closing tax loopholes. ‘If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes,’ he explained. ‘We’ve said all along that preferences in the code aren’t something that helps economic growth.’”  [NBC First Read, 7/6/11]

McCain: There Are Certain Revenue Raisers We Can Work On.

CROWLEY: No way no how would Senator John McCain vote for anything, a closing of a loophole or tax hike of any sort?

MCCAIN: Candy, Jon Kyl was in negotiations as you know with the vice president. And he said there were certain revenue raisers in other areas that perhaps we could work on. [CNN, 7/3/11]

Cornyn:  Eliminating the Tax Expenditures Or Loopholes could make our nation more competitive internationally.

BREAM: So, would you consider that a tax hike or raising taxes? How do you define what we’re talking about when we’re talking about revenue?
CORNYN: Well, I think it’s clear that the Republicans are opposed to any tax hikes; particularly, during a fragile economic recovery. The last thing that employers need is further disincentives to not hire people. And that’s what hire taxes would mean. Now, do we believe that tax reform is necessary? I would say absolutely. There’s not enough time to get it this done between now and August 2nd. But it ought to be the first thing we turn to, try to make our tax code more rational. We could bring down rates, eliminate the tax, a lot of tax expenditures or loopholes and actually make our nation more competitive internationally. [Fox News Sunday, 7/3/11]

• Cornyn Open to Revenues in Debt Limit Deal. “When asked about Democratic leaders’ demands that tax breaks be eliminated to raise billions of dollars in additional revenue, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the subject should at least be up for consideration in the debt limit talks. ‘I think the president’s own fiscal commission pointed out that there’s a lot of money being used in tax expenditures. I think we ought to get them all out on the table and look at them and see which ones make sense,’ he said. Cornyn, who heads the Senate GOP campaign organization, indicated that he was at least open to closing some tax breaks without requiring that the revenue raised be offset with spending cuts elsewhere. ‘I would tell you that I think that would be a fruitful area for discussion.’”  [CQ Today, 6/28/11]

Graham: Get Rid of Subsidies and Pay off the Debt. On “Meet the Press” Graham said, “No one on the Republican side is going to vote to raise taxes, but I think many of us would look at flattening the tax code, doing away with deductions and exemptions and take that revenue and help pay off the debt.  One way to do this is to do away ethanol subsidy and a bunch of other subsides that go to a few people, take that money back into the federal Treasury and pay off the debt.”  [Meet the Press, 6/19/11]

Senator Alexander Called Now “A Good Time To Take a Hard Look At Unwarranted Tax Breaks” “ Schumer pointed to Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) as a Republican who wants to reduce the deficit by ending permanent tax breaks that favor particular industries. ‘At a time when we are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend, it is a good time to take a hard look at unwarranted tax breaks, and one appropriate use of those funds is to reduce the deficit,’ Alexander said Thursday.” [The Hill, 6/17/11]

Senator Johanns Said “We’re Looking at Everything Now” “More than two-thirds of senators voted to immediately end an existing 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit for blending ethanol in gasoline that expires at the end of the year. ‘I think we’re looking at everything now,’ said Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns, a former governor and George W. Bush-era agriculture secretary. ‘Trying to figure out what to do with the budget has caused us all to come to grips with some things we’ve supported in the past, all of us.’” [Politico, 6/17/11]

Senator Coburn Said The Vote To End Tax Subsidies “Should Send A Good Signal” To The Biden Talks. “The vote could also have implications for deficit reduction talks Vice President Joe Biden is leading with bipartisan congressional leaders. ‘It should send a good signal,’ Coburn told reporters. ‘We’ve got to do what’s in the best interest of the country, not what’s in the best interest of special interest groups.’” [Politico, 6/17/11]

Senator Coats Said It’s Entirely Appropriate To End Niche Tax Subsidies. According to The Hill, “Coats says it’s entirely appropriate to end niche tax subsidies, or what he calls tax expenditures, to reduce the deficit. He said the thinking has changed since the 2010 election. Before then, he said, the assumption was that money saved from ending tax breaks would be spent on other federal programs.” [The Hill, 6/17/11]

Senator Kyl Said “Revenues Have Never Been Off The Table.” According to Roll Call, Senator Kyl said “Revenues have never been off the table.”  [Roll Call, 6/28/11]

Today the Senate will consider legislation calling on millionaires and billionaires to contribute to this country’s effort to reduce our deficit.

Republicans have already asked the poor, the middle class, children and seniors to make sacrifices to help get our fiscal house in order. This legislation would reaffirm the Senate’s commitment to ensuring the extremely wealthy are asked to make similar sacrifices.

This principle – that all Americans should contribute their fair share as we work together to reduce the deficit – is so common sense it should go without saying. Yet Republicans have boasted about their opposition to having the wealthy contribute their fair share.

This is the simple, straight-forward statement my Republican colleagues oppose: “Any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1 million or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort.” My Republican colleagues reject that.

Democrats are willing to go on the record saying we believe all Americans – including those who can afford private jets and yachts – should contribute to the collective effort to reduce the deficit. The question is, why aren’t Republicans willing to do the same?

They say it’s because they’re looking out for the people. That claim is ridiculous. It is without foundation.

Let’s talk about the millionaires and billionaires Republicans are determined to protect above all else. Less than one quarter of one percent of tax returns filed in the United States each year belong to people making more than $1 million.

These same people are among the one percent of Americans who control half the country’s wealth.

We are talking about the Warren Buffets of the world. Warren Buffet is my friend, and I have great respect for him. But he is very, very wealthy.

So, what does Warren Buffet, the third richest man in the world, say about contributing his fair share? He welcomes it.

And Buffet criticized a system in which his secretary gives a greater share of her income to the government each year than this man worth $50 billion.

“If you’re in the luckiest 1 percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.” That’s what Warren Buffet said about contributing his fair share.

Since the late 1970’s, incomes for the lucky one percent in America have risen by 281 percent.

The last three decades have been a very, very good time for the very, very wealthy.

President George W. Bush called these people the “Haves and Have-mores.” He also called them his base. And right now the Republican Party is putting what is good for this very small base ahead of what is good for this great nation.

The legislation before us asks only this: that each American be part of the solution rather than of part of the problem.

In poll after poll, Americans have endorsed this principle. They have said they believe we must address our deficit both by reducing spending and by ending tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens and corporations. Democrats have heard them.

If Warren Buffet chooses to buy a private jet – or a whole fleet of them – that’s alright. But the American taxpayers shouldn’t give him a special tax break for doing it.

This country is facing a crisis. We face mounting debt brought on by a decade of war and tax breaks for the wealthy. And we face the prospect that Republicans will force us to default on our financial obligations for the first time in our nation’s history.

Difficult choices must be made. Together we will consider cutting programs that help real people in very real ways. Eliminating tax breaks for oil companies making record profits, corporations that ship jobs overseas and the owners of private jets and yachts should be the easy part of solving this problem.

Yet Republicans walked away from the negotiating table when a solution was in sight because they said no to fairness.

Democrats had already agreed to trillions in difficult cuts in order to prevent a default crisis and avert a world-wide depression. Then Republicans walked away from the table to help the one percent of Americans lucky enough not to need any extra help.

How will Republicans explain this to their constituents back home? As middle class families struggle to make ends meet, my Republicans colleagues are risking the financial future of this country and world for the sake of people who can afford private jets and yachts. I can’t imagine that conversation.

Asking millionaires and billionaires to contribute to solving this nation’s deficit crisis is not unreasonable. It’s just plain common sense and simple fairness.