A Pissed America

I know my article might not get too many views, but I really need to get this off my chest.

America is pissed and will likely do nothing about it. That's not to say some will want to make changes, but for the most part, the people are an empathetic and forgiving lot.

If the people are truly pissed that Congress has held the public hostage, then they would remember come election time and vote out those that refused to pass a "clean Bill" to end the shutdown and a "clean Bill" to raise the debt ceiling. It seems today that every bill has attachments clinging to them that help only those constituents of the proposing members of Congress.

Cuts to Social Security, Medicare, education, especially Head Start, defunding the Affordable Care Act that has already been made law, non-creation of jobs, cuts to the military and so on and so on. All of these and more to be held hostage and over the President's head is what a small but lethal group of politicians are doing. They say they have our best interest at heart, but yet Americans are pissed.

According to a "Public Policy Poll" and paid for by MoveOn.org, Republicans could be in trouble.

Polling in the districts, conducted by the liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling and paid for by MoveOn.org, follows similar polling that found voters hostile to lawmakers supporting the shutdown.

Democrats need a net increase of 17 seats to retake control of the lower chamber, and the prior polling found 17 Republicans trailing generic Democratic opponents before voters were told they had supported the shutdown. After they were told -- which a Democratic challenger would waste no time doing while campaigning -- another four Republicans fell behind.

In the latest survey, based on a dozen Republicans, five trail Democrats and another is tied. Once voters were told the Republican supported the shutdown, another three fell behind the Democrat.

Of the 36 Republican-controlled districts where voters were surveyed by PPP, 29 of them could flip -- more than enough to give control of the chamber to Democrats.

But will America really remember in 2014 or are the Republicans counting on America to be malaise about the recent past of 2013. After all, aren't we a forgiving nation? Did we learn our lesson in 2007? I think not! We should stand up and elect the person with the least "deep" pockets, and elect business people that will run our country like a business and not by a bunch of spoiled, entitled brats.

In Case You Didn't Know

Middle Class families are in for a big shock if the "Sequester" goes through March 1st. The impact of the Sequester will be felt by hundreds of thousands of middle class families in job cuts, cuts to vital services for children and seniors and most of all our military troops around the world.

Yes it's true, we need to cut the deficit, but it needs to be done in a responsible fashion and a balanced way that protects investments that the middle class relies on. Congress, in it's infamous dereliction of their elected duties, are playing a dangerous political maneuvering game that could result in a crippling economy and hundreds of thousands of job losses. 

Here are just a few of the consequences of the sequester:

Cuts to education by eliminating funds for the Head Start program that would cause 70,000 young children to lose access to Head Start and 10,000 teacher jobs would be cut. 

Small business would lose out as automatic cuts to loans guarantees would be reduced by approximately $900 million.

If sequestration takes effect, up to 2,100 fewer food inspectors could occur putting families at risk of outbreaks of foodborne illnesses creating a serious threat to public health.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies would lose up 1,000 Federal agents which would greatly impact violent crimes, financial crimes and security of our borders and the protection of national security.

Veterans services would be cut by the reduction of staff, leaving 150,000 veterans a year without transitioning services as they move from active to private life. It would also reduce the capacity to serve tens of thousands of veterans assistance to find civilian work.

Many of the 398 National parks would either be closed or have shortened operating hours. There would be reduce maintenance and visitor services would be cut. As a result, surrounding small businesses and regional economies would suffer greatly.

Title I education funds would be eliminated for more than 2,700 schools and 1.2 million disadvantaged students. 10,000 teachers and aides would also feel the impact as they would be at risk of losing their jobs.

Federally assisted "Meals On Wheels" programs would be affected as there would be a reduction of 4 million fewer meals to seniors unable to get out on their own and prepare their own meals.

Approximately 600,000 women and children would be dropped form the Department of Agriculture's Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program from March through September. And again, job losses could amount to at least 1,600.

More than 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, would lose their current housing and emergency shelter programs.

Emergency unemployment compensation would be cut by nearly 11% causing a reduction of nearly $450 in benefits that families count on while they search for employment and smaller unemployment checks will also have a negative impact on the local economies. 

These are certainly just a handful of sober impacts the sequester will have across the country and in many cases world wide if we include the cuts to military spending. Allowing the sequester to happen on March 1st. is a self-inflicted would the United States may not recover from. The sad thing is the Congress has known about the deadline since it's inception and once again it comes down to the last minute, but will anything really get done this time or is the US simply going to limp along with a severe affect in the economy.

Running Out the Clock

Romney and running out the clock… Dems begin to press the panic button… Greenberg’s and Carville’s advice… Dems win AZ-8 special election… After primaries in ME, NV, ND, and VA, Senate races finally take shape… Eric Holder, political punching bag… Jamie Dimon testifies on Capitol Hill… And Romney addresses Business Roundtable meeting at 11:45 am ET.

By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Brooke Brower, and Natalie Cucchiara

*** Running out the clock: With less than five months until Election Day, Mitt Romney and his team are running a campaign that would make Dean Smith (and his Four Corners offense) or Jim Tressel (and his grind-it-out gameplan) proud. If you're ahead -- or within striking distance -- against a talented opponent, you start running out the clock. Take, for instance, Romney's reply yesterday to a reporter’s ropeline question about whether he thought Democrats were taking his recent remark firefighter and police jobs out of context. "I'm not going to talk about that," he said. (Romney also has ducked reporters’ ropeline questions on Syria, JP Morgan, and even Wisconsin.) Or consider all the interviews he does with FOX (especially its cherry-picked programs vs. its newsier anchors) compared with other news outlets. Or think about the fact that the Romney camp isn't planning (for now) on delivering any new policy speeches. The message Team Romney is essentially giving: “We're going to talk about what we want to talk about -- and to whom we want -- and not talk about the rest.”

Advertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices

*** But does a president get to control what he talks about? It’s impressive message discipline. And as Smith and Tressel proved, you can win tons of games -- and the ultimate prize every once in a while (especially if your opponent makes mistakes) -- by running out the clock. But here’s something about sitting in the White House: A president often doesn’t get to pick and choose the issues he has to deal with. Think of many of the events in the past five years: the financial industry’s collapse, the European debt crisis, the BP oil spill, the Arab Spring, the violence in Libya and Syria, and the list goes on. While a president gets to pick his domestic priorities (tax cuts, education, and Social Security for George W. Bush; health care and financial reform for Barack Obama), so much of the job is reacting to unplanned events. Ironically, the very issue Romney wants to talk about -- the state of the U.S. economy -- is something that presidents have little control over, especially compared with foreign policy (which they have A LOT of control over). And yet how long can Romney go without going into more detail about how he would handle the various unplanned issues that he would have to deal with if he wins. Take Syria. We know he doesn’t like how the president has handled this situation but how would a President Romney deal with Putin and Assad? He’s provided no clues and his campaign appears to be making sure there’s little opportunity (for now) to find out.

NBC's Mark Murray discusses whether President Barack Obama's message on the economy is working.

*** Dems press the panic button: While Team Romney appears to be running out the clock and displaying an impressive ability at message discipline, the Obama White House and campaign are dealing with Democratic Party that’s beginning to panic after a rough last two weeks. “Is it time for Democrats to panic?” the Washington Post’s Tumulty asks. “That’s what a growing number of party loyalists are wondering, amid a rough couple of weeks in which President Obama and his political operation have been buffeted by bad economic news, their own gaffes and signs that the presumed Republican nominee is gaining strength.” One criticism from the Democrats cited in the piece is how insular Team Obama is, a criticism that has dogged the Obama political team beginning Feb. 10, 2007 (the day Obama announced). This story illustrates two of the Democratic Party’s and Obama White House’s worst traits -- pressing the panic button (especially when nothing fundamental about the race has changed in the past two weeks) and ignoring outside voices (which is a criticism we continually hear about the Obama team). Former Bush strategist Mark McKinnon puts it well in the piece: “[The Obama campaign folks] are not any more or less smart than they were four years ago. The dynamics are just different. This time, the wind is in their face instead of at their back.”

Romney Accuses Obama of hiding Agenda

WASHINGTON—Mitt Romney, fresh off of three momentum-building wins in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, accused President Barack Obama on Wednesday of "rhetorical excess" and of muddling his second-term agenda in order to win re-election.

"He wants us to reelect him so we can find out what he will actually do," Mr. Romney told a gathering of newspaper reporters and editors at a Washington hotel. "With all the challenges the nation faces, this is not the time for President Obama's hide-and-seek campaign."

The former Massachusetts governor leveled his latest charges at the president from the stage where Mr. Obama slammed the GOP front-runner a day earlier for supporting a Republican budget blueprint that he called a "radical vision" and "thinly veiled social Darwinism."

Election 2012

• Romney Rolls Up Three Wins
• Santorum Prepares for Last Stand
• Obama Blasts 'Trojan Horse' GOP Plan

The back-and-forth comes as the president and Mr. Romney engage more directly ahead of an expected match-up in the general election, and amid signs that Mr. Romney has opened a nearly insurmountable lead in the GOP contest. Mr. Romney was addressing the Newspaper Association of America the day after his sweep of Maryland, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Romney draw new battle lines with the president by expanding on earlier criticism of Mr. Obama that came after the president was heard on a live microphone asking his Russian counterpart for more time and flexibility to negotiate a nuclear-arms treaty between the two countries.

"He is intent on hiding," Mr. Romney, seeking to extend the significance of the president's remark to areas beyond foreign policy. "You and I will have to do the seeking."

While Mr. Obama remains personally popular, Mr. Romney is seeking to raising doubts about the president's character. Such doubts have been less prominent in the primary campaign, with candidates instead unleashing repeated broadsides against unpopular policy measures, including the economic recovery package and the new health-care law.

Mr. Romney accused the president of shifting positions to curry favor with voters ahead of the election, saying that "Candidate Obama" has "experienced a series of election-year conversions." As evidence, he cited Mr. Obama's recent calls to lower corporate tax rates, reduce regulations and develop more domestic oil, coal and natural gas.

The Obama campaign quickly turned the obfuscation charge back on Mr. Romney.

"From completely rewriting his record of more debt, more spending, fewer jobs and bigger government in Massachusetts to misleading on the President's record of promoting economic security for the middle class, there was very little in Mitt Romney's speech today that bore any resemblance to reality," said Lis Smith, an Obama campaign spokeswoman.

Mr. Romney also blasted the president for, in his words, mischaracterizing the House-passed Republican budget, which seeks deep cuts in agency spending and proposes a revamp of Medicare for future retirees.

"President Obama came here yesterday and railed against arguments no one is making, and criticized policies no one is proposing," he said. "It's one of his favorite strategies—setting up straw men to distract from his record."

The president and Mr. Romney are both painting the race as a contest between two starkly different visions for the country. Mr. Obama criticizes Republicans for offering what are, in his view, draconian cuts to social safety nets while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans, in turn, criticize the president for failing to bolster employment while piling debt on an already fragile economy.

"The November election will have particular consequence," Mr. Romney said Wednesday. "It will be a defining event."

He used the rest of his speech to deliver familiar criticism of the president's stimulus plan, the new health-care law and his attacks on over-regulation.

Mr. Romney largely steered clear of his remaining rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. His only mention of the primary came in response to a question from the moderator of the event about whether he had asked any of his GOP opponents to exit the race.

"I hope that we're able to resolve our nomination process as soon as possible, of course, because I'd like to focus our time and attention on those key battleground states and raising the funds to be somewhat competitive with the president and his billion-dollar quest," Mr. Romney said. "We have a real challenging road ahead of us, but I believe we will rise to the occasion."

Mr. Romney also offered a pointed critique of the news business for trading speed and frivolity for substance and responsibility.

"In 2008, the coverage was about what I said in my speech," Mr. Romney said, referring to his initial White House bid. "These days, it's about what brand of jeans I am wearing and what I ate for lunch."

He added, "I find myself missing the presence of editors to exercise quality control. I miss the days of two or more sources for a story."

Write to Patrick O'Connor at patrick.oconnor@wsj.com

Palin Heart Newt

Editor's note: S.E. Cupp is the author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity" and co-author of "Why You're Wrong About the Right." She is a columnist at the New York Daily News and a political commentator for Glenn Beck's GBTV.

(CNN) -- Far be it for me to offer unsolicited advice to Sarah Palin. She's built a very successful career out of going rogue and certainly doesn't need any tips from me.

And, as an occasional pundit, a political influencer and a private citizen, she's free to throw her weight behind anyone she wants.

But I just have to say it: Newt Gingrich? Really?

Now, I'm not in the camp of conservative elites who think she's seen her best days and should politely retire to obscurity. If anything, the premiere of "Game Change" on HBO on Saturday is proof that she's still relevant; she's got considerable influence over a certain wing of the party.

S.E. Cupp

And so with great power comes great responsibility. Is Newton Leroy Gingrich the most responsible pick?

Of all the remaining candidates, in fact, the one that makes the least sense is Newt. Mitt Romney I could see, if she wanted to bring the party together. Rick Santorum I could see for his social conservatism, strong Christian faith and similar family stories. I could even see Ron Paul for his "throw the bums out" and "end the Fed" rogue-isms. But Newt?

When rumors first started swirling that Palin might back the former House speaker and self-appointed "cheerful" candidate, Gingrich was surging then. She said she'd vote for him in South Carolina if she could. She wanted to keep the primary alive, she said. And, playing to Newt's strength at the time, she urged "more debates" and "more vetting of candidates."

Julianne Moore's Palin '100% sourced'

Analysis: Gingrich not connecting

Palin leaves door open for 2012 run

Gingrich: 'I'm the tortoise'

But now, with Newt's ham-fisted campaign out of mojo, and no debates on the horizon, it would seem like a good time to jump off that train and get behind Romney or Santorum.

Instead, she doubled down Tuesday, telling Fox Business Network that she voted for Gingrich in the Alaska caucuses, where he finished dead last. And why? "I have appreciated what he has stood for," she said. "He has been the underdog in many of these primary races and these caucuses."

Again, Palin's free to like any candidate she wants, and those would be valid arguments, if they were true.

What Newt has stood for, both during his political career and during this campaign, sits in total contradiction to what Palin has stood for since becoming a public figure. She's for small government; he's shown a disturbing penchant for big government solutions. She champions Washington outsiders and rails against the establishment; he's the epitome of establishment, and has been firmly encamped inside the Beltway for decades. The very people who appreciate Palin should be the same people who despise Gingrich.

And he's hardly been an "underdog." With the backing of billionaire financier Sheldon Adelson and the benefit of serious name recognition, he's enjoyed the money, media attention and opportunity that other GOP candidates didn't. If Newt's been an underdog, I'm sure Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann would have been happy to switch places.

The truth is, Newt isn't the "little guy" in any sense of the word. And if that were truly Palin's criteria, there are actual little guys, such as Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson to champion.

Or even better, she doesn't have to support any of them.

Maybe Palin's got a master plan in which she makes a late run at the presidency and puts Newt on her ticket. Still, it seems like an incongruous pick and waste of her considerable influence among far-right conservatives.

But I'm sure she knows what she's doing.

House Republicans push for new payroll tax cut talks

A reprint:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led House of Representatives will set the stage on Tuesday for a showdown with Senate Democrats over a payroll tax cut extension that is becoming a proxy for 2012 election year battles.

The tax legislation has become the latest in a string of battles in Congress this year, all of which have contributed to widespread public discontent with Washington politicians.

When the House votes on Tuesday it will in effect be rejecting a bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly on Saturday and calling for formal negotiations with the Democratic-led Senate.

The Senate bill would set a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut with the aim of crafting a full-year tax cut extension early next year.

The House move will cast doubt on the future of the popular payroll tax cut, which is caught up in a high-stakes game of brinkmanship between the two political parties that some say could backfire.

Washington gridlock is fueling an anti-incumbent mood among voters heading into next year's elections.

"Our members do not want to just punt and do a two-month short-term fix where we have to come back and do this again," House Speaker John Boehner said late on Monday after a closed meeting with fellow Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shot back that the House should allow an up-or-down vote on the two-month stop-gap plan. "I am happy to continue negotiations on a yearlong deal as soon as the House of Representatives passes the Senate's bipartisan compromise, and prevents a tax hike from hitting middle-class families," Reid said.

Several Republican lawmakers publicly agreed with Reid.

The bipartisan two-month deal crafted by the Senate came after efforts at a full-year tax cut failed.

At stake is much more than politicians' reputations and their 2012 re-election chances. If Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on extending the tax cut that expires on December 31, 160 million Americans will begin 2012 with less money - about $1,000 a year for the average worker - in their paychecks.

That, economists fear, could dampen, or even end what little economic growth there is as the United States struggles to right itself after the deepest recession in decades and severe debt problems in Europe that could infect America.

Not only would workers' taxes go up in a couple weeks if the two sides cannot find a quick compromise. About 2.2 million people who have suffered long-term unemployment will see benefit checks cut off by the middle of February. And doctors treating elderly Medicare patients also will see their reimbursements cut.

Once the House on Tuesday requests a new round of negotiations, as expected, the next steps are unclear.

"We are not coming back, we are not appointing negotiators until they pass the Senate compromise," Reid's spokesman Adam Jentleson insisted.

President Barack Obama already has delayed a Hawaii vacation. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday said, "The president has made clear that he wants Congress to get this done, that he is here now and will be here as Congress tries to sort this out." But Carney did not make clear how Obama might bring the two sides together, or whether he will even try.

(Editing by Christopher Wilson)