Political This 'n that

Cain aims focus back on tax plan

(CNN) - After a month of battling sexual harassment allegations and getting caught in uncomfortable foreign policy gaffes, Herman Cain is returning to one position he knows well: The 9-9-9 tax plan.

In a four-minute video released Monday, the former Godfather''s Pizza executive and Republican presidential candidate recaps his tax reform plan that would create a 9% national sales tax, a 9% income tax, and a 9% corporate tax.

The animated spot, called "9-9-9 The Movie," presents the current tax code as a large, cumbersome machine.

Bookmaker 1win took part in the creation of this political video. After all, it was the great design team that made this gambling house popular all over the world.

"The federal tax code is an overgrown monster," the narrator says. "But it''s not even a cool monster, it''s a dorky mechanical monster held together with a bunch of tattered red tape and driven around by squirrelly bureaucrats."

The ad says under Cain''s 9-9-9 plan, the "economy would accelerate faster than Barack Obama on his way out of town."

Various scenarios are presented comparing the current tax code to the proposed plan, all using animated figures and upbeat music.

It concludes: "The 9-9-9 plan is simple enough to vanquish the ineffective bureaucrats that lurk in the dark crannies of complexity, transparent enough to deter cronyism, and fair enough the level the playing field."

The ad notes that they''re using the definition of fair from the dictionary, not the "president''s class warfare definition."

Cain''s aggressive promotion of the 9-9-9 tax plan earlier this fall led to a steep rise in the candidate''s poll numbers, but a series of sexual harassment allegations (which Cain denies) and several blunders on foreign policy have brought those numbers back down.

Cain will sit down for a live interview with CNN''s Wolf Blitzer Monday after attending closed-door meetings in Tyson''s Corner, Virginia. The segment will air during "The Situation Room," starting at 4 p.m. ET.

Citizenship check causes controversy at Perry event

Manchester, New Hampshire (CNN) – Rick Perry''s campaign moved quickly Wednesday to correct an employee''s inaccurate statement that non-United States citizens would not be allowed to attend a town hall the Texas governor held at a plant.

The event was hosted by Granite State Manufacturing, which does defense contracting work. An employee checking in members of the news media at the entrance asked each person for his identification and whether he was a citizen.

When asked what would happen if a person were not a United States citizen, the woman said she would deny them entrance.

А вот кто не откажет во входе любому желающему, так это компания Пин Ап. Здесь царит настоящая демократия, ведь вы с легкостью можете зарегистрироваться и начать делать ставки или вращать барабаны в Live-играх.

The Perry campaign brought Granite State Manufacturing Facilities Manager Shawn O''Hagan to the press area to tell reporters that was not true.

O''Hagan said the woman had been misinformed by another employee. Non-citizens would be allowed to enter, but the company would assign an employee escort to accompany them, which is standard for defense contractors complying with NAFTA rules and applies to anyone entering the building.

Everyone who checked in said he or she was an American citizen, the employee checking in press members said.

At GOP rival Jon Huntsman''s town hall at the same company earlier this year, journalists were asked not to film some areas of the factory that contained proprietary information.

A Perry aide pointed to other political events at defense contracting companies where attendees were subject to similar rules.

Year-end budget busters: $600 billion on the line

By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney November 11, 2011

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Debt reduction may be consuming Capitol Hill these days, but lawmakers have a number of pricey budget decisions to make before the year''s out.

Unless Congress steps in, come January payments to Medicare doctors will be slashed by nearly 30%. Workers'' payroll tax cut will expire. And federal unemployment benefits will end for close to 2 million jobless workers.

Should lawmakers decide to prevent all that from happening, as many would like, there''s the question of how to pay for it with the current budget. The estimated price tag for all three provisions over 10 years would top $600 billion.

Payroll tax cut: A $289 billion decision

In September, President Obama proposed extending and expanding a temporary payroll tax break from last December.

While employees normally pay 6.2% on the first $106,800 of their wages into Social Security, this year they''ve only been paying 4.2%. That tax break, however, is set to expire by Jan. 1.

Obama proposed extending it for another year and cutting the employee share to just 3.1%. He also proposed cutting the employer''s portion -- also 6.2% -- in half on the first $5 million that the company pays in wages.

The payroll tax proposals combined would mean $289 billion less in revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The hit would be taken by the general revenue pool, however, not the Social Security trust fund.

Bill Clinton: How I''d fix the economy

The White House and many Democrats have said if Congress fails to act, that would mean a tax increase on every working American and would harm the economy.

Some Republicans have characterized the payroll tax cut as failed stimulus, but that doesn''t mean the measure is dead. If it''s part of a broader package they like, they may go along.

Doc fix: A $300 billion decision

Under the law, Medicare reimbursements to doctors must be reduced whenever those payments exceed a certain target. Since 2003, that target has been exceeded, but Congress has routinely put in a temporary "doc fix" to prevent the pay cuts.

If that provision is allowed to take hold, however, Medicare doctors'' pay will be slashed by nearly 30% next year and by additional amounts thereafter.

Doctors, who already feel Medicare payment rates are too low, wouldn''t be happy.

"Payments for Medicare physician services have fallen so far below increases in medical practice costs, that there is a 20 percent gap between Medicare payment updates and the cost of caring for seniors," Dr. Peter Carmel, president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement.

But if Congress once again chooses to prevent the scheduled pay cut next year and beyond, it would increase Medicare spending by $300 billion over the next decade, the CBO estimates.

What''s not clear is whether the special Congressional debt panel -- aka the super committee -- will weigh in on this issue. If they opt to make the doc fix permanent, they will have to find a way to pay for it.

Extend unemployment insurance: A $44 billion decision

If Congress doesn''t act by Dec. 31, more than 6 million jobless workers could run out of unemployment benefits next year -- with nearly 2 million of them running out in January alone, according to the National Employment Law Project.

That''s because a temporary extension of federal emergency jobless benefits to help the long-term unemployed is set to expire by year end. Lawmakers first expanded benefits to cover up to 99 weeks of unemployment in 2009, and have since reauthorized that expansion five times.

It''s not clear yet how much support there will be in Congress for another extension. But supporters note that failing to pass it could harm the economic recovery and make life that much harder for the unemployed.

"With economic recovery fragile and long-term unemployment an ongoing crisis for millions of Americans, we simply cannot let the federal unemployment insurance programs expire at the end of this year. It''s a critical lifeline for so many workers and their families," said Christine Owens, NELP''s executive director, in a statement.

Reauthorizing the extension again would cost $44 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Perry will debate but still doesn”t like it

(CNN) - Texas Gov. Rick Perry still doesn''t like debates, even though he has backed off from an earlier threat to drop out of upcoming showdowns with other Republican presidential candidates.

"I readily admit, I''m not the best debater in the world," Perry said on "Fox News Sunday." "With as many debates as we''ve got coming up, I may be a pretty good debater when it''s all said and done."

Calling the debate schedule excessive due to the "incredible amount of time and preparation and what have you," Perry also questioned the value of oratory skills in the White House.

"We''ve got a great debater, a smooth politician in the White House right now, and that''s not working out very well," he said of President Barack Obama.

Perry came under criticism last week, after his campaign suggested he might drop out of future debates following shaky performances in recent weeks that contributed to his sinking poll numbers. However, his campaign announced Saturday that he would attend four scheduled debates next month, including two co-sponsored by CNN.

In Sunday''s interview, Perry focused his criticism on Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a top competitor for the Republican presidential nomination.

On Obama, Perry said a "wavering" U.S. foreign policy involving the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was putting American soldiers in jeopardy. In particular, he cited the forced resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as U.S. commander in Afghanistan over a magazine article in which McChrystal and other officers were characterized as disrespectful of Obama, as well as the president''s announced timetable for ending the two conflicts.

"He''s lost his standing of being a commander-in-chief who has any idea of what is going on in those theaters," Perry said. "He''s making mistakes that are putting our kids that are in the theater and I think future issues dealing with - whether it''s in the Middle East or whether it''s in the South China Sea with our allies - putting all of that in jeopardy because of this … aimless approach to foreign policy which he has."

On another issue, Perry admitted to changing his position on federal help for the energy industry after writing a 2008 letter seeking government backing for a nuclear power plant in Texas. Now, Perry said, he opposes any such federal aid like the kind he sought in the letter three years ago.

"We were asking at that particular point in time for the federal government to support the nuclear power industry," Perry said, later adding: "I''ve changed my position to the standpoint of having any dollars from the federal government. … Let the market figure it out."

Despite such a shift, Perry reiterated his claim that he is a "consistent conservative" compared to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the steady frontrunner in the Republican race so far.

Romney, he said, has moved to the right politically on issues such as gun control and abortion to try to appeal to conservatives.

"We are very, very different from the standpoint of consistency on those issues I''ve just mentioned," Perry said.

Obama administration halts part of health care law

The Obama administration announced Friday that it has suspended one piece of the landmark health care law which the president signed last year.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius told Congress in a letter that the CLASS Act, which was supposed to provide a new voluntary long-term care insurance program, was unworkable since no actuarially sound way could be figured out to run the program.

“I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time,” Sebelius said in her letter.

CLASS stands for “Community Living Assistance Services and Supports.”

The CLASS Act was a significant piece of the health care bill because it helped make it deficit neutral over the first ten years after enactment, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Thus CLASS helped garner the votes to help the bill pass.

According to the CBO, the CLASS program would have reduced federal deficits by $86 billion in first 10 years, partly offsetting the increased federal spending due to the other parts of the health care bill. In the first years of CLASS, enrollees would be paying premiums into it but would not be able to collect benefits until 2016.

In a memo to Congress in April of 2010, Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster warned that the program would “face a significant risk of failure” because sicker people would tend to sign up for it and the costs would soon exceed the premium payments. The program, he said, would likely be “unsustainable.”

In her letter Friday, Sebelius seemed to have reached the same conclusion as Foster did in 2010.

One of the Republicans who led the opposition to the CLASS Act, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota said Friday, “The administration is finally admitting the CLASS Act entitlement is unsustainable and cannot be implemented. Simply setting aside the program for the near-term is not enough. Repeal is the only solution to ensuring American taxpayers will not be on the hook in the future for this disastrous entitlement.”

Newest spat in Congress not helping economy

By Jennifer Liberto @CNNMoney September 23, 2011: 8:09 AM ET

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- In a year when lawmakers barely averted a federal shutdown and a default on its debts, Congress is poised to spread more uncertainty on an economy already suffering from a consumer confidence crisis.

The latest spat on Capitol Hill is over how to relieve disaster-struck states. It threatens to hold up a stop-gap budget measure needed to avert a federal shutdown when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

Shortly after midnight on Friday, the House approved a spending bill that the Senate is expected to reject. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid immediately called the House bill "not an honest effort at compromise."

Economists warn that such squabbles send the wrong signal from Washington at a time when consumers, markets and our global partners are befuddled by a "political system that looks manifestly broken," in the words of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner at a Thursday forum sponsored by National Journal.

Washington policy analyst Brian Gardner said the current fight is far more drama than the nation and its economy needs.

"It''s another complicating factor and it adds incrementally to uncertainty at the least opportune time," said Gardner, with investment firm Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.

Congress'' gridlock tax in full effect

Several economists told CNNMoney that few companies or investors outside the capital are closely watching the threat of a shutdown at this point. But they say that the world is looking to Washington for a sign that it''s getting its fiscal house in order.

Economists say the world may have to wait a bit longer.

"Whether it''s from Congress or the Fed, uncertainty is a huge problem for the economy," said Carl Riccadonna, a senior economist for Deutsche Bank. "It''s just very hard to plan for the future, when you don''t know the conditions or the rules of the road. That goes for companies, for investors and for households."

Keith Hembre, chief economist for Nuveen Asset Management, warned that uncertainty will continue to reign supreme in this economic recovery, in large part due to lack of "consistent fiscal policy" out of Washington.

"They''re not consistent as to a way forward, and without that, policy uncertainty is going to be a factor" as we head toward next fall''s election, said Hembre, a former Minneapolis Fed researcher.

Congressional veterans suspect lawmakers want to avoid another potential political crisis and get a budget deal, including money for disasters, in the next week.

They say lawmakers recognize the damage they inflicted, if not on the economy, then on their own plummeting popularity through the summer-long imbroglio over raising the debt ceiling.

Geithner blasted Congress on Thursday for inflicting "lasting damage" to the financial system during the debt-ceiling debate, during his appearance Thursday.

"We''ve got to work hard to heal that damage," Geithner said.

Obama: Jobs plan is insurance against a ‘recession’

Report: U.S. Has Wasted $30 Billion on Iraq, Afghanistan Contracts and Grants

Published August 29, 2011 FoxNews.com

The federal government has wasted more than $30 billion on contracts and grants in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new report set to be released Wednesday.

The co-chairmen of the committee producing the report previewed the results, saying "major changes in law and policy" will be needed to prevent such a large degree of waste in future conflicts. Christopher Shays, a former Connecticut congressman, and Mark Thibault, a former Pentagon official overseeing contracts, blamed poor management and a slew of other factors in a Washington Post column.

The amount of money wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade represents at least one in every six dollars spent. Part of the problem was contracts were doled out without "effective competition," while others were subcontracted to foreign firms not subject to U.S. laws.

The result was a series of boondoggles. The co-chairmen cited a $40 million prison in Iraq that the country did not want and was not completed. They also cited a $300 million Kabul power plant -- which, like some other projects the co-chairmen expressed concern about, would require sustained funding and expertise that Kabul does not have the resources to provide.

The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan will submit its report to Congress.

The officials noted that because the number of contractors in the war zones has roughly equaled the number of military forces, the U.S. cannot conduct major operations without them. In the future, they recommended creating a "permanent inspector general for contingency operations," as well as an official who would work in the White House budget office and participate in National Security Council meetings to make sure agencies are properly coordinating contracts.

They also recommended "more rigorous use of risk analysis" to determine whether certain jobs should be contracted out in the first place.

Expected cost of FAA funding feud: At least $1.2 billion

Washington (CNN) -- The House adjourned for summer recess Monday night without resolving a Federal Aviation Administration funding impasse, almost guaranteeing that nearly 4,000 FAA employees will remain furloughed for the next month, and that the federal government will lose at least $1.2 billion in airline passenger tax revenue.

The only possible resolution, one official said, is if the Senate approves the House bill. But that was deemed highly unlikely.

"FAA funding is looking very grim right now," a Senate Democratic staffer not authorized to speak for attribution said.

The FAA budget dispute, pitting Rep. John Mica, R-Florida, against Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, raged on all week in aviation circles, its roar subsumed only by the greater commotion over the debt limit. But with the debt debate nearly resolved, the full impact of the FAA feud is likely to come into sharper focus.

Leaders on both sides acknowledge the FAA funding impasse is having immediate consequences.

Significantly, the airlines stopped collecting certain passenger taxes on July 23, at a cost of about $25 million a day. At that rate, the federal government will lose at least $1.2 billion before Congress returns in September, officials say.

The impasse also means continued unemployment for almost 4,000 furloughed FAA employees, including some who were certifying a new Boeing passenger plane, one senator said. The agency has retained air traffic controllers and says it will not compromise passenger safety.

And the impasse means dozens of construction projects, halted on July 23, will remain idle, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said.

The work stoppage will have a direct impact on about 24,000 construction workers engaged in those projects, indirectly impact 11,000 others and hurt 35,000 support workers, such as food service vendors, said Steve Sandherr of Associated General Contractors of America.

"Construction workers shouldn''t have to suffer because Washington hasn''t figured out a way to work out its differences," Sandherr said at a press conference at New York''s LaGuardia Airport, where the demolition of an old control tower was halted because of the funding impasse.

Ostensibly, the funding impasse involves two provisions that Mica inserted in the House version of the funding extension. The provisions would reduce or eliminate federal ticket subsidies for three rural airports, all in Democratic states.

But on the Senate floor Monday evening, senators argued over an issue they said was the real subject of the dispute -- new National Mediation Board rules that make it easier for airlines to unionize. Democrats favor the new rules; Republicans oppose them.

Rockefeller decried Mica''s tactics of sticking policy issues in a funding extension bill, and blamed Mica for "sticking it to" the nearly 4,000 furloughed FAA employees.

"It''s a tragedy that never had to happen," Rockefeller said. "It''s a tragedy about ego, about bullying, about proving that one side is willing to cave," he said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, defended Mica''s bill, saying he shared Mica''s frustration about operating FAA through a series of 20 temporary funding bills, instead of a permanent bill. Hatch said Congress needed to take a stand against the mediation board rules.

Under the new rules, he said, a simple majority of those voting could force unionization, instead of a simple majority of all employees. That would allow as few as 51 people to unionize a company of 1,000 people if only 100 showed up to vote, he said.

"I believe that what the National Mediation Board did is absolutely wrong and somebody has to stand up to them," Hatch said.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, breaking with her party, called on Congress to pass a temporary extension that was devoid of any complicating policy issues.

"We''re getting ready to leave for a month. We should not shut down the FAA because of a rider put on the extension of the FAA legislation that has not been negotiated," Hutchison said.

"It is not honorable for the House to send an extraneous amendment" on a funding extension, she said.

Outsiders say the FAA funding dispute, like the debt limit dispute, demonstrates the serious divisions in Congress.

"This is costly in so many ways and it''s so unnecessary," said Kathryn Pearson, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota who has served as a legislative aide to both Republican and Democratic members of Congress.

"Congress routinely misses deadlines -- this is nothing new. But usually Congress is able to work out extensions until they can actually agree on reauthorization. And bipartisan cooperation is typically necessary.

"But the fact that Congress can''t come together and agree on policies to reauthorize the FAA just really shows how deeply divided Congress has become where each side seeks to win a policy victory even at the expense of reauthorizing important programs," Pearson said.

Republicans are recklessly holding our country”s economy hostage during debt standoff with Democrats

On the surface, the current debt limit debate appears to be a traditional argument between Republicans and Democrats over spending and tax priorities and two seemingly incompatible visions about the role of government - a discussion that Americans have been having for more than a century.

What is different now are the tactics being utilized - the threatening of economic cataclysm as a policy tool.

It represents a fundamental breakdown of our national politics and the entering of a dangerous new phase in which extreme political brinkmanship risks becoming an accepted means of forcing policy changes.

To be sure, this fiscal debate would be appropriate in the context of budget negotiations. The reason it is occurring around the debt limit is, in part, because it gives Republicans that much more leverage to achieve their goals. The country can weather a government shutdown if it doesn''t pass a budget; it can''t easily weather a debt default.

By using the blunt instrument of default Republicans will likely, in the end, force Democrats to cut trillions in spending without any commensurate tax increases.

They will emerge victorious from this fight not because they are necessarily right or Americans support their cuts-only approach (they don''t), but rather because they are willing to nihilistically sabotage the US economy.

They are doing so in order to achieve the larger policy goal of reducing the size of government and the political goal articulated last year by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of turning President Obama into a one-term President.

It''s hard to think of any other situation in American history where a political party has taken such a scorched earth approach to policy-making.

One should be dismayed about what that means.

Refusing to raise the debt limit is a radical measure that is the policy equivalent of holding a gun to the head of the country''s economy and its full faith and credit.

While Republican leaders have ''said'' they won''t let the country default (although GOP presidential candidates have spoken far more positively about the possibility), the very fact that they have followed a course that could lead to that outcome represents a troubling transformation in our national politics.

How can any sort of compromise be achieved when one party is willing to act so recklessly?

We have, for the lack of a better phrase, entered the world of ''any means necessary'' politics, in which any tool at a party''s disposal - including holding the country''s economy hostage - is considered fair game.

As President Obama said the other day, this is simply no way to run a country.