About your Search

Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
other. the clock is really ticking in washington. ticking against a deal. i think the two sides seem to hate each other more than ever. i don't now, it seems like the last 72 hours i was hoping it was going to get better and it seems like it got worse. i spent a ton of time this weekend hanging with old college chum grover norquist. he's as certain as ever that republicans who have impure thoughts about violating his no new tax pledge will be targeted at the primary level by tea party members. i'm taking this masterful behind-the-scenes player at his word that he controls almost all the republicans. because almost all of them signed his oath. so a deal could be tough. plus i'm now calling for no vacation without legislation. no vacation without legislation. because the holidays are slated to begin in a couple of weeks. which doesn't give enough time to get the job done. so you have one side that is insisting on tax increases and offering no spending cuts, and then you have the other side which has pledged no tax increases which assures no deal can occur. after all, even if the presid
is poised to double the number of site to 1,400. let's get you back to washington and the sail mate going on over how to deal with our crushing debt. the white house immediately rejected the gop plan to cut $2 trillion from the deficit saying it doesn't quote meet the test of balance. the gop said the same thing about the white house's opening salvo. the gop says the ball is now in the white house's court. where are we with the dollars here? >> reporter: we have the opening bids from speaker boehner and president obama. the different in dollars. the president wants $800 billion more in tax increases. the republicans want approximately more a trillion dollars more spending cuts. that's the difference between the two sides just in dollar terms. there is a difference between the two sides in terms of principle. the principle centers on higher tax rates, yes or no. speaker boehner many latest offer is raise $800 billion mostly from the wealthy by limiting deductions. the president says, no, don't want that. we want to tax the rich with higher tax rates on the rich. we have a dollar difference
with oklahoma republican tom cole from this morning's washington journal. >> host: we want to welcome back to the table congressman tom cole, republican of oklahoma. let's begin with the news. house speaker john boehner sent a proposal to the white house yesterday, counterbid as it is being called. what do you think? >> guest: i think it is a great opening start. actually it makes very tangible with the speaker committed to after the election which is we are going to put it on the table so that question is settled and we are not talking about how much and what way, but that is an enormous step forward honestly by the republicans or concessions. not something we want to do but something we recognize we have to do to get there. so i think the speaker's proposal directs us to words what some of the problems are which are entitlement spending. that is what is driving the debt and we can't pussyfoot around it. we can't solve it with just revenue, you have to have reform. while we like the ryan budget and i think i would be the appropriate way to go, they picked up elements of some of the propos
deduction on charitable contributions. here's what fred hyatte wrote in the washington post. overwhelmingly the deduction benefits the wealthy and the rest of the country has to make up the gap. of course it helps the wealthy, but it does a lot more good for the charities and the people they benefit, doesn't it? how much would worthy charities be hurt if the deduction was limittd? we will ask the head of the charity navigator on this program today. that's at 10:33. the charitable deduction discussed here. did you ever text something that you wish you could delete forever? yes, i have. new at 10:00, for you right now, local police want a law requiring text messages to be saved for two years. all rise, the judge is here. by the way, look at page 278 of this book, theodore and woodrow, how two american presidents destroyed constitutional freedom which is -- okay, okay. >> is that the only page worth reading, page 278? stuart: as a matter of fact is. [laughter] >> you're a literary critic now. stuart: this is a privacy issue, isn't it? >> sure, it is a privacy issue. it is pretty unusual that t
such great work on this measure over many months, as well as to senator cantwell of washington and other colleagues who have cosponsored this measure, including senators collins, feinstein, gillibrand, kerry, landrieu, merkley, mikulski, murray, vitter, and wyden. they are tireless animal advocates, and this bill is indeed, the amendment as well, are about ending animal fighting, which plainly and simply is a blood sport. it is something that is cruel and inhumane. it leaves animals scarred and disabled. and it is associated with many other criminal activities. people who attend animal fights are often also engaged in drug dealing, extortion, assault, a variety of criminal activities, and the enabling activity is animal fighting. and that is why this bill increases the penalties for knowingly -- knowingly -- attending an animal fight with a child and, indeed, makes it a crime to knowingly attend an animal fight. so these penalties -- stricter penalties for bringing a child knowingly and criminal penalties of up to a year imprisonment or a fine or both for knowingly attending an animal fi
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9