Daily news sites

Hello orange hat and DIY necklace! Two bold accessories that I wore while I was visiting Polyvore's office (another favorite moment from this NYFW trip). I'm so happy that I finally had the chance to meet this great team that are behind our great Polyvore community.
The day continued with Hernan Lander and La Quan Smith presentation, two great collections that have in common one element that seems everybody love to use it in the F/W season: LEATHER and the result was PERFECT!



                                                                                 Coat: Joe Fresh/ option Here
                                                                                 Jeans: H&M/ similar Here 
                                                                                 Sweater: Paris Sport Club
                                                                                 Necklace: DIY, made by me
                                                                                 Hat: David&Young/ similar Here 
                                                                 Booties: Daniblack/ option Here 
                                                                                 Bag: Innue/ option Here 
                                       

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Bob Woodward, the very same investigative reporter that along with Carl Bernstein was ultimately responsible for bringing down President Richard M. Nixon in the early seventies is reporting the White House is responsible for the looming sequestration. Hm, anybody else hear the scrambling of liberals ardently and strenuously denying Woodward's allegations?

What Woodward is reporting is very plausible, in fact it is more likely than not in the world of dirty political gamesmanship. And for those who believe the democrat party is above dirty politics one only needs to harken back to the days of LBJ and Mayor Daley to realize the democrats are primo at dirty politics in the furtherance of their agenda.

The Washington Post - Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?

The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didn’t even initially know what a sequester was — because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government. {Read More}

Spin as they may the reality is Obama and his administration in a stroke of almost genius proportions figured out a way to almost pin sequestration on the opposition party. A master plan they hoped Americans would fall far. As I said, DIRTY politics is nothing new to the democrat party. dEmocrats and rEpublicans are essentially cut from the same soiled cloth.

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Sequestration. Who's responsible for the idea? I personally do not know, so I will leave the discussion to someone with a tad bit more klnowledge than I posses on this matter.

The New York Times - On July 26, 2011, Jack Lew, then the White House budget director, went to Harry Reid’s office for a budget strategy session. According to Bob Woodward’s book, “The Price of Politics,” Lew told the Senate majority leader that they had come up with a trigger idea to force a budget deal.

“What’s the idea?” Reid asked.

“Sequestration,” Lew responded.

Reid folded himself over with his head between his knees, as if he were going to throw up. Then he came upright and gaped at the ceiling. “A couple of weeks ago,” he exclaimed, “my staff said to me there is one more possible” enforcement method: sequestration. Reid said he had told his staff at the time, “Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?”

Sequestration may have seemed insane back then. But politicians in both parties are secretly discovering that they love sequestration now. It allows them to do the dance moves they enjoy the most.

Democrats get to do the P.C. Shimmy. Traditional presidents go through a normal set of motions: They identify a problem. They come up with a proposal to address the problem. They try to convince the country that their proposal is the best approach.

Under the Permanent Campaign Shimmy, the president identifies a problem. Then he declines to come up with a proposal to address the problem. Then he comes up with a vague-but-politically-convenient concept that doesn’t address the problem (let’s raise taxes on the rich). Then he goes around the country blasting the opposition for not having as politically popular a concept. Then he returns to Washington and congratulates himself for being the only serious and substantive person in town.

Sequestration allows the White House to do this all over again. The president hasn’t actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration, let alone one that is politically plausible.

He does have a vague and politically convenient concept. (Tax increases on the rich!) He does have a chance to lead the country into a budget showdown with furloughed workers and general mayhem, for which people will primarily blame Republicans... {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -VS- Tyranny

Senator Ted Cruz

There has been just a bit of an uproar by the liberal media and blogs over Senator Ted Cruz and his methodology with respect to questions over former Senator Chuck Hagel's income and the sources from whence they came. He has been characterized by many on the left as the "new McCarthy"." After listening to the following several times I find no reason to characterize Senator Cruz as a "new McCarthy".



I do think there was a better and more diplomatic way to have enunciated his very legitimate concerns. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Senator Cruz at this point seems prudent as he is is a freshman senator and likely will learn better diplomacy as he settles into his senatorial duties. The following from Lanny Davis, former Clinton White House Counsel confirms my sentiments.



Maybe it's just me, however, with our overly heated national partisanship both sides are much too quick to cast judgment and immediately start to spin every situation so as to gain the upper hand in the hopes of galvanizing their own power. This my fine readers is a sure way to our mutual demise. Something I, as a patriotic American frankly find unacceptable.

So, what's the alternative? Given the intelligence of those who do me the honor of visiting this humble site I have no doubt but what you know the answer...

Via: Memeorandum

We survived the storm and are on our second snow day. Funny how that term's (snow day) meaning changes so drastically when you are the parent, rather than the child.

We've already gone outside to play in the snow three times and have enjoyed several cups of hot chocolate.


The natives are already getting restless though so we are venturing out today. Wish us luck and have a great weekend!

 This outfit was the one that I wore at DVF and Custo Barcelona Show: zebra print skinny jeans, Mango sweatshirt and shoes, a mix of prints covered up by a sunny colour coat.
I had so many great moments at NYFW but DVF Show was definitely my favorite moment... Seeing the collection live and also seeing the designer walking on the runway spreading hugs and smiles with the loved ones was something special and once again I would like to thank Polyvore for this great opportunity!

P.S.Tart Collections Giveaway winner is: Amber Brittain-Hale. Congrats!!
 I will contact you soon!



                                                                             Coat: vintage/ great option Here 
                                                                             Sweatshirt: Mango/ on sale Here
                                                                             Shoes: Mango/ Here
                                                                             Jeans: Guess by Marciano/ option Here 
                                                                             Clutch: 3.1 Phillip Lim/ option Here 
                                                                             Sunglasses: c/o zeroUV/ Here

Obama's Speeches Chilling
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
****************

The crowd was roaring.  The lone man, ramrod straight, in his impeccable brown uniform would step forward toward the lectern, then pause and let his eyes wander over the thousands of up turned faces -- all staring at him, waiting for him to speak. And they waited -- and they waited. 

The man at the lectern made no effort to speak.  He just stood there, almost motionless, and didn't say a word.

A wave of anxiety, nervousness, began to sweep through the crowd of expectant listeners. The noise level began to recede.  Soon the roar of the crowd was gone completely.  The crowd became quiet and motionless, a reflection of the man they had come expecting to hear speak.

A full sixty seconds would expire before that man would take the one remaining step to the lectern,  and begin speaking. 

At first he spoke softly forcing his audience to strain to hear his words. Then little by little he would increase the volume of his voice until finally he was shouting and gesticulating in a near maniacal manner.  His audience was worked up to a fever pitch ready and willing to do his bidding, no matter the consequences.

Those of you reading this now, if you are near my age, know exactly of whom I speak -- Adolf Hitler.   He was a master at oratory.  He was a master actor. He was a master at manipulating his fellowman.  He was a master at dealing death and destruction. He was a master at destroying nations and nearly destroyed the world. 

Watching a film clip of one of his speeches today sends chills racing up and down my spine.  It is as though just the sound of his voice invokes evil.

He was, quite likely, the greatest orator of the 20th century.

Here in the 21st century, we have another great orator.  He, too has to power to move his listeners to act while disregarding consequences.  He, too, has worshipers -- some who even refer to him as "Lord and Master."

His Name is Barack Hussein Obama.  And he is President of the United States of America.  And he scares the hell out of me!      

If you look at the faces in one of Hitler's crowds and compare them to the faces in Obama's crowds, you will see the same worship of their speaker.  But look closely.  Look at the eyes.  Do you see it?  Do you see the vacant, "the lights are on, but nobody's home" look reflected in those eyes?  It's the look that makes those tiny little hairs on the back of your neck tingle and stand up.  That's primal fear, honed to perfection by our ancestors while they still lived in caves. 

Trust it. It is telling you:  "Something is dreadfully wrong."

If you could look BEHIND those blank stares, I feel certain to you would see something else, too. Raw fear.  It's the sane part of the human mind fighting to regain control.  Worshipers always fear -- and eventually begin to question.

Given a choice, I will not listen to an Obama speech.   I get the same feeling I would get if told the Battle of Armageddon had begun. Bells and whistles begin going off in the Amygdala of my brain, the part of the brain that controls one's "flight or fight" reaction.  That's our caveman ancestors banging on our door in the middle of the night yelling "FIRE!"

Be afraid.  Be very afraid.  No mere mortal should have that kind of power over his fellow human beings.  It is too easily misused.  It is raw power -- and it is corruptible.

Obama's speeches are chilling to me ... almost malevolent.  It's as though he is using his voice, his tsunami of words, to misdirect the gaze of his worshipers away from all that is not right with America toward a utopian facade of an America that, in reality, does not exist -- and never will.

Encouraging worshipers is never a good idea for mere mortals.  As we said above worshipers will eventually begin to ask questions.  Sooner or later they will ask the right question and receive the true answer.  At which point the "worshipee" is in deep trouble.  That mindless crowd can turn on a dime and produce pitchforks and torches that light the night in hate and violence all directed at the one who deceived them. History is replete with records of just such behavior played out time and again.  The fate of Benito Mussolini springs instantly to mind.

Often less is, indeed, more.  My father was a man of few words.  As a result, when he spoke, the family listened. We knew that even though he did not speak often, when he did -- it was important -- and usually well thought out.  When he had finished, he had finished.  No force on earth could change his mind.  I admired that, growing up as a lad, and I still do.

As I have grown older I have noticed that my world has been slowing down while the world around me has shifted into hyper drive.  The voices I hear from the hyper drive world now are loud, reverberating, penetrating, harsh, crude, insistent, and aggravating. And I am continuing to learn how to shut them out and listen for that "still, small, voice" of authority (1 Kings 19:11-13 -- The Old Testament) asking:  "What are YOU doing here, J. D.?"

It would seem that we have not yet learned that the answer is not carried upon the waves of loud flowery oratory regaling us,  and misdirecting us, with all the right "answers" to all our problems.  Instead, it is within moments of quiet introspection when the still small voice is heard -- just above a whisper -- but with the gravitas of endless universes.

© J. D. Longstreet

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

John Huntsman - Former Governor of Utah and Ambassador to China

There are many things to like about Jon Huntsman. A fiscal conservative Republican with libertarian leanings on some issues he has come out strong for marriage equality. This is one issues the republican leadership and representatives in Congress would do well to follow his lead.

THINKPROGRESS - Former GOP Presidential candidate and Utah governor Jon Huntsman has endorsed marriage equality. Huntsman, a Mormon whose previous support for civil unions set him (and libertarian Gary Johnson) apart from an otherwise virulently anti-gay field, came out in favor of equal marriage rights in an essay in The American Conservative entitled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause.” In the piece, Huntsman argued that if the Republican Party wants to survive, it needs to be able to appeal to gay Americans and the growing majority of all Americans that support marriage equality:

"[I]t’s difficult to get people even to consider your reform ideas if they think, with good reason, you don’t like or respect them. Building a winning coalition to tackle the looming fiscal and trust deficits will be impossible if we continue to alienate broad segments of the population. We must be happy warriors who refuse to tolerate those who want Hispanic votes but not Hispanic neighbors. We should applaud states that lead on reforming drug policy. And, consistent with the Republican Party’s origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans…"

"Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love." {Read More}

I don't normally link to ultra progressive site like Think Progress, but when you're right you're right. On this issue they are,well, right.

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

The Republican Party leadership, those who guide the political strategy in Washington, need to take a long look at what the public is saying. When a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll shows a majority of Americans, including republicans as being more supportive of Obama's plan for cutting the deficit than their own party's plan for the future it certainly spells trouble for limited government/fiscal stability advocates. Having a good sensible plan and marketing it well is certainly something the republican leadership has failed to do, on both counts.

WASHINGTON — President Obama starts his second term with a clear upper hand over GOP leaders on issues from guns to immigration that are likely to dominate the year, a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds. On the legislation rated most urgent — cutting the budget deficit — even a majority of Republican voters endorse Obama's approach of seeking tax hikes as well as spending cuts.

The survey underscores the quandary for the GOP as it debates the party's message in the wake of disappointing losses last November for the White House and in the Senate.

Now just 22% of Americans, nearly a record low, consider themselves Republicans.

And those automatic spending cuts, known as the sequester, that are poised to take effect next week?

If no deal is reached to avert them, half of Americans say congressional Republicans will be more to blame. Less than a third would blame Obama first.

"On many of the issues, President Obama has staked out positions that seem to be closer to the public's thinking than the positions Republicans have staked out," says Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The poll is the first in a new partnership between Pew and USA TODAY. "The challenge for him is in building the public's sense of immediacy on some of these issues, particularly on climate change and guns."

Republicans have the opposite challenge. "Their focus on the deficit is in tune with the public's priorities right now," he says. "Yet their positions are not quite in step with the kind of compromises that the public tells us they want to see."

To be sure, Obama faces his own challenges.

His approval ratings for handling seven specific issues are no better than lukewarm, ranging from a low of 34% on the deficit to a high of 46% on the situation in Afghanistan. On the central issue of managing the economy, 40% approve and 56% disapprove. Americans also continue to be deeply unhappy with the country's direction. By 2-to-1, 64%-31%, they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States.

Even so, those surveyed say by narrow margins that Obama has a better approach than congressional Republicans for dealing with the deficit and guns. By double digits, they favor his plans on immigration and climate change, including limits on emissions from power plants.

The president's overall job approval rating is 51%, a bit higher than it typically has been for the past three years. The approval rating for Republican congressional leaders is a dismal 25%. Democratic congressional leaders stand in-between, at 37%. {Read More}

Opportunity always presents itself during difficult and trying times. Given the results of this poll I'd say opportunity is knocking at the door of both the party of the elephant and the donkey alike. Of course the larger challenge rests with the republican party. Responding to the opportunity and challenge will require SIGNIFICANT change within the power base of the republican party. Something they may very well be incapable of, or unwilling to do.

Click here for the full USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll.

Via: Memeorandum

The Making of a Paper Tiger
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
********************Obama is about to "transform" America's military -- and by extension -- America, herself, into a "paper tiger."   The definition of a paper tiger is:  "The nature of a person or organization that appears powerful but is actually powerless and ineffectual."  Remember that. You're going to hear it often in the years ahead as our enemies refer to us in public.

Obama's "sequestration" is going to leave America's throat bare to her enemies.  He is cutting our last line of defense, our nuclear arsenal, by roughly one-third,  all to appease the Russians.  (Mr. Putin's Cheshire Cat grin just got even wider!)

THIS is what happens when an amateur goes up against a pro. 

Obama just had his lunch eaten by Putin.

Obama actually appears AFRAID of Putin!
I have noted many times in this column, how the relationship between America and the Russians swings hot and cold on a regular basis.  Ever since we invited them to leave the North American continent, especially the great northwest of what is now the lower forty-eight states of America, there have been periods when Russia appeared to "love" America and periods when Russia appeared to "hate" America. Like a pendulum, these contrived diplomatic seasons of love and hate could -- and can -- be counted upon to swing regularly.

Until Obama.

Obama is Russia's dream for an American leader.  He stumbles all over himself to be first on his knees before whomever the Russian leader is at the time, offering concessions yet uncalled for by the Russians.  How could it get any better than this from the Russian perspective?

Sequestration, which WAS, indeed, Obama's idea (or at least the idea of someone on his staff, which Obama adopted)  is going to absolutely GUT the US military.  Heck, we may find ourselves leasing another country's military to defend America.  During the decline of Rome, even they had to fill their ranks with barbarian soldiers in an attempt to defend Rome.  As America is tracking Rome's decline to a tee, I see no reason why we won't find ourselves considering the same thing  -- and soon.

OK.  So I'm reaching.  But NOT BY MUCH.

Look, when a single successful EMP missile shot  exploding high in the atmosphere over middle America can shut us down and send us -- instantly -- back into the pre-Civil War period, well, I'd say we are already a paper tiger just waiting for someone to rip our flimsy paper mask off.

Great nations don’t quaver when a threat to their security is made -- by anyone.  If they do, believe me, they will not be a great nation for long.  Once that chink in a nation’s armor is made visible, it is the open door through which all that nation’s enemies will seek entry.

America's current leadership is rightly seen by America's enemies as a gift from whichever god they worship.

Here in America, our weak link, our chink in the national armor, is the political left.  Their quavering has caused more deaths of American civilians, and American servicemen, and servicewomen, than any other single cause.

Look. A country cannot hesitate when confronted with danger. It must reply to that threat immediately and with irresistible force. Half-hearted military forays into to the homelands of our enemies only leads to unnecessary American deaths.  The sooner America attacks, with overwhelming force, the sooner the battles, and the war, are over and battle deaths are minimized.
Forget "Nation Building!"  It only sucks our treasury dry, weakens our military by turning soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines into diplomats rather than killers. 

Forget "winning the hearts and minds" of the enemy.  As President Richard Nixon is credited with having said:  "Forget winning their hearts and minds.  Get 'em by the testicles and you can take them anywhere you want."  Crude -- but true!

With America's new Secretary of State, John Kerry, dispatched out into the world with what we are told is essentially a mission to "win hearts and minds" on the orders of his boss, Mr. Obama, we're about to see just how childish a diplomatic plan THAT really is.

This a  particularly dangerous time for America as a result of the depthless naivete of our President.  Obama's lack of sophistication and worldliness is readily apparent on the world stage. The first years of his presidency had much of the world "off kilter" when trying to negotiate with the Obama Administration.  Some of their less than sophisticated diplomats came to believe the Obama people were running a "con" on them. They simply could not grasp that an American leader could be that, well, dumb.  So, they concluded Obama's  apparent lack of knowledge about how the REAL world works was all a ruse by the Obama Administration.  Now, however, they know better and they can -- and will -- use  their understanding of Obama's naivete to their advantage and to the advantage of their governments and their militaries.
 
Only an extremely naive person -- a person afflicted with limited understanding -- would adopt a "Lead from Behind" policy for America.  It has been described as a limp-wristed form of isolationism.  Isolationism for America has been disproved at least since the so-called "Spanish-American War" in 1898.  No nation with a global footprint the size of America's can effectively isolate itself from the myriad of nations sharing this same mud ball speeding around the sun.

The plain truth is that as long as America submits to paternalistic collectivism under a paternalistic ruling elite, our brave new masters will most assuredly continue to have America lurching from a catastrophe to a crisis to some other unstable situation of extreme danger for the country and its citizens.   

This is not the America I knew, neither as a boy, nor as a young man.  The America I knew bowed to no one.  We were a great nation. We were a great people.  We feared no man.  We had confidence in ourselves that we could do anything, go anywhere, and be anything we wanted.  Then the cancer of leftist politics took hold. And like the cancer, that it is, it has eaten away America’s soul and her will to live.  It has robbed us of a future as a great, free, people.  With the heavy introduction of Socialism, Marxism, and Communism into out national legislature, the Congress, in the elections of 2006 and 2008, and the election of a socialist President in 2008, any chance of America's survival as the world's lone superpower vanished.  America will do well simply to survive as a free nation.

Under Obama's leadership, we have changed America from a free democratic representative republic into some sort of American socialist monstrosity.  By gutting our military, we will have completed the creation of the paper tiger facade which will, in the end, hide nothing.

Obama's endeavor to create some sort of Americanized version of European style socialism for America will, in the end, prove as deadly to us as it has to all others foolish enough to try it.   Socialism is no respecter of nations.  It will kill its host every time.

For a brief period we will be able to take some solace in the paper "cut-out" of a tiger employed as out national guardian. Until it is tested.  And it WILL be tested.

Then -- what will we do?

© J. D. Longstreet

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

The rEpublicans are getting their strategic plan in place as to how and when to strike. By this I mean how to push the issue (or maybe better stated ignore the issue until it serves their purposes)of possible sequestration to the cliffs edge. All in the hopes that Obama and his fellow democrats cry uncle and become more malleable in the the enlightened rEpublicans.

The Hill has a good article laying it all out that really focuses ones attention on the issue. There is a time to stand and fight and there is a time to sit back and wait for the right time to fight. To the rational observer it definitely appears that the rEpublican party doesn't really understand the difference.

Republicans have decided that the sequester scheduled for March 1 — not a government-funding bill due at the end of March — is where they’ll make their stand on spending cuts.

After the bruising political battles of the last Congress, GOP leaders have decided the looming automatic spending cuts provide the best leverage to move President Obama to negotiate on costly entitlement programs.

“Republicans are not going to take a stand on a government shutdown. We’re not going to take a stand on the debt ceiling. We’re going to take a stand on the sequester,” said a Republican senator, who requested anonymity to discuss his party’s strategy.

Could it be this gentlemen can't self identify out of fear of party leadership (Karl Rove?) repercussions thay could result in pigeonholing his aspirations?

“The sequester affects programs President Obama likes and we think it’s the best chance of getting his attention on spending,” the lawmaker added.

GOP leaders see the spending sequester as the political inverse of the fiscal cliff. Republicans felt they had little choice, at the end of 2012, but to agree to tax increases because if they did not compromise, all of the Bush-era tax rates would have expired.

Hm, the Clinton tax rates didn't seem to be a burden on growth and economic expansion. Perhaps that is a reasonable place for discussion to take place?

Republican aides say the onus is now on Obama and the Democrats to give ground because if there is no deal, federal programs will see an $85 billion reduction between March 1 and the fiscal year’s end.

While Republicans want to avoid cuts to military spending, they believe Democrats are more eager to spare social programs from across-the-board reductions.

A Senate GOP aide said Republicans will take the sequester before agreeing to any tax increases to offset the cost of stopping it.

Well, there is little question in the reasonable persons mind but what there is room for cuts. Both defense and domestic social programs could stand to have their nails trimmed. But to the degree the sequester would result in? Fools gold IMNHO.

“Is it designed the way you’d like it to be designed? No. Is it a guaranteed reduction of spending? It is, and we’ll take that,” said the aide.

Bravo! We know it's not good, but it is better than a possible Obama success so by God we're going for it! Is this a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? Sure seems like it to this armchair political junkie.

A few Senate Republicans say they are willing to consider tax increases to pay for a package to stop sequestration from hitting.

Wow! A breath of fresh air. Work on your associates in the other chamber cause you guys just may have a chance at actually accomplishing something that serves two purposes.

But even the most centrist members of the Republican Conference say the package introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week is tilted too heavily toward tax increases.

“I would not support increases in income tax rates because we’ve already settled that issue. It sounds like it’s weighted way too heavily on the tax side given what we’ve already done,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Collins said she would support eliminating tax subsidies for major oil-and-gas companies.

Not a real fan of Collins but here she is making ultimate sense.

But Reid left that proposal out in part because of opposition from Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who represent oil-rich states and face reelection next year.

The Senate Democratic package would raise about $55 billion in new tax revenues and cut $55 billion in spending to stop the sequester through the end of the calendar year.

“Half? I don’t think it gets there. You’re just not going to have the [needed] level of support,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on Fox News earlier this month that he might consider ending some tax breaks to stop defense cuts.

Ex Maverick of the Senate John McCain weighing in on behalf of keeping the Military Industrial Complex funded beyond what is required to secure and maintain the "national defense." It is too bad Dwight David Eisenhower was largely ignored back in 1961 when he warned of the very thing we are witnessing today.

But altogether, a senior GOP aide said, the total number of Senate Republicans willing to support tax increases to pay for the sequester “is probably a population under five.”

On that note I'll turn it over to you, my fine and varied readership to fill in the balance of the blanks.. There is more HERE so please continue reading.

Via: Memeorandum