Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl Pull Out Of Biden's Budget Deficit Talks-Boehner Backs Them Up

In December, the Democrats agreed to a last-minute deal which will preserve the tax rates established under the Bush administration for at another two years. Only six-months later they are insisting on raising taxes as part of the SHMOTUS' deficit reduction talks. Their insistence on raising taxes has caused an impasse in the talks and as a result House Majority Leader Cantor has quit the talks. He believes the only way to get through this impasse is for the president and the speaker to get involved. Cantor's exit from the talks was quickly followed with the exit of Senator Jon Kyl leaving no Republicans involved with the budget cutting talks.

"We've reached the point where the dynamic needs to change,'' Mr. Cantor said. "It is up to the president to come in and talk to the speaker. We've reached the end of this phase. Now is the time for these talks to go into abeyance."

Still, Mr. Cantor remained optimistic about the prospects for a deal. He said the Biden group had already made significant progress and had tentatively identified more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. But he said there could be no agreement on an overall package without breaking the impasse between Republicans' refusal to accept any tax increase, and Democrats insistence that some tax increases be part of the deal.

"We have to get over this impasse on taxes," he said. "The utility of these talks has been building the specifics. The groundwork has been laid, the blue print is there, we have a vision of the agreement."

Time is running out for an agreement, which must be passed prior to August 2, in order for there to be enough support generated for raising the debt limit.

The $14.29 trillion debt limit was breached on May 16, although Treasury officials have said they have the ability to juggle assets to delay the possibility of the U.S. defaulting on its debts until Aug. 2 at the latest.

In the Senate there is also broad GOP opposition to a tax increase:

"Taxes aren't going to be raised in what I hope will be a large and significant package that will make a difference for our country," Mr. McConnell said Wednesday at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "If they couldn't raise taxes when they owned the government, you know they can't get it done now," he said referring to the Democratic lawmakers.

The left wing of the Democratic party was furious over the deal to extend the Bush-era taxes reached in December, and were also extremely unhappy with the spending deal reached to fund the federal government through the remaining months of fiscal 2011—an agreement that saw cuts to many domestic programs important to the party.

Maybe that why Senator Jon Kyle just announced that he too will also drop out of the debt talks, a source within his office confirms today. The Arizona Republican’s office will issue a formal statement shortly.

Speaker Boehner has backed up Cantor's dismissal of a tax increase.  At his weekly press conference this morning,  Boehner said Democrats must abandon any tax increases if negotiations on deficit reduction and an increase in the debt limit are to continue. And he added that  no tax hike would pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

"I understand his frustration," said Boehner. "I understand why he did what he did... I've talked to the majority leader about these talks. I know the frustration he feels when Democrats insist on bringing tax hikes."

How would Boehner fill the chasm now that Cantor and Kyl are out? "I would expect to hear from" the White House, he said. Would he call them? Next question.

Boehner amplified Cantor's main point -- there would be no deal with tax increases.

"They [Democrats] want more stimulus spending and higher taxes," he said. "We have been clear. Tax hikes are off the table. A tax hike cannot pass the U.S. House of Representatives... these conversations could continue if they take the tax hikes out of the conversation."

The Republican stand is also reflective of the will of the American People. The latest Bloomberg poll reports that 55 percent of Americans believe that cutting taxes, along with slashing spending, is necessary to give businesses confidence to start hiring again


This impasse proves we’re still very far from the point at which any Progressive Democrat is going to be willing to vote for long-term fiscal prudence, instead they look to pass blame back on the voters in the form of tax increases. Their insistence on increasing taxes and demonizing any attempt to reign in entitlement spending dooms the United States to a horrible economic future.

The Democratic Party Should Be Ashamed of Themselves!

The Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves. Today they proved themselves to be nothing but partisan hacks who care more about party politics than doing the right thing. While President Obama's speech regarding Middle East generated much criticism from Republicans, but on the Democratic side, even amongst supporters of the Jewish State, there was either positive spin or total silence.

As you know by now the President today gave an address to the nation that for all intents and purposes threw one of our closest allies, Israel, under the proverbial bus.  His public call for Israel to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, broke existing agreements that the United States had made with Israel, probably hurt the quest for an Israeli/Palestinian deal and quite possibly moved the region closer to a new Middle East war.

That 1949 armistice line was created solely because that’s Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors). It was if the whistle blew and everyone dropped their gear. The line people call 1967 border, is really only a military line. It was never intended for the Armistice lines to mark final borders, and there is plenty of documentation to that fact.

There is not much doubt that at the end of a deal, the two parties will exist with borders somewhere near that armistice border. In fact Israel has offered specific maps of final borders along the lines of what the President said publicly today, once under the Premierships of Ehud Barak the other under Ehud Olmert (in both of those cases the Palestinian leadership rejected the offer).

The difference is that in both of those cases, The return to those"1967 borders" was  the end point of negotiations, today Obama severely damaged Israel's negotiating position by making it the staring point.  Obama  took it upon himself to made a unilateral concession on behalf of Israel. There was no negotiation;  he gave away a bargaining chip that was not his to give. Should Israel give in Obama it will actually make negotiations more difficult because Israel will have to fight harder on other issues, some of which might otherwise had been easy concessions.  If Israel fights Obama on the issue, things might get a bit dicier in the region. Israel's neighbors might see it as giving attacks on the Jewish State legitimacy.

At this point it looks as if Israel is choosing to take a stand. The Prime Minister all but threw a gauntlet down (diplomatically  of course).

“Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace,” the response began, curtly. “Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.”

“That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”

“Among other things,” Netanyahu reminded Obama, “those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.”

Republicans were quick to point out that Obama's call for a retreat to the 1949 Armistice lines was dangerous to the Jewish State.

• “President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said in a statement following Mr. Obama’s sweeping speech about the fundamental changes taking place in the Middle East. “He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace.”

• Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called the president’s support for a plan that would revive borders not seen since the Six-Day War in 1967 “a mistaken and dangerous demand.“The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided,” he said. “At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it’s never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem.”

• House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.), the highest-ranking Jewish Republican, said, “The president’s habit of drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame for the conflict is, in and of itself, harmful to the prospect for peace.“By keeping the burden and thus the spotlight on Israel, the President is only giving the Palestinian Authority more incentive to carry on its unhelpful game of sidestepping negotiations and failing to put an end to terrorism,” Mr. Cantor said in a statement. “Creating another Palestinian terror state on Israel’s borders is something that none of us want. The White House referred to today’s speech as a ‘Moment of Opportunity,’ and I’m disappointed that the President’s remarks missed both the moment and the opportunity.”

• Rep. Michele Bachmann said on her face book page that  that Obama "has betrayed our friend and ally Israel.I believe Obama's call for 1967 borders will cause chaos, division, and greater aggression in the Middle East and put Israel at further risk,"

• Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "We did not hear a pledge from the President to cut off U.S. funding to a Palestinian Authority now aligned with Hamas, nor did we hear a pledge to veto the scheme to attain U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state without negotiating peace with Israel. I am also disappointed that the President failed to call on the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and instead imposed new pressure on Israel to make concessions on its borders."

• Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL): "The President's new decision to alter U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process concerns me. Palestinian calls for ‘1967 borders' should be outweighed by Israel's need for secure borders to ensure the survival of a critical U.S. ally. The President should block U.S. taxpayer assistance to Palestinian leaders who teamed up with a group his administration certified as a terrorist organization -- Hamas -- responsible for the murder of at least 26 American citizens. America has no greater ally and political supporter than the Israeli democracy."

• Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): "Unfortunately, the President's reference to Israel's 1967 borders marks a step back in the peace process, as the U.S. must not pre-determine the outcome of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Our focus should be in encouraging direct and meaningful negotiations between the sides, and to continue playing an important role as a security guarantor in the region."

• Rep. Allen West (R-FL): "Today's endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state. From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City, controlled by Jordan's Arab army. The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world's Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism. Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.  Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital."

Let see what we have found from the Democratic Party side:

• Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)usually a big supporter of the Jewish State, ignored Obama's unilateral declaration of the return to the "1967 borders." With his head cowardly in the sand he said,“I am glad the president has rejected any unilateral action by the UN, which has always been biased against Israel, but there can be no negotiations until Hamas, recognized as a terrorist group by the United States, renounces terror and recognizes the reality of a two-state solution,“ 

• Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) reaction to the President's throwing of the Jewish State was                      , a reaction echoed by Congressman Gary Ackerman who said                and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) who   added                                . That's right they said nothing.  Harry read proclaimed that he had not yet heard the speech.

The National Democratic Jewish Coalition showed the country why their party is place in front of their religion in their name as they had the audacity to praise the speech saying that the President "demonstrated his unwavering support of Israel"

Also weighing in on the President's speech was full-time progressive activist, and part time director of the ADL, Abe Foxman who like Chuck Shumer ignored the most distasteful part of the speech.

We support the President's vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state. We appreciate his direct rejection of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and his understanding that the Hamas-Fatah agreement poses major problems for Israel. 

This should serve as a red flag to anyone who supports the state of Israel.  Remember what happened today when the Jewish State most needed the support of our public figures. The Republican party was quick to point out how Obama's speech put Israel in dangers. The Democrats abandoned the Jewish State to the whims of a President who publicly threw Israel under the bus.

As Edmond Burke said almost three-hundred years ago “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."  In a time of great need for Israel, the Democratic Party did nothing. For that they should be ashamed of themselves.

Supporters of Israel should remember that when they enter the voting booth in 2012.

EXCLUSIVE Interview with Rep. Peter Roskam About Israel, Unified Palestinian Govt., And US Foreign Policy

The past few months have seen unexpected developments in the Middle East, the continuing “Arab Awakening,” Egypt's slide toward being controlled by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, Syria and Libya in revolt; it seemed as if for the first time in recent history the Israeli-Palestinian dispute represented the calmest place in this violence-prone area of the world.

That all changed in early May when the Palestinian Authority, run by the “moderate” terrorists of the Fatah party, agreed to reunite with the more overt terrorists of Hamas who rule over the Gaza Strip.

While this was happening, President Obama has been preparing for a major speech regarding Middle East Policy (tomorrow), a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (Friday) and an address to the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The Palestinians on the other hand, have been politicking at the United Nations trying to ensure passage of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.

This morning Politico carried an op-ed composed by two members of the House GOP leadership: Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Peter Roskam (R-Ill) Deputy Majority Whip and Co-Chair of Republican Israel Caucus.

The two Republicans pointed out the radical violent nature of Hamas describing it as a

..terrorist organization whose founding charter instructs, “The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him.”

They said that because of the unification agreement that would give Hamas governmental power within the Palestinian Authority, the United States should cut off the Authority’s financial aid.

The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement empowers Hamas terrorists and endangers Israel. The U.S. must use every tool in our diplomatic arsenal to make clear that we will not tolerate a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.

It is our duty, as leader of the free world, to do no less.

I had the opportunity to interview Congressman Roskam this morning. We discussed the Politico op-ed as well as other key issues regarding American foreign policy as it relates to Israel and the Middle East. Below is that interview, beginning with an overview of the situation provided by the Congressman.

Rep. Roskam: The urgency of this is difficult to overstate. All of these events are conflating. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the United States has an incredible role to play.


For those who historically have said Israel is our best friend in the region, and we have shared values of democracy, this is the time to stand with Israel and make it very clear that it’s the PA who have made this choice. It is the Palestinian Authority that has made the choice to put itself outside of the mainstream.


The current law says that the United States will not support terrorist organizations. When the Palestinian Authority makes an affirmative decision to put itself in a relationship with Hamas, it’s making a choice to put itself outside the category of those who receive financial support of the United States taxpayers.

I think it’s really that simple. And it is incredibly important, that when President Obama lays out his agenda tomorrow, he is clear. It is incredibly important that with the Prime Minister’s upcoming visit to the United States that we are clear the burden is on the Palestinian Authority. They have made their decision recognizing that they have put support from the United States in jeopardy, and there are consequences for their actions.

Jeff Dunetz: Well you certainly made that clear in the op-ed, but at times the administration hasn’t been as clear. For example, in his Cairo speech two years ago, the President seemed to have downplayed the role of Hamas terrorism. He reached his hand out to Hamas and it was eventually slapped away. Do you think President Obama “gets it”?

Rep. Roskam: The President has an opportunity tomorrow, to demonstrate that he gets it. It’s important for the administration to look at these past events since the Cairo speech, and understand that the world does not respond merely to speeches, the world responds to clear policy. That is why it is essential that the President lay out what we have put forward in the op-ed when he makes address tomorrow.

Jeff Dunetz: In the op-ed you mention the possible unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood resolution by the UN in September. I understand that the Administration has promised to veto the resolution should it get to a vote in the Security Council--but is there anything the United States can do to prevent it from getting that far?

Rep. Roskam: The United States can actively work against the roll call to prevent it. It is not enough, in my view, simply to veto it. The United States should be actively advocating against it. There is a role to play, and this is extremely important in the short, medium and long term because it is inextricably linked to the U.S. security interests for us to do that. So I believe the administration has a chance to weigh in, to whip the vote in the UN and literally work the roll call.

Jeff Dunetz: It seems that there is a different tone in the House this year. In the last Congress the only ones vocally standing up for Israel were people like Congressman Pence, Eric Cantor and you---members of the GOP Caucus. This year it seems, at least in my observation, that there is more bi-partisan, more Democrats are speaking out. Do you agree with that observation?

Rep. Roskam: I think what happened is--and now I am only speculating I cannot pretend to speak for Democrats in the House--but it looks like some of them are becoming increasingly disappointed in the past deference they paid to the administration and are recognizing that administration policy is now under-performing. They are becoming more vocal as a result. It could be that exhibited a natural deference to an administration of their party, and now realize that the policies are not as fruitful as they had hoped, as expected, and as was represented to them, so they are making a decision to be more independent. That is complete speculation on my part.

Jeff Dunetz: What does the Congress want to hear from Prime Minister Netanyahu when he speaks before the joint session next week?

Rep. Roskam: I wouldn’t presume to tell the Prime Minister what to say.

Jeff Dunetz: It's OK on my blog I tell him what to say almost every day. He doesn’t listen to me though.

Rep. Roskam:: My hunch is he is going to call on the U.S. Congress to stand with Israel; he will communicate the good faith efforts, which time and again, the Israelis have pursued as it relates to peace, the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to engage substantially in that, and that Israel is not, nor should it be in a position to bid against itself. He will also speak of his deep gratitude for the support Israel has had in the United States Congress.

Jeff Dunetz: Another big issue relating to Israel is Iran’s nuclear program. Do you see the sanctions working?

Rep. Roskam:: They seem like a real mixed bag. The question of Iran comes up in the context of the larger democracy movements in the Middle East. The administration essentially waved off any intervention on behalf of the Iranians who were trying to throw off the oppressive regime and let that falter and, I believe, squandered an opportunity. In contrast, they engaged substantially in other areas of the Middle East and you wonder what is the benefit of that for the U.S., how does that help our security interests in the long run. So in answer to your question about Iran, it’s a mixed bag at this point.

Jeff Dunetz: Is there a discussion of new, harsher sanctions in Congress?

Rep. Roskam: Not in my circles, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t more discussions happening.

Jeff Dunetz: In the op-ed you also spoke of the incitement against Israel that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are using to motivate their populace against peace. Is there anything Congress can do to encourage them to stop?

Rep. Roskam: The biggest restraining influence that we can be as the House on behalf of the American people, is to forgo U.S. financial support. That speaks volumes as compared to resolutions.

Jeff Dunetz: There is a GOP majority in the House so it might be possible to get a suspension of financial support through there. But what about the Senate, what is the likelihood of getting such a bill through the Senate?

Rep. Roskam: You know what? I just don’t know. The administration is going to have a lot of influence on Senate action.

Jeff Dunetz: So what is the bottom line? Do you see the President being bold tomorrow when he makes his speech? Or is he going to, well he never stopped campaigning, but is he going to worry that he is in the middle of a re-election campaign and worry about angering supporters of either side?

Rep. Roskam: I think the President has an opportunity to be bold and to be clear. Bold clarity on good policy is also good politics. It is my hope that he does that and does it for the right reasons.

---------------------------------

Based on our discussion, I believe that the House Republican leadership as represented by Congressman Roskam does "get it." He understands the strategic value of a strong democratic state of Israel in what is probably the most dangerous region of the world for United States interests--especially as Iran continues to pick up power and allies from those counties going through the "Arab Awakening."

While the Congressman seemed hopeful that the President would do the right thing in his speech tomorrow, my ingression was that he was more hopeful than confident.

Unfortunately, I agree.