Senate Swears in Historic 20th Female Senator













Today the Senate will make history, swearing in a record-breaking 20 female senators -- four Republicans and 16 Democrats -- in office.


As the 113th Congress is sworn in today on Capitol Hill, ABC "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer has an exclusive joint interview with the historic class of female senators.


Diane Sawyer's complete interview will air on "World News" and "Nightline" tonight.


"I can't tell you the joy that I feel in my heart to look at these 20 gifted and talented women from two different parties, different zip codes to fill this room," Sen. Barbara Mikulksi, D-Md., said while surrounded by the group of women senators. "In all of American history only 16 women had served. Now there are 20 of us."



Senator-elect Deb Fischer, R-Neb., today becomes the first women to be elected as a senator in Nebraska.


"It was an historic election," Fischer said, "But what was really fun about it were the number of mothers and fathers who brought their daughters up to me during the campaign and said, "Can we get a picture? Can we get a picture?' Because people realize it and -- things do change, things do change."










Tammy Baldwin Becomes First Openly Gay Senator Watch Video









Elizabeth Warren Wins Massachusetts Senate Race Watch Video





The women senators all agree that women will be getting things done in this new Congress, a sign of optimism felt for the new Congress, after the bruising battles of the 112th Congress.


"We're in force and we're in leadership positions, but it's not just the position that we hold. I can tell you this is a can-do crowd," Mikulski said of both Democrats and Republican senators in the room. "We are today ready to be a force in American politics."


And while the number of women in the Senate today makes history, many of the women agreed that they want to keep fighting to boost those numbers.


Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said that women are still "underrepresented" in the Senate.


"I think that until we get to 50, we still have to fight because it's still a problem," Boxer said. "I think this class as you look around, Republicans and Democrats. ... I think that because of this new class and the caliber of the people coming and the quality of the people coming, I think that hopefully in my lifetime -- and I really do hope and pray this is the case -- we will see 50 percent. "


No Sorority Here, Even With the Will to Work Together


The cooperation does not make them a "sorority," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., says. There are real differences in ideology and personality and they don't want their gender to define them as senators.


But the women also admit that they believe having more women in the room would help in fierce negotiations, compromise and legislating on Capitol Hill, traits they say do not come as naturally to their male colleagues in the Senate. That sentiment enjoys bipartisan support among the women of the Senate.


"What I find is with all due deference to our male colleagues, that women's styles tend to be more collaborative," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said.


Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said by nature women are "less confrontational." Sen-elect Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, says that women are "problem solvers."


Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., says that women have a camaraderie which helps in relationships that are key to negotiations on Capitol Hill, something she says comes natural to women more than men.


"I think there's just a lot of collaboration between the women senators and... advice and really standing up for each other that you don't always see with the men," she said.






Read More..

Time to rebrand in Lincoln's image?




Wade Henderson thinks the modern Republican Party should look to Abraham Lincoln for some inspiration.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Wade Henderson: January 1 is 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation

  • He says GOP should look to Lincoln, a canny politician who led moral fight on civil rights

  • He says GOP has history of civil rights support that it has largely abandoned in recent years

  • Henderson: In 2012, election minority voters unimpressed; GOP should return to roots




Editor's note: Wade Henderson is the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and The Leadership Conference Education Fund.


(CNN) -- On January 1, the nation will commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, which legally freed slaves in the secessionist Southern states. Meanwhile, thousands of theaters will still be presenting the film "Lincoln," portraying the soon-to-be-martyred president's efforts in January 1865 to persuade the House of Representatives to pass the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery throughout the nation.


Coming at a time when many Republicans are seeking to rebrand their party, these commemorations of the first Republican president raise this question: Why not refashion the Grand Old Party in the image of the Great Emancipator?


Steven Spielberg's historical drama, as well as the biography upon which it is based, Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," both remind today's Americans that Lincoln was not only a moral leader but also a practical politician. The political identity that Lincoln forged for the fledgling Republican Party -- uniting the nation while defending individual rights -- was a winning formula for half a century, with the GOP winning 11 of 13 presidential elections from 1860 through 1908.



Wade Henderson

Wade Henderson



Moreover, support for civil rights persisted in the party throughout the last century. Among the Republican presidents of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt famously hosted Booker T. Washington at the White House. Dwight Eisenhower ordered federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce school desegregation. Richard Nixon expanded affirmative action. And George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law.


Brazile: A turning point for freedom in America, 150 years later




In the U.S. Senate, such prominent Republicans as Edward Brooke of Massachusetts (the first African-American senator since Reconstruction), Jacob Javits of New York and Everett Dirksen of Illinois were strong supporters of civil rights, as were governors such as Nelson Rockefeller in New York, George Romney in Massachusetts and William Scranton in Pennsylvania.


Former California Gov. Earl Warren served as chief justice when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Brown v. Board of Education, ordering the desegregation of the nation's schools. As recently as 1996, the Republican national ticket consisted of two strong civil rights advocates, former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole and former New York Rep. Jack Kemp.



Unfortunately, by 2012, the Republican Party had veered far from its heritage as the party of Lincoln. Prominent Republicans supported statewide voter suppression laws that hit hardest at vulnerable minorities or called for the "self-deportation" of immigrants and their families.


While some Republican senatorial nominees needlessly offended women, leading moderates such as Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe and Ohio Rep. Steven LaTourette opted for retirement. In what I hope was rock bottom, 38 Senate Republicans rebuffed their former presidential nominee Bob Dole -- a wheelchair-bound war hero -- to block an international civil and human rights treaty for people with disabilities.


Not surprisingly, the GOP in the presidential race lost the black vote by 87 points, the Asian-American vote by 47 points, the Latino vote by 44 points and the women's vote by 11 points, according to CNN exit polls. As Republicans reflect on their path forward with minority voters and persuadable whites, there are opportunities to advance civil rights.










While the GOP has increasingly promoted diverse candidates, it has not yet begun to reflect the values of our diverse nation. Fiscally conservative officeholders can fight for civil and human rights.


Just a few years ago, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions championed a reduction in the sentencing disparity between people charged with possession of crack and powder cocaine. These are two forms of the same drug, but crack cocaine is used more by minorities and carried much harsher punishments for possession. Working with Sessions, civil rights advocates pushed to reduce this disparity significantly -- among the greatest advances in criminal justice reform in decades.


Looking toward to the 113th Congress, several civil rights initiatives would fit conservative values. They need congressional champions. Conservative lobbyist Grover Norquist and conservative strategist Richard Viguerie have called for criminal justice reforms that would reduce the number of prisoners in U.S. prisons.


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has joined the civil rights coalition's call for federal initiatives to narrow the educational achievement gap between minority and white students. And more Republicans are joining Jeb Bush's support for comprehensive immigration reform that provides a pathway to citizenship for long-term, law-abiding residents.


Most importantly, the GOP must embrace one of Lincoln's most enduring legacies, the 15th Amendment, which guaranteed the right to vote regardless of race. The GOP must stop trying to suppress voters and begin to champion electoral reform that shortens lines and helps more people to vote.


I don't expect another Abraham Lincoln or Frederick Douglass from the modern Republican Party -- I'll settle for a few more Jeff Sessions. When Republicans consider the consequences for their party's narrow appeal, they'll try to return to their roots.


I'm happy to help.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Wade Henderson.






Read More..

US manufacturing rebounds in December






WASHINGTON: US manufacturing activity expanded slightly in December after contracting the previous month, the ISM monthly survey showed on Monday.

The Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing sector index rose to 50.7 last month from 49.5 in November, with 50 the break-even line between growth and contraction.

The index has hovered around that line for the past six months, the ISM said, reflecting weakness in both US and global economic growth.

Only seven of 18 manufacturing industries covered in the ISM survey actually reported growth in the month, and overall production growth slowed.

But the employment sub-index rose to 52.7 from 48.4, showing the industry returned to hiring at a modest clip in December.

- AFP/de



Read More..

Fiscal cliff crises averted, but more fights loom






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • NEW: It's the first time since 1993 that tax rates rise for any Americans, according to Tax Foundation

  • The vote prevents tax increases for more than 98% of Americans

  • It also wards off $110 billion in automatic cuts to domestic and military spending

  • Reid accused Boehner of "dictatorship" Friday; Boehner responded with profanity




(CNN) -- After exhaustive negotiations that strained the country's patience, the House approved a bill to avert the dreaded fiscal cliff, staving off widespread tax increases and deep spending cuts.


In the 257-167 vote late Tuesday, 172 Democrats and 85 Republicans favored the bill; 16 Democrats and 151 Republicans opposed it.


The approved plan maintains tax cuts for individuals earning less than $400,000 per year and couples earning less than $450,000. It will raise tax rates for those who make more -- marking the first time since 1993 that federal income tax rates have gone up for any Americans, according to the Tax Foundation.


The bill also extends unemployment insurance and delays for two months a series of automatic cuts in federal spending.


World markets rose after the news. U.S. stocks jumped, too, with the Dow rising 210 points after opening.


Just hours before the bill passed, House Speaker John Boehner pitched to fellow Republicans the idea of amending the Senate-approved bill to add a package of spending cuts. He cautioned about the risk in such a strategy, saying there was no guarantee the Senate would act on it.


Rum, electric vehicles and motor sports: Nuggets in the fiscal cliff bill










By the end of the night, he was among the Republicans who voted for the bill as written.


President Barack Obama said he would sign the bill into law, but he did not say when. After the vote, he flew to Hawaii to rejoin his wife and daughters on their winter vacation.


Congress is planning to send the bill to the White House by early afternoon, a Republican leadership aide told CNN.


In practical terms, there's no urgency on the president's signature. It's up to the Obama administration to implement the budget and tax changes, and since the president has said he will sign the measure, the administration can begin planning for the changes immediately.


Had the House not acted, and the Bush-era tax cuts expired fully, broad tax increases would have kicked in. In addition, $110 billion in automatic cuts to domestic and military spending would have taken place.


The combined effect could have dampened economic growth by 0.5%, possibly tipping the U.S. economy back into a recession and driving unemployment from its current 7.7% back over 9%, according to economists' estimates.


While the package provides some short-term certainty, it leaves a range of big issues unaddressed.


It doesn't mention the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling that the United States reached Monday.


iReport: What's your message for Washington?


It also puts off the so-called sequester, cuts in federal spending that would have taken effect Wednesday and reduced the budgets of most agencies and programs by 8% to 10%.


Come late February, Congress will have to tackle both those thorny issues.


Obama warned Congress that he will not tolerate another act of prolonged brinksmanship.


"While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they've passed," he said after the Tuesday night vote.


"We can't not pay bills that we've already incurred. If Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills in time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic -- far worse than the impact of the fiscal cliff."


How they voted: House | Senate


A partial victory


While the deal gives Obama bragging rights for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, it also leaves him breaking a promise.


Obama had vowed to raise tax rates for the top-earning 2% of Americans, including those with household income above $250,000 and individuals earning more than $200,000.


Raising the threshold for higher tax rates shrinks the number of Americans affected.


While nearly 2% of filers have adjusted gross incomes over $250,000, only 0.6% have incomes above $500,000, according to the Tax Policy Center.


Some House Republicans weren't exactly overjoyed in voting for the plan.


Opinion: Look beyond the fiscal cliff


"I'm a very reluctant yes," said Rep. Nan Hayworth, an outgoing Republican representative from New York.


"This is the best we can do, given the Senate and the White House sentiment at this point in time, and it is at least a partial victory for the American people," she said. "I'll take that at this point."


Conservative lobbyist Grover Norquist, whose Americans for Tax Reform pushes candidates to sign a pledge never to raise taxes, said the plan preserves most of the Bush tax cuts and won't violate his group's beliefs.


"The Bush tax cuts lapsed at midnight last night," Norquist tweeted Tuesday. "Every (Republican) voting for Senate bill is cutting taxes and keeping his/her pledge."


The timing of the vote was crucial, as a new Congress is set to be sworn in Thursday. And without a breakthrough, the entire process would have had to start over.


Cliff deal spurs global market rally


Specifics of the plan


The legislation will raise roughly $600 billion in new revenues over 10 years, according to various estimates.


According to the deal:


-- The tax rate for individuals making more than $400,000 and couples making more than $450,000 will rise from the current 35% to the Clinton-era rate of 39.6%.


-- Itemized deductions will be capped for individuals making $250,000 and for married couples making $300,000.


-- Taxes on inherited estates will go up to 40% from 35%.


-- Unemployment insurance will be extended for a year for 2 million people.


-- The alternative minimum tax, a perennial issue, will be permanently adjusted for inflation.


-- Child care, tuition and research and development tax credits will be renewed.


-- The "Doc Fix" -- reimbursements for doctors who take Medicare patients -- will continue, but it won't be paid for out of the Obama administration's signature health care law.


The Democratic-led Senate overwhelmingly approved the bill early Tuesday before passing it to the House.


As news about the fiscal cliff's deflection spread across the world, several markets reacted positively Wednesday.


Australia's ASX All Ordinaries index added 1.2%. South Korea's KOSPI gained 1.5%, and the Hang Seng in Hong Kong advanced 1.9%. Tokyo's Nikkei and the Shanghai Composite remain closed for holiday celebrations but will reopen later in the week.


More fiscal cliffs loom


Payroll taxes still set to go up


Despite the last-minute fiscal cliff agreements, Americans are still likely to see their paychecks shrink somewhat because of a separate battle over payroll taxes.


The government temporarily lowered the payroll tax rate in 2011 from 6.2% to 4.2% to put more money in the pockets of Americans. That adjustment, which has cost about $120 billion each year, expired Monday.


Now, Americans earning $30,000 a year will take home $50 less per month. Those earning $113,700 will lose $189.50 a month.


Opinion: Cliff deal hollow victory for American people


With the latest battle round over, lawmakers will next set their sights on the other items on their docket of congressional squabbles over money: the debt ceiling and resolving the sequester.


Obama said he hopes leaders in Washington this year will focus on "seeing if we can put a package like this together with a little bit less drama, a little less brinksmanship (and) not scare the heck out of folks quite as much."


He thanked bipartisan House and Senate leaders for finally reaching a resolution Tuesday, but said Congress' work this year is just beginning.


"I hope that everybody now gets at least a day off I guess, or a few days off, so that people can refresh themselves, because we're going to have a lot of work to do in 2013."


Read more: 5 things to know about the fiscal cliff


Angry rhetoric flew


In the tense days leading up to the deal, heated words flew between some Democrats and Republicans.


On Friday, after Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused Boehner of holding a "dictatorship" in his chamber, the House speaker responded with a profanity.


"Go f— yourself," Boehner said to Reid, according to a source with knowledge of the exchange in a White House lobby.


Big issues still pending


CNN's Dana Bash, Rich Barbieri, Charles Riley, Dana Ford, Matt Smith, Jessica Yellin, Deirdre Walsh and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.






Read More..

House GOP blasted for scrapping Sandy aid vote

WASHINGTON New York area-lawmakers in both parties erupted in anger late Tuesday night after learning the House Republican leadership decided to allow the current term of Congress to end without holding a vote on aid for victims of Superstorm Sandy.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said he was told by the office of Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia that Speaker John Boehner of Ohio had decided to abandon a vote this session.

Cantor, who sets the House schedule, did not immediately comment. House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters that just before Tuesday evening's vote on "fiscal cliff" legislation, Cantor told him that he was "99.9 percent confident that this bill would be on the floor, and that's what he wanted."

A spokesman for Boehner, Michael Steel said, "The speaker is committed to getting this bill passed this month."

A House Republican aide confirmed to CBS News producer Jill Jackson that the House would not take up the bill during this session.

In remarks on the House floor, King called the decision "absolutely inexcusable, absolutely indefensible. We cannot just walk away from our responsibilities."

The Senate approved a $60.4 billion measure Friday to help with recovery from the October storm that devastated parts of New York, New Jersey and nearby states. The House Appropriations Committee has drafted a smaller, $27 billion measure, and a vote had been expected before Congress' term ends Thursday at noon.




29 Photos


Cleaning up after Sandy






29 Photos


Superstorm Sandy: State-by-state snapshots



More than $2 billion in federal funds has been spent so far on relief efforts for 11 states and the District of Columbia struck by the storm, one of the worst ever to hit the Northeast. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund still has about $4.3 billion, enough to pay for recovery efforts into early spring, according to officials. The unspent FEMA money can only be used for emergency services, said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J.

New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, District of Columbia, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are receiving federal aid.

Sandy was blamed for at least 120 deaths and battered coastline areas from North Carolina to Maine. New York, New Jersey and Connecticut were the hardest hit states and suffered high winds, flooding and storm surges. The storm damaged or destroyed more than 72,000 homes and businesses in New Jersey. In New York, 305,000 housing units were damaged or destroyed and more than 265,000 businesses were affected.

"This is an absolute disgrace and the speaker should hang his head in shame," said Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.

"I'm here tonight saying to myself for the first time that I'm not proud of the decision my team has made," said Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y. "It is the wrong decision, and I' m going to be respectful and ask that the speaker reconsider his decision. Because it's not about politics, it's about human lives."

"I truly feel betrayed this evening," said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.

"We need to be there for all those in need now after Hurricane Sandy," said Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y.

The House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, said she didn't know whether a decision has been made and added, "We cannot leave here doing nothing. That would be a disgrace."

Read More..

Obama Hails 'Cliff' Deal, Warns of Next Fiscal Fight













Minutes after the House of Representatives approved a bipartisan Senate deal to avert the "fiscal cliff" and preserve Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans making less than $400,000 per year, President Obama praised party leaders and wasted little time turning to the next fiscal fight.


"This is one step in the broader effort to strengthen our economy for everybody," Obama said.


Obama lamented that earlier attempts at a much larger fiscal deal that would have cut spending and dealt with entitlement reforms failed. He said he hoped future debates would be done with "a little less drama, a little less brinksmanship, and not scare folks quite as much."


But Obama drew a line in the sand on the debt ceiling, which is set to be reached by March.


"While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether they should pay the bills for what they've racked up," Obama said. "We can't not pay bills that we've already incurred."


An hour after his remarks, Obama boarded Air Force One to rejoin his family in Hawaii, where they have been since before Christmas.






AP Photo/Charles Dharapak













House Republicans agreed to the up-or-down vote Tuesday evening, despite earlier talk of trying to amend the Senate bill with more spending cuts before taking a vote. The bill delays for two months tough decisions about automatic spending cuts that were set to kick in Wednesday.


A majority of the Republicans in the GOP-majority House voted against the fiscal cliff deal. About twice as many Democrats voted in favor of the deal compared to Republicans. One hundred fifty-one Republicans joined 16 Democrats to vote against the deal, while 172 Democrats carried the vote along with 85 Republicans.


The Senate passed the same bill by an 89-8 vote in the wee hours of New Year's Day. If House Republicans had tweaked the legislation, there would have been no clear path for its return to the Senate before a new Congress is sworn in Thursday.


The vote split Republican leaders in the House. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, voted yes, and so did the GOP's 2012 vice presidential candidate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.


But House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., the No. 2 Republican in the House, voted no. It was his opposition that had made passage of the bill seem unlikely earlier in the day.


The deal does little to address the nation's long-term debt woes and does not entirely solve the problem of the "fiscal cliff."


Indeed, the last-minute compromise -- far short from a so-called grand bargain on deficit reduction -- sets up a new showdown on the same spending cuts in two months amplified by a brewing fight on how to raise the debt ceiling beyond $16.4 trillion. That new fiscal battle has the potential to eclipse the "fiscal cliff" in short order.


"Now the focus turns to spending," said Boehner in a statement after the vote. "The American people re-elected a Republican majority in the House, and we will use it in 2013 to hold the president accountable for the 'balanced' approach he promised, meaning significant spending cuts and reforms to the entitlement programs that are driving our country deeper and deeper into debt."


Republicans hope that allowing the fiscal cliff compromise, which raised taxes without an equal amount of spending cuts, will settle the issue of tax rates for the coming debates on spending.






Read More..

13 key stories to watch for in 2013




Among the few virtual certainties of 2013 is the ongoing anguish of Syria and the decline of its president, Bashar al-Assad.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Look for more unrest amid power transitions in the Middle East

  • Disputes and economic worries will keep China, Japan, North Korea in the news

  • Europe's economy will stay on a rough road, but the outlook for it is brighter

  • Events are likely to draw attention to cyber warfare and climate change




(CNN) -- Forecasting the major international stories for the year ahead is a time-honored pastime, but the world has a habit of springing surprises. In late 1988, no one was predicting Tiananmen Square or the fall of the Berlin Wall. On the eve of 2001, the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan were unimaginable. So with that substantial disclaimer, let's peer into the misty looking glass for 2013.


More turmoil for Syria and its neighbors


If anything can be guaranteed, it is that Syria's gradual and brutal disintegration will continue, sending aftershocks far beyond its borders. Most analysts do not believe that President Bashar al-Assad can hang on for another year. The more capable units of the Syrian armed forces are overstretched; large tracts of north and eastern Syria are beyond the regime's control; the economy is in dire straits; and the war is getting closer to the heart of the capital with every passing week. Russian support for al-Assad, once insistent, is now lukewarm.


Amid the battle, a refugee crisis of epic proportions threatens to become a catastrophe as winter sets in. The United Nations refugee agency says more than 4 million Syrians are in desperate need, most of them in squalid camps on Syria's borders, where tents are no match for the cold and torrential rain. Inside Syria, diseases like tuberculosis are spreading, according to aid agencies, and there is a danger that hunger will become malnutrition in places like Aleppo.


The question is whether the conflict will culminate Tripoli-style, with Damascus overrun by rebel units; or whether a political solution can be found that involves al-Assad's departure and a broadly based transitional government taking his place. U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has not been explicit about al-Assad's exit as part of the transition, but during his most recent visit to Damascus, he hinted that it has to be.









2012: The year in pictures










































































HIDE CAPTION





<<


<





1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20
























































>


>>












"Syria and the Syrian people need, want and look forward to real change. And the meaning of this is clear to all," he said.


The international community still seems as far as ever from meaningful military intervention, even as limited as a no fly-zone. Nor is there any sign of concerted diplomacy to push all sides in Syria toward the sort of deal that ended the war in Bosnia. In those days, the United States and Russia were able to find common ground. In Syria, they have yet to do so, and regional actors such as Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran also have irons in the fire.


Failing an unlikely breakthrough that would bring the regime and its opponents to a Syrian version of the Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnian war, the greatest risk is that a desperate regime may turn to its chemical weapons, troublesome friends (Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Kurdish PKK in Turkey) and seek to export unrest to Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan.


The Syrian regime has already hinted that it can retaliate against Turkey's support for the rebels -- not by lobbing Scud missiles into Turkey, but by playing the "Kurdish" card. That might involve direct support for the PKK or space for its Syrian ally, the Democratic Union Party. By some estimates, Syrians make up one-third of the PKK's fighting strength.


To the Turkish government, the idea that Syria's Kurds might carve out an autonomous zone and get cozy with Iraq's Kurds is a nightmare in the making. Nearly 800 people have been killed in Turkey since the PKK stepped up its attacks in mid-2011, but with three different sets of elections in Turkey in 2013, a historic bargain between Ankara and the Kurds that make up 18% of Turkey's population looks far from likely.


Many commentators expect Lebanon to become more volatile in 2013 because it duplicates so many of the dynamics at work in Syria. The assassination in October of Lebanese intelligence chief Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hassan -- as he investigated a pro-Syrian politician accused of obtaining explosives from the Syrian regime -- was an ominous portent.


Victory for the overwhelmingly Sunni rebels in Syria would tilt the fragile sectarian balance next door, threatening confrontation between Lebanon's Sunnis and Hezbollah. The emergence of militant Salafist groups like al-Nusra in Syria is already playing into the hands of militants in Lebanon.


Iraq, too, is not immune from Syria's turmoil. Sunni tribes in Anbar and Ramadi provinces would be heartened should Assad be replaced by their brethren across the border. It would give them leverage in an ever more tense relationship with the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad. The poor health of one of the few conciliators in Iraqi politics, President Jalal Talabani, and renewed disputes between Iraq's Kurds and the government over boundaries in the oil-rich north, augur for a troublesome 2013 in Iraq.


More worries about Iran's nuclear program


Syria's predicament will probably feature throughout 2013, as will the behavior of its only friend in the region: Iran. Intelligence sources say Iran continues to supply the Assad regime with money, weapons and expertise; and military officers who defected from the Syrian army say Iranian technicians work in Syria's chemical weapons program. Al-Assad's continued viability is important for Iran, as his only Arab ally. They also share sponsorship of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which, with its vast supply of rockets and even some ballistic missiles, might be a valuable proxy in the event of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear program.


Speaking of which, there are likely to be several more episodes in the behind-closed-doors drama of negotiations on Iran's nuclear sites. Russia is trying to arrange the next round for January. But in public, at least, Iran maintains it has every right to continue enriching uranium for civilian purposes, such as helping in the treatment of more than 1 million Iranians with cancer.


Iran "will not suspend 20% uranium enrichment because of the demands of others," Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said this month.


International experts say the amount of 20% enriched uranium (estimated by the International Atomic Energy Agency in November at 297 pounds) is more than needed for civilian purposes, and the installation of hundreds more centrifuges could cut the time needed to enrich uranium to weapons-grade. The question is whether Iran will agree to intrusive inspections that would reassure the international community -- and Israel specifically -- that it can't and won't develop a nuclear weapon.


This raises another question: Will it take bilateral U.S.-Iranian talks -- and the prospect of an end to the crippling sanctions regime -- to find a breakthrough? And will Iran's own presidential election in June change the equation?


For now, Israel appears to be prepared to give negotiation (and sanctions) time to bring Iran to the table. For now.


Egypt to deal with new power, economic troubles


Given the turmoil swirling through the Middle East, Israel could probably do without trying to bomb Iran's nuclear program into submission. Besides Syria and Lebanon, it is already grappling with a very different Egypt, where a once-jailed Islamist leader is now president and Salafist/jihadi groups, especially in undergoverned areas like Sinai, have a lease on life unimaginable in the Mubarak era.



The U.S. has an awkward relationship with President Mohamed Morsy, needing his help in mediating with Hamas in Gaza but concerned that his accumulation of power is fast weakening democracy and by his bouts of anti-Western rhetoric. (He has demanded the release from a U.S. jail of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted of involvement in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.)


The approval of the constitution removes one uncertainty, even if the opposition National Salvation Front says it cements Islamist power. But as much as the result, the turnout -- about one-third of eligible voters -- indicates that Egyptians are tired of turmoil, and more concerned about a deepening economic crisis.


Morsy imposed and then scrapped new taxes, and the long-expected $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund is still not agreed on. Egypt's foreign reserves were down to $15 billion by the end of the year, enough to cover less than three months of imports. Tourism revenues are one-third of what they were before street protests erupted early in 2011. Egypt's crisis in 2013 may be more about its economy than its politics.


Libya threatens to spawn more unrest in North Africa


Libya's revolution, if not as seismic as anything Syria may produce, is still reverberating far and wide. As Moammar Gadhafi's rule crumbled, his regime's weapons found their way into an arms bazaar, turning up in Mali and Sinai, even being intercepted off the Lebanese coast.


The Libyan government, such as it is, seems no closer to stamping its authority on the country, with Islamist brigades holding sway in the east, tribal unrest in the Sahara and militias engaged in turf wars. The danger is that Libya, a vast country where civic institutions were stifled for four decades, will become the incubator for a new generation of jihadists, able to spread their influence throughout the Sahel. They will have plenty of room and very little in the way of opposition from security forces.


The emergence of the Islamist group Ansar Dine in Mali is just one example. In this traditionally moderate Muslim country, Ansar's fighters and Tuareg rebels have ejected government forces from an area of northern Mali the size of Spain and begun implementing Sharia law, amputations and floggings included. Foreign fighters have begun arriving to join the latest front in global jihad; and terrorism analysts are seeing signs that al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria are beginning to work together.


There are plans for an international force to help Mali's depleted military take back the north, but one European envoy said it was unlikely to materialize before (wait for it) ... September 2013. Some terrorism analysts see North Africa as becoming the next destination of choice for international jihad, as brigades and camps sprout across a vast area of desert.


A bumpy troop transition for Afghanistan


The U.S. and its allies want to prevent Afghanistan from becoming another haven for terror groups. As the troop drawdown gathers pace, 2013 will be a critical year in standing up Afghan security forces (the numbers are there, their competence unproven), improving civil institutions and working toward a post-Karzai succession.



In November, the International Crisis Group said the outlook was far from assuring.


"Demonstrating at least will to ensure clean elections (in Afghanistan in 2014) could forge a degree of national consensus and boost popular confidence, but steps toward a stable transition must begin now to prevent a precipitous slide toward state collapse. Time is running out," the group said.


Critics have also voiced concerns that the publicly announced date of 2014 for withdrawing combat forces only lets the Taliban know how long they must hold out before taking on the Kabul government.


U.S. officials insist the word is "transitioning" rather than "withdrawal," but the shape and role of any military presence in 2014 and beyond are yet to be settled. Let's just say the United States continues to build up and integrate its special operations forces.


The other part of the puzzle is whether the 'good' Taliban can be coaxed into negotiations, and whether Pakistan, which has considerable influence over the Taliban leadership, will play honest broker.


Private meetings in Paris before Christmas that involved Taliban envoys and Afghan officials ended with positive vibes, with the Taliban suggesting they were open to working with other political groups and would not resist girls' education. There was also renewed discussion about opening a Taliban office in Qatar, but we've been here before. The Taliban are riven by internal dissent and may be talking the talk while allowing facts on the ground to work to their advantage.


Where will North Korea turn its focus?


On the subject of nuclear states that the U.S.-wishes-were-not, the succession in North Korea has provided no sign that the regime is ready to restrain its ambitious program to test nuclear devices and the means to deliver them.



Back in May 2012, Peter Brookes of the American Foreign Policy Council said that "North Korea is a wild card -- and a dangerous one at that." He predicted that the inexperienced Kim Jong Un would want to appear "large and in charge," for internal and external consumption. In December, Pyongyang launched a long-range ballistic missile -- one that South Korean scientists later said had the range to reach the U.S. West Coast. Unlike the failure of the previous missile launch in 2009, it managed to put a satellite into orbit.


The last two such launches have been followed by nuclear weapons tests -- in 2006 and 2009. Recent satellite images of the weapons test site analyzed by the group 38 North show continued activity there.


So the decision becomes a political one. Does Kim continue to appear "large and in charge" by ordering another test? Or have the extensive reshuffles and demotions of the past year already consolidated his position, allowing him to focus on the country's dire economic situation?


China-Japan island dispute to simmer


It's been a while since East Asia has thrown up multiple security challenges, but suddenly North Korea's missile and nuclear programs are not the only concern in the region. There's growing rancor between China and Japan over disputed islands in the East China Sea, which may be aggravated by the return to power in Japan of Shinzo Abe as prime minister.


Abe has long been concerned that Japan is vulnerable to China's growing power and its willingness to project that power. Throughout 2012, Japan and China were locked in a war of words over the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands, with fishing and Coast Guard boats deployed to support claims of sovereignty.


In the days before Japanese went to the polls, Beijing also sent a surveillance plane over the area, marking the first time since 1958, according to Japanese officials, that Bejing had intruded into "Japanese airspace." Japan scrambled F-15 jets in response.


The islands are uninhabited, but the seas around them may be rich in oil and gas. There is also a Falklands factor at play here. Not giving in to the other side is a matter of national pride. There's plenty of history between China and Japan -- not much of it good.


As China has built up its ability to project military power, Japan's navy has also expanded. Even a low-level incident could lead to an escalation. And as the islands are currently administered by Japan, the U.S. would have an obligation to help the Japanese defend them.


Few analysts expect conflict to erupt, and both sides have plenty to lose. For Japan, China is a critical market, but Japanese investment there has fallen sharply in the past year. Just one in a raft of problems for Abe. His prescription for dragging Japan out of its fourth recession since 2000 is a vast stimulus program to fund construction and other public works and a looser monetary policy.


The trouble is that Japan's debt is already about 240% of its GDP, a much higher ratio than even Greece. And Japan's banks hold a huge amount of that debt. Add a shrinking and aging population, and at some point the markets might decide that the yield on Japan's 10-year sovereign bond ought to be higher than the current 0.77%.


Economic uncertainty in U.S., growth in China


So the world's third-largest economy may not help much in reviving global growth, which in 2012 was an anemic 2.2%, according to United Nations data. The parts of Europe not mired in recession hover close to it, and growth in India and Brazil has weakened. Which leaves the U.S. and China.


At the time of writing, the White House and congressional leadership are still peering over the fiscal cliff. Should they lose their footing, the Congressional Budget Office expects the arbitrary spending cuts and tax increases to be triggered will push the economy into recession and send unemployment above 9%.



A stopgap measure, rather than a long-term foundation for reducing the federal deficit, looks politically more likely. But to companies looking for predictable economic policy, it may not be enough to unlock billions in investment. Why spend heavily if there's a recession around the corner, or if another fight looms over raising the federal debt ceiling?


In September, Moody's said it would downgrade the U.S. sovereign rating from its "AAA" rating without "specific policies that produce a stabilization and then downward trend in the ratio of federal debt to GDP over the medium term." In other words, it wants action beyond kicking the proverbial can.


Should the cliff be dodged, most forecasts see the U.S. economy expanding by about 2% in 2013. That's not enough to make up for stagnation elsewhere, so a great deal depends on China avoiding the proverbial hard landing.


Until now, Chinese growth has been powered by exports and infrastructure spending, but there are signs that China's maturing middle class is also becoming an economic force to be reckoned with. Consultants PwC expect retail sales in China to increase by 10.5% next year -- with China overtaking the U.S. as the world's largest retail market by 2016.


Europe's economic outlook a little better


No one expects Europe to become an economic powerhouse in 2013, but at least the horizon looks a little less dark than it did a year ago. The "PIGS' " (Portugal, Ireland/Italy, Greece, Spain) borrowing costs have eased; there is at least rhetorical progress toward a new economic and fiscal union; and the European Central Bank has talked tough on defending the Eurozone.


Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, fended off the dragons with the declaration in July that "Within our mandate, the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough."



Draghi has promised the bank has unlimited liquidity to buy sovereign debt, as long as governments (most likely Spain) submit to reforms designed to balance their budgets. But in 2013, the markets will want more than brave talk, including real progress toward banking and fiscal union that will leave behind what Draghi likes to call Europe's "fairy world" of unsustainable debt and collapsing banks. Nothing can be done without the say-so of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, renowned for a step-by-step approach that's likely to be even more cautious in a year when she faces re-election.


Elections in Italy in February may be more important -- pitching technocrat Prime Minister Mario Monti against the maverick he replaced, 76-year old Silvio Berlusconi. After the collapse of Berlusconi's coalition 13 months ago, Monti reined in spending, raised the retirement age and raised taxes to bring Italy back from the brink of insolvency. Now he will lead a coalition of centrist parties into the election. But polls suggest that Italians are tired of Monti's austerity program, and Berlusconi plans a populist campaign against the man he calls "Germano-centric."


The other tripwire in Europe may be Greece. More cuts in spending -- required to qualify for an EU/IMF bailout -- are likely to deepen an already savage recession, threatening more social unrest and the future of a fragile coalition. A 'Grexit' from the eurozone is still possible, and that's according to the Greek finance minister, Yannis Stournaras.


Expect to see more evidence of climate change


Hurricane Sandy, which struck the U.S. East Coast in November, was the latest indicator of changing and more severe weather patterns. Even if not repeated in 2013, extreme weather is beginning to have an effect -- on where people live, on politicians and on the insurance industry.


After Sandy, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said that after "the last few years, I don't think anyone can sit back anymore and say, 'Well, I'm shocked at that weather pattern.' " The storm of the century has become the storm of every decade or so, said Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences at Princeton.


"Climate change will probably increase storm intensity and size simultaneously, resulting in a significant intensification of storm surges," he and colleagues wrote in Nature.


In the U.S., government exposure to storm-related losses in coastal states has risen more than 15-fold since 1990, to $885 billion in 2011, according to the Insurance Information Institute. The Munich RE insurance group says North America has seen higher losses from extreme weather than any other part of the world in recent decades.


"A main loss driver is the concentration of people and assets on the coast combined with high and possibly growing vulnerabilities," it says.


Risk Management Solutions, which models catastrophic risks, recently updated its scenarios, anticipating an increase of 40% in insurance losses on the Gulf Coast, Florida and the Southeast over the next five years, and 25% to 30% for the mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states. Those calculations were done before Sandy.



Inland, eyes will be trained on the heavens for signs of rain -- after the worst drought in 50 years across the Midwest. Climatologists say that extended periods of drought -- from the U.S. Midwest to Ukraine -- may be "the new normal." Jennifer Francis at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University has shown that a warmer Arctic tends to slow the jet stream, causing it to meander and, in turn, prolong weather patterns. It's called Arctic amplification, and it is probably aggravating drought in the Northwest United States and leading to warmer summers in the Northern Hemisphere, where 2012 was the hottest year on record.


It is a double-edged sword: Warmer temperatures may make it possible to begin cultivating in places like Siberia, but drier weather in traditional breadbaskets would be very disruptive. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reports that stocks of key cereals have tightened, contributing to volatile world markets. Poor weather in Argentina, the world's second-largest exporter of corn, may compound the problem.


More cyber warfare


What will be the 2013 equivalents of Flame, Gauss and Shamoon? They were some of the most damaging computer viruses of 2012. The size and versatility of Flame was unlike nothing seen before, according to anti-virus firm Kaspersky Lab.



Gauss stole online banking information in the Middle East. Then came Shamoon, a virus that wiped the hard drives of about 30,000 computers at the Saudi oil company Aramco, making them useless. The Saudi government declared it an attack on the country's economy; debate continues on whether it was state-sponsored.


Kaspersky predicts that in 2013, we will see "new examples of cyber-warfare operations, increasing targeted attacks on businesses and new, sophisticated mobile threats."


Computer security firm McAfee also expects more malware to be developed to attack mobile devices and apps in 2013.


U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is more concerned about highly sophisticated attacks on infrastructure that "could be as destructive as the terrorist attack on 9/11."


"We know that foreign cyber actors are probing America's critical infrastructure networks. They are targeting the computer control systems that operate chemical, electricity and water plants and those that guide transportation throughout this country," he said in October.


Intellectual property can be stolen, bought or demanded as a quid pro quo for market access. The U.S. intelligence community believes China or Chinese interests are employing all three methods in an effort to close the technology gap.


In the waning days of 2012, the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States said "there is likely a coordinated strategy among one or more foreign governments or companies to acquire U.S. companies involved in research, development, or production of critical technologies."


It did not name the country in its unclassified report but separately noted a growing number of attempts by Chinese entities to buy U.S. companies.


Who will be soccer's next 'perfect machine'?



There's room for two less serious challenges in 2013. One is whether any football team, in Spain or beyond, can beat Barcelona and its inspirational goal machine Lionel Messi, who demolished a record that had stood since 1972 for the number of goals scored in a calendar year. (Before Glasgow Celtic fans start complaining, let's acknowledge their famous win against the Spanish champions in November.)


Despite the ill health of club coach Tito Vilanova, "Barca" sits imperiously at the top of La Liga in Spain and is the favorite to win the world's most prestigious club trophy, the European Champions League, in 2013. AC Milan is its next opponent in a match-up that pits two of Europe's most storied clubs against each other. But as Milan sporting director Umberto Gandini acknowledges, "We face a perfect machine."


Will Gangnam give it up to something sillier?



Finally, can something -- anything -- displace Gangnam Style as the most watched video in YouTube's short history? As of 2:16 p.m. ET on December 26, it had garnered 1,054,969,395 views and an even more alarming 6,351,871 "likes."


Perhaps in 2013 the YouTube audience will be entranced by squirrels playing table tennis, an octopus that spins plates or Cistercian nuns dancing the Macarena. Or maybe Gangnam will get to 2 billion with a duet with Justin Bieber.







Read More..

Football: Brazil starlet Lucas relishing PSG challenge






DOHA: Brazilian international midfielder Lucas Moura said Tuesday he is ready to embrace the "challenge" at an evolving Paris Saint-Germain.

Lucas, 20, signed from Sao Paulo in the summer on a four-and-a-half-year deal worth 40 million euros as PSG held off competition from the likes of Manchester United and Real Madrid to snare a player hailed as one of the bright hopes of the Brazilian team.

"It's a real challenge for me," said Lucas, who has scored three goals in 22 appearances for Brazil.

"PSG is in full evolution. (Sporting director) Leonardo helped me a lot to take the decision to sign when I could have continued with my former team in Brazil until season's end.

"It's a very important step in my career. There are stronger competitions in Europe. PSG has a long history with Brazilian players and I hope I'll be able to write a new page in this history."

PSG president Nasser al-Khelaifi added: "We're very happy to start the year with one of the world's best players."

Lucas, who has joined his new teammates at a training camp in Qatar, could make his debut in a friendly against Qatari champions Lekhwiya on Wednesday, four days before PSG's French Cup round-of-64 match against Arras in Calais.

Khelaifi said the club was not planning to recruit any more players in the January transfer window, adding however that "anything could happen".

"We've got a great team with some great players, I don't think we need to recruit," he said.

"We've got a month ahead of us. For the moment, we're not planning on recruiting anyone but I don't know, there could be injuries, anything can happen."

Khelaifi added: "PSG today wants to build a big European club and place itself among the best in Europe and the world.

"We have to spend money for that and act like the other big clubs. If we hadn't have spent this much, we wouldn't be at this level."

- AFP/fa



Read More..

It's all up to the House






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • The measure now goes to the House where a vote could come Tuesday

  • A statement from House leadership made no promises

  • Under the Senate package, taxes would stay the same for all but a sliver of the U.S. population

  • It leaves a range of big issues unaddressed




As the fiscal cliff looms, what's your New Year's message to Washington? Go to CNN iReport to share your video.


(CNN) -- If a Senate deal to avert the fiscal cliff becomes law, all but a sliver of the U.S. population will avoid higher tax rates, some key issues will be put off for two months, and all sides in the battle will emerge with a mixed record: winning key points, while ceding ground on others.


The deal, which passed the Democratic-controlled Senate in an overwhelming 89-8 vote in the middle of the night, would maintain tax cuts for individuals earning less than $400,000 and couples earning less than $450,000. Technically, it would reinstate cuts that expired at midnight.


The bill faces an uncertain future in the Republican-controlled House. The House Republican Conference plans to meet at 1 p.m., two aides told CNN.


A decision about whether to vote Tuesday would likely follow that meeting.


Some GOP lawmakers, including Reps. Phil Gingrey of Georgia and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, told CNN they won't support the bill.


"It's taxing, and still taxing, small businessmen and women, and I don't like that at all," Gingrey said, referring to some small business owners who would be among those whose tax rates rise.


It's the opposite argument of some Democrats who oppose the bill. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, complained that the deal "makes tax benefits for high-income earners permanent, while tax benefits designed to help those of modest means and the middle class are only extended for five years."


The bill temporarily extends certain tax breaks, such as the one for college tuition, while making new tax rates permanent.


It would mark the first time in two decades that tax rates jump for the wealthiest Americans -- giving some bragging rights to President Barack Obama, who has long insisted on such a move.


But it also leaves him breaking a promise. The president had vowed to raise tax rates for the top-earning 2% of Americans, including those with household income above $250,000.


"What I'm not going to do is to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% that we can't afford and, according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy," the president said at a news conference in November, after being asked by CNN why Americans should believe he would not "cave again this time" by allowing those Bush-era tax cuts to be extended.


When asked whether closing loopholes instead of raising rates would be satisfactory, the president responded, "when it comes to the top 2%, what I'm not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need it, which would cost close to a trillion dollars. And it's very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars, if we're serious about deficit reduction, just by closing loopholes in deductions. You know, the math tends not to work."


The deal passed by the Senate would cap itemized deductions for individuals making $250,000 and for married couples making $300,000.


Raising the threshold for higher tax rates to $400,000 shrinks the number of Americans affected. While nearly 2% of filers have adjusted gross incomes over $250,000, only 0.6% have incomes above $500,000, according to the Tax Policy Center.


Still, in a written statement early Tuesday, the president held on to the 98% figure he has so often touted.


The deal "protects 98% of Americans and 97% of small business owners from a middle class tax hike," he said. "While neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted, this agreement is the right thing to do for our country and the House should pass it without delay."


The president also acknowledged, "There's more work to do to reduce our deficits, and I'm willing to do it. But tonight's agreement ensures that, going forward, we will continue to reduce the deficit through a combination of new spending cuts and new revenues from the wealthiest Americans."


However, many Americans are still likely to see their paychecks shrink somewhat, due to a separate battle over payroll taxes.


Senate vote 'sends a strong message'


"Glad it's over," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, after the vote on the fiscal cliff deal, just a couple of hours after the East Coast rang in the new year. "We'll see if the Republicans in the House can become functional instead of dysfunctional."






A statement from House leadership made no promises.


"Decisions about whether the House will seek to accept or promptly amend the measure will not be made until House members -- and the American people -- have been able to review the legislation," the statement said.


A vote could come as early as New Year's Day. The House is scheduled to convene at noon.


Sen. John Hoeven, R-North Dakota, was hopeful the House will follow suit.


"The vote was 89 to 8. Bipartisan vote. 89 votes," he said. "I think it sends a strong message and I think it will be approved by the House."


What the package proposes


Read the bill (pdf)


Under the Senate package:


-- Taxes would stay the same for most Americans. But they will increase for individuals making more than $400,000 and couples making more than $450,000. For them, it will go from the current 35% to the Clinton-era rate of 39.6%.


-- Itemized deductions would be capped for those making $250,000 and for married couples making $300,000.


-- Taxes on inherited estates will go up to 40% from 35%.


-- Unemployment insurance would be extended for a year for 2 million people.


-- The alternative minimum tax -- a perennial issue -- would be permanently adjusted for inflation.


-- Child care, tuition and research and development tax credits would be renewed.


-- The "Doc Fix" -- reimbursements for doctors who take Medicare patients -- will continue, but it won't be paid for out of the Obama administration's signature health care law.


-- A spike in milk prices will be avoided. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said milk prices would have doubled to $7 a gallon because a separate agriculture bill had expired.


What's not addressed


While the package provides some short-term certainty, it leaves a range of big issues unaddressed.


It doesn't mention the debt ceiling, and temporarily puts off for two months the so-called sequester -- a series of automatic cuts in federal spending that would have taken effect Wednesday. It would have reduced the budgets of most agencies and programs by 8% to 10%.


This means that, come late February, Congress will have to tackle both those thorny issues.


"We're going to have to deal with the sequester, that's true," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, "but look, this is better than nothing."


Reid said the agreement was a win for average Americans.


"I've said all along that our most important priority was to protect the middle class families," he said. "This legislation does that."


And maybe a bit more.


According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income in 2011 was $50,054, which is well below the tax cut threshold approved by the Senate.


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, praised the effort, but said it shouldn't have taken so long to get an agreement.


"We don't think taxes should be going up on anyone but we all knew that if we did nothing they would be going up on everyone today," he said. "We weren't going to let that happen."


If the bill doesn't pass


There's a lot at stake.


If the House doesn't act and the Bush administration's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, broad tax increases will kick in, as will $110 billion in automatic cuts to domestic and military spending.


The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has predicted the combined effect could dampen economic growth by 0.5%, possibly tipping the U.S. economy back into a recession and driving unemployment from its current 7.7% back over 9%.


But if tax-averse House Republicans approve the bill Tuesday -- when taxes have technically gone up -- they can argue they've voted for a tax cut to bring rates back down, even after just a few hours. That could bring some more Republicans on board, one GOP source said.


But Gingrey, speaking Tuesday to CNN, said he does not believe his constituents will see it that way.


He's concerned they will see it as "just more smoke and mirrors, and Congress pulls these stunts all the time," Gingrey said. "Putting off the sequester for two months, kicking that can down the road yet again... this bill, as I see it so far, looks like it's all about raising revenue, but very little, if anything, about cutting spending."


Concerns persist


Read more: What if there's no deal on fiscal cliff


The White House budget office noted in September that sequestration was designed during the 2011 standoff over raising the federal debt ceiling as "a mechanism to force Congress to act on further deficit reduction" -- a kind of doomsday device that was never meant to be triggered. But Congress failed to substitute other cuts by the end of 2012, forcing the government to wield what the budget office called "a blunt and indiscriminate instrument."


In its place, the Senate plan would use $12 billion in new tax revenue to replace half the expected deficit reduction from the sequester and leave another $12 billion in spending cuts, split half-and-half between defense and domestic programs.


Read more: Medicare patients may suffer if country goes over fiscal cliff


Conservative lobbyist Grover Norquist, whose Americans for Tax Reform group pushes candidates to sign a pledge never to raise taxes, said the plan "right now, as explained" would preserve most of the Bush tax cuts and wouldn't violate his group's pledge.


"Take the 84% of your winnings off the table," Norquist told CNN. "We spent 12 years getting the Democrats to cede those tax cuts to the American people. Take them off the table. Then we go back and argue about making the tax cuts permanent for everyone."


But Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary in the Clinton administration, said the $450,000 threshold "means the lion's share of the burden of deficit reduction falls on the middle class, either in terms of higher taxes down the road or fewer government services." In addition, he said, the plan does nothing to raise the federal debt ceiling just as the federal government bumps up against its borrowing limit.


And that, Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain told CNN, is likely to be "a whole new field of battle."


"We just added 2.1 trillion in the last increase in the debt ceiling, and spending continues to go up," McCain said. "I think there's going to be a pretty big showdown the next time around when we go to the debt limit."


CNN's Matt Smith, Mike Pearson, Jessica Yellin, Dana Bash, Deirdre Walsh, Lisa Desjardins, Ted Barrett and Ashley Killough contributed to this report.






Read More..

The art of the "fiscal cliff" deal

Nobody said it would be easy.

Senators voted in the pre-dawn hours of New Year's Day to pass the long-sought agreement on the "fiscal cliff" and the House readies for its turn as soon as today, which, if the House passes it, would officially avert the tax hikes and spending cuts that technically took effect at midnight (the deal, when signed by the president, will make the new tax rates and spending retroactive to midnight).




Play Video


Biden advises not to predict outcome of "cliff" deal



How did the politicians involved get to their final agreement? CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett reports the rundown, according to officials familiar with the talks and with the White House's thinking:

Friday through Sunday: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's opening offer Friday night to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was a $750,000 income tax threshold and no jobless benefits and no extension of the earned-income tax credit and other low-income tax breaks, means-testing Medicare, and the Bush era estate tax rates. Offers bounced back and forth Saturday and on Sunday, Reid opted out and handed talks over to Vice President Joe Biden (at McConnell's suggestion). President Obama, Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi were in tandem through the talks. Delaying the federal spending cuts, or sequester, fell out of the talks on Sunday but McConnell came down to $550,000 in income tax threshold and some estate tax concessions reflected in the final deal.

Sunday, 8 p.m. ET: Mr. Obama and senior staff met in the Oval Office to discuss their final counter-offer to McConnell. The president set the $400K and $450K income threshold with one-year of jobless benefits and some delay of the sequester. Biden and McConnell talked through the night. Their last call was at 12:45 a.m.

After that, Mr. Obama and Biden met in the Oval until 2 a.m. to go over final details. Mr. Obama sent his legislative liaison Rob Nabors to Capitol Hill at 2 a.m. to begin drafting a bill with Senate Democrats. Biden and McConnell spoke again at 6:45 a.m. The rest of Monday was devoted to resolving the sequester impasse.

Monday, 9 p.m. ET: Biden and McConnell sealed the deal by telephone (Biden spoke to McConnell after clearing final details with Mr. Obama). The president then called Reid and Pelosi for one final OK and the deal was announced/leaked/confirmed.

The officials also pointed out that to get to the final deal, moving Republicans from a position of no tax increases in debt ceiling debate to tax increases through tax reform after Mr. Obama's re-election to nothing more than $1 million in higher rates and now to $400,000 and $450,000 thresholds is a significant policy and political victory (worth $620 billion over 10 years).

When the big deal talks failed before Christmas, Mr. Obama's biggest goal was to get GOP buy-in on higher tax rates for the wealthy. It is regarded as one of the most significant policy victories in two decades, the officials said.

Compromising on the two-month sequester was difficult, the officials added. The White House wanted a full year of waiving the sequester but there was no time to negotiate the difficult policy details (the sequester talks took literally all of Monday).

As for the deal's effect on the deficit, it does not cut the deficit relative to what would have occurred if all the fiscal cliff tax cuts had been erased (meaning all Bush tax cuts expired) and the sequester kicked in full force. But, relative to a baseline that assumes all existing tax policy would have continued, the deal raises $620 billion in revenue. The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) fix is not counted by the WH, for example, because its extension was assumed in the existing policy baseline (that doesn't mean it won't cost anything; just that the White House doesn't count the cost).

The jobless benefit extension for one year cost $30 billion and that is not paid for. The Medicare "doc fix" is paid for by savings that will be taken from other provider payouts in Medicare. It costs $31 billion, meaning those provider cuts will pay for protecting doctors from a 27 percent automatic cut in premiums.

And $12 billion in new revenue comes from allowing 401Ks and other retirement instruments into Roth IRAs. This is the revenue that forms half of the offset of the two-month sequester delay. The other $12 billion will come from a 50-50 split of non-defense and defense cuts.

Read More..