Pa. gunman kills 2 at church, 1 on roadway

(CBS/AP) GEESEYTOWN, Pa. - The gunman who died in an apparent shootout with police  in central Pennsylvania Friday morning began his rampage by shooting a woman who was decorating a church for a children's Christmas party, according to the brother of the church's late pastor.

The Altoona Mirror reports that  the gunman, who sources identified as Jeffrey Lee Michael of Hollidaysburg, then shot another person outside the church, and fled the scene in a pickup truck, crashed head-on into another car, and then shot and killed that car's driver.

CBS Pittsburgh reports that troopers responded to a 9-1-1 "shots fired" call about 9 a.m. Additional 9-1-1 calls reported an armed man shooting at additional locations.

Two troopers were fired at by the driver of a pickup truck on Juniata Valley Road and a third officer was injured in a head-on crash with the pickup, sources told the station.

Michael exited the truck and immediately shot at troopers. Troopers returned fire, killing Michael.

The troopers who were shot are expected to survive.

Officials tell the station that three men and one woman were killed in the incident.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that according to Blair County District Attorney Rich Consiglio, the shooting scene "extended over several miles."

More on Crimesider
Dec. 21, 2012: Deadly Pennsylvania shooting leaves 4 dead, 2 injured, officials say
Dec. 21, 2012: Pennsylvania Shooting Update: Four dead, including one at a church, reports say


Read More..

Boehner's Take on Fiscal Cliff Deal: 'God Only Knows'


Dec 21, 2012 11:00am







Speaker of the House John Boehner bluntly acknowledged Friday morning he did not have the votes to pass his “Plan B” and said the only real solution is a broad agreement to cut spending and reform the tax code. Then he added these words:


“How we get there, God only knows.”


That about sums up the whole “fiscal cliff” situation after a chaotic Thursday night when Republicans had to abandon “Plan B” – their proposal to raise taxes only on people making more than $1 million.


Boehner said he is not giving up on talks to pursue a bipartisan agreement with the President, who wants taxes to be raised on people making more than $250,000. But Boehner made it clear nothing is going on right now.  Instead he said it was up to Senate Democrats and the White House to make the next move.


Read more  about “Plan B” and the dramatic action in the House on Thursday.





SHOWS: Nightline This Week World News







Read More..

Goodbye, U.S. Postal Service?




This Christmas could be the Post Office's last, says John Avlon.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • The U.S. Postal Service is bleeding money and heading toward insolvency

  • John Avlon: Congress can save the postal service in deal on the fiscal cliff

  • He says the urgency is clear, let's hope for a Christmas miracle

  • Avlon: But be prepared that Washington dysfunction can doom the postal service




Editor's note: John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is co-editor of the book "Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns." He is a regular contributor to "Erin Burnett OutFront" and is a member of the OutFront Political Strike Team. For more political analysis, tune in to "Erin Burnett OutFront" at 7 ET weeknights.


(CNN) -- It's the time of year for dashing through the snow to the crowded post office, with arms full of holiday gifts for family and friends.


Not to break the atmosphere of holiday cheer, but this Christmas could be the last for the U.S. Postal Service. It is losing $25 million dollars a day and staring down insolvency -- unless Congress steps in to pass a reform package that reduces its costs.


With just a few days left in the congressional calendar, there is still some small hope for a Christmas miracle -- maybe the Postal Service can be saved as part of a deal on the fiscal cliff. But with even Hurricane Sandy relief stalled, skepticism is growing.



John Avlon

John Avlon



The real question is, what's taken them so long? After all, back in April the Senate passed an imperfect but bipartisan bill by 62-37. It would have saved some $20 billion, cut some 100 distribution centers, and reduced head count by an additional 100,000 through incentives for early retirement, while reducing red tape to encourage entrepreneurialism and keeping Saturday delivery in place for at least another two years. At the time, Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware said, "The situation is not hopeless; the situation is dire. My hope is that our friends over in the U.S. House, given the bipartisan steps we took this week, will feel a sense of urgency."



To which the House might as well have replied, "Not so much."


In August, the Postal Service defaulted for the first time, unable to make a $5.5 billion payment to fund future retirees' health benefits. The headline in Government Executive magazine said it all: "Postal Service defaults, Congress does nothing."


The usual suspects were at fault -- hyperpartisan politics and the ideological arrogance that always makes the perfect the enemy of the good.


House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa greeted the news of the Senate bill by calling it a "taxpayer-funded bailout." His primary complaint was that the Senate bill did not go far enough. He was not alone -- Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe also expressed disappointment at the scope of the Senate bill, saying that it fell "far short of the Postal Service's plan."


But Issa's alternative couldn't even get to a vote in the Republican-controlled House. And so nothing happened. Even after the USPS defaulted on a second $5.5 billion payment, the response was crickets.


Washington insiders said that action would be taken after the election, when lawmakers would be free to make potentially unpopular decisions. But despite a series of closed-door meetings, nothing has been done.


It's possible that the nearly $20 billion in savings could be part of a fiscal cliff deal. Sen. Joseph Lieberman has suggested that ending Saturday delivery, except for packages, could be part of a compromise that could save big bucks down the road. Another aspect of a savings plan could be suspending the USPS' onerous obligation to fully fund its pension costs upfront, a requirement that would push many businesses into bankruptcy. And last fiscal year, the post office posted a record $15.9 billion loss.


"As the nation creeps toward the 'fiscal cliff,' the U.S. Postal Service is clearly marching toward a financial collapse of its own," says Carper. "The Postal Service's financial crisis is growing worse, not better. It is imperative that Congress get to work on this issue and find a solution immediately. ... Recently key House and Senate leaders on postal reform have had productive discussions on a path forward, and while there may be some differences of opinion in some of the policy approaches needed to save the Postal Service, there is broad agreement that reform needs to happen -- the sooner the better."


The urgency couldn't be clearer -- but even at this yuletide 11th hour, signs of progress are slim to none. If Congress fails to pass a bill, we'll be back to square one in the new year, with the Senate needing to pass a new bill which will then have to be ratified by the House. There is just no rational reason to think that lift will be any easier in the next Congress than in the current lame duck Congress, where our elected officials are supposedly more free to do the right thing, freed from electoral consequences.


So as you crowd your local post office this holiday season, look around and realize that the clock is ticking. The Postal Service is fighting for its life. And Congress seems determined to ignore its cries for help.


"Neither rain nor snow nor sleet nor gloom of night" can stop the U.S. Postal Service from making its appointed rounds -- but congressional division and dysfunction apparently can.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Avlon.






Read More..

User revolt causes Instagram to keep old rules






SAN FRANCISCO: Instagram on Thursday tried to calm a user rebellion by nixing a change that would have given the Facebook-owned mobile photo sharing service unfettered rights to people's pictures.

"The concerns we heard about from you the most focused on advertising, and what our changes might mean for you and your photos," Instagram co-founder and chief Kevin Systrom said in a blog post.

"There was confusion and real concern about what our possible advertising products could look like and how they would work," he continued.

Protests prompted Instagram to stick with wording in its original terms of service and privacy policies regarding advertising and to do away with some changes that were to take effect in January, according to Systrom.

"You also had deep concerns about whether under our new terms, Instagram had any plans to sell your content," the Instagram chief said.

"I want to be really clear: Instagram has no intention of selling your photos, and we never did. We don't own your photos, you do."

Instagram on Tuesday backed off a planned policy change that appeared to clear the way for the mobile photo sharing service to sell pictures without compensation, after users cried foul.

Changes to the Instagram privacy policy and terms of service had included wording that appeared to allow people's pictures to be used by advertisers at Instagram or Facebook worldwide, royalty-free.

Twitter and Instagram forums buzzed over the phrasing, as users debated whether to delete their accounts before the new rules kicked in.

Originally proposed portions of the new policy that rankled users included "You hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the content that you post on or through the service."

The terms also stated that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

Instagram said that the policy changes to take effect in January were part of a move to better share information with Facebook, which bought the company this year.

The original price was pegged at US$1 billion but the final value was less because of a decline in the social network's share price.

"I'm proud that Instagram has a community that feels so strongly about a product we all love," Systrom said while apologising to users and promising the offensive policy changes were gone.

-AFP/fl



Read More..

Mayans don't buy it






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Some believe a major calamity will occur Friday based on the Mayan calendar

  • The Mayans don't think that's true: "It's an era," a Mayan wood carver says

  • The end of the winter solstice marks the end of a 394-year period on the calendar

  • Predictions mention a deity but not the end of the world, an archeologist says




Merida, Mexico (CNN) -- There may be no one left on Earth to say TGIF this week.


Some believe the world is coming to an end Friday -- on 12/21/12 -- which is when an important phase on the ancient calendar of the Mayan people terminates.


Mayans don't buy it.


At least the ones living in the city of Merida, Mexico, don't. Neither does anyone in the Mayan village of Yaxuna. They know the calendar their ancestors left them is about to absolve a key phase -- the end of an era and the heralding of a new one -- but they don't think we're all gonna die.


Read more: Be honest, apocalypse seems kind of exciting


"It's an era. We are lucky to see how it ends," said wood carver Santos Esteban in Yaxuna, a sleepy village of fewer than 700 Mayans, located in a territory that once belonged to the ancient kingdom founded around 2000 B.C.










He feels it is a momentous occasion and is looking forward to the start of the new age. He is not afraid.


"Lots of people say it's the end of the world, but we don't believe that," he said.


Read more: China cracks down on 'Doomsday cult'


People in his village will keep living much as they have, preferring hand-built, palm-thatch huts to concrete buildings and baking tortillas on an open flame.


For those less optimistic than the Mayans, an "official" website in the United States has collected links to all the doomsday articles and videos Internet users can consume.


December212012.com also offers tips on survival and advertisements for the needed gear -- from gas masks to first aid kits and hand-crank radios. Comments are welcome on its Facebook page, which has more than 14,000 likes, and website owner "John" from near Louisville, Kentucky, sends out tweets under the handle @December212012.


On the doomsday Facebook page -- in between gloomy superstitious links and user comments -- John has confessed that he does not really believe the world will end on Friday but thinks that a new era could dawn that may include some improvements for the world. That new era, however, might require a good bit of destruction as well.


John asked posters not to take the whole thing too seriously.


"PLEASE PEOPLE. . . I'm begging you. Do not overreact or make any rash decisions regarding Dec 21st. Anyone who knows anything about the 2012 prophecies, including myself, does not believes that the world is going to end," the Facebook page says.


Opinion: The Maya collapsed - could we?


Gunmaker Ryan Croft in Asheville, North Carolina, does take the prediction seriously. He is building a special assault rifle to deal with any signs of doom lurking around the corner.


He doesn't think life on Earth will come to a complete end Friday. "I'm not planning for the world to go away," Croft told CNN affiliate WHNS.


However, he thinks the day could mark the beginning of cataclysmic times introduced by a disaster. That may call for drastic measures, Croft said.


His new rifle, a hybrid of an AR-15 and an AK-47, is designed to be easy to use, the Gulf War veteran said. Trouble in the United States could ensue in the wake of an economic catastrophe, he thinks.


"I taught about economic collapse and how it actually looks on the ground," he said. "People want to act like it can't happen or doesn't happen, and it happens around the world. There are places on fire right now."


In true survivalist manner, Croft also teaches his family how to subsist on alternative sources of nourishment, such as algae, roasted mice and live earthworms.


Though 12/21/12 is a somewhat congruent date on the western calendar, the Mayan version enumerates the event in a different way.


The ancient people measured time in cycles called "baktuns" of 394 years each, and the winter solstice coming Friday marks the end of the 13th baktun. Some who study the calendar say the date for the end of the period is not Friday, but Sunday.


The Mayan calendar is based on the position of the heavenly bodies -- the sun, the moon and the stars -- and was meant to tell the Mayan people about agricultural and economic trends, said archeologist Alfredo Barrera.


NASA is also weighing in on the matter, with a post on its website declaring that the world will not end on Friday.


"It will be another winter solstice," NASA said. "The claims behind the end of the world quickly unravel when pinned down to the 2012 timeline."


As of Thursday afternoon in the eastern United States -- already Friday across Asia -- the space agency said it had detected "nothing unusual" and that it anticipated a normal couple of days ahead.


Read more: Hotels ready for the end of the world


The hubbub about a calamity occurring comes from a Mayan stone carving called monument 6, made in 700 A.D., which predicts a major event at the end of this baktun, Barrera said. But half of the broken tablet is missing, so one may only speculate on what the complete message may be.


Whatever it is, it's not about the end of the world, he said.


"We don't have a prophecy or inscription related to the finish of the world. It just mentioned a deity."


Barrera said he believes the hullabaloo about the end of the world has been whipped up by online speculation -- and he finds it a bit ignorant.


In Merida, Mayan priest Valerio Canche conducts an ancient ritual to honor the dead in light of the upcoming end of the 13th baktun.


"It is considered the closure of the great cycle of Mayan time," he said. "But, of course, the cycle (14th baktun) begins the following day. For the Mayans, it's not the end of the world."


If you're reading this on Thursday, keep in mind that it's already Friday in New Zealand, and it's still on the map. If it's Friday, a look out the window may be reassuring.


If it's Saturday, and no major calamity has occurred, then relax and go celebrate the beginning of the 14th baktun with the Mayans.


Debunking doomsday: 6 rumors dispelled


CNN's Ben Brumfield reported from Atlanta, and Nick Parker from Mexico






Read More..

House GOP: We have the votes for "Plan B"




Play Video


Cantor: "We're going to have the votes" to pass "Plan B"



Updated 1:45 p.m. ET

As the House readies for an expected vote on an alternate plan, dubbed "Plan B," to avoid massive tax hikes on all income earners, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said he is confident he will have enough support to pass their plan.

"We're going to have the votes," Cantor told reporters this morning.

"Plan B," a scaled-back measure that extends tax rates for everyone except those making $1 million, comes to the House floor at the unilateral direction of Republican leadership just days after it seemed talks between House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and President Obama were progressing to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff." Both sides offered major concessions to move toward compromise, but aides tell CBS News White House correspondent Major Garrett that Boehner didn't have enough support in his party to pass his proposal that included $1 trillion worth of revenue increases.

While "Plan B" would raise taxes on millionaires, which is something Democrats support, it does not go far enough for Democrats who want higher tax rates for more income earners. The president's latest "fiscal cliff" offer would raise the marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent on those making more than $400,000, a concession from his previous demand that taxes go up for households making more than $250,000.




Play Video


Boehner: Dems' "Plan B" is "slow walk" over "fiscal cliff"



Boehner said he is doing his part by offering "Plan B"  to ensure taxes don't increase on millions of Americans in the New Year. "It will be up to Senate Democrats and the White House to act," he told reporters today.

While Cantor says they have the votes to pass the alternative, some Republicans expressed reservations because it would raise taxes on about 400,000 families, or about 0.2 percent of Americans.

Boehner's proposal doesn't abide by "clear conservative, clear Republican principles," Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan, told CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.

Perhaps offering Republicans an out, in an about-face, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist said Boehner's proposal does not raise taxes. Other outside conservative groups, however, including the Heritage Foundation and FreedomWorks, are urging Republicans to vote against "Plan B", saying it does raise taxes.




Play Video


Reid: "Boehner's plans are nonstarters in the Senate"



Generally opposed to raising any taxes at all, Republicans are also reluctant to vote for a plan that has already been declared dead in the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., if it passes the House. "Speaker Boehner's plans are non-starters in the Senate," Reid reiterated today. 

Even if it somehow cleared both houses of Congress, the White House announced Wednesday that it would veto "Plan B."

Another reason some Republicans also objected to Boehner's "Plan B" because it doesn't include spending cuts. Republican leadership addressed that concern Thursday morning, however, by offering a second piece of legislation that cuts $200 billion from the federal budget.

House Republicans "are taking concrete actions" to avert the "fiscal cliff" and reduce spending, Cantor said. "Absent a balanced offer from the president, this is our nation's best option."

During a news conference Wednesday, the president said Republicans "keep on finding ways to say no as opposed to finding ways to say yes" on agreeing to a deal to avert the "fiscal cliff."

He added that it's time for the Republicans to step up and compromise because its' "what the country needs."

The president pointed out their proposals are only "a few hundred billion dollars" apart. "The idea that we would put our economy at risk because you can't bridge that cap doesn't make a lot of sense," he said.

The president's latest proposal includes about $1.2 trillion dollars of revenue increases and $800 billion in spending cuts. Boehner said it's not balanced. His latest offer is, which is not what the House is voting on today, includes about $1 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in tax increases.

Read More..

Merry 'Cliffmas'! Chances for a Deficit Deal Dim













The outlook for a deal to avert the "fiscal cliff" by Christmas is increasingly grim, though lawmakers and the White House still have hope for a deficit-reduction compromise by the end of the year.


Republicans will move forward tonight with a vote to pass House Speaker John Boehner's so-called "Plan B option" – an extension of current tax rates for Americans making up to $1 million a year while replacing some pending automatic cuts to defense and domestic programs with other measures.


The step seeks to show Republicans acting to avoid an income tax hike on 99 percent of Americans in 2013, and leverage new pressure on President Obama in the ongoing talks for a broader "cliff" deal.


"Absent a balanced offer from the president, this is our nation's best option and Senate Democrats should take up both of these measures immediately," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said today.


Obama has threatened to veto the legislation, calling it counterproductive and the cuts burdensome for the middle class. If the Senate were to consider the bill to stave off a looming tax hike, Democrats would surely amend it to enact more amicable terms.






Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo













Outgoing Sen. Joe Lieberman Criticizes Colleagues for Putting Party Above Country Watch Video









President Obama Promises Action to Reduce Gun Violence Watch Video





The posturing over "plan B" has drawn focus away from a broad deficit-reduction bargain to address taxes, spending, entitlement reforms and other measures that had begun coming into focus earlier this week.


Obama and Boehner have not spoken since Monday, though staff-level talks have continued behind the scenes.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said lawmakers would break for the Christmas holiday but return to Washington one week from today.


"If you look at Speaker Boehner's proposal and you look at my proposal, they're actually pretty close," Obama said Wednesday, appealing for a big "fair deal."


"It is a deal that can get done," he said. "But it cannot be done if every side wants 100 percent. And part of what voters were looking for is some compromise up here."


The latest offers exchanged by Obama and Boehner are roughly $450 billion apart, largely differing on where to draw the line for an income tax hike at the end of the year.


Obama wants to see rates rise on incomes above $400,000 a year; Boehner wants the threshold to be $1 million.


Both sides also disagree about the size of spending cuts and changes to entitlement programs.


Obama's plan would trim spending by $800 billion over a decade with half coming from Medicare and Medicaid. He has also agreed to limits on future cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries, something anathema to many Democrats.


Boehner wants $1 trillion or more in spending cuts, citing entitlement programs as the primary drivers of U.S. deficits and debt. "The real issue here is spending," Boehner said today. "I don't think the White House has gotten serious."



Read More..

On gun control, look to Biden




Rebecca Puckwalter-Poza says Vice President Joe Biden was a leader on gun control in the Senate.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza: Obama has apparently tapped Biden as gun control point man

  • She says he was leader in Senate on issue, shepherding 1994 gun control legislation

  • It banned manufacture of many semi-automatic guns,criminalized high-capacity magazines

  • Writer: Biden worked across aisle; he's adroit, determined statesman, right man for job




Editor's note: Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza served as deputy national press secretary of the Democratic National Committee during the 2008 election.


(CNN) -- President Obama's poignant speech at Sunday's interfaith vigil in Newtown, Connecticut, set the tone for our mourning. Now, America's path forward will be decided out of the spotlight. The question of whether the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School will linger only in memory or be memorialized by an enduring shift in gun policy can only be answered by the legislature.


Incoming Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Diane Feinstein has announced she will introduce an enhanced assault weapons ban on the first day of the new Congress, but the fate of that legislation is in the hands of Vice President Joe Biden.


Biden will reportedly lead the administration's political response.



Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza

Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza



No politician could be better suited to the challenge of passing federal gun control legislation than Biden. Over the past four decades, Biden has been one of the most consistent and effective advocates of gun control and violence prevention legislation. In 1994, Biden shepherded the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act through the Senate, a near miracle six years in the making.


After Biden wrote the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1988, Republicans quickly filibustered, blocking the bill for four years. He steered "the Biden crime bill" through the lengthy filibuster by negotiating with Republicans and making revisions. "Every single line in that bill was written with every single major Republican a part of it," Biden said in a September 12, 1994, interview on the Charlie Rose show.


The Clinton administration and then-Sen. Biden repeatedly refused to make concessions that would have jeopardized the substance of the act, even after debate over the amendment we know as the federal assault weapons ban imperiled the entire bill. Instead of backing down, Biden took on Republican Sens. Phil Gramm and Orrin Hatch and faced opponents attacking the bill as taxpayer-funded "dance lessons and midnight basketball for robbers and rapists."


France: Where fear and taboo control guns more than laws


Biden did not budge: "Make no mistake, this is about guns, guns, guns." The crime bill passed the Senate in November 1993.



When the bill foundered in the House, Biden persevered. It reached President Clinton's desk thanks to an unexpected, eleventh-hour push from a "Lost Battalion of Republicans" led by Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware. He'd been swayed during a series of meetings with the House Speaker and other House Republicans, at which Biden was the only Senator in attendance.


The resulting legislation banned the manufacture of 19 types of semi-automatic firearms and criminalized the possession of high-capacity magazines. The process taught a critical lesson: When otherwise "pro-gun'" lawmakers have to choose between a crime bill including a gun ban and inaction, it is more than possible for them to vote to protect Americans. Unfortunately, the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Since then, numerous lawmakers, including Joe Biden, have tried and failed to get the ban renewed.


Congress now has a rare opportunity to take new action on gun control. After Newtown, proponents of stricter gun legislation are backed by public opinion and bolstered by a surge of political support. The "pro-gun" wing of the GOP and the National Rifle Association remain silent even as their supporters are defecting publicly.


Democratic Sens. Harry Reid and Joe Manchin, whose voting record earned them the NRA's "top rating," have backed off their "pro-gun" positions and declared that "everything must be on the table" for legislative debate. The 31 pro-gun senators have not spoken since Friday's tragedy, signaling the possibility that some of them might be changing their minds on guns, too.


Lawmakers are essentially being asked to consider an updated version of the 1994 assault weapons ban. On Sunday, Feinstein promised the legislation "will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession" of assault weapons and ban high-capacity magazines as well as "clips of more than ten bullets."












Biden will likely support a new ban on assault weapons and push for improvements. His 2007 Crime Control and Prevention Act would not only have renewed the ban but required background checks for all gun purchases, closing the "gun show loophole.'" Biden has also called on Congress to address the relationship of mental illness to violence in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings.


Was your gun banned?


The president cautioned Americans Sunday, saying "no single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this."


In his first term, however, Obama practiced a policy of appeasement, failing to block the expansion of gun rights or promote gun control. To ensure Congress passes tough, comprehensive gun control laws rather than settling for a watered-down version, as with health care, Obama must let Biden lead.


Why? Biden has distinguished himself as an adroit and effective statesman in both the legislative and the executive branches. The former six-term senator has a deft touch with moderate and conservative counterparts: in 2008, he eulogized Strom Thurmond. As vice president, he has spearheaded the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Moreover, Biden has a particular passion for protecting students and educators. His wife, Jill Biden, has been teaching for more than 30 years.


The deaths of 20 first-graders and six adults compel all Americans as sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, uncles and aunts, to consult their moral compasses. Legislators face a greater responsibility: a moral imperative to pass any legislation that could possibly prevent a future Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek or Blacksburg.


Opinion: Gun violence is a national security issue


As Obama ministers to the American people and offers words of comfort, Biden must move lawmakers to action. In 1994, Biden warned his colleagues, "we simply can't let the gun lobby deny to the American people the vital benefits in this bill." Biden must once more appeal to Congress to enact gun control. If anyone can succeed in those chambers, it's Joe Biden.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza






Read More..

Record backing expected for UN anti-death penalty vote






UNITED NATIONS: A record number of countries are expected to back a UN General Assembly call for a moratorium on capital punishment on Thursday, diplomats said.

The vote held every two years now sees the likes of the United States, Japan, China, Iran and Iraq stuck in a shrinking minority as pressure grows for an end to executions.

About 150 countries now have at least a moratorium on capital punishment and just 21 were reported to have carried out executions in 2011, according to rights groups.

European nations have pressed hard for votes backing a moratorium at the UN vote. Norway's ambassador Geir Pedersen said there could be 112 or 113 countries in favour this year, up from 107 in 2010.

But Pedersen said the growing numbers supporting a moratorium show "this is no longer dominated by western countries. This is a global campaign."

"The importance of the vote is that it sends a very strong message to the international community across the board," Pedersen told AFP. "The General Assembly is the one place where all nations are represented and you have a strong majority in favour of a moratorium."

"There is a global trend toward fewer countries executing people and for us, it is an important issue of principle," the ambassador added.

Pedersen said that when he raises objections to the death penalty in bilateral talks, "we have the feeling that they are on the defensive".

Rights groups say the remaining countries that carry out executions remain hard-core.

China executes thousands of prisoners a year, rights groups say, and Iran put to death more than 650 people in 2011, making it the highest per capita executioner.

Some countries defended maintaining their capital punishment at a UN committee meeting last month where 110 countries voted for a moratorium. Japan said it had to keep the possibility of hanging prisoners because "heinous" crimes are still being committed.

And the vote will be held the day after UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay called on Iraq to move toward abolishing the death penalty.

Iraq executed 70 people in the first six months of this year, compared to 67 for the whole of 2011, and 18 in 2010, according to the UN mission in the country.

"The number of executions so far in 2012, and the manner in which they have been carried out in large batches, is extremely dangerous, cannot be justified, and risks seriously undermining the partial and tentative progress on rule of law in Iraq," Pillay said.

The General Assembly will also have votes Thursday on human rights in Syria, Iran and North Korea where western nations hope that big majorities will put increased political pressure on the governments.

"It is an important message for some key countries to understand that there is a majority in the international community that wants to do the right thing on difficult issues," Pedersen said.

- AFP/al



Read More..

Obama to GOP: Fiscal cliff not about me






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • NEW: White House threatens to veto Boehner's "plan B"

  • President Obama suggests Republicans are fixated on besting him personally

  • Speaker Boehner says the House will pass his fallback tax plan Thursday

  • Without a deal, everyone's taxes go up in the new year




Washington (CNN) -- After progress earlier this week in fiscal cliff negotiations, President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner butted heads Wednesday, setting the stage for a showdown as the deadline looms for an agreement.


The negotiations had focused on a $2 trillion package of new revenue, spending cuts and entitlement changes the two sides have shaped into a broad deficit reduction plan.


Boehner on Tuesday proposed a "plan B," which would extend Bush-era tax cuts on income of up to $1 million. He described it as a fallback option to prevent a sweeping tax hike while negotiations continue on a broader plan.


But the White House on Wednesday threatened to veto the House Republican "plan B," saying it would bring only "minimal" changes in projected budget deficits.


Obama told reporters earlier in the day that Republicans were focused too much on besting him personally rather than thinking about what's best for the country.










"Take the deal," Obama said to Republicans, referring to the broader proposal, saying it would "reduce the deficit more than any other deficit reduction package" and would amount to a significant achievement.


"They should be proud of it," Obama said. "But they keep on finding ways to say 'no' as opposed to finding ways to say 'yes.' "


The comments at a White House news conference came less than two weeks before the end of the year, when the nation would face automatic tax increases on everyone and deep spending cuts at the end of the year if no agreement is reached.


Economists say that failure to reach agreement could spark another recession.


Boehner issued his own statement Wednesday, saying the president had yet to make a proposal offering a balance between increased revenue and spending cuts.


In a 52-second appearance before reporters, Boehner said the House will pass his fallback plan Thursday limiting tax increases to income above $1 million.


While the plan represents a concession from his original opposition to any increase in tax rates, the Boehner plan sets a higher threshold for a rate hike than the $400,000 sought by Obama.


Once the House passes his plan, the president can either persuade Senate Democrats to accept it or "be responsible for the largest tax increase in American history," Boehner said before walking off without answering shouted questions.


The Obama administration and congressional Democrats said Boehner changed course because he was unable to muster Republican support for the larger deal being negotiated with Obama.


At his news conference, Obama alluded to last Friday's Connecticut school shootings in calling on Republicans to put aside political brinksmanship. "If there's one thing we should have after this week, it should be perspective about what's important," he said.


"Right now, what the country needs is for us to compromise," he continued. He characterized as "puzzling" the GOP refusal to accept his compromise.


Asked why an agreement was proving so elusive after both sides had made concessions, Obama said it might be that "it is very hard for them to say 'yes' to me."


"At some point they've got to take me out of it," Obama said of Republicans, adding they should instead focus on "doing something good for the country."


Boehner responded by arguing that Obama's latest proposal was not evenly balanced, with more new revenue opposed by Republicans instead of the spending cuts and entitlement reforms they seek.


With automatic tax hikes looming for all, Boehner said, his plan B proposal would "make permanent tax relief for nearly every American."


While addressing part of the fiscal cliff, the Boehner plan B would leave intact government spending cuts, including those related to defense, which are required under a budget deal reached last year to raise the federal debt ceiling. Known as sequestration, the cuts were intended to motivate Congress to reach a deficit reduction deal.


Opinion: Art that calls the fiscal cliff's bluff


Obama said Wednesday the Boehner proposal "defies logic" because it raises tax rates on some Americans, which Republicans have said they didn't want, and contains no spending cuts, which Republicans say they do want.


He also criticized the Boehner measure as a benefit for wealthy Americans, who would have lower tax rates extended on their income up to $1 million.


The White House and congressional Democrats say the Boehner plan B has no chance of passing Congress, and Obama added that bringing it up now serves only to waste time.


Senior administration officials said no further talks have occurred between Obama and Boehner since Monday. According to the officials, Obama will delay his planned holiday trip to Hawaii on Friday if no deal is reached by then.


Republican Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas called Boehner's move a negotiating tactic, and GOP leaders sought to corral support for the plan B option.


They planned to vote Thursday on Boehner's proposal, as well as Obama's long-standing proposal to return to higher tax rates of the 1990s on income above $250,000 for families.


Obama on Monday raised the threshold for the higher tax rates to $400,000.


Conservative allies publicly supported Boehner's plan Wednesday.


Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist provided political cover for Republicans who signed his pledge against tax increases, saying they could support the Boehner plan B because it adhered to the meaning of their promise to oppose tax hikes.


House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, who was the Republican vice presidential nominee in the November election, will vote for Boehner's plan, a spokesman said Wednesday.


Conservatives trying to shrink the federal government generally oppose increasing tax revenue. They are particularly opposed to higher tax rates.


Obama and Democrats argue that increased revenue, including higher tax rates on the wealthy, must be part of broader deficit reduction to prevent the middle class from getting hit too hard.


Obama made the tax proposal a theme of his re-election campaign, arguing that it would prevent a tax increase for middle-class Americans in a time of needed fiscal austerity.


Polls consistently show strong public support for the Obama plan, and some Republicans have called for giving the president what he wants on the tax issue in order to focus negotiations on cuts to spending and entitlement programs.


Budget experts: Fiscal cliff deal could disappoint


Boehner and Republicans initially opposed any rise in tax rates but conceded to raising more revenue by eliminating some deductions and loopholes. The offer of a plan with higher rates for millionaires represented a further concession, but Obama and Democrats say it is not enough to ensure sufficient revenue from wealthy Americans as part of a deficit reduction package.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Boehner's plan appears to be a result of pressure from tea party conservatives opposing a wider deal.


"It would be a shame if Republicans abandoned productive negotiations due to pressure from the tea party, as they have time and again," Reid said this week.


Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, shot back that the plan B proposal gave Democrats what they wanted -- higher tax rates on millionaires. He noted that the Senate passed a similar measure in 2010, and asserted that to oppose Boehner's plan now would make Democrats responsible for failing to avoid the fiscal cliff.


That brought a response from a spokesman for Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who came up with the 2010 compromise that never won House approval.


Since the 2010 vote, "we've had an election on the president's tax plan, the president won, and Republicans can't turn the clock back," said the spokesman, Brian Fallons.


"It's not surprising Republicans are having buyer's remorse, but we need higher revenues now," Fallons said. "The more revenue we raise up front through a tax rate increase on the wealthy, the less likely the middle class will get hit on the deduction side."


The president previously said that, once Republicans agreed to higher tax rates on wealthy Americans, he would be willing to compromise on spending cuts and cuts to entitlement programs sought by Boehner as part of what the president calls a balanced approach.


What happens if the payroll tax cut expires


Over the weekend, Boehner offered for the first time to accept tax rate increases on household income of $1 million and above, sources said. The speaker also offered to allow the president to raise the debt ceiling in 2013 without a messy political fight, another key Obama demand.


In response, Obama on Monday offered $200 million in new cuts to discretionary federal government spending, divided evenly between defense and non-defense programs.


The president also included a provision to change the formula for adjusting entitlement benefits for inflation based on the consumer price index and he dropped an extension of a payroll tax cut from the past two years.


According to a source who provided CNN with details of Obama's counteroffer, it included $1.2 trillion in revenue increases and $1.22 trillion in spending reductions.


However, Republicans disputed those figures, saying the Obama offer was $1.3 trillion in additional revenue and $850 billion in spending reductions.


Working out those differences appeared to be a key to reaching a comprehensive deficit reduction deal by year's end.


While Obama's latest offer brought the two sides billions of dollars closer, it also generated protests from the liberal base of the Democratic Party because it included cuts in entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.


Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn, the liberal movement that backed Obama's presidential campaigns, said the group's members would consider any benefit cuts "a betrayal that sells out working and middle-class families."


In particular, liberals cited concessions that Obama made Monday in his counteroffer, including the new inflation formula applied to benefits that is called chained CPI.


Obama offers fiscal cliff tax concession


The chained CPI includes assumptions on consumer habits with regard to rising prices, such as seeking cheaper alternatives, and would result in smaller benefit increases in future years.


Statistics supplied by opponents say the change would mean Social Security recipients would get $6,000 less in benefits over the first 15 years of chained CPI.


However, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama's CPI proposal "would protect vulnerable communities, including the very elderly, when it comes to Social Security recipients." He called the president's acceptance of the chained CPI a signal of his willingness to compromise.


CNN's Dan Lothian, Dana Bash, Deirdre Walsh and Brianna Keilar contributed to this report.






Read More..