“Democrats believe that tax cuts for those earning over a million dollars a year should expire and that we should use the resulting revenues to pay down the deficit,” Pelosi said. Her plan, however, would cost the government billions in revenue compared to Obama’s plan, and though she has billed it as a tax cut for the middle class, half of its benefits would go to millionaires, according to analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice:

CTJ’s preliminary estimates show that Obama’s proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts for the first $250,000 or $200,000 of income a taxpayer makes would save between $60 billion and $70 billion in 2013 compared to the GOP proposal to extend all the tax cuts, depending on economic conditions. Leader Pelosi’s proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts for the first $1 million of income would save 43 percent less revenue than Obama’s proposal.

The additional tax cut that would result from Pelosi’s plan compared to Obama’s plan (the additional tax cut resulting from extending the Bush tax provisions for taxpayers’ first $1 million of income instead of “just” their first $250,000 or $200,000 of income) would not be targeted towards the “middle class.” In fact, 50 percent of this additional tax cut would go to taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) in excess of $1 million.

Millionaires would continue to benefit under Pelosi’s plan because the tax cut applies to the first $1 million of their incomes, meaning their tax cut would still be substantially larger than it would be for actual middle class workers. And as a result, a large portion of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which blew up the national debt and failed to deliver on promises of job creation and economic growth, would exist in perpetuity.

-Zachary Bernstein

House Republicans convened the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to defend the constitutionality of DOMA since the Obama administration announced that it is unconstitutional in February of 2010, but this is the first case in which Beohner is also defending Title 38.

“[W]e strongly object to spending taxpayer money to intervene in this case against a decorated veteran, Tracey Cooper-Harris, and her spouse, Maggie Cooper-Harris,” Pelosi and Hoyer write in their letter. “This decision clearly exceeds the scope of the original BLAG authorization, with which we initially disagreed”:

This intervention once again puts the House of Representatives on the wrong side of the future – supporting discrimination, unfairness, and the denial of basic equality to all Americans. We have objected to prior decisions by the House Republican BLAG members to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend discrimination. This latest decision not only ignores the civil rights of LGBT Americans but opens a new, direct assault on veterans. The men and women of our Armed Forces serve with courage and dignity on behalf of our safety and security. They risk their lives for the country they love – and they should not face prejudice at home because of whom they love. These brave soldiers deserve nothing less than our gratitude, our respect, and the benefits they have earned in battle.

Pelosi and Hoyer are calling for “a formal vote of the BLAG on extending your defense of discrimination to veterans and their families” and a full examination by the Committee on House Administration and the House Ethics Committee of any “extension of the existing legal contract, any new contract, and any additional expenditure of public funds on behalf of outside counsel.” Democratic lawmakers have long raised questions about the GOP’s efforts to spend taxpayer dollars on DOMA and have asked Boehner to divert the resources to investigate the Trayvon Martin shooting.

“Where are the women? And that’s a good question for the whole debate. Where are the women?” she asked. “Imagine, having a panel on women’s health and then not having any women on the panel, duh!”:

PELOSI: What is it that men don’t understand about women’s health and how central the issue of family planning is to that? Not just if you’re having families but if you need those kinds of prescription drugs for your general health, which was the testimony they would include this morning if they had allowed a woman on the panel. I think the fact that they did not allow a woman on the panel is symbolic of the whole debate as to who is making these decisions about women’s health and who should be covered.

Watch it:

Last Friday, the Obama administration addressed the GOP’s concerns that Catholic-affiliated colleges and hospitals would have to provide contraception coverage that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs by issuing a revised regulation that will allow these nonprofit institutions to stop offering birth control. The change pleased several moderate Catholic organizations, but most Republicans — and some conservative Catholic organizations — continue to insist that women in their employment should not have access to these medications.

The proposed plank states: “We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.”

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill tells Metro Weekly, “Leader Pelosi supports this language.”

The Democrats’ 2008 platform opposed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which the Obama administration is no longer defending in court, but took no position on marriage equality. Obama has said that he is still “evolving” on the issue, even as a growing number of Democratic lawmakers now support marriage. At least 91 Democrats in the House, including Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), and 23 senators back same-sex marriage. Twelve Democratic governors (and one Independent, Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island) also favor full marriage rights.

1. Valerie Jarrett. Or Nancy-Ann DeParle. Or Samantha Power. Three of President Obama’s closest advisors are women, who have guided his thinking on everything from Libya strategy to health care reform. If that doesn’t count as power, I’m not sure what does.

2. Nancy Pelosi. The former speaker of the House may have lost her fanciest job title getting President Obama’s health care bill passed, but all that means is that she did exactly what elected officials are supposed to do: value policy results over the outcome of the next election cycle. And having your party down doesn’t mean you’re out. Pelosi is still a force in the House, even in the minority.

3. Katharine Weymouth. The Washington Post may not be the paper it once was, but that hardly means it doesn’t matter. As the Post’s publisher, Weymouth runs the biggest paper in town. She’s important, especially as the Post competes with upstarts like Politico and builds new initiatives like Ezra Klein’s publication-within-a-publication, Wonkbook.

4. Jane Mayer. The New Yorker’s resident giant slayer isn’t afraid to take on anyone, from the Koch brothers, to Art Pope, to the architects of the worst of the war on terror. Another rising Washington reporter, Annie Lowrey, who is part of the New York Times’ economic team, could also be on this list.

5. Neera Tanden. No, it’s not just because she’s my boss. It’s inexplicable that GQ would pick Liz Cheney, who runs the strawman think tank Keep America Safe and contributes to Fox News while ignoring the woman who runs one of the most powerful think tanks in Washington, and who was a key adviser to Hillary Clinton to boot. There’s real power, and there’s the ability to fling rhetorical bombs. Any power list worth its salt should distinguish between the two.

6. Maureen Dowd. She may go waspish more than she goes sincere. But even if you think she’s light, there’s no question that Dowd can skewer her subjects, or define them, whether with uncomfortable nicknames or facts.

7. Kathleen Sebilius. Or Janet Napolitano. Or Michèle Flournoy. Or Mary Schapiro. President Obama has women overseeing everything from implementation of his health care law, to homeland security, to the country’s securities oversight, a critical issue in this economic crisis. And Flournoy could be Secretary of Defense some day, too.

8. Jessica P. Einhorn, Dean of Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. SAIS is a highly respected institution, and Einhorn is part of an important generation of women in foreign policy, and this summer, will wrap up 10 years of creating the next one.

9. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The senior woman on the Supreme Court has hung on through health issues to continue her life-long fight for women’s rights.

10. Chan Heng Chee. Washington isn’t just a town where American policy gets made. It’s also the home of a vibrant diplomatic community. The deputy dean of the diplomatic corps, Ambassador Chan is the leader of Washington’s women ambassadors, a fixture in the city’s social scene, and has a long-game perspective on the American relationship with Asia.

*Full disclosure: I worked with Jayne and Barbara while I was at Washingtonian, and like and respect them both. If you’re going to put the curators of the social scene on the list, they undeniably belong there.

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA), representing House Republicans, quickly banged his gavel over the Democrats’ voices, and instructed the clerk to stop taking notes of the proceedings. Moments later, the microphones were silenced and C-SPAN’s video feed was cut. (The House leadership controls the cameras and has previously cut video of Democrats on the floor.) Watch it:

The theatrical stunt also serves to underscore Provident Obama’s claim this week that Congress is effectively in recess, thus allowing him to make recess appointments, even though the Senate has been holding 30-second long pro-forma sessions.

Pelosi personally intervened on behalf of two of her constituents, Bradford Wells and Anthony John Makk, a couple who have lived in San Francisco’s Castro District for the better part of 19 years and were married in Massachusetts in 2004:

Makk is an Australian citizen who was facing deportation after the couple was denied spousal immigration benefits under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which blocks federal benefits to same-sex couples.

Wednesday the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services sent the couple a letter that they have been granted a two year deferred action on deportation. Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, personally intervened on behalf of the couple to ensure that Makk could stay in the country.

“The positive resolution of Anthony’s immigration petition is a personal victory for Bradford and Anthony, and keeps this loving couple together,” Pelosi said in a statement. Pelosi told the couple about the ruling herself Wednesday.

According to Metro Weekly, Pelosi also noted the broader implications of the case: “Anthony would have faced deportation because of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, even though he has lived in the United States for more than 20 years, has no criminal history, has never lived here illegally and is the primary caregiver to his husband.”

She applauded the recent efforts of the Obama administration to close many low-priority immigration deportation proceedings, including those against same-sex couples. Pelosi also pledged to fight for the full repeal of DOMA, which continues to keep many other binational gay couples in legal limbo.

The story perpetuates two important Republican myths — one completely unsubstantiated and refuted charge that Democrats inappropriately influenced HHS to grant waivers to politically-connected unions or companies in Pelosi’s district, and the second that the waivers themselves are proof that the law is not working as intended.

The waivers — some 1,800 in all — are part of the law itself and speak more to its success than failure. The ACA provides HHS with flexibility to grant businesses and states additional time to comply with the law’s requirements, permitting these entities to gradually transition beneficiaries from subprime insurance into more comprehensive basic coverage. In other words, the waivers are a bridge to 2014: businesses with insurance plans that are structured in such a way as to make it impossible to meet the regulations surrounding annual limits and medical loss ratios will have additional time to redesign their benefit packages and won’t dump coverage for their existing employees before they can enroll in insurance through the state-based exchanges.

If anything, the flexibility that waivers provide undermines the GOP’s main criticism against reform — that the ACA is a one-size-fits-all law designed by bureaucrats without taking the needs of business into consideration. And conservatives are now pretending that in following the letter of the law, the administration is actually allowing businesses to circumvent it.

One such voice was former pizza executive and current Republican presidential frontrunner Herman Cain. Cain, a radio host in Atlanta, Georgia for three years, blasted the proposal to save teachers’ jobs during his radio show on Aug. 11, 2010. The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO mocked those who “[d]idn’t want to lay off teeeeachers” and called the move a “$26 billion bailout of teeeeachers.” Cain then went on to deride then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, referring to her as “Princess Nancy”:

CAIN: You heard about the $26 billion bailout of teeeeachers. Didn’t want to lay off teeeeachers. Here’s what I want to share with you in this segment tonight. It’s called, “beneath the $26 billion bailout.” [...]

What I want to do this segment is peel back the onion on the $26 billion bailout that they rushed back to Congress in an emergency session called by “Princess Nancy!” “This is an absolute national congressional emergency!” They rushed back to pass this $26 billion emergency jobs bill. It was a $26 billion spending bill.

Listen to it:

Cain’s dismissal of the teachers’ jobs bill as a “bailout” is absurd for two reasons. First, Cain was among the 2008 bailout’s biggest supporters. Second, ensuring that educators continue to receive a paycheck isn’t a “bailout,” it’s a salary. Wall Street bankers deserve to be rescued, in Cain’s worldview, but attempts to save teachers’ jobs are met with scorn.

Considering the rhetoric Cain has employed regarding the recent Wall Street protests — “if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself!” — it’s no surprise that the former pizza executive would mock attempts to save teachers’ jobs.

“Bin Laden is gone, Al-Qaeda has been scattered around the globe, and yet we continue to risk the lives of brave Americans and squander billions of dollars after a decade of interminable conflict,” [Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)] added. “It has to stop.” [...]

“The American people are weary of war, period, and want our troops to come home,” [House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi [D-CA] said. “We appreciate that the president is winding that war down, and we won’t have many more anniversaries of the longest wars in our country’s history.” [...]

“We are now spending $120 billion a year in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And incredibly, President Obama – who I strongly support in general – is contemplating staying in Iraq even longer than George Bush wanted to,” [Rep. Barney] Frank [D-NY] said Tuesday to a crowd of liberal activists gathered in Washington for the Take Back the American Dream conference. “That is totally unacceptable, and we must make that very clear.”

The war in Afghanistan, which President Bush launched on Oct. 7 2001, became the longest war in American history last July.

Under Obama, the U.S. has begun to draw down its troop presence, beginning with pulling the 33,000 surge troops by the end of 2012 and the remaining 68,000 by the end of 2014. But yesterday, the defense ministers from the 49 nations that make up the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan pledged their support to the country, even after 2014. “Let there be no mistake: transition is not departure. We will not take our leave when the Afghans take the lead,” NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters.

Sign our open letter to Pelosi asking that anyone she appoints to the super committee insist on new revenues that exceed any new cuts, and a jobs creation program.

Andrew Harmon from the Advocate reports:

Pelosi told The Advocate of Bachmann’s silence on the issue, “I would think that if she wanted to be the President of the United States, she would understand that this is a larger issue than whether someone is gay or not, but as to whether someone is harassed and bullied to the point of seeing no way out.”

“Obviously it’s an issue bigger than Michele Bachmann’s district, so maybe we should all be speaking out about it, and not just leaving it to her,” Pelosi added.

Following a two-year stint of nine suicides attributed to bullying, the Departments of Justice and Education are investigating the school district for its failure to address anti-gay harassment. Two human-rights groups have also filed a federal lawsuit challenging the neutrality policy, arguing that it stigmatizes gay students.

But as the district’s representative, Bachmann has not made any public comments regarding the anti-gay bullying charges or the neutrality policy. Instead, she has let her record speak for itself. In 2004, Bachmann decried teaching about homosexuality in schools as leading to “the personal enslavement of individuals” and in 2006, opposed anti-bullying legislation because “there always have been bullies…always will be.”

Pelosi also disparaged Bachmann over reports that her family clinic practices “ex-gay” therapy, saying, “You know, 20 years ago somebody might ask, Does it work? I think today, people are asking, Why would you want to have somebody be who they aren’t?”

–Sarah Bufkin

PELOSI: This bill, in one fell swoop, just pulls the plug on progress for America’s families. Progress made in the last 50 years. As you know, we served the 46th anniversary yesterday of the signing of the Medicare bill. You can just kiss Medicare goodbye.

Watch it:

Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has described Boehner’s proposal as “tantamount to a form of ‘class warfare’” that “if enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history.”