The White House and most Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the first $200,000 of income ($250,000 for couples filing together), but to let income taxes rise to 2000 rates starting with the $200,001st dollar. Republicans have strongly opposed the Obama plan, arguing that nobody’s income taxes should rise and that Congress should make the cuts permanent. (That would cost something like $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years, and would ultimately reduce GDP, the CBO says.)

Rivlin and some legislators, including Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), have indicated support for raising taxes starting at a higher level — perhaps $1 million. Paletta writes:

Ms. Rivlin said in an interview that lawmakers and administration officials should consider temporarily exempting everyone who makes less than $500,000-a-year from a higher tax threshold. This is higher than the $250,000 level the White House has proposed but less than the $1 million some lawmakers on Capitol Hill have recently proposed. There is also a large group of lawmakers who have said the tax cuts should be extended for all income levels for at least two more years.

Ms. Rivlin said her proposal would “cut a deal” on the definition of “high income.”

“There would be few people that believe $500,000 is not a lot of money,” she said.

Ms. Rivlin has served as director of the Congressional Budget Office, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. She is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

A military helicopter. (U.S. Army)

Though the last U.S. troops left Vietnam in 1973, many veterans still live with the war. And at a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing Thursday at the U.S. Capitol, senators expressed concerns for everything from oversight to deficit spending in the discussion over whether to allow three new conditions to the Agent Orange Act. The legislation allows for compensation to veterans for the health effects from herbicide American planes sprayed to root out the Viet Cong.

[Security1] On August 31, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs approved three new ailments to the list of “presumptive” causes within the Agent Orange Act — ischemic heart disease, Parkinson’s Disease and hairy cell leukemia. The VA will be able to process new claims — as well as compensate earlier ones — at the end of October unless Congress votes to block it. VA officials estimate that this could add 250,000 new disability claims and cost about $42 billion over the next ten years.

Some have balked at the cost of providing more resources to health care given the deficit. President Obama’s Deficit Committee Co-Chairman, and former chair of the Veterans Affairs committee, Alan Simpson told the Associated Press about the Agent Orange Act rule-making authority, “The irony (is) that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess.” The group VoteVets called for his resignation, and Simpson has not apologized for the remarks. (Simpson did not respond to repeated requests for comment to TAI through the Deficit Commission.)

Alan Oates, chairman of the Vietnam Veterans of America Committee on Agent Orange, thought that was offensive. “It’s a slap in the face,” he said to TAI. Oates, who was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam and has Parkinson’s Disease (one of the ailments recently added to the Agent Orange Act by the VA), added, “It’s taking care of some of the budget problems on the backs of veterans. When you send veterans into war, that there’s a cost for that, there’s a cost for health care once that war’s over.”

Others at the hearing also thought the idea was ludicrous because health care for returning veterans was a given. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said, “This is part of the ongoing cost of war, more than guns and bullets and airplanes.” On the scientific link between Agent Orange and ischemic heart disease, Sanders said to VA Sec. Eric Shinseki, “I think we’re asking you to play God and you’re doing a good job but you’re not God.” He added, “Who is smart enough to make a determination? I’m not.”

Ischemic heart disease drew the most skepticism from the panel since it is common in older men (17 percent of men ages 60-69 have it, and 26 percent of men ages 70-79 have it).

Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) have also raised other concerns about the new measure. “Heart disease is a common phenomenon regardless of potential exposure to Agent Orange,” said Sen. Webb in a letter to Shineski. “I have spent my entire adult life one way or the other involved in veterans law. But I do think we need to have practical, proper procedures,” he added. (However, at the hearing, Webb balked at the notion that his hesitation was about cost. “This is not about cost, it’s not,” he said in Thursday.)

Burr has also spoken of similar concerns. “At some point we will have to look at the definition of exposure,” he told the AP.

Burr, the ranking Republican on the committee, was not present at the hearing and was co-chairing the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. (If Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski loses her re-election this November as a write-in candidate, then Burr is next in line to be ranking member of the committee.) Burr met with Sec. Shinseki on Thursday, and said his concerns had been answered satisfactorily. He said in a press release, “At the end of our discussion I was convinced that he [Gen. Shinseki] and his agency are prepared to handle these needed changes.”

Webb said in the letter to Shinseki, “The discussions were you could develop a chronological map overlay of where defoliants had been used, and then develop a nexus in someone’s service record on whether they had been in those areas. From that you could say whether these conditions would be presumptively acquired.” But many of the panelists at Thursday’s hearing said, that there’s little reliable data about what exposure was over forty years ago — therefore making it difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint causality. Oates agreed. “Putting the burden back on the veteran to prove exposure when there was so much misuse of the project would be impossible. Veterans can’t account for every moment and every place they were, they had a job to do,” he said to TAI.

The science linking ischemic heart disease to Agent Orange exposure suggests a “limited/suggestive connection” according to the Institute Of Medicine in its 682-page 2008 report. Of course, it’s difficult to pinpoint any individual case to dioxin exposure, as opposed to other risk factors such as high cholesterol, smoking, genetics or other factors.

Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at NIH and director of the National Toxicology Program at the Department Health and Human Services, said, “in humans, dioxin is not causing a unique cardiovascular disease, but increases the risk of developing ischemic heart disease, which has a significant background incidence.” As for the time that had passed between the Vietnam War and now, she said, “Dioxin can permanently alter gene expression. Especially in Vietnam, a young man under additional stress that early — dioxin exposure adds to additional factors.”

The United States government sprayed 20 million gallons of herbicides, mostly Agent Orange, a dioxin compound,during the Vietnam War to defoliate forest with the aim of depriving the Viet Cong and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam from cover, from 1962 until 1971. The agent had obvious ecological effects of killing crops, but also had significant health effects on both veterans and the Vietnamese people. In veterans, the agent has been shown to caused an elevated risk of soft tissue cancers, Hodgkin’s disease, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, spina bifida (in the children of veterans), soft-tissue sarcoma and chloracne.

The Agent Orange Act passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 1991. The act gave the VA the power to add new diseases to the list based on scientific literature reviews done by the Institute of Medicine.

There’s going to be a rally/press conference on the Hill at 11 a.m. with six veterans, five of whom were either discharged or chose not to re-enlist because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” urging senators and congressmembers to vote for repeal. Veterans are going to deliver 20,000 pro-repeal postcards to Congress — focusing mostly on the Senate. Specifically, the coalition – comprised of groups like Servicemembers United, the Human Rights Campaign and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund — continues to target six states represented by undecided or wavering legislators: West Virginia, Virginia, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Indiana and Florida. Already, its released polling in those states that show scrapping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has wide support.

In advance of a complementary House floor vote later this week, the coalition sent an email alert yesterday asking 750,000 people around the country to email their members of congress in support of repeal. It’s going to send another one today asking them to phone member offices. The idea is to escalate pressure, capping off a build-up of several months that’s brought veterans affected by “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — and those who just believe overturning it is the right thing to d0 — to key states and districts.

That effort got the White House to acquiesce to the strategy on Monday, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to reluctantly accept the legislative push on Tuesday. But it’s not won over every member of Congress it’s targeted. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) saw 77 percent of Massachusetts voters backing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, but the new senator — a lieutenant colonel in his state’s National Guard — said yesterday that he’s voting against Lieberman’s amendment. So is Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a Marine veteran of Vietnam and a former Navy secretary, even after the coalition sent a letter from Virginia servicewomen urging him to support repeal. Both claim that Gates’ original plan — to hold off legislative efforts at repeal until a Pentagon working group on its implementation issues guidance to him in December — ought to proceed. Over in the House last night, the chairman of the armed services committee, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), made the exact same argument as his grounds for opposition.

The coalition believes that the Senate committee still has a significant number of undecideds, soft-yes and soft-no votes. (For what it’s worth, I’m not going to give my own whip count, because I don’t believe that’s journalistically responsible in a fluid situation like this one.) But it’s also used to setbacks, even though the legislative compromise provides perhaps the best shot for repealing the law since its enactment in 1993, and that speaks to the resilience of the activists who have pushed the White House, Congress and the Pentagon this far already.

“This is one of the best opportunities for repeal that has come around,” said Michael Cole of the Human Rights Campaign. “The fact that you have congressional leaders supporting it, the president supporting it and Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen saying it will do what they want in respecting the working group, the stars have aligned for putting repeal closer to reality than ever.” If the votes are there.

There were calls to close it in the wake of the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School, and there were more calls to close it in 2007, following the shooting massacre at Virginia Tech. But so far, Congress has done nothing to address the gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed gun vendors to sell firearms without performing background checks on the buyers. And the inaction hasn’t gone unnoticed by some of the victims’ families.

Take Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed 11 years ago tomorrow at Columbine. He’s got a letter running today in both the the Denver Post and Boulder Daily Camera urging Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) to put his weight behind the Senate proposal that would close the gun show loophole.

[Congress1] “Shortly after the tragedy at Columbine, 70% of Coloradans voted to close this dangerous loophole, but in many other states the loophole remains — including every state surrounding Colorado,” Mauser writes. “That means that Coloradans can still easily be victimized by guns brought here from other states. We need a federal law to close the Gun Show Loophole for good, just like we have in Colorado.”

Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado’s other upper-chamber Democrat, has endorsed the proposal, but Udall has so far resisted. A call to Udall’s office requesting comment was not immediately returned.

He’s not the only Democrat being targeted today. Six voices related to the Virginia Tech tragedy — including a survivor, and parents of both survivors and those killed — have a letter of their own in today’s Richmond Times Dispatch, calling on Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner, both Democrats of Virginia, to sign on to the same bill.

“Everyday in the United States, 35 people are murdered with guns — that’s a Virginia Tech sized massacre every single day,” the parents write. “We have seen first hand the incredible toll that gaps in the federal background check system have on public safety … Don’t let another day go by.”

Calls and emails to Webb’s and Warner’s offices were not immediately returned.

Under current law, licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks to ensure that prospective buyers are legally eligible to own firearms. Felons, illegal immigrants and the severely mentally ill, for example, are prohibited from owning guns. These guidelines apply to licensed dealers in all contexts, including gun shows. But unlicensed dealers at gun shows — or anywhere else — are under no obligation to follow them.

The Columbine shooters bought three of their guns by exploiting the loophole. More recently, last month’s Pentagon shooter did the same, purchasing at least one of his firearms at a Nevada gun show despite a history of severe mental illness that might have prevented the sale had the vendor done a background check.

Gun reform has been a thorny issue for the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress. And the reason is clear. Although Democrats hold significant majorities in both chambers, they owe those gains largely to more moderate members, who in recent elections have won seats in a number of conservative-leaning, historically Republican districts. Indeed, when Attorney General Eric Holder last year announced his support for renewal of the assault weapons ban, 65 House Democrats wrote to the White House attacking the proposal. And that was in a non-election year.

“Law-abiding Americans use these guns for all the same reasons they use any other kind of gun — competitive shooting, hunting and defending their homes and families,” the Democrats wrote.

But don’t accuse Congress of doing nothing in the area of gun reform. This week, the House is expected to pass a D.C. voting rights bill that also includes language gutting the District’s strict gun control laws.

Indeed, while we’ve seen plenty of statements and public interviews from West Virginia’s congressional delegation in recent days, we’re not hearing anything at all from the other Appalachian lawmakers, some of whom represent districts that are home to other active, underground, Massey-owned coal mines that together have racked up hundreds of safety violations this year alone.

Pike County, Ky., for example, is home to Freedom Mine #1, a Massey-owned project that’s tallied 187 citations this year. Among the violations are a number involving problems with mine ventilation systems and the accumulation of combustible materials — the same combination suspected to have caused Monday’s explosion in West Virginia. Rep. Hal Rogers (R) represents that district, yet there’s no mention of the West Virginia incident on his Website. And calls and emails to his office this week haven’t been returned.

Another example: Rep. Rick Boucher (D) represents Tazewell County, Va., which is home to the Tiller No. 1 Mine. That Massey-controlled project has been cited 56 times this year for safety infractions, including vent problems, accumulations of combustibles and a failure to maintain escapeways. Boucher’s Website this week recognizes a new water system in his district, but doesn’t mention Monday’s accident. A Boucher spokeswoman emailed today to clarify that he hasn’t made any public statements on the event.

Similar silence is coming form the offices of Virginia Democratic Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb, and Kentucky Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning. (Both McConnell and Bunning are featuring statements about how the Obama administration’s recent mountaintop mining restrictions will cripple the coal industry.)

Yes, Congress is on recess, and the lawmakers are bouncing around their districts doing whatever it is they do at home. But this was the most significant mining disaster in 26 years. It’s a bit surprising we’re not seeing more reaction from Capitol Hill.

Yesterday, Democratic leaders responded with a resounding, “Nah.” Instead of scrapping loan reform, leaders are moving forward with a plan to attach the lending bill to the health care legislation the Democrats hope to pass in the coming weeks. The New York Times reports:

The deal would bundle the bill into an expedited budget package along with the Democratic health care legislation, which would allow for both measures to be passed by the Senate on a simple majority vote. Without the deal, the student loan bill would have been unlikely to pass because it lacked the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

The reason it lacked the 60 votes, though, is itself informative. And here’s a hint: It’s not because lawmakers think that the current system — under which the government subsidizes private lenders to make loans to students — is the best use of taxpayer dollars. Indeed, the six Democrats expressing their concerns about the lending bill were quick to indicate that they “support reforming the federal student loan programs to generate historic budget savings.” What they haven’t suggested is how it’s possible to cut out those subsidies — estimated to save the government $67 billion over 10 years — without stripping jobs at the companies that currently make those loans.

As we wrote today, that dilemma isn’t limited to the realm of student lending. It’s a question plaguing every lawmaker who has in mind to rein in the same deficit spending that’s sustaining jobs in countless sectors of the economy.

And you thought your job was tough…

And if U.S. servicemembers were permitted to drink during a conscript military, doesn’t it stand to reason that an all-volunteer force will be more professional and disciplined in their alcohol consumption?

President Obama rarely registers much more than 50 percent approval, he’s having trouble selling his message, and Americans continue to suffer under the weight of the nation’s economic problems. So what can the president do to help improve his standing among Democratic voters? Well, for one thing, he could hitch himself to a rising populist star. But like most politicians, no one is perfect and many of today’s best-known populists have a strike or two against them right now (and no, we’re not talking about John Edwards.)

At the start of our search, it quickly became obvious that after Obama picked several populists for his cabinet, white men dominated the remaining ranks of available politicians. Below is our list of the top five political figures who may fit this new populist role — and it just so happens that some of them could be available in 2012 when Obama may be searching for a new second-in-command.

Click here to begin slideshow.

Webb shot out three programs. First, he questioned the wisdom of giving $60 million to Blackwater to train sailors in self-defense on board ships — or, as Webb put it, “how to do their job.” He attacked sending military officers to defense think tanks to serve as fellows, specifically calling out the well-connected Center for a New American Security, which has sent a lot of its own analysts to the Obama State and Defense Departments. “The American taxpayer is funding think tanks that don’t really produce any added value to the Department of Defense,” Webb said. Finally, Webb called out the Pentagon’s “mentorship” program — recently the subject of a USA Today investigative report — that basically allows retired officers who serve in many cases on defense contractor boards to still get Pentagon cash for advising active-duty officers.

Gates deflected Webb’s criticism, saying merely, “We will certainly continue to look at these things.” He defended the mentorship program, but said vaguely to expect “fairly dramatic changes” to its administration, thanks to a study by Deputy Secretary William Lynn.

While funding is the most immediate obstacle, it’s actually deep-rooted suspicion, fear and disappointment from both sides of the aisle that have derailed the president’s plans.

Charlie Savage today reports on the logistical obstacles to shifting Gitmo detainees to the Thomson Correctional Center: the 8 to 10 months it will take to install new perimeter fencing, security towers and cameras, and the problem of how the administration can come up with the $150 million needed to purchase the facility, in light of the legislative obstacles to appropriating money for it anytime in the next year.

But political obstacles underlie the logistics, and they’re coming not just from Republicans like Rep. John Boehner, who last week vowed not to support any appropriations for facilities housing Gitmo prisoners to the United States. Opposition is also coming from Democrats like Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California and Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia.

The Obama administration should not be surprised. After all, as my colleague Spencer Ackerman points out, if it were just bringing Guantanamo detainees to the United States for trial, it wouldn’t have this problem. But once the president announced that the Thomson facility might also be used to continue to hold terror suspects indefinitely without charge or trial, what’s the Democrats’ incentive for supporting it? Isn’t that just moving the liability of Guantanamo, which the administration and its supporters have long said acts as a recruiting tool for terrorists, to U.S. soil? It’s hard to see why any lawmakers from either party want to move that much-hated site to the continental United States, where their constituents already fear another terrorist attack.

As Sanchez said to Savage: “Particularly making something on U.S. soil an attraction for Al Qaeda and terrorists to go after — inciting them to attack something on U.S. soil — that’s a problem, and we need to think it through.”

Sure, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and some other Illinois lawmakers support the move in large part because it would create jobs for some of their constituents. But while a nice plus for them, that’s not exactly the best argument for a major change in national security policy.

Once again, the Obama administration has managed to alienate both parties rather than unite them behind a common cause. Let’s hope the new year brings a new strategy.

In the meantime, Boehner and his colleagues are likely to win the day. As he put it at a press conference last Thursday: “There are at least two pieces of legislation that are going to have to go through this Congress before those prisoners can come here. And I wouldn’t want to bet on when those two pieces of legislation will pass, if ever.”