Thursday, May 23, 2013

Demand For SmithBucklin’s Financial Management Outsourcing Services on the Rise in 2013

As associations continue to cope with the realities of a recovering economy and tighter budgets, SmithBucklin has seen an uptick in the number of organizations inquiring about financial management and accounting outsourcing services. In addition, three standalone organizations have recently selected SmithBucklin to manage their financial management operations.

“Financial health is central to the success and growth of an organization and its ability to serve its members,” said Brian Teague, senior director of Financial Management & Accounting Services. “Leading organizations recognize the benefits of outsourcing financial management operations to SmithBucklin, gaining access to our world-class team of financial specialists while deploying cost savings back into programs and member services.”

The following organizations have recently selected SmithBucklin for financial management and accounting services:

Local Search Association (LSA) is the largest trade organization of print, digital, mobile and social media that help local businesses get found and selected by ready-to-buy consumers. Association members include U.S. and international directory publishers, search engine marketers, online listings and review sites, digital advertising agencies and mobile search providers.

National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) was founded in 1936 and is the national association representing the $42 billion U.S. vending and refreshment services industry. With more than 1,800 member companies – including many of the world’s most recognized brands – NAMA provides advocacy, education and research for its membership.

The Association of Waldorf Schools North America (AWSNA) is an organization dedicated to providing leadership to Waldorf Schools in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. AWSNA serves 144 members schools and 15 teacher training institutes by facilitating resources, networks and research.

“We made the decision to partner with SmithBucklin after a very deliberate and fact-based market assessment,” said Negley Norton, president of LSA. “The transition from our existing resources to SmithBucklin has been seamless and they have already found ways to add value to our business. I am very happy with our decision.”

“We are thrilled to provide standalone organizations like LSA, NAMA and AWSNA with high-impact, specialized outsourcing services,” said Teague. “SmithBucklin offers cost-effective, result-oriented and innovative financial management solutions customized for each client organization we serve.”

SmithBucklin also provides an array of other specialized outsourcing services, including event, trade show and convention management; advertising, exhibit and sponsorship sales; member retention, acquisition and engagement; online community building and social media; public relations; editorial and publishing; accreditation and certification program management and development; speaker programming; government relations/advocacy; product and service innovation; and a wide range of consulting services. 

Monday, May 13, 2013

Lone Ranger Syndrome

So, I forgot to post this article a couple of weeks ago. On the other hand the day after Mother’s Day is perfect for a column that talks about the plight of the suburban male. Okay “plight” might not be the right word but I have a theory that men are lousy at maintaing friendships and are the poorer and lonelier for it.

Theology on Tap

Men are lonely creatures. At least suburban men who work, commute, and have families. No self-respecting man would articulate this publicly since it sounds either whiny or weak but it’s true. We used to pride ourselves on our close friendships be it the “glory days” of high school or the keg-stand fraternity days of yore.

But that was before the big “R” of responsibility took over our lives. Work, marriage, children, pets, the yard. They’re all wonderful things — mostly. Over time, almost imperceptibly, however, they crowd out our male friendships and suddenly many of us find ourselves left with a bunch of acquaintances but little depth in our relationships.

From the male perspective, women just seem to be better at nurturing adult friendships. They meet friends for coffee, they volunteer together, they have work friends, they join book groups (or as I like to call them, wine drinking parties). My own wife certainly checks all these boxes and she’s happier for it.

Yes, this is a gross generalization but there does seem to be some truth here. A lot of men simply don’t have close friendships. Sure, we have buddies from our college days with whom we share fond memories, some printable, some not. But they generally live all over the country and, while there might be an annual golf outing or fishing trip, that’s hardly sustainable for the other 362 days of the year.

We nod to people on the commuter train and we’re on a first name basis with Jeff from Accounting. But the guard’s always up, the protective emotional armor is always donned. We work hard not to show weakness or vulnerability which is why we wear power suits and deflect intimacy with a quip or by sticking to safe topics like sports or carburetors.

But what about our humanity? Where do men go to talk about the things at the depths of our souls? Events like the bombing at the Boston Marathon bring our vulnerability to the fore and yet we have few outlets to process our emotions. So they get buried and fester until our hearts become fossilized or unhealthy behaviors emerge.

At my parish on the South Shore of Boston, we’re trying to remedy this by introducing a men’s group. Now, this won’t be your typical church men’s group where a bunch of guys get together in the nether regions of the church to gorge themselves on pancakes, give each other hugs, and tell themselves that Jesus was really a man’s man — someone to shoot pool with or hang out in the bleachers at Fenway.

We’re calling this venture Theology on Tap. We won’t meet at church but in the upstairs room at the Liberty Grille. We’ll grab a pint, listen to one another’s stories, and talk about a topic of interest. God’s just as present when a bunch of people gather in his name at a bar as at church on a Sunday morning (just don’t tell anyone).

This won’t solve all the problems of the world but hopefully it will chip away at the hardness of our hearts that has built up through the years. Hopefully, over time, it will provide an outlet for friendship and some conversations that get below the surface of everyday life. I encourage all of my fellow men to be intentional about seeking friendships that move beyond safe topics. You may feel vulnerable at first but it sure beats the usual hunting and gathering.

Monday, April 29, 2013

World of Golf New Malden appoints Westgate Communications

World of Golf New Malden has appointed Westgate Communications to undertake a PR launch and profile-raising programme following its recent re-build.

World of Golf New Malden is a golf range in the South East which has 60 revamped and heated bays and innovative target greens. The PR programme will target a wide-range of trade, consumer and regional media, both on and offline.

Helen Westgate, director and founder of Westgate Communications said: “World of Golf New Malden has given us a really great brief to raise its media profile and we’re really thrilled to be working on this brief which will also promote golf as one of the most popular sports in the UK.”

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Obama Launches BRAIN Initiative to Map the Human Brain

Go, Big Science! On Tuesday the president unveiled his BRAIN initiative, aimed at unlocking the mysteries of the human brain. Eliza Shapiro reports on the project’s potential ethical implications.

We may not be colonizing Mars or putting another man on the moon, but the Obama administration took its first step toward Big Science innovation on Tuesday when it unveiled the Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, along with a $100 million kick-start.

The BRAIN initiative’s goal is just as lofty as space travel: understanding and mapping the human brain.

“As humans, we can identify galaxies light years away,” Obama said at a press conference on Tuesday. “We can study particles smaller than an atom. But we still haven’t unlocked the mystery of the three pounds of matter that sits between our ears.”

The scientific community has largely responded to the project with delight.

“I think this is a fantastic, historic day,” said Eric Kandel, a Nobel Prize–winning neuropsychiatrist at Columbia University.

Kandel and his peers were skeptical when they first heard about the project, worried that funding for small projects would be diverted to the federal program and that the project lacked structure, he said. But now he feels the project is in “excellent hands,” he added.

He also emphasized the potential the BRAIN initiative has globally. “Unlike going to the moon, this is an international enterprise,” he said. “If you cure Parkinson’s in New York City, you cure it all over the world.”

While the initiative has no specific set of goals or endpoint yet, a blueprint for the project was laid out in a recent article in Neuron, a neuroscience journal. It called for new technologies for 3-D brain imaging, novel ways of diagnosing and assessing neurological illnesses, particularly Alzheimer’s disease, and therapies for schizophrenia and autism.

The Obama administration is partnering on the initiative with the National Institutes of Health, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Defense Department's research arm), and the National Science Foundation, as well as four private research institutes: the Allen Institute for Brain Science, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Kavli Foundation, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

But why focus on the brain now, with immigration reform, gun control, and the sequester to worry about?

Dr. Clay Reid, a senior investigator at the Allen Institute and a Harvard Medical School professor, says it’s simply an “unprecedented time for neuroscience.”

“It’s all happening at once, and for a good reason,” he said. “There are new electrical, optical, and genetic techniques, and the world is being energized by these capabilities. The ability to look into a living brain and literally see the activity of 1,000 different neurons is a dream come true for people who have been in the business for a while.”

While Obama’s announcement was met mostly with praise, some are questioning the ethical implications of new neuroimaging technology, despite Obama’s pledge that his bioethics team will supervise all research.

“The Brain Activity Map Project [BRAIN’s unofficial name] wants to understand how our brains do what it is that they do,” Luke Dittrich wrote in a recent issue of Esquire, “but it just so happens that the technology the project will develop to gain this understanding could also be used to make our brains do whatever they want. Wirelessly. From a distance.”

Dittrich argued that the human brain is too complicated to be studied thoroughly with preexisting technologies. He pointed to sections of the Neuron article that indicate “it will ultimately become feasible to deploy small wireless microcircuits, untethered in living brains, for direct monitoring of neuronal activity.”

“The truth is, most major scientific breakthroughs,” Dittrich wrote, “like the human minds that give birth to them, have light and dark sides. And some of those dark sides are darker than others.”

There are a wealth of potential ethical issues involved in how people access and alter their own brains, said Dr. Nita Farahany, a bioethicist at Duke University and a member of Obama’s Commission on Bioethical Issues.

The commission will focus on the governmental and military uses of possible imaging technology, she said, and called for an “ongoing ethical component” to the BRAIN initiative, which may span decades.

Comparisons with that other Big Science project—the Human Genome Project, launched in 1984—intended to clarify the scope of the BRAIN initiative are misleading, experts say.

The cost of the Human Genome Project, $3.8 billion, far exceeded the initial round of funding for the BRAIN initiative. And Kandel said the goal of the Genome Project, to map all genes in human DNA, was much clearer than BRAIN.

“We knew the endpoint,” Kandel said. “But here, we don’t know what the goal is. What does it mean to understand the human mind? When will we be satisfied? This is much, much more ambitious.”

And that’s a good thing, he said.

“This is a bold, creative, wonderful experiment.”

Monday, March 18, 2013

Obama to nominate Tom Perez as next Labor Secretary

President Barack Obama on Monday will nominate Tom Perez, head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, as his next labor secretary, a White House official said.

Perez, a Harvard-educated civil rights attorney whose nomination was championed by Hispanic groups, would replace Hilda Solis, who resigned in January.

Obama has been criticized for a lack of diversity in his Cabinet choices so far, particularly by Latinos, who are an influential voting bloc and have pushed for more representation in government.

If confirmed by the Senate, Perez, the son of immigrants from the Dominican Republican, will take on a prominent role in the Cabinet as Obama seeks to raise the minimum wage and advance immigration reform, two key pledges he made at the beginning of his second term.
Advertise | AdChoices

The White House described Perez as a pragmatist who led the Justice Department in settling three major cases on behalf of families targeted by unfair mortgage lending practices, and who stepped up enforcement of human trafficking laws.

But Perez is expected to face tough scrutiny from Republicans. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has already voiced concerns.

An internal government investigation released last week found the Justice Department office that enforces voting laws - part of the civil rights division overseen by Perez - has been beset by political infighting.

The report, by the Justice Department's Inspector General, was critical of Perez for what it called an incomplete statement he gave in 2010 about a case of alleged voter intimidation.

Perez began his career as a civil rights prosecutor at the Justice Department, and later was head of the civil rights office at the Department of Health and Human Services.

He spent time working as a special counsel to the late Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy on civil rights issues.

Perez served in local government in the Washington suburb of Montgomery County, Maryland. Later, he was labor secretary in Maryland's state government, where he worked on reforms for state lending and foreclosure rules.

His wife, Ann Marie Staudenmaier, is a lawyer with the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Fort Hood heroine says victims 'betrayed' by Obama

The heroine police sergeant who helped stop the Fort Hood killing spree and went on to sit with the First Lady at President Obama’s State of the Union speech three years ago has been laid off and says she and other victims of the shootings have been “betrayed” by the commander-in-chief.

"Betrayed is a good word," former Sgt. Kimberly Munley told ABC News in an interview set to air tonight. "Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of. In fact, they've been neglected."

Maj. Nidal Hasan is accused of the November 2009 spree, which left 13 dead and 32 shot at the military base in Texas. Munley was shot three times as she and her partner confronted Hasan. Prosecutors say Hasan was a disgruntled Army psychiatrist and Muslim who had become radicalized through communications with Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.

Hasan is awaiting a military trial on murder charges.

Munley said she has been laid off from her position on Fort Hood’s civilian police force.

The White House and Pentagon have refused to characterize the attack as terrorism, instead terming it “workplace violence.” The victims have been denied Purple Hearts and are suing the military because they claim the "workplace violence" designation gives them diminished access to medical care and financial benefits normally available to those whose wounds are designated as "combat related."

An Army spokesman told ABC none of the military victims have been neglected and that it has no oversight of Veterans Administration policies.

Munley told the network the White House used her for political advantage by having her sit next to Michelle Obama during the president's 2010 State of the Union address.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Obama’s thirst for taxes

In his Super Bowl day interview on CBS, President Obama said “I don’t think the issue right now is raising rates. There is no doubt we need additional revenue, coupled with smart spending reductions in order to bring down our deficit. And we can do it in a gradual way so that it doesn’t have a huge impact.” Let us unpack that.

To begin with, it is good to know that he is done raising rates, pleasant confirmation that the fiscal deal did in fact limit the rate hikes under his tenure to the narrowest sliver possible. (Well, that is after House Republicans botched things up by voting no on Plan B, which would have put the cutoff at $1 million.)

Contra Obama, “There is no doubt” that we don’t need more revenue but that Obama wants more revenue precisely so he can minimize spending cuts. That way he won’t make a “huge impact” on the size of government. This is a beautifully clear explanation as to why Republicans need to hold the line on taxes. If they don’t, Obama will keep on spending with abandon.

Obama’s notion that we can raise revenue by closing off deductions, credits and exemptions is laughable. It was the White House that stuffed a bunch of tax “expenditures” into the fiscal cliff deal.

Obama wants to get revenue and close what he calls loopholes. (Mitt Romney and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) have been saying for years there is money in those loopholes!) Republicans want tax reform which lowers rates … and wouldn’t you know, takes away deductions, credits and exemptions. Republican rightly say such a tax reform, as it did in 1986, will spur growth and economic efficiency. So Mr. President, why not support tax reform? Hmmm…

The real reason the obvious deal (lower rates, broader base, more revenue) is unacceptable to Obama is that he is enthralled with the symbolism of imposing high rates on the rich. Tell him they will pay even more under a Simpson-Bowles type tax reform and he’ll scoff. His liberal base wants that big fat marginal rate as a symbol of their class warfare victory.

House Republicans should do two things. First, pass a bill removing Obama’s fiscal cliff tax giveaways. Yes, it would technically be a tax hike but the symbolism is priceless and Republicans should be foursquare against corporate welfare and cronyism. Second, as part of its budget, the House Republicans should put forth in some detail a tax reform plan that flattens rates and does away with exemptions, credits and deductions for the rich. Put that out with a revenue number it will generate (coming from growth) and a breakdown showing how much of the tax burden will be borne by the “rich,” which is now thanks to Obama defined as those making $450,000 and above. And that is it. That is the revenue side. Period. Then House Republicans can turn to entitlement reform.

Obama doesn’t like it? Well, let the Senate pass its own version, send it to conference and then start appropriating. Obama doesn’t get to veto budgets, after all. And if he won’t sign off on real tax reform or the Senate can’t get its act together? I guess we could operate on continuing resolutions until we get a president who will take yes for an answer.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Ryan Says Obama Ignores Fiscal Woes to Fight Republicans

Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the former vice-presidential candidate, said on Sunday that President Obama was ignoring the nation’s problems and was choosing instead to focus on the “political conquest” of the Republican Party.

“When you saw his speech, say, at the inauguration, it leads us to conclude that he’s not looking to moderate, that he’s not looking to move to the middle,” Mr. Ryan said in an interview on the NBC News program “Meet the Press.” “He’s looking to go farther to the left, and he wants to fight us every step of the way politically.”

In his first major interview since the November election, Mr. Ryan also warned that more partisan gridlock was in store as lawmakers prepared to renew the debate over balancing the budget and raising the country’s debt limit. His remarks echoed those of other Republican leaders, including Speaker John A. Boehner, who said last week that Mr. Obama was seeking to “annihilate” the Republican Party.

Republicans were put on the defensive after Mr. Obama’s inauguration speech, in which he laid out a starkly liberal vision for his second term, declaring his support for same-sex marriage, gun restrictions and changes in immigration laws.

With his stature increased within the party, Mr. Ryan, who is the chairman of the House Budget Committee, will increasingly be expected to set the tone for Republicans, particularly on fiscal issues.

In a rebuke to the president on Sunday, Mr. Ryan said that if Hillary Rodham Clinton had beaten Mr. Obama in the Democratic primaries in 2008 and had gone on to win the presidency, “we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now.”

“I don’t think that the president thinks that we actually have a fiscal crisis,” he said. “He’s been reportedly saying to our leaders that we don’t have a spending problem, we have a health care problem. That just leads me to conclude that he actually thinks we just need more government-run health care.”

But Mr. Ryan acknowledged that the Republican Party needed to reach out to more Americans, and he signaled a willingness to compromise on some issues.

“We obviously have to expand our appeal,” he said. “We have to show how our ideas are better at fighting poverty, how our ideas are better at solving health care, how our ideas are better at solving the problems that arise in people’s daily lives.”

On immigration, he said he was hopeful that legislation could be passed this year, if Mr. Obama did not “play politics.” 

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Obama expected to nominate chief of staff Lew for Treasury secretary

White House chief of staff Jack Lew is expected to be nominated to replace Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, likely by the end of this week, two sources close to the process told Fox News.

"It is all but a done deal," one of the sources said, adding that it would take something "extraordinary" to pop up in the next couple of days to derail that decision.

Geithner has said for well over a year that he would like to leave the administration and spend more time with his family after a grueling time playing key roles throughout the economic and fiscal unease of recent years. His tenure at the Treasury followed previous service as head of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve.

Lew has become an Obama favorite through several top posts because of his sharp knowledge of the federal budget and no-drama style.

Picking Lew is a sign the president knows his next Treasury secretary will be smack in the middle of a series of budget battles, starting with the debt ceiling fight that will be brewing during the expected confirmation process.

A red flag is that during the last debt ceiling fight, in the summer of 2011, Lew served as White House budget director and clashed repeatedly with Republicans, who may want to get a pound of flesh in confirmation hearings.

In fact, advisers to the president say Lew deliberately kept a low profile during the recent fiscal cliff talks so as not to enflame those tensions on the eve of the expected announcement of his nomination for Treasury.

Afghan peace efforts show flickers of life

President Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai will discuss matters of war, including future U.S. troop levels and Afghanistan's army, when they meet on Friday, but matters of peace may be the most delicate item on their long agenda.

After nearly 10 months in limbo, tentative reconciliation efforts involving Taliban insurgents, the Karzai government and other major Afghan factions have shown new signs of life, resurrecting tantalizing hopes for a negotiated end to decades of war.

Pakistan, which U.S. and Afghan officials have long accused of backing the insurgents and meddling in Afghanistan, has recently signaled an apparent policy shift toward promoting its neighbor's stability as most U.S. combat troops prepare to depart, top Pakistani and Afghan officials said.

In another potentially significant development, Taliban representatives met outside Paris last month with members of the Afghan High Peace Council - although not directly with members of the Karzai government, which they have long shunned.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the developments are promising - but that major challenges remain to opening negotiations, let alone reaching an agreement on the war-ravaged country's political future.

Hopes for Afghan peace talks have been raised before, only to be dashed. Last March, the Taliban suspended months of quiet discussions with Washington aimed at getting the insurgents and the Karzai government to the peace table.

Obama is expected to press the Afghan president to bless the formal opening of a Taliban political office in the Gulf state of Qatar as a way to jump-start inter-Afghan talks.

Karzai has been lukewarm to the idea, apparently fearing his government would be sidelined in any negotiations.


Karzai's meeting with Obama, at the end of a three-day visit to Washington, is shaping up to be one of the most critical encounters between the two leaders, as the White House weighs how rapidly to remove most of the roughly 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and how large a residual force to leave after 2014.

Obama, about to begin his second term in office, appears determined to wrap up U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan. On Monday, he announced as his nominee for Pentagon chief former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who appears likely to favor a sizeable U.S. troop drawdown.

Other issues on the agenda have plenty of potential for causing friction: the future size and focus of the Afghan military; a festering dispute over control of the country's largest detention center; and the future of international aid after 2014.

Karzai's trip "is one of the most important ones because the discussions we are going to have with our counterparts will define the relations between (the) United States and Afghanistan," Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmay Rassoul told the lower house of parliament this month.

No final announcement on post-2014 U.S. troop levels is expected during Karzai's visit, and the issue is further complicated by Washington's insistence on legal immunity for American troops that remain.

General John Allen, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, recommended keeping between roughly 6,000 and 15,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, but the White House is considering possibly leaving as few as 3,000 troops.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House had asked for options to be developed for keeping between 3,000 and 9,000 troops in the country.


Last year, the Obama administration hoped to kick-start peace talks with a deal that would have seen Washington transfer five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay prison. In return, the Taliban would renounce international terrorism and state a willingness to enter talks with Karzai's representatives.

That deal never came off, and the question now is whether it, or an alternative peace process, can get under way as the U.S. military presence rapidly winds down.

Looking at developments in the last few months, "you could see that there are things happening," said one U.S. official, who was not authorized to speak for the record.

At the end of 2012, Pakistan released four Afghan Taliban prisoners who were close to the movement's reclusive leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar. It appeared to be a step toward meeting Afghanistan's long-standing insistence that Islamabad free those who could help promote reconciliation. A senior Afghan official welcomed the release.

A member of Pakistan's parliament closely involved in Afghan policy-making said there are signs of a shift in the thinking of Pakistan's powerful military. Some in the military, which has long regarded Afghanistan as a battleground in its existential conflict with rival India, are now saying that the graver threat comes from Pakistan's own militants.

"Yes, there is skepticism. The hawks are there. But the fact is that previously there were absolutely no voices in the army with this kind of positive thinking," the parliamentarian said.

"Pakistan has also realized that there won't be a complete withdrawal of the U.S. from Afghanistan," the lawmaker said. "The security establishment realizes it has to compromise somewhere. Hence the Taliban releases. ... Hence the statements from even the most skeptical Afghan officials that there is a change in Pakistani thinking."

Ghairat Baheer, who represented the Hezb-e-Islami faction at last month's peace talks in the Paris suburb of Chantilly, rejected a continued U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, but praised the Pakistan prisoner release as a sign of its good intentions.


After more than a year of frustration, Obama administration officials are skeptical about luring the Taliban to peace talks, citing what appears to be a deep fissure within the movement between moderates who favor entering the political process and hard-liners committed to ousting both NATO troops and Karzai.

The Taliban's lead negotiator, Tayeb Agha, whom the Obama administration regards as a reliable interlocutor, offered to resign last month in apparent frustration, the Daily Beast website reported.

Taliban envoys have yet to meet officially with Karzai's government, and the insurgents demand a rewriting of the Afghan constitution.

"I don't think anyone knows where (reconciliation) stands. And I mean that because there are a lot of reconciliation talks and a lot of games that are being played in a lot of places," said Fred Kagan, a military analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

"The likelihood of getting an acceptable deal that actually secures our interests is vanishingly small," he said. "But the probability that you could get the deal and have it implemented in time to make this drawdown timeline make sense is nonsense."

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Obama might echo Pelosi's call for House vote on Senate bill

Congressional Democrats are working closely with the White House to corner House Republicans into an up-or-down vote on the Senate-passed "fiscal cliff" bill, according to a Democratic source.

If House Republicans seek to amend the Senate measure, Democrats on Capitol Hill would like to see President Obama call for a roll call vote on the bill that passed 89-8. Obama has endorsed that measure.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) demanded such a House vote on Tuesday, but it remains unclear if GOP leaders will allow it.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told The Hill that few if any House Republicans would back the Senate legislation.

House Republicans are huddling Tuesday evening to discuss their next step on the fiscal cliff.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has repeatedly called on Obama to send a fiscal cliff plan to Congress that can pass the House and the Senate.