RIGHT ON!!!! Let this be an actual position by the Democrats and not posturing.....the repiglican,,s and tea-baggers demands to protect the wealthy and the corporate welfare system are immoral, rep eric cantor r VA would have been a good capo for the nazis, he would have gladly helped them fill their transports to the death camps, would have rounded up their possessions, their property, and all his fellow Jews and turned them over to the nazis just to save his own skin....just like he and sen joe lieberman I CT are doing now, They will find out their lust for wealth and power will be their downfall, and the rich and powerful they serve will toss them aside like filthy rags. From HuffPost...
WASHINGTON -- The Democratic House leader in charge of counting votes on legislation to raise the nation's debt ceiling warned on Monday that he couldn't guarantee a single vote from his party if revenues weren't part of the deal. His counterpart on the Republican side echoed that prediction if revenues were part of the deal.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told attendees at a White House gathering that a Republican-pushed plan to slash more than $1.5 trillion in federal spending -- along with reforms to the entitlement program -- would likely have to pass with only GOP support.
"In the room, the Democrats made clear they couldn't get Democratic votes for such a cut-only package," said a Democratic official with knowledge of the exchange. "And that is relevant because everyone knows that Cantor and Boehner will bleed a significant number of their caucus before we even start the process. So anything that passes requires significant Democratic votes and the thing they laid out that didn't have revenues, that was all cuts, didn't meet the test... Democrats made clear there was no Democratic support for it."
A spokesman for Hoyer confirmed that the Maryland Democrat said he could guarantee "no Democratic votes on a package without revenues."
It was a rare show of firmness from a Democratic caucus that, at one point, insisted that a debt-ceiling bill should be clean of all legislative add-ons. But the show didn't go unmatched. Before Monday's meeting, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor tweeted that "there is no way the House will support a tax increase" as part of the debt reduction deal. At the meeting itself, he offered a deal that would cut $2 trillion over 10 years -- more than half of which would come from discretionary spending; $200 billion in mandatory spending and hundreds of billions from entitlement programs. Taxes remained untouched.
And so it went for a little over an hour-and-a-half, as lawmakers met for the second time in as many days without inching any closer to an agreement. A GOP aide familiar with negotiations said most of Monday's meeting centered on picking up the discussions left over from Vice President Joseph Biden's now-defunct bipartisan deficit group -- though Obama did press for lawmakers to consider a bigger deal. When the topic turned to specifics, the exchanges grew more testy, including what one GOP aide called a "notable exchange" between Obama and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
"Entitlement cuts aren't easy for us to vote for either," Boehner told Obama, according to the aide. "Our guys aren't cheerleading about cutting entitlements."
Obama responded, "Your guys already voted for them" -- referring to House Republicans passing a budget package that revamps Medicare.
"Excuse us for trying to lead," responded Boehner, at which point the president moved onto a different topic, the aide said.
A top Democratic official briefed on the exchange acknowledged that there was, indeed, "more real disagreement coming out" on Monday than during the day prior. In addition to the Boehner-Obama dustup, Cantor proposed $350 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts that would, among other things, include $53 billion from "Medigap" coverage, $50 billion in increased co-payments for nursing home and homecare, $38 billion from new means testing and $16 billion in higher co-pays for lab tests. Rep. Cantor's spokeswoman Laena Fallon told HuffPost the suggestion was nothing more than what lawmakers had discussed during earlier Biden meetings, but Democrats said he was filling in the blanks. The president, regardless, dismissed the ideas as "disproportionate."
"The president stressed... [that] he did not understand how he could go to the American people consistent with his values and say it was okay to have proposals that would ask moderate-income seniors to be bearing $500 or more of additional costs when you couldn't, at the same time, ask that even the most well off Americans bear an extra five dollars in contribution to getting the deficit down," said a Democratic official briefed on the exchange.
"'No revenues' is not a serious position," said another Democratic official. "There is not a person in town not named [anti-tax zealot] Grover Norquist who will tell you that is a serious position."
How lawmakers will get over this philosophical gap is not readily apparent. The president has called them all back for a meeting on Tuesday at 3:45 p.m. The directives, however, were almost identical to what the White House had issued the night before.
"There was not movement [today]," said one Democratic official close to the talks. "But then again, the president, what he was really asking of people in the room... was to make clear we are going to come back again tomorrow and people should talk to their caucuses and among themselves about what the path to a meaningful deficit reduction plan was that can pass both houses."
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label Rep Steny Hoyer D MD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rep Steny Hoyer D MD. Show all posts
11 July 2011
15 April 2011
House Democrats Punk Republicans On Budget Vote (VIDEO) 15APR11
FOR political geeks like me this is great theater! Well played House Democrats! After all, turnabout is fair play, right repiglicans and tea-baggers???? From HuffPost....
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats showed Friday that they, too, have it in them to pull the kinds of parliamentary tricks on the House floor that Republicans mastered when they were the minority.
During a series of votes on alternative budget proposals, Democrats made a play to sucker GOP lawmakers into passing a proposal from the conservative Republican Study Committee that calls for dramatic cuts that even some GOP Members would find too drastic.
At one point during the vote, a majority of Republicans were on record in favor of the RSC budget. Democrats then began casting votes as “present,” rather than “no,” as they would be expected to do. Without the Democratic "no" votes, the amendment would be adopted and would supersede Budget ranking member Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) ballyhooed budget.
After time for the vote expired, Republicans held it open so that enough of them could switch their votes to prevent the RSC budget from passing.
In the end, only 119 of the 176 RSC Members voted for their own budget proposal, authored by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.). Because so many Democrats voted "present," meanwhile, the final tally was 136-119 against – a bizarre total in a chamber with 435 members. Had nine Republicans not switched sides, the measure would've passed. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) switched her vote from "aye" to "no" at the last minute, as did Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Rules Committee.
A total of 172 Democrats ended up voting "present" instead of "no."
Amid the voting chaos, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) tweeted, “Dems voting present on RSC budget to highlight GOP divisions, plans to end Medicare - which bdgt does GOP support?”
The Republican Whip’s office didn’t see the move coming. A spokeswoman for Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) didn’t know what was happening when asked by a HuffPost reporter.
The RSC budget, like Ryan’s, cuts taxes for the wealthy. But it goes even further on cuts to discretionary and mandatory spending, balancing the budget by 2020. The Medicare changes proposed in the RSC budget are similar to Ryan's plan, but the RSC budget would allow seniors to opt into the system after 2017 -- if any are interested in doing so. Medicaid, meanwhile, would be transformed into a block-grant program for states, but it would receive less funding than under the Ryan plan.
Watch video of the chaos on the house floor:
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats showed Friday that they, too, have it in them to pull the kinds of parliamentary tricks on the House floor that Republicans mastered when they were the minority.
During a series of votes on alternative budget proposals, Democrats made a play to sucker GOP lawmakers into passing a proposal from the conservative Republican Study Committee that calls for dramatic cuts that even some GOP Members would find too drastic.
At one point during the vote, a majority of Republicans were on record in favor of the RSC budget. Democrats then began casting votes as “present,” rather than “no,” as they would be expected to do. Without the Democratic "no" votes, the amendment would be adopted and would supersede Budget ranking member Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) ballyhooed budget.
After time for the vote expired, Republicans held it open so that enough of them could switch their votes to prevent the RSC budget from passing.
In the end, only 119 of the 176 RSC Members voted for their own budget proposal, authored by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.). Because so many Democrats voted "present," meanwhile, the final tally was 136-119 against – a bizarre total in a chamber with 435 members. Had nine Republicans not switched sides, the measure would've passed. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) switched her vote from "aye" to "no" at the last minute, as did Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Rules Committee.
A total of 172 Democrats ended up voting "present" instead of "no."
Amid the voting chaos, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) tweeted, “Dems voting present on RSC budget to highlight GOP divisions, plans to end Medicare - which bdgt does GOP support?”
The Republican Whip’s office didn’t see the move coming. A spokeswoman for Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) didn’t know what was happening when asked by a HuffPost reporter.
The RSC budget, like Ryan’s, cuts taxes for the wealthy. But it goes even further on cuts to discretionary and mandatory spending, balancing the budget by 2020. The Medicare changes proposed in the RSC budget are similar to Ryan's plan, but the RSC budget would allow seniors to opt into the system after 2017 -- if any are interested in doing so. Medicaid, meanwhile, would be transformed into a block-grant program for states, but it would receive less funding than under the Ryan plan.
Watch video of the chaos on the house floor:
11 August 2010
FIGHT PLANS TO SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY AND RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGE! 8AUG10 from MOVEON.ORG & Boehner, Pence: Raising Social Security Retirement Age An Option 8AUG10
|
You can't make this stuff up. The economy is in shambles, unemployment is at record levels and home foreclosures are soaring. Congress can't get it together to act on these issues. But there's growing momentum in Washington to—wait for it—slash Social Security?
Believe it. Republicans are campaigning on benefit cuts. Conservative Democrats like Steny Hoyer are echoing their talking points.1
Everyone's counting on the Deficit Commission to do the dirty work. The commission is stacked with conservatives who've embraced cutting Social Security, and both houses of congress promised to fast-track a vote on its recommendations.2 3 That means that even though no jobs bill can pass congress right now, Social Security cuts might.
To stop the cuts, we need to send a crystal-clear message to members of Congress: Americans reject benefit cuts, and we expect them to do the same. Can you sign our promise to oppose cuts to Social Security? We'll use your signature to pressure them to sign a pledge protecting Social Security while they're home in Virginia for recess. But we need a strong response to make our point. Click below to add your name:
The petition says: "I oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age." We're going to be running a hard-hitting campaign on this issue from now straight through the election. After you sign, we'll give you more opportunities to weigh in with your member of Congress, invite you to local events in your community, and keep you posted on our progress and key media reports on our campaign. Together with our allies, we'll make sure Congress knows that cutting Social Security is unacceptable.
The people who want to cut it are spreading lots of myths meant to make you think there is a looming crisis. Well, it's not true—there is no Social Security crisis. The program's trust fund will have a 4.3 trillion dollar surplus by 2023, and can pay all of its obligations for decades to come.4 Also, legally it can't contribute to the deficit—it only ever gives out benefits it can pay for.
Strengthening Social Security is easy—making the rich pay their fair share by lifting the cap on contributions by the wealthy would allow Social Security to pay all of its obligations indefinitely.5
Fear-mongering over Social Security is led by Pete Peterson, a hedge fund manager spending $1 billion of his own money in a campaign to slash benefits.6 Conservatives in congress have been too happy to join him—Minority Leader John Boehner said he would cut benefits to pay for two unfunded wars,7 and the GOP's long term budget plan would fully privatize the program.8
Social Security belongs to us, the people who pay into it every day of our working lives, and it shouldn't be cut to pay off a deficit it didn't create. If we show congress that voters won't stand for cuts to our benefits, we can make sure cuts stay off the table and instead focus on real solutions. Can you sign our promise to oppose cuts and then ask your representatives to sign on as well?
Thanks for all you do.
–Daniel, Nita, Duncan, Marika, and the rest of the teamSources:
1. "John Boehner: Raise Social Security Retirement Age to 70," CBS News, June 29, 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-
2. "Reid Appoints Durbin, Baucus, Conrad To Presidential Commission That Will Help Rein In Spending And Reduce The Deficit" Democrats.Senate.Gov, February 23, 2010
http://democrats.senate.gov/
http://democrats.senate.gov/
3. "What happened on the war supplemental," Congress Matters, July 3, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
4."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
5. "Social Security is sustainable," Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
6. "Spending Big to Stop Spending," BusinessWeek, July 1, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
7. "GOP shrugs over Boehner comment," Politico, June 29, 2010
http://www.politico.com/news/
http://www.politico.com/news/
8. "The Ryan Budget's Radical Priorities," Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, July 7, 2010
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.
Top Republican leaders in the House offered a fairly strong signal on Sunday that they would favor a down-the-road raising of the Social Security retirement age as part of an effort to revamp the entitlement program.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said it was time "for the American people to have an adult conversation about the problems that we face" with respect to Social Security's solvency.
"We also know these programs are unsustainable in their current form," said the Ohio Republican. Asked specifically if he supports raising the retirement age to, say, 70, Boehner replied: "There are a lot of options on how you solve these, but I don't want to put the cart before the horse."
This wasn't the first time Boehner had broached the idea of raising Social Security's retirement age. The Minority Leader offered the same suggestion in an interview in late June. Back then, Democrats jumped on the remark, arguing that it was (one) not based in a realistic assessment of Social Security's solvency and (two) insensitive to those people who worked all their lives with an eye towards having a financially-stable retirement. It would be far from surprising if the same arguments are made in the days ahead.
Indeed, a platform of raising of the retirement age presents tricky politics for Republicans. Later during the "Meet the Press" program, Boehner's deputy, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind), was asked if he supported the idea. The Indiana Republican stammered around for a bit, echoing the same talking point concerning the need for "an adult conversation about domestic spending and entitlements."
Pinned down by host David Gregory, he ultimately replied: "I am for reforming our public entitlements for Americans who are far away from retirement. We need to keep promises to seniors that have been made, make sure that people who are counting on Medicare, Social Security have the benefits that they have. But for younger Americans, absolutely yes, we ought to bring real reform for the sake of future generations of Americans to get spending under control."
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.
Boehner, Pence: Raising Social Security Retirement Age An Option
Top Republican leaders in the House offered a fairly strong signal on Sunday that they would favor a down-the-road raising of the Social Security retirement age as part of an effort to revamp the entitlement program.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said it was time "for the American people to have an adult conversation about the problems that we face" with respect to Social Security's solvency.
"We also know these programs are unsustainable in their current form," said the Ohio Republican. Asked specifically if he supports raising the retirement age to, say, 70, Boehner replied: "There are a lot of options on how you solve these, but I don't want to put the cart before the horse."
This wasn't the first time Boehner had broached the idea of raising Social Security's retirement age. The Minority Leader offered the same suggestion in an interview in late June. Back then, Democrats jumped on the remark, arguing that it was (one) not based in a realistic assessment of Social Security's solvency and (two) insensitive to those people who worked all their lives with an eye towards having a financially-stable retirement. It would be far from surprising if the same arguments are made in the days ahead.
Indeed, a platform of raising of the retirement age presents tricky politics for Republicans. Later during the "Meet the Press" program, Boehner's deputy, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind), was asked if he supported the idea. The Indiana Republican stammered around for a bit, echoing the same talking point concerning the need for "an adult conversation about domestic spending and entitlements."
Pinned down by host David Gregory, he ultimately replied: "I am for reforming our public entitlements for Americans who are far away from retirement. We need to keep promises to seniors that have been made, make sure that people who are counting on Medicare, Social Security have the benefits that they have. But for younger Americans, absolutely yes, we ought to bring real reform for the sake of future generations of Americans to get spending under control."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)