Pres. Obama: "Congress Doesn't Need A Balanced Budget Amendment To Do Its Job. The Constitution Tells Us To Do Our Job."
I Knew It!
Which Members Of Congress Are Constantly Bellowing About "Smaller Gov't" & "Cutting Spending", Yet Still Funneling Millions In Earmarks Back To Their Own Home Districts?
You Guessed It! The Tea Party Members! i.e., Michelle Bachmann's Base!
In Fact Many Of Those Earmarks Are Going To Bachmann's State: Minnesota.
Furthermore If GOP Leaders Like Bachmann Were REALLY Concerned With Reducing The Deficit Than Why Didn't Congress Introduce A "Balanced Budget Amendment" When G.W. Bush Was In Office?
Bush Cut Taxes For The Rich, Created 3 Wars (Including His "War On Terror"), Deregulated Banks & Allowed Them To Sell Subprime Mortgages, Established Medicare Advantage For Wealthy Seniors & Awarded His Political Donors W/ Billions In Gov't Contracts.
Yet Each Time He Asked To Raise The Debt Ceiling Limit, SHAZAAM! He Got It!
Get Out Of Here GOP! Major HYPOCRITES To The Highest Degree!!!
Freshman House Republicans who rode a wave of voter discontent into office last year vowed to stop out-of-control spending, but that has not stopped several of them from quietly trying to funnel millions of federal dollars into projects back home.
They have pushed for dozens of projects in their districts, including military programs opposed by the president, replenishing beach sand lost to erosion, a $700 million bridge in Minnesota and a harbor dredging project in Charleston, S.C. Some of their projects were once earmarks, political shorthand for pet projects penciled into spending bills, which Republicans banned when they took over the House.
An examination of spending bills, news releases and communications with federal agencies obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that nearly two dozen freshmen have sought money for projects that could ultimately cost billions of dollars, while calling for less spending and banning pork projects.
Politicians have long advocated for projects on behalf of individuals and businesses back home, even without earmarks. Several lawmakers said they were merely providing a constituent service. But since many of the freshman Republicans campaigned on a pledge to cut spending and to change Washington’s time-honored ways, their support of spending projects suggests that in many cases ideology can go only so far in serving the needs of people back home.
Lawmakers like Representative Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, who advocated for the harbor dredging project with other members of the South Carolina delegation, insist their requests are neither earmarks nor wasteful. “This was a merit-based project that was open and transparent,” said Mr. Scott, who helped secure $150,000 for the first phase of a harbor-deepening project in Charleston, his hometown. The project is expected eventually to cost as much as $300 million. Mr. Scott, a favorite of the Tea Party movement, said he is opposed to earmarks and that dredging the port was in the national interest because it would accommodate bigger cargo ships and help create trade opportunities and jobs.
The Obama administration did not agree and did not include the project in the Army Corps of Engineers budget. As a result Mr. Scott and Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, who tried to earmark financing for the project last year, threatened in April at a news conference in Charleston to tie up the government unless the project was approved. Mr. Graham also pledged to hold up President Obama’s nominees in the Senate. After the threat by Mr. Graham and lobbying by Mr. Scott and other members of South Carolina’s Congressional delegation, the corps agreed to pay for the dredging.
“Persistence pays off,” Mr. Scott said. “We knew dredging the Port of Charleston was a worthy project, and we were persistent in ensuring that the corps knew that, too.”
In some cases, freshman support for the financing of projects in their districts have put them in opposition to other members of the Republican Party who are calling for deep spending cuts and the elimination of hundreds of federal programs they consider wasteful.
Early this year, the Republican Study Committee, a conservative House caucus, opposed a program that replaces sand on the nation’s beaches as one of several wasteful programs, estimating that scrapping the program would save the government about $95 million.
”Beach erosion is a natural process, and spending in this area may not be effective,” the group said. “In addition, this spending is more properly the responsibility of states, localities and private landowners.”
But when the measure to kill the program came up for a vote last February, Representative Jon Runyan, a former professional football player and freshman Republican from New Jersey, opposed it, and it was overwhelmingly defeated. In his news release, Mr. Runyan, who had run a campaign on ending the “fiscal insanity” in Washington, boasted of his efforts in getting continued money for replenishing the sand on the beaches in his district.
Last year, the Democratic lawmaker whom Mr. Runyan defeated requested more than $20 million in earmarks to replace the sand on New Jersey’s beaches. On Tuesday, Mr. Runyan defended the program. “Beach replenishment projects are vital to protecting New Jersey’s 127 miles of coastline from violent storms,” he said in an e-mailed statement.
On the Minnesota-Wisconsin border, local officials and members of Congress have pushed for a new four-lane bridge over the St. Croix River that was co-sponsored by Representative Sean P. Duffy, a Wisconsin freshman Republican, and Representative Michele Bachmann, the three-term Minnesota Republican who is running for president.
Opponents labeled the bridge an earmark, but Mr. Duffy and Mrs. Bachmann said the bridge was critical to handle increased traffic that an 80-year-old bridge nearby can no longer handle alone. They defend the spending by arguing that it was not an earmark since there were no specific costs listed in the bill itself, nor is it a financing bill. The legislation calls only for a bridge to be built.
The National Park Service has opposed the project, saying it would violate the Wild and Scenic River Act by harming the river’s scenic and recreational qualities.
Last March, while the House was drafting the military authorization bill, 22 freshman Republicans wrote a letter to the House leadership requesting more military spending than President Obama had requested.
Many of the signees included members whose districts have a large military presence or big defense contractors like Representative Steven M. Palazzo, a Mississippi freshman. During his campaign, Mr. Palazzo told voters that he favored banning earmarks, saying it would “help restore the people’s faith in their government.”
But once in office, Mr. Palazzo voted with other Republicans to slash millions of dollars from the military bill, only to add an amendment later to restore the money. Mr. Palazzo’s amendment put back about $150 million for a combat ship that would be built at Ingalls Shipbuilding in his Pascagoula district. He also secured $10 million to buy land for training facilities for the Army National Guard, and $19.9 million for the ship’s preliminary design and feasibility studies. Several of these programs were earmarks of Mr. Palazzo’s Democratic predecessor.
“I am glad to be able to help ensure the long-term viability of our shipbuilding industry and the thousands of craftsmen that build the ships,” Mr. Palazzo said in a statement. Asked about the financing, Mr. Palazzo’s press secretary, Hunter Lipscomb, said the programs were not earmarks because the congressman did not request funds for any specific project, but merely to transfer funds to increase spending on the programs. “The way the authorized funding will be spent will be up to the Department of Defense,“ Mr. Lipscomb said.
A growing chorus of conservative criticism is prompting some House members to rethink the $850 billion package of tax cuts and extended jobless benefits that President Barack Obama negotiated with top Republicans in Congress.
The attacks are unlikely to derail the measure, which gets a final vote Wednesday in the Senate, to be followed by a debate and vote in the House. But they underscore the difficulty of building centrist coalitions after an election in which tea party conservatives ousted many Democrats and some veteran Republicans who were seen as too willing to compromise with opponents.
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and the Tea Party Patriots have denounced the tax plan, which previously was criticized mainly by liberals as a giveaway to the wealthy. The new reproach from conservatives is that the package would swell the federal debt while failing to make permanent the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 by then-President George W. Bush.
Congressional insiders still predict the tax plan will pass in some form before Jan. 1, when almost every American's income tax rates would go up if a new law isn't in place. But House passage this week seems a bit less certain than before, and Obama's supporters are watching anxiously to see how many opponents on the right will join those on the left.
"The longer we wait, the harder it's going to be," said Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who is leaning against the package. He said House leaders probably are close to assembling enough support to pass it, but many GOP lawmakers are hearing from constituents who follow commentators such as Limbaugh.
The radio talk show host says the package should cut taxes, not leave them at the Bush-era levels.
The group Tea Party Patriots also urges the tax package's defeat. The legislation was crafted in secret, the group's petition says, and it fails to kill the estate tax, a goal of many hard-right groups.
But other tea party groups, including Freedomworks, support the tax compromise. Freedomworks, headed by former House Republican Dick Armey, says conservatives should be pleased to see the Bush tax cuts extended for another two years when Democrats still control Congress and the White House.
The tax cut debate is splitting Republicans at several levels. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney criticized the plan Tuesday in a column for USA Today.
"Given the unambiguous message that the American people sent to Washington in November," Romney wrote, "it is difficult to understand how our political leaders could have reached such a disappointing agreement." It will add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt, he said, "when we are already drowning in red ink."
Another possible presidential contender, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., defended the tax measure in a Senate speech Tuesday. To oppose it, he said, "is to advocate for a tax increase," because a congressional impasse would allow all the Bush-era tax cuts to expire as scheduled on Jan. 1.
A new, more Republican Congress would probably restore them next year retroactive to Jan. 1, but workers might still see smaller paychecks for weeks or months because of higher withholdings reflecting the higher pre-Bush tax rates and smaller credits and deductions for children, college tuition and other expenses.
The Obama-backed plan would extend all those tax cuts, for rich and poor alike, for two years. It would trim Social Security payroll taxes and extend unemployment benefits for a year. It also would continue a number of tax breaks for business investments.
The plan restores the estate tax at a lower level -- 35 percent and exempting the first $5 million -- than many Democrats want. House Democratic leaders are weighing efforts to increase the rate to 45 percent and exempt only the first $3.5 million when the measure reaches their chamber.
Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, who negotiated the tax package with the White House, warned Tuesday that it is "not subject to being reopened."
House staffers in both parties say no firm count of likely votes for the tax measure has been taken. One top Democratic aide guessed that perhaps 100 Democrats would support the measure. That would require Republicans to provide more than half the votes to reach the 218 needed for passage.
Conservative groups opposing the tax measure include the Club for Growth. Other influential critics include Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a tea party favorite; Jeff Flake of Arizona, a prominent critic of pork barrel spending; and John Campbell of California, a certified public accountant.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a widely discussed article last week saying Obama's plan would be a political coup for his 2012 re-election hopes, because the expensive package would stimulate the economy enough to bring down unemployment.
Prominent conservative supporters of the tax package include House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Americans for Tax Reform.
Boehner, who will become House speaker when the new Congress convenes next month, would suffer a big setback if the tax package fails. The criticism from the right clearly makes him and his allies nervous.
Boehner told CBS' "60 Minutes" that he refuses to say he compromised with the White House, preferring to say they found "common ground."
On tax and spending questions, House Republicans "are on a pretty short leash," Boehner said. "If we don't deliver what the American people are demanding, they'll throw us out of here in a heartbeat."
Republicans poring over a 1,924-page overarching spending bill proposed by Democrats to cover the rest of the fiscal year are threatening to grind the legislation to a halt, citing massive earmark spending, which, if passed, would be enacted into law without debate in the full Senate.
Two sources who spoke to Fox News are describing the legislation as "a total mess."
But the head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, said he believes the legislation must pass.
"The twelve bills included in this package fulfill the Congress' most basic responsibility, to exercise the power of the purse," he said in a statement. "This measure reflects a year's worth of work by members of both parties. Together, we have closely scrutinized the president's budget request, held hundreds of hearings, thousands of meetings, and asked literally tens of thousands of questions to each and every federal department and agency seeking justification for how taxpayer dollars are being spent."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, responded in a statement, saying that after neglecting to pass a budget, "today we learn Senate Democrats now want to sandwich them together, totaling almost 2,000 pages, and jam them through in the waning moments of this lame duck session before anyone can read them. This political end-around reveals just how quickly my colleagues across the aisle have already forgotten the voters' message in November."
Though none of the spending bills has passed the Senate, all the individual appropriations bills have been through the full committee process. In an afternoon release, the Appropriations Committee website listed all of the requested earmarks, winnowed into separate categories that go into making up the 12 separate annual spending bills.
In total, thousands of earmark requests are listed. The financial services earmark chart, for instance, lists 220 earmark requests from dozens of lawmakers, mostly in the House, each worth anywhere from $50,000 to $2.4 million. The largest sum was requested by Inouye and his Hawaii colleague Sen. Daniel Akaka for "Bank on USA" demonstration projects" in their state. The projects are designed to give underserved communities greater access to financial institutions.
Elsewhere, the Department of Defense earmark list, mostly requests by senators, is 29 pages long and individual requests more often are worth $2 million to $5 million each. In that list, Inouye's requests total more than $159 million, including $21 million for a Hawaii Federal Health Care Network. Cornyn's defense spending earmarks total nearly $16 million.
The list was released after a Republican policy lunch that a source said was devolving into pandemonium.
"All hell is breaking loose," the source told Fox News, noting that Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina were expected to insist the omnibus bill be read in its entirety by the clerk on the Senate floor before a vote is held. They also were expected to seek debate on all earmarks and any amendments.
If the clerk follows the pace of last year's reading of the health care bill -- 53 pages an hour -- it will take almost 40 hours to read the omnibus bill.
A spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky responded that "all hell is not breaking loose just yet. But I'm sure there will be a robust conversation."
In a news conference, McConnell compared the omnibus bill to the health care legislation last year, calling it a big bill arriving amid cold weather and no one knowing exactly what's in it.
On top of Republican angst, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., also is revolting against the Democratic-sponsored bill, saying she will not support an omnibus spending bill unless it includes an amendment proposed by McCaskill and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that calls for a three-year cap in discretionary spending. Democratic leaders told McCaskill on Monday that they would meet a one-year gap, which she rejected, according to sources familiar with the conversations.
But sources said Inouye was confident he had the votes needed to get the legislation passed and sent to the House.
The fiscal year runs from Oct. 1-Sept. 30. Currently, a continuing resolution, the stopgap measure to keep government operational until a budget is passed, is set to expire on Saturday. If another CR or the bill itself isn't passed and signed into law by President Obama by then, the government will shut down.
On the House side, Republican leader John Boehner is apparently warning that if the Senate sends over the bill as it is, "We will work to kill it." House Democrats had hoped to file a year-long CR at the previous year's rates.
Opponents of the package are finding support among conservative groups who describe the legislation as a Democratic attempt to lock in 2010's $3.5 trillion budget for the next year without allowing any spending cuts.
"Despite the dire fiscal crisis the nation faces, with a $13.8 trillion national debt that cannot be paid, and in spite of the American people who are demanding action to cut spending, Congress is busy voting to kick the can for yet another year. A vote for the continuing resolution is a vote for another trillion dollar-plus deficit, and that is simply unacceptable to all Americans. Any politician in Congress that has ever promised to reduce the deficit should vote 'no' on this continuing resolution," Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson said in a statement Tuesday.
In the spirit of the holiday season, President Barack Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans is becoming a Christmas tree tinseled with gifts for lobbyists and lawmakers.
There are ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs, wind and solar grants for the environmentalists - all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats.
The holiday additions are being hung on the big bill that was Congress' main reason for spending December in Washington, long after the elections that will give Republicans new power in January. The measure will extend Bush-era tax cuts, averting big tax increases for nearly all Americans, and keep jobless benefits flowing.
Republicans generally liked that agreement, worked out by Obama and GOP leaders. Democrats generally didn't, hence the add-ons.
It's expected to come to a decisive vote next week, at a total cost by the latest congressional estimate of $857.8 billion.
Almost $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol and a continuing tariff to protect against ethanol imports were wrapped up and placed on the tree Thursday night for farm-state lawmakers and agribusiness lobbyists. Environmentalists won more grants for developers of renewable energy, like wind and solar.
For urban lawmakers, there's a continuation of about-to-expire tax breaks that could save commuters who use mass transit about $1,000 a year.
Other popular tax provisions aimed at increasing production of hybrid automobiles, biodiesel fuel, coal and energy-efficient household appliances would be extended through the end of 2011 under the new add-ons.
The package also includes an extension of two Gulf Coast tax-incentive programs enacted after Hurricane Katrina to spur economic development in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
While the add-ons may have won more votes for the Obama-GOP deal in the Senate, their potential impact is less clear in the House, where Democrats have criticized the package as a tax giveaway to the rich.
There's the possibility the added goodies will have opposite the intended effect for some lawmakers. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said the add-ons could turn his fiscally conservative colleagues against the bill.
"You don't want to be accused out there of supporting stimulus three," he said. "It will knock some votes off in the House, but more than anything, it will show the voters out there that things haven't changed with Republicans."
Republicans poring over a 1,924-page overarching spending bill proposed by Democrats to cover the rest of the fiscal year are threatening to grind the legislation to a halt, citing massive earmark spending, which, if passed, would be enacted into law without debate in the full Senate.
Two sources who spoke to Fox News are describing the legislation as "a total mess."
But the head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, said he believes the legislation must pass.
"The twelve bills included in this package fulfill the Congress' most basic responsibility, to exercise the power of the purse," he said in a statement. "This measure reflects a year's worth of work by members of both parties. Together, we have closely scrutinized the president's budget request, held hundreds of hearings, thousands of meetings, and asked literally tens of thousands of questions to each and every federal department and agency seeking justification for how taxpayer dollars are being spent."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, responded in a statement, saying that after neglecting to pass a budget, "today we learn Senate Democrats now want to sandwich them together, totaling almost 2,000 pages, and jam them through in the waning moments of this lame duck session before anyone can read them. This political end-around reveals just how quickly my colleagues across the aisle have already forgotten the voters' message in November."
Though none of the spending bills has passed the Senate, all the individual appropriations bills have been through the full committee process. In an afternoon release, the Appropriations Committee website listed all of the requested earmarks, winnowed into separate categories that go into making up the 12 separate annual spending bills.
In total, thousands of earmark requests are listed. The financial services earmark chart, for instance, lists 220 earmark requests from dozens of lawmakers, mostly in the House, each worth anywhere from $50,000 to $2.4 million. The largest sum was requested by Inouye and his Hawaii colleague Sen. Daniel Akaka for "Bank on USA" demonstration projects" in their state. The projects are designed to give underserved communities greater access to financial institutions.
Elsewhere, the Department of Defense earmark list, mostly requests by senators, is 29 pages long and individual requests more often are worth $2 million to $5 million each. In that list, Inouye's requests total more than $159 million, including $21 million for a Hawaii Federal Health Care Network. Cornyn's defense spending earmarks total nearly $16 million.
The list was released after a Republican policy lunch that a source said was devolving into pandemonium.
"All hell is breaking loose," the source told Fox News, noting that Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina were expected to insist the omnibus bill be read in its entirety by the clerk on the Senate floor before a vote is held. They also were expected to seek debate on all earmarks and any amendments.
If the clerk follows the pace of last year's reading of the health care bill -- 53 pages an hour -- it will take almost 40 hours to read the omnibus bill.
A spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky responded that "all hell is not breaking loose just yet. But I'm sure there will be a robust conversation."
In a news conference, McConnell compared the omnibus bill to the health care legislation last year, calling it a big bill arriving amid cold weather and no one knowing exactly what's in it.
On top of Republican angst, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., also is revolting against the Democratic-sponsored bill, saying she will not support an omnibus spending bill unless it includes an amendment proposed by McCaskill and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that calls for a three-year cap in discretionary spending. Democratic leaders told McCaskill on Monday that they would meet a one-year gap, which she rejected, according to sources familiar with the conversations.
But sources said Inouye was confident he had the votes needed to get the legislation passed and sent to the House.
The fiscal year runs from Oct. 1-Sept. 30. Currently, a continuing resolution, the stopgap measure to keep government operational until a budget is passed, is set to expire on Saturday. If another CR or the bill itself isn't passed and signed into law by President Obama by then, the government will shut down.
On the House side, Republican leader John Boehner is apparently warning that if the Senate sends over the bill as it is, "We will work to kill it." House Democrats had hoped to file a year-long CR at the previous year's rates.
Opponents of the package are finding support among conservative groups who describe the legislation as a Democratic attempt to lock in 2010's $3.5 trillion budget for the next year without allowing any spending cuts.
"Despite the dire fiscal crisis the nation faces, with a $13.8 trillion national debt that cannot be paid, and in spite of the American people who are demanding action to cut spending, Congress is busy voting to kick the can for yet another year. A vote for the continuing resolution is a vote for another trillion dollar-plus deficit, and that is simply unacceptable to all Americans. Any politician in Congress that has ever promised to reduce the deficit should vote 'no' on this continuing resolution," Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson said in a statement Tuesday.
In the spirit of the holiday season, President Barack Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans is becoming a Christmas tree tinseled with gifts for lobbyists and lawmakers.
There are ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs, wind and solar grants for the environmentalists - all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats.
The holiday additions are being hung on the big bill that was Congress' main reason for spending December in Washington, long after the elections that will give Republicans new power in January. The measure will extend Bush-era tax cuts, averting big tax increases for nearly all Americans, and keep jobless benefits flowing.
Republicans generally liked that agreement, worked out by Obama and GOP leaders. Democrats generally didn't, hence the add-ons.
It's expected to come to a decisive vote next week, at a total cost by the latest congressional estimate of $857.8 billion.
Almost $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol and a continuing tariff to protect against ethanol imports were wrapped up and placed on the tree Thursday night for farm-state lawmakers and agribusiness lobbyists. Environmentalists won more grants for developers of renewable energy, like wind and solar.
For urban lawmakers, there's a continuation of about-to-expire tax breaks that could save commuters who use mass transit about $1,000 a year.
Other popular tax provisions aimed at increasing production of hybrid automobiles, biodiesel fuel, coal and energy-efficient household appliances would be extended through the end of 2011 under the new add-ons.
The package also includes an extension of two Gulf Coast tax-incentive programs enacted after Hurricane Katrina to spur economic development in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
While the add-ons may have won more votes for the Obama-GOP deal in the Senate, their potential impact is less clear in the House, where Democrats have criticized the package as a tax giveaway to the rich.
There's the possibility the added goodies will have opposite the intended effect for some lawmakers. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said the add-ons could turn his fiscally conservative colleagues against the bill.
"You don't want to be accused out there of supporting stimulus three," he said. "It will knock some votes off in the House, but more than anything, it will show the voters out there that things haven't changed with Republicans."
The Congressional Budget Office released its score Friday on the tax plan hammered out between Republicans and President Barack Obama, showing a $893 billion hit on the deficit over the next five years.
The bulk of the deficit increase comes from loss of revenue -- $756 billion -- with the rest coming from additional direct outlays.
The 13-month extension of unemployment benefits adds less than $57 billion to the deficit.
The highest price item is the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, which will add more than $400 billion to the deficit, followed by the payroll tax holiday at about $225 billion.
Earlier, Obama enlisted former President Bill Clinton to help sell a compromise tax package negotiated with Republicans to reluctant Democrats.
After meeting with Clinton at the White House, Obama brought him to the briefing room to tout the proposal to reporters, even backing off after a brief introduction to let Clinton do the talking and take questions.
"I personally think this is a good deal, and the best we can get," Clinton said, arguing that the combination of payroll tax cuts, unemployment insurance benefits and various tax credits would help the economy grow.
Acknowledging that the Republican insistence on extending tax cuts to the wealthy would help him personally, Clinton said the compromise meant that both sides had to accept provisions they disliked.
"There's never a perfect bipartisan bill in the eyes of a partisan," Clinton said. "I believe this will be a significant net-plus for the country."
It was the latest salvo by the Obama administration in a battle for public and political support for the plan that combines extended tax cuts from the Bush era with extended unemployment benefits, tax breaks and the payroll tax holiday intended to bolster a sluggish recovery from economic recession.
House Democrats declared Thursday they opposed the package because it would extend the lower Bush-era tax rates for millionaires. They support the stance Obama has championed for years -- extending the current lower tax rates only for those earning up to $200,000 a year, or families earning $250,000, while letting rates for higher incomes return to 1990s levels.
However, Senate Republicans have refused to accept any difference in tax treatment for the wealthy, demanding that all current rates be extended. With the tax cuts expiring at the end of the year, and Republicans able to block any legislation in the Senate, Obama and Democrats face a fast-approaching deadline to reach a deal or see tax bills increase for everyone.
Earlier Friday, Obama told National Public Radio that the tax and benefits package would gain congressional approval because "nobody -- Democrat or Republican -- wants to see people's paychecks smaller on January 1 because Congress didn't act," Obama said in an interview with National Public Radio.
"And I think that the framework that we've put forward, which says not only that people's taxes don't go up on January 1, but also that we extend unemployment insurance for a year, that we make sure that key provisions like the college tax credit, the child tax credit, the earned-income tax credit are included -- that that framework is going to serve as the basis for compromise," Obama said.
The debate over taxes in the waning days of a lame-duck session of Congress illustrated the mistrust and animosity that has built up in the deeply partisan environment on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told CNN Friday that the tax plan will need Republican support to pass so that voters in 2012 will know it was not Democrats who approved the measure's projected $857 billion cost.
Obama will have to "get more Republicans than Democrats to make it go through," Ackerman said.
So far, Republicans "haven't said that they're all going to vote for it. They haven't said how many votes they're going to provide," Ackerman said. "This is on our (Democrats') watch. Then they're going to attack us in the next election for increasing the deficit when most of them are going to vote against it. ... Why should the Democrats get all the blame? The Republicans are very good at this. ... They get the credit for everything we do. We get the blame for everything they did that went bad."
Also Friday, conservatives Republicans questioned the tax and benefit package, warning it went against the campaign mantra from November of holding down the deficit.
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, told CNN that the package would increase the deficit, adding that "investors are reacting to the increases in the deficit and so we're concerned about that. We want to get on a sound financial footing."
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, vowed earlier this week to filibuster the tax and benefit package to prevent a vote on the Senate floor. He noted that those who ran from the right in the election had said they would oppose anything that increased the deficit.
The Senate will consider the tax package first. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, released the first version of legislation to implement the negotiated deal and said the first vote on it, a procedural one to open debate, would occur Monday.
The Senate version made public by Reid was largely the same as the deal announced by Obama, but it added a one-year extension of a program that provides cash grants in lieu of a tax credit for construction of new solar and wind energy projects. The Treasury Grant Program was part of the 2009 economic stimulus bill.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Friday that the additional clean energy provision added $3 billion to the cost of the package. Meanwhile, a letter to House Democratic leaders signed by at least 79 Democratic members called for the provision to be extended for two years.
The negotiated package includes a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, as well as 13 months of unemployment benefits and a cut of 2 percentage points in the payroll tax. In addition, the plan extends current tax breaks for students and lower-income Americans, and adjusts the estate tax in a way that Democrats believe benefits the wealthy.
However, Bachmann and other conservatives complained that the compromise resurrects the estate tax, which had expired for 2010 but was set to be restored in 2011 at a rate of 55%, with inheritances under $1 million exempted. A bill that passed in the House set the tax rate at 45% and exempted inheritances under $3.5 million, while the provision in the tax deal would exempt estates up to $5 million and set the tax rate at 35%.
To Obama, the bottom line is that legislators from both parties will prevent a tax increase on January 1 by accepting the main components of the negotiated package, including the extension of unemployment benefits.
"At the end of the day, people are going to conclude we don't want 2 million people suddenly without unemployment insurance and not able to pay their rent, not able to pay their mortgage, not able to pay their house note," Obama said, adding that the package also will bolster the so-far sluggish recovery from a recession that has unemployment still near 10%.
"I think that people are also going to understand that the single most important thing we can do for all of our constituencies is to make sure that the recovery that is taking place right now gets stronger," he said, adding that economists have noted the negotiated package would increase growth and could mean more jobs, a development that "has got to be the highest priority for everybody."
He called for legislators "to act responsibly and to think not in terms of abstract political fights here ... on Capitol Hill, but to think about those families that, in the middle of the holiday season, are trying to figure out -- are they still going to have unemployment benefits at the end of this month?"
"I'm confident that we're going to be able to get this resolved by the end of the month," Obama said.
Thursday's vote by the House Democratic caucus was a defiant rejection of both the agreement on tax and benefit measures, as well as what many Democrats in the chamber perceived as being marginalized in the talks by the White House.
"This message today is very simple. That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus," said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who represented House Democrats in the negotiations. He pledged to "work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs."
During their meeting, caucus members chanted "Just say no," according to two Democrats in attendance, and Rep. Laura Richardson of California later asked reporters outside the room: "Did you hear us saying 'Just say no'?"
Overall, Republicans generally appear supportive of the package, which White House advisers noted gave them their two main priorities -- an extension of the lower tax rates from the Bush era to everyone, including the wealthiest Americans, and setting a lower-than-expected estate tax rate only on inheritances of more than $5 million.
Both provisions angered liberal Democrats, who oppose extending the lower tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003 to the wealthy. Some said Obama should have forced a showdown with Republicans over the tax cut extensions by holding out longer to force more GOP concessions.
However, Obama and White House aides said the deal reached in negotiations was the best they would get from unyielding Republicans, who will take control of the House and enjoy a stronger minority stake in the Senate when the next session of Congress begins in early January.
Gibbs told reporters Thursday that he expected Congress to pass a package this year because the alternative was higher taxes for everyone after December 31.
"At the end of the day, members are not going to want to be in their districts, senators are not going to want to be in their districts, when their constituents find out their taxes have gone up by several thousands of dollars," Gibbs said, noting that the deal is a compromise with elements unpalatable to both sides. "If everybody took out what they didn't like, we'd have nothing. And we know the consequences of doing nothing."
A top Democratic adviser to the White House added that Senate Democrats "have several vehicles they can use" as the legislative base for the tax plan, and are working on a plan to pass a tax bill and "then jam the House" with that legislation.
Some House Democrats say they will support the tax package as a compromise made under tough circumstances.
"If it passes the Senate and this is the compromise the president of the United States has committed to, what are we going do in the House, hold this up?" said Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada.
Last Christmas Eve, the U.S. Senate gave Americans the lump of coal known as Obamacare. This year, they may take even more of our money to fund it and also force us to buy a pork-barrel full of thousands of earmarks. In a 212-206 vote, House Democrats pushed through a flawed continuing resolution yesterday that funds Obamacare and extends overall funding for the next year at reckless 2010 levels.
As Sen. Tom Coburn has pointed out, the House-passed bill contains significant Obamacare funding, which is why Coburn called the bill a “Trojan Horse to Fund New Health Law.”
Now the focus shifts to the Senate, where efforts are underway to amend the House-passed version—and not for the better.
Senate Democrats will offer an amendment to make it even worse with a full-blown omnibus appropriations bill packed with pork-barrel earmarks, spending increases, and even more funding for every top Obama administration priority. And unfortunately, some Senate Republicans may be poised to help the Democrats pass it.
Rumors are swirling that despite the fact Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell pulled the plug on official Republican support for the omnibus, a small group of rogue Republican appropriators are playing ball, planning to vote for the massive bloated spending bill in exchange for a parting Christmas gift of pork-barrel goodies for their states.
The most likely to play ball are three retiring appropriators: Kit Bond of Missouri, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Robert Bennett of Utah who will never face voters again. Plus, there's also the highest-ranking Republican appropriator: Thad Cochran of Mississippi.
We don’t know which earmarks made it into the omnibus yet but we do know that Kit Bond requested 142 earmarks this year totaling over $600 million. George Voinovich requested 172 earmarks totaling over $460 million, Robert Bennett requested 321 earmarks topping $1.3 billion, and Thad Cochran requested a whopping 712 earmarks totaling over $2.4 billion.
Other Republican senators worth worrying about identified themselves last week when they voted against the Coburn-McCaskill amendment to ban earmarks: Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Dick Lugar (R-Ind..), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).
These nine Republicans must be urged to abide by the wishes of the American people and to learn the same lesson Mitch McConnell, himself an appropriator, made clear in his wonderful Senate floor speech embracing the earmark moratorium:
“Nearly every day that the Senate’s been in session for the past two years, I have come down to this spot and said that Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people. When it comes to earmarks, I won’t be guilty of the same thing.”
Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, some Republicans may vote for the Democrats’ pork-packed, Obamacare-funding omnibus monstrosity.
That’s why pressuring Democrats is critical, starting with the ones who voted in favor of the Coburn-McCaskill earmark ban.
Claire McCaskill herself is the most likely Democrat to oppose the omnibus. Unlike her pork-loving Republican colleague Kit Bond, McCaskill has requested no earmarks this year and has long been a proponent of reform. This vote will test whether, when the rubber hits the road, she is really willing to vote to stop a rolling pork-barrel.
The other Democrats who voted with Coburn include Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), neither of whom requested any earmarks this year, along with Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.). They will be put to the test of whether their earmark reform was sincere when they have the opportunity to stop the omnibus.
Moreover, all senators need to be forcefully reminded that this will be the first vote on funding Obamacare, a signature issue that will loom large in the 2012 election.
The bottom line is that this Congress had all year to do its job and pass legislation to fund the government before the November midterm elections. They failed. They should not now be rewarded with a massive omnibus spending bill on their way out the door.
Sen. Coburn got it exactly right when he said: “It’s time for Congress to extend current tax rates, pass a clean spending bill – a ‘continuing resolution’ -- without extraneous and vague health care provisions, and go home.”
The Democratic-led Congress moved on Monday toward grudging approval of President Barack Obama's deal with Republicans to extend expiring tax cuts, even for the wealthiest Americans.
A Senate vote is set for Monday on legislation that would avert a Jan. 1 increase in income taxes for nearly all Americans. The package faces a tougher sell in the House of Representatives, where Democrats have voted not to allow it to reach the floor without changes to scale back tax relief for the rich.
Backers were expected to muster on Monday the needed 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to clear a procedural hurdle, before passage on Tuesday or Wednesday.
The bill would then go to the House of Representatives for likely passage — despite the complaints from many Democrats that Obama conceded too much to Republicans.
At issue is the extension of tax breaks for Americans at all income levels. Those lower rates, that were put in place during the administration of former President George W. Bush, expire at the end of the year. Obama campaigned for the presidency and had routinely vowed during his first two years in office to keep the tax breaks in place for American households earning less than $250,000 a year.
The Republicans have been fighting that, insisting that the cuts remain in place for all income levels. The opposition party vowed to block any extension if the wealthy did not benefit as well.
Obama, realizing the Republicans had the votes to make good on their threat, crafted a compromise a week ago to go along with a renewal of cuts for all income levels for a two-year period. In return Republicans promised to drop their opposition to a separate measure: an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. They said they would agree to a 13-month extension of those payments.
Also included in the deal is a 2 percent reduction in payroll taxes that Americans pay into the Social Security federal pension fund for retired people.
'A bridge too far'
The most explosive part of the deal, the one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at one point called "a bridge too far," was a major concession to Republicans on the amount of taxes heirs pay on inheritance. The package Obama negotiated would set the top rate at 35 percent and exempt the first $5 million of an individual's estate. Couples could exempt $10 million.
But Representative Chris Van Hollen, a member of the House Democratic leadership, said, "We're not going to hold this thing up at the end of the day."
Van Hollen, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," indicated that Democrats would like to get a separate vote on the inheritance tax, a provision that he said would cost $25 billion for just 6,600 people.
"That doesn't help the economy," Van Hollen said. "It hurts the deficit."
Without the deal, the estate tax was scheduled to return next year to a top rate of 55 percent for estates larger than $1 million for individuals and $2 million for married couples.
The No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, said Democrats should "eat their spinach" and accept a deal because their influence will plummet when the new Congress convenes next month.
Republicans won control of the House and made gains in the Senate in November 2 congressional elections.
"It is the only stimulus we can bring to this economy," Durbin said on CNN's "State of the Union" program on Sunday.
'No one wants to see taxes go up'
Proponents note that the $856 billion package also extends jobless benefits and provides other tax breaks aimed at lower-income families, and would renew a wide array of subsidies and breaks for businesses and renewable energy.
White House adviser David Axelrod said he believed the House would approve the package without significant changes.
"We believe that when it comes back to the House, that we will get a vote, and that we'll prevail there, because at the end of the day, no one wants to see taxes go up on 150 million Americans" on New Year's Day, Axelrod said. "No one wants to see 2 million people lose their unemployment insurance, and everybody understands what it would mean for the economy if we don't get this done."
Axelrod said he does not foresee "major changes" in the House to the compromise and that Pelosi "understands the consequences of inaction" and "urgency in passing it."
The Senate began debate on Thursday on a slightly reworked version of the president's plan, adding, for example, incentives for renewable energy.
Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," likened Republicans to political thugs in blocking an extension of tax cuts for the middle income unless they are also renewed for the rich.
"I think the alternative is to say we're not going to submit to that blackmail and let the president and the Democrats go to the people, who the polls show want the upper-end tax cuts not to continue but want the middle-class tax cuts, and say, don't submit to the blackmail," Nadler said.
While Obama and his supporters have cast the issue as make it or break it by year's end, the reality of the matter is that Republicans likely would get their way on tax breaks for all income brackets when they take control of the House next year. They become the majority in the lower house and significantly diminished their minority status in the Senate in a landslide election victory last month.
If the tax cut extension has to be passed by the next Congress, the legislation would almost certainly be made retroactive to the first of the year, making the year-end deadline somewhat of a false issue.
In the spirit of the holiday season, President Barack Obama's tax-cut deal with Republicans is becoming a Christmas tree tinseled with gifts for lobbyists and lawmakers.
There are ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs, wind and solar grants for the environmentalists - all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats.
The holiday additions are being hung on the big bill that was Congress' main reason for spending December in Washington, long after the elections that will give Republicans new power in January. The measure will extend Bush-era tax cuts, averting big tax increases for nearly all Americans, and keep jobless benefits flowing.
Republicans generally liked that agreement, worked out by Obama and GOP leaders. Democrats generally didn't, hence the add-ons.
It's expected to come to a decisive vote next week, at a total cost by the latest congressional estimate of $857.8 billion.
Almost $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol and a continuing tariff to protect against ethanol imports were wrapped up and placed on the tree Thursday night for farm-state lawmakers and agribusiness lobbyists. Environmentalists won more grants for developers of renewable energy, like wind and solar.
For urban lawmakers, there's a continuation of about-to-expire tax breaks that could save commuters who use mass transit about $1,000 a year.
Other popular tax provisions aimed at increasing production of hybrid automobiles, biodiesel fuel, coal and energy-efficient household appliances would be extended through the end of 2011 under the new add-ons.
The package also includes an extension of two Gulf Coast tax-incentive programs enacted after Hurricane Katrina to spur economic development in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
While the add-ons may have won more votes for the Obama-GOP deal in the Senate, their potential impact is less clear in the House, where Democrats have criticized the package as a tax giveaway to the rich.
There's the possibility the added goodies will have opposite the intended effect for some lawmakers. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said the add-ons could turn his fiscally conservative colleagues against the bill.
"You don't want to be accused out there of supporting stimulus three," he said. "It will knock some votes off in the House, but more than anything, it will show the voters out there that things haven't changed with Republicans."
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
