The
Senate passed a bill Thursday that would both repeal significant
portions of ObamaCare and defund Planned Parenthood. This marks the
first time that chamber of Congress has approved any type of ObamaCare
repeal, in contrast to the dozens of such bills passed by the House of
Representatives.
“Middle-class Americans continue to call on
Washington to build a bridge away from ObamaCare. They want better care.
They want real health reform,” said
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “For too long,
Democrats did everything to prevent Congress from passing the type of
legislation necessary to help these Americans who are hurting. Today,
that ends.”
Democrats, of course, controlled the Senate from 2010,
when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed, through 2014 and blocked
all attempts at ObamaCare repeal during that period. Even after
Republicans took charge, the minority was still able to stall repeal by
threatening a filibuster. But the GOP outflanked them this time by using
a parliamentary maneuver known as budget reconciliation to bring the
bill, already passed by the House, to the floor for a vote. Ironically,
this is the same tactic the Democrats, despite possessing a
filibuster-proof majority at the time, utilized to ram the ACA through
the Senate in late 2009.
The bill passed 52-47, with all Democrats
plus two Republicans opposed. Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Mark
Kirk (R-Ill.) voted against the bill because of the amendment defunding
Planned Parenthood, which they tried unsuccessfully to get removed.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) missed the vote because he was out
campaigning for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
Though
he ran for the White House as a “change” candidate, President Obama has
mostly favored continuity, including bending to the usual pressure from
the Military-Industrial Complex to keep the Pentagon spending flowing,
as budget watchdog Chuck Spinney explains.
By Chuck Spinney
The
Pentagon just won another small skirmish in its long war with Social
Security and Medicare. That is the unstated message of the budget deal
just announced gleefully by congressional leaders and President Barack
Obama. To understand why, let’s take a quick trip down memory lane.
Last January, President Obama submitted Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 budget
to Congress, and he proposed to break the spending limits on both
defense and domestic programs. These limits are set by the long-term
sequester provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), which, for better or worse, is the law of the land, and Obama was asking Congress to change the law.
Mr.
Obama wanted to finance his ramped up spending proposals by increasing
taxes. Of course, he knew that the Republican-controlled Congress
lusted for defense increases but hated domestic spending, particularly
entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Moreover, he
knew increasing taxes was like waving the red cape in front of the
Republican budget bulls. So, he knew his budget would be dead on
arrival. Obama’s budget, nevertheless, had one virtue: it was up-front
about the intractable nature of the budget problem. In effect, whether
deliberately or not, Obama laid a trap that the Republicans merrily
walked into during the ensuing spring and summer.
Jim
Steinle (L), father of murder victim Kathryn Steinle (in photo, R),
allegedly at the hands of an undocumented immigrant, testifies about his
daughter's murder during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on
U.S. immigration enforcement policies, on Capitol Hill in Washington
July 21, 2015. (Photo: Newscom/Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)
Senate Democrats blocked legislation that would punish “sanctuary cities” in a 54-45 vote Tuesday afternoon.
The
bill, called the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act,
needed to overcome a 60-vote threshold. It would withhold certain
federal funding from states or cities that refuse to comply with
requests from federal immigration officials to turn over immigrants who
are in the country illegally.
Sen.
David Vitter, R-La., introduced the legislation, which includes a
provision known as Kate’s Law, named after 32-year-old Kate Steinle, who
was fatally shot in San Francisco on July 1. The bill would impose a
mandatory minimum jail sentence of five years for illegal immigrants who
are convicted of re-entering the United States after being convicted of
an aggravated felony or have three strikes for trying to enter the
country illegally.
At least since the Civil War, there hasn’t been a faction fighting both parties at the same time.
AP Photo
Congress
has never seen anything quite like the House Freedom Caucus. There’s
always someone unhappy on Capitol Hill and it’s not unusual for
malcontents to band together. A rebellion made up of members who refuse
to work with either party, however, is something that hasn’t happened in
living memory.
“This is an unusual and indeed unprecedented
development in the history of the party,” says Geoffrey Kabaservice, a
research consultant to the Main Street Partnership, a centrist GOP
group.
Parties—particularly
those with large majorities—almost inevitably split into factions. And
congressional history is replete with examples of groups that balked at
party leadership. But the insurgents we remember—the ones who weren’t
quickly and completely marginalized—managed by and large to find common
cause with members of the other party. Southern Democrats, for instance,
forged a “conservative coalition” with Republicans that dominated
Congress for much of the 20th century.
There hasn’t been a bloc
like the Freedom Caucus for at least a century, one that refuses to work
with its own party leadership while being steadfastly unwilling to
reach across the aisle. “There have been groups that often broke from
the party, but in doing so, they didn’t stand as a third force,” says
former GOP Rep. Mickey Edwards. “This group is very different.”
The
Freedom Caucus, rather than breaking from Republican ranks, has forced
Republican leaders to break from them. It’s a perverse sort of political
jujitsu. One of outgoing Speaker John Boehner’s supposed crimes was
that he went begging Democrats for help passing legislation when he
couldn’t find the votes within his own caucus. Some rank-and-file
Republicans, meanwhile, have made a separate peace with Democrats on
reviving the Export-Import Bank. Normally the opposite would happen and
it would be the insurgents reaching across the aisle. But that
presupposes an interest in governing.
“I can think of a number of
major examples throughout history where a party has had divisions of
consequence,” says Laura Blessing, a senior fellow at the Georgetown
Government Affairs Institute. “It’s rare that those divisions would
represent a position on the fringe of the political system, where
they’re not working with either party.”
Both the tactics and the
playing field have changed for today’s dissenters. In the past, some
members would squawk at autocratic leadership or the stated policies of
their own party and look for ways to disrupt proceedings, but they had
some kind of endgame in mind. Once they deposed a leader or got their
way on a key vote, they took some quiet satisfaction.
What is
distinctive about the current crop of congressional rebels is their
willingness to use any lever they can find to cause trouble—debt-ceiling
fights, funding fights, leadership succession struggles. “The thing
that (today’s) conservatives are very good at—because they don’t care
about precedent or the party’s history—is trying out different things,”
says Kabaservice, author of Rule and Ruin, a history of the decline of moderate Republicans.
A view of the Golden Gate Bridge from Marshal beach
Wikipedia.org
October 20, 2015, 02:51 pm
Senate Dems block 'sanctuary cities' bill
By Jordain Carney
Senate Democrats on Tuesday blocked legislation to crack down on cities that don't comply with federal immigration law.
Senators
voted 54-45 on a measure to end debate on legislation from Sen. David
Vitter. Sixty votes were needed to overcome the procedural hurdle and
move toward a vote on the bill itself.
Two Democrats broke rank and sided with Republicans in the vote.
The
Louisiana Republican’s legislation would have limited federal grants to
so-called "sanctuary cities" and increased penalties for undocumented
immigrants who reenter the United States illegally after being deported.
Vitter
argued that Democrats misunderstand the legislation, saying that "there
are a lot of myths about our bill versus the facts."
"We
have several myths versus facts as part of the record, and I urge
everyone, starting with our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to
study that carefully," he added. "This is an important issue. Sanctuary
cities are a real problem, and we need to fix them."
The
issue of sanctuary cities captured the political spotlight in July
after the death of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle, allegedly at the hands
of an illegal immigrant who had already been deported five times.
Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) referenced Steinle's shooting ahead of
the vote, pressuring Democrats to "put compassion before left-wing
ideology today."
But Democrats were intent on blocking
Vitter's legislation from moving forward, suggesting that it undercut
law enforcement and was an unacceptable substitute for a broader
immigration reform proposal.
"Today's vote is nothing
but a political show vote. Senator Vitter knows his legislation has no
chance of passing the Senate or being signed into law," Sen. Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.) said ahead of the vote.
Minority Leader
Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also derided the bill on Monday, calling it "vile"
and the "Donald Trump Act," after the 2016 GOP front-runner.
The U.S. national debt grows at a rate of 45.486 dollar per second!
20,517,497,500,000
10/05/15 6:28pm CDT
$ 65.903
Debt per citizen
$ 113.353
Debt per taxpayer
Year
x billion U.S dollar
2004
7.379
2005
7.933
2006
8.507
2007
9.008
2008
10.025
2009
11.910
2010
13.562
2011
14.781
2012
16.059
2013
16.732
2014
17.810
For Real Time National Debt Numbers Visit The US Debt Clock
..........
Since our worlds collided on that fated day in 2008 when the
American dream became even more elusive for the majority of us there
has been some time to reflect on our mistakes. Some of us have learned
from what we have lived and experienced. Others, however, are still
stuck in the partisan la la land of Rabid Conservatism or Rabid
Liberalism. Each side pulling for its own without taking pause to
understand the long-range consequences of their actions.
Politicians
will do what politicians do best, protect their pockets and those
who keep them full. What excuse do the common folk (non-corporate or
lobbyist) have? You vote Republican or Democrat because they hold the
best future for our country? Or do you vote because it is all you
know and you cannot fathom the fact that both sides of the aisle
serve the same master? It has gone way beyond the scope of
political party or leanings. It is time to put those patriotic
gestures, slogans and mindsets to actual use by truly putting
your country first. We must put a stop to the criminal
Washington/Corporate agenda that is killing us.
Until we truly
and seriously address the criminals who are selling our Nation
and our children's future to the highest bidder we are doomed.
Are you ready to face the truth or will you just sit back and
blame another while you do nothing to change the problem?
The
only answer to the putrefaction that is taking place all across
this nation is in the hands of the people. Many laughed at the
Occupy movement. Some vilified those who wanted to make a
difference and voice their displeasure with the status quo. How
many of you have done anything to make a change? How many of you
have cared enough to even consider what role you may have to play?
Truly,
I do not see a way out of this unless people stop seeing right or
left and start seeing stars and stripes. This nation depends on it's People,
not its politicians. Why have we become so complacent that we are
no longer willing to fight the good fight for our freedom and
our way of life? When did this nation become the home of the
lazy and the weak? It is time the strong and the brave stood up,
if there are any left.
What will it take to make
you see that politics is a trap? An illusion to make us believe we
have a choice when in reality we have none. They have both
evolved to serve the same masters and fulfill the same agenda. An
agenda that serves neither you nor me. When will you wake up
from your blue and red slumber to see that we have all been
lied to ?
When do we take America back as a People not a political party?
The
time is growing short people! Unless you open your eyes and
understand what is truly at stake. You will never live in America
the Land of the Free and the Brave again. We will simply exist
in a land run by petty politics and corrupt corporations willing to
do whatever it takes to maximize their bottom line. Even if it means
exploiting our children's lives and futures.
Just
in case you still don't have a clue what I am talking about.
Here is a very short list of examples of the Corporate Assault on
Our Lives And Our Health that our politicians have allowed to take
place for a price.
GMO's in our food supply
Digestive disorders, Obesity,Endocrine disorders on the rise
Glyphosate in our foods, our water and our breast milk
Kidney and Liver damage on the rise
Fracking chemicals in the water supply
Cancers on the rise
Fluoride in the water supply
Vaccines causing deadly reactions in children and adults
Autism on the rise
Heavy metals in our food supply
Alzheimer's on the rise
Deadly chemicals being pawned off as sugar substitutes from saccharine to splenda
all have been found to cause cancer in animal studies. The
biggest culprit and most dangerous thus far being Aspartame.
Life saving drugs monopolized by Big Pharma to bloat prices beyond most people's reach. Daraprim being the latest going from $13.50 per pill to $750.00. Basically condemning those who cannot afford them to die.
There are so many more examples you just need to open your eyes and want to see the truth
When
we get our story wrong, we get our future wrong. Much like the
Trans-Pacific Partnership "trade deal", everything we are told about
capitalism and our economy is a pack of lies. Time for a new story,
says preeminent scholar and critic of corporate globalization, David
Korten, the best-selling author of When Corporations Rule the World and
The Great Turning. David has a brand new book, Change the Story, Change
the Future - a Living Economy for a Living Earth. He is the co-founder
and board chair of YES! Magazine, co-chair of the New Economy Working
Group, founder and president of the Living Economies Forum (formerly the
People-Centered Development Forum), a member of the Club of Rome, and a
former board member of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies
(BALLE) and associate of the International Forum on Globalization.
This Earth Day address was recorded April 22, 2015 at Seattle University Pigott Auditorium.
Community
Rights educator Paul Cienfuegos explains how "We The People" are
exercising the authority to govern ourselves and dismantle corporate
rule. When small farmers in rural Pennsylvania wanted to say "no" to a
corporate factory farm coming into their community, they learned they
couldn't, because it would violate the corporation's "rights" and state
pre-emption laws. So they did something technically illegal - their town
passed an innovative ordinance banning corporate factory farming. It
worked! The corporation left town. Pittsburgh upshifted the approach:
Rather than define what we don't want, define what we DO want. Their
"Right to Water" stopped natural gas fracking in the city. Ordinances
like this have been passed in over 150 communities in 9 states. Tune in
to learn how this works. Episode 258. [paulcienfuegos.com, celdf.org,
YouTube channel "Community Rights TV" and communityrightspdx.org]
Peak Moment TV exists because of viewers like you. Subscribe to news and donate at http://www.peakmoment.tv, right side. Thanks for being in the Peak Moment community.
Have
we forgotten about the national debt? Congressional Republican leaders
and the Obama administration have begun private talks about a new
two-year spending plan that would keep the government operating beyond
the 2016 election but would do little to address more fundamental
structural problems, including entitlement and health care spending for
an aging population.
Even before Congress completed work on a
short-term spending measure to avert a government shutdown at least
until early December, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY),
outgoing House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and President Obama held
preliminary talks on a possible multi-year budget agreement to increase
spending for both defense and domestic programs by lifting fiscal 2016
discretionary spending caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. Related: New CBO Director Renews Warning on Long-Term Debt
The
agreement would be similar in scope to a two-year mini-budget agreement
that was struck by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
following a 16-day government shutdown in late 2013 that temporarily put
an end to inter-party budget warfare. That agreement allowed for $45
billion more in spending above the caps in 2014 and $20 billion more in
2015, as well as $20 billion of deficit reduction.
USS
Ronald Reagan and its embarked air wing, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 5,
provide a combat-ready force that protects and defends the collective
maritime interests of the U.S. and its allies and partners in the
Indo-Asia-Pacific region. (Photo: U.S. Navy Specialist 2nd Class Paolo
Bayas)
The
Russians are bombing CIA-backed rebels in Syria and continuing to hold
parts of Ukraine. ISIS continues to spread in the Middle East and
inspire attacks around the world. Iran is receiving hundreds of billions
in sanctions relief, some of which will likely go to destabilizing the
Middle East. China is building illegal islands in the South China Sea.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are streaming across Europe. The
Taliban is on the rise in Afghanistan. And our national secrets are
being vacuumed up by Chinese hackers.
At the same time, our national defense budget is being slashed.
Since 2011, the defense budget has been cut by 15 percent
in real terms. If you include the war budget, which has been going down
as we reduce troops in Afghanistan, the national defense has been cut
25 percent in four years.
As a result of these budget cuts, the
U.S. military is smaller than it was on 9/11 and in many cases the
smallest it has been in recent history.
The
world is a mess, our military is being slashed, and now President Obama
is going to veto a bipartisan bill that would increase the national
defense budget by 6 percent in real terms.
The House of
Representatives just passed the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (NDAA), and it is headed to the Senate. This is a
bipartisan bill that has been signed into law every year for 53 straight
years, but Obama plans to veto it for one simple reason: it doesn’t
increase non-defense spending. The president believes that defense and
non-defense spending should be increased, and, according to the White
House, “he will not fix defense without fixing non-defense spending.”
John Boehner Admits Republicans are Willing to Put U.S. at Risk to Play Partisan Politics
February 16, 2015 By Allen Clifton
Republicans
are anything if not predictable. The moment they gained power back in
the Senate it was obvious that they were going to use that power to play
petty partisan politics. The truth is, controlling Congress means very
little as long as the person in the White House has veto power.
So
no matter what sort of propaganda Republicans spew about the nonsense
they’re going to undoubtedly shove through Congress, it’s still on them
to send the president legislation that they know he will sign, otherwise
they’re essentially just wasting time.
The
president is the one person who’s voted into office on a national scale,
meaning that they’re the one individual who truly “represents the
majority of the people.” So no matter what anyone in Congress says, it’s
beholden upon them to make sure whatever bills they’re sending to the
president’s desk actually have a chance at being signed. It’s extremely
rare for both the House and Senate to have the two-thirds majority
needed to override a presidential veto.
All
that being said, as many already know the Department of Homeland
Security is set to run out of funding fairly soon. Normally this
wouldn’t be a huge deal; all it would take is for Congress to pass a
bill funding the department, which would almost certainly be signed by
President Obama.
Senators Seek To Force Approval Of Keystone XL Pipeline
Posted: Updated:
WASHINGTON
–- Senate supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline say they think they
have enough votes to pass a bill that would force the approval of the
controversial project. A group of 56 senators -- all 45 Republicans plus
11 Democrats –- introduced legislation on Thursday that would bypass
the Obama administration and grant approval for the pipeline.
Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) introduced the bill on Thursday.
Democrats Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mark Pryor
(D-Ark.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Claire McCaskill
(D-Mo.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), John Walsh
(D-Mont.), and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) are cosponsoring it.
Because it
crosses an international border, the decision on the pipeline falls
under the authority of the State Department. The State Department
announced another delay on a decision
last month in response to a court decision that invalidated the
pipeline's proposed route through Nebraska, saying that it would wait to
decide until there is more clarity on where the pipeline will
ultimately run. The legislation would grant approval to "any subsequent
revision to the pipeline route" in Nebraska, without requiring further
environmental analysis.
"We continue to hear delay, delay, delay
from the Administration about the Keystone XL pipeline. I’m beyond sick
of it," Heitkamp said in a statement Thursday. "We have strong
bipartisan support in the Senate for this project –- and I’m proud to
have recruited support from 10 other Democrats last month. Now, all of
those Democrats also signed onto this bill that we crafted to fully
approve the construction of the Keystone pipeline. If the Administration
isn’t going to make a decision on this project after more than five
years, then we’ll make it for them. End of story."
Pelosi warns focus on deportations a 'gift' to Republicans
By Mike Lillis
Getty Images
Immigration
reformers shifting their focus from Congress to the White House over
deportations risk undermining efforts to pass a comprehensive reform
bill this year, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned
Thursday.
Pelosi said she supports the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus's calls for the administration to reduce deportations. But
simultaneously taking pressure off of House Republicans, she added, is a
"gift" to GOP leaders, allowing them to dodge a sensitive issue that
could hurt them in the 2014 election.
"That's a gift to the
Republicans," she said. "Because the fact is, the Republicans are never
going to move unless they think there's a price to play politically for
not bringing the bill to the floor."
Pelosi stressed that
legislation remains the Democrats' ultimate goal, and urged reformers to
stay focused on Congress getting a bill.
"I see the pain and
suffering of the deportations," she said. "But the answer, the medicine
for every ill in the deportations is to pass comprehensive immigration
reform."
Pelosi did not say that congressional Democrats or the
White House should no longer consider reduced deportations. But her
warning that the actions of pro-immigration groups could deliver
Republicans a political benefit could raise questions about the strategy
overall.
Many Democrats are calling on President Obama for
reduced deportations, and Obama has asked Department of Homeland
Security leaders for an across-the-board review of his deportations
policies.
The move has made many critics hopeful he'll expand the
administration's deferred action program, which allows some immigrants
brought to the U.S. illegally as kids to remain in the United States
temporarily, to a broader population.
Issues of race have made GOP leaders reluctant to back immigration reform, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) charged Thursday.
The
Democratic leader suggested that the Republicans would have moved a
reform bill long ago if whites were the only beneficiaries."I think
race has something to do with the fact that they're not bringing up an
immigration bill," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I've heard
them say to the Irish, 'If it were just you, this would be easy.' "
The
remarks came in response to a question about the often-testy
relationship between congressional Republicans and the administration of
President Obama, the nation's first black president.
There's long
been grumbling among Democrats that Obama's race has exacerbated the
partisan divide between the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans,
highlighted recently by a flare-up between Attorney General Eric Holder, who is black, and Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee.
Pelosi
was reluctant to say that race issues have fueled those tensions,
arguing more broadly that Republicans have been "very disrespectful" of
White House officials regardless of their ethnicity.
By Vicki Needham, Mike Lillis and Bernie Becker - 12/11/13 05:15 PM EST
The
budget deal worked out by House and Senate negotiators is on the verge
of unraveling over the exclusion of federal unemployment benefits,
several leading Democrats warned Wednesday.
The lawmakers are
outraged by a GOP move to add the Medicare “doc fix” to the package but
not a continuation of unemployment benefits — a strategy they say could
sink the entire package by scaring away Democratic votes.
ADVERTISEMENT
Reps.
Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Sandy Levin (Mich.) said the move creates a
“new dynamic” undermining Democratic support for the plan announced
Tuesday by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). “I
think it puts at risk the whole bill, and it surely puts at risk my
vote,” said Levin, the top Democrat at the House Ways and Means
Committee.
Van Hollen echoed that message.
“This does now add a new dynamic that could upset the applecart that could put at risk the budget agreement,” he said.
It's
not clear whether Democrats would sink the first bipartisan budget deal
in years over the unemployment insurance (UI) issue. But with GOP
leaders intent on leaving town on Friday — and with GOP leaders showing
little appetite to extend the benefits before they expire on Dec. 28 —
the Democrats' only real leverage is to threaten to do so.
“Obviously,
once the budget passes you don't have much leverage in terms of votes
on things that remain,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said
Wednesday. “That may be the last vehicle.”
Some Democrats on
Wednesday morning appeared poised to back the Ryan-Murray budget
agreement. But they also cautioned that the addition of the Medicare
language without a UI extension could erode that support.
“It's
something we should do, but why wouldn't we do unemployment insurance if
we're doing that?” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked
Wednesday morning after a meeting of her caucus in the Capitol.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Backers of a narrowly drawn budget deal are selling
it as a way to stabilize Congress' shaky fiscal practices and mute some
of the partisan rancor that has helped send lawmakers' public approval
ratings plummeting. But the bipartisan pact doesn't solve long-term tax
and spending issues, leaving liberals and conservatives alike grumbling.
House and Senate floor votes are being sought on
the plan announced Tuesday by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democratic
Sen. Patty Murray, and applauded by the White House, with the aim of
securing passage before lawmakers go home for the holidays.
But skepticism surfaced in both the Democratic and Republican caucuses.
Sen.
Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican and leading deficit hawk, panned the
new deal in an interview Wednesday, saying it fails to address core
issues of wasteful spending in Washington. He said it was probably "the
best" that Ryan and Murray could get at this time. But said he was
disappointed in its failure to address core fiscal issues such as
duplication and wasteful spending in Washington.
The agreement,
among other things, seeks to restore $63 billion in automatic spending
cuts affecting programs ranging from parks to the Pentagon. The deal to
ease those cuts for two years is aimed less at chipping away at the
nation's $17 trillion national debt than it is at trying to help a
dysfunctional Capitol stop lurching from crisis to crisis. It would set
the stage for action in January on a $1 trillion-plus spending bill for
the budget year that began in October.
The measure unveiled by
Ryan, R-Wis., and Murray, D-Wash., blends $85 billion in spending cuts
and revenue from new and extended fees — but no taxes or cuts to
Medicare beneficiaries — to replace a significant amount of the mandated
cuts to agency budgets over the coming two years.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., left, and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patt …
The package would raise the Transportation Security
Administration fee on a typical nonstop, round-trip airline ticket from
$5 to $10; require newly hired federal workers to contribute 1.3
percentage points more of their salaries toward their pensions; and trim
cost-of-living adjustments to the pensions of military retirees under
the age of 62. Hospitals and other health care providers would have to
absorb two additional years of a 2-percentage-point cut in their
Medicare reimbursements.
The plan doesn't attempt to resuscitate
earlier attempts at an accommodation that would have traded tax hikes
for structural curbs to ever-growing benefit programs like Medicare and
Social Security. But it would at least bring some stability on the
budget to an institution — Congress — whose approval ratings are in the
gutter.
"Our deal puts jobs and economic growth first by rolling
back ... harmful cuts to education, medical research, infrastructure
investments and defense jobs for the next two years," Murray said.
Ryan
is set to pitch the measure to skeptical conservatives at a closed-door
GOP meeting on Wednesday. Democrats are set to discuss it as well, but
the measure won an immediate endorsement from President Barack Obama if
only tepid approval from top Capitol Hill Democrats like House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, ranking Democrat on the
Budget Committee.
"Tonight's
agreement represents a step toward enacting a budget for the American
people and preventing further manufactured crises that only harm our
economy, destroy jobs and weaken our middle class," Pelosi said in a
statement.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murr …
"This agreement makes sure that we don't have a government
shutdown scenario in January. It makes sure that we don't have another
government shutdown scenario in October," Ryan said. "It makes sure that
we don't lurch from crisis to crisis."
House Democrats are urging lawmakers to include a vote on
unemployment insurance alongside a budget deal if Republican lawmakers
insist on including a short-term fix to the Medicare payment system as
well.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday Rep. Chris Van Hollen,
the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, standing along side
Rep. Sandy Levin (D-MI), said Republican lawmakers have begun pushing to
include a Sustainable Growth Rate fix (often called a short term doc
fix that addresses a Medicare payment problem) alongside the budget
proposal introduced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI)
and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-WA).
Physicians
who treat patients under Medicare are scheduled to take a huge pay cut
in the new year if Congress doesn't enact this "doc fix." Many lawmakers
have expressed support for reversing the pay cuts baked into current
law should, but such a fix is costly.
At the same time, our national defense budget is being slashed.
Since 2011, the defense budget has been cut by 15 percent in real terms. If you include the war budget, which has been going down as we reduce troops in Afghanistan, the national defense has been cut 25 percent in four years.
As a result of these budget cuts, the U.S. military is smaller than it was on 9/11 and in many cases the smallest it has been in recent history.