Tag Archives: budget

Obama Requests $1.1B for Gun Control – and does it wrong

Obama-470x315

Like the Senator that thought magazines were disposable, another that thought ARs could shoot 30 rounds in 1/2 second and the list of other politicians that misunderstand every aspect of gun ownership – Now, our President has put out a request for more than a billion dollars to spend on a list of gun control measures that is clearly upside down.

From Breitbart.com:

President Obama has requested $1.1 billion and the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked for $382.1 million for gun control “to protect Americans from gun violence.”

Included in the DOJ’s $382.1 million figure is a request for $2 million for smart gun technology grants.

According to The Washington Beacon, Obama’s $1.1 billion “[includes] $182 million to support the president’s ‘Now is the Time’ gun safety initiative.”

“Now is the Time” includes the following:

1. Require background checks for all gun sales.

2. Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.

3. Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.

4. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

5. Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets

6. Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime

7. End the freeze on gun violence research

8. Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.

9. Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.

Now, if someone is serious about ending the school shootings and the recent mass-knifing at a school were really serious, they would look at the common cause – mental illness. They wouldn’t be focusing on the weapon. A mentally ill person can do great harm with a knife, dry ice bomb (gonna outlaw dry ice?), pressure cooker or whatever they can find. Let’s first examine the President’s list:

1. Require background checks for all gun sales.

It says sales, but I think they mean transfers. It’s hard to tell with liberals – definitions of words mean little to them. I don’t want to have to do a background check on my son when I give him a new dove gun.

2. Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.

Honestly, the NRA and I agree on this. More criminal data in the system is necessary and a long time coming. What’s scary is that we don’t honestly know if what the President means by this is what WE mean by this.

3. Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.

No such thing. Should we also ban “assault knives” like the one the kid used to harm 23 people today or “assault pressure cookers” like the ones use in the Boston bombings? The weapons they want to ban are semi-automatic rifles (today.) Once they get those, punp-action or bolt-action guns will be next. They just want to push things one step further and give it a scary name. AR actually stands for “Armalite Rifle.”

4. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

This will destroy the competition-shooting community and does nothing to promote safety. This is irresponsible and anyone who re-elects someone that votes for anything like this is just waiting to have them decide that 5, or 3 rounds are enough next time. 

5. Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets

Yes, because those are used every day to … well actually they aren’t really used against armored targets in much of any crime. Just think of all the bank robberies or convenience store hold-ups this would prevent … or something

6. Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime

This one, I agree with. As long as I understand what a gun crime is. Fast and furious? That seems like a gun crime.. guess they need additional tools to prosecute someone.. anyone .. for that debacle.

7. End the freeze on gun violence research

Research away, studies come to the conclusion of the organization paying them to do so. More government studies telling us the new ice age is coming (circa 1970) should be totally paid for by American tax dollars .. or something

8. Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.

Armed security yes. Nurturing climate? Seriously? Whose the parent here? Ahhh… yup, just got it.

9. Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.

Who believes the government can make that happen? They can’t even create an effective healthcare marketplace. Imagine a government-regulated mental healthcare regime…. 

The real list is simpler:

  1. Do some research on the anti-depressants, ADD, and other anti-psychotic drugs that a massive and unavoidable majority of the mass-violence culprits were on
  2. End gun-free zones. Most attacks end the instant someone confronts the attacker with a firearm – police response times are long and won’t get better as the population grows.
  3. Don’t nurture kids at school, make them strong and independent. Teach them that not everything is easy, success is not guaranteed and perhaps more of them won’t be propelled into psychosis when the least small thing goes wrong. Let them have their tantrums as 3 year olds or they might just have them at 17 instead.

House GOP Has Nothing to Offer Conservatives

GOP surrenders principlesHere’s the situation: You’re in a high–stakes negotiation with an untrustworthy opponent. The opposition has violated every agreement the two of you have made in the past. Enforcement mechanisms are weak or non–existent.

In other areas of mutual interest your opponent regularly violates the law and dares you to do something about the violation. Your weak and vacillating leadership can’t be counted on in a pinch. And finally, the opposition lies shamelessly to the state media, doing its best to paint you as a fanatic and pathological liar.

So what do you do?

Bomb Iran is a good answer, but it’s not the answer for this question, because I’m talking about negotiating a budget deal with Democrats.

The Republican House leadership decision in this case was to sell out their conservative base in a brazen attempt to insure their own re–election at the expense of the nation’s fiscal future.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R–WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D–Sneakers) have presented us with a plan that shatters the spending ceiling that was the main result of the bruising sequester fight, dilutes the small budget cuts from the sequester and raises taxes (Ryan calls it a “fee” but if the feds get more money and it comes from our pockets it’s the same as a tax).

Ryan even has the gall to say the deal will balance the budget in ten years and sidestep the threat of government shutdowns in January and October 2014.

And those dates are what are really important for craven House negotiators. In fact, the real motivation for the deal is Ryan’s shutdown statement. House Republicans still think they suffered a near–death experience in the recent government shutdown. But instead of seeing Jesus and a bright light, they saw a Mayflower moving van and a bright white resume. For them if it’s a choice between selling out to the Democrats and losing their cushy Congressional job, sellout is just another word for job security.

The risk of a potential shutdown in January and October of an election year was simply too much uncertainty for these stalwarts to bear. So instead of simply passing a continuing resolution as has been done for the past few years and keeping the sequester savings, Ryan decided to remove all uncertainly and cave in this year.

Ryan and Speaker Boehner (R–Risible) think they can get away with this lie to conservatives because the result of increased federal spending and budget busting won’t have the personal impact on voters that Obama’s insurance lie had. You don’t get a letter from the government cancelling your future. You get a Chinaman repossessing the Washington monument.

The rationalization for this total surrender is threefold according to our betters: The agreement restores some defense spending reduced by the sequester, cuts the budget and brings the entire budget into balance in ten years.

Let’s start at the top. Ace negotiator Ryan was able to restore $2 billion in Pentagon spending next year in return for letting Democrats increase wasteful social spending by $ 22 BILLION! That’s a ratio of 11 to one in welfare to warfare spending.

The sequester was bad enough — defense took half the cuts, while social spending took the other half spread over countless pointless programs — but this disaster in multiplication makes that deal look positively prudent.

Second the budget cut. I admire Ryan’s poker face as he announced $26 billion in cuts over ten years. This means the federal government will be cutting $2.6 billion a year out of a budget that’s over $1 trillion! For comparison purposes, the city of Washington, DC spends more than $2.6 billion in four months. In 2012 the IRS issued $11 billion in fraudulent income tax refunds. In the same year the government wasted $95 billion in programs identified by the Government Accounting Office that duplicated other wasteful government programs.

In federal terms, Ryan’s $2.6 billion is pocket change.

Finally, the budget balances in ten years. This is not because spending will finally be brought in line with revenue, which is how individuals balance budgets. No, Ryan is hoping that federal tax revenues will grow enough through a recovering economy to finally match the spending right now. In the other nine years the deficit continues to pile up.

This is like a drunk driver careening the wrong way down the interstate hoping his blood will absorb enough of the booze for him to regain control before the car hits the bridge abutment.

David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director who saw firsthand how Republicans agreed to increase taxes for Democrat spending cuts that never came, says, “First, let’s be clear—it’s a joke and betrayal. It’s the final surrender of the House Republican leadership to Beltway politics and kicking the can and ignoring the budget monster that’s hurtling down the road.”

Earlier this week reporter Paul Kane of The Washington Post seemed confused that TEA party members were mounting challenges to incumbent Republican senators. The answer is simple; conservatives have no reason to support big government incumbentcrats, regardless of whether they are Senators or Congressmen. Keeping the likes of Boehner or Ryan or Orrin Hatch in office is not the be all and end all of our existence. If nothing else even an unsuccessful primary can be a wakeup call for these whited sepulchers.

Why fight for them if they won’t fight for us? Why waste the gas necessary to drive to the polls to vote for these weaklings?

The only difference between these Republicans and Nancy Pelosi is we go broke slower and there’s a slim chance we won’t have to attend a same–sex marriage ceremony to qualify for Social Security benefits.

Retreating to a compound in Idaho is looking better and better. And since Janet Reno is no longer attorney general, we might even survive until the Chinese foreclose.

Obama Is *Mostly* OK With The Budget Agreement

Obama

From The White House:

white_house

 

Earlier this year, I called on Congress to work together on a balanced approach to a budget that grows our economy faster and creates more jobs – not through aimless, reckless spending cuts that harm our economy now, but by making sure we can afford to invest in the things that have always grown our economy and strengthened our middle class.  Today’s bipartisan budget agreement is a good first step.

This agreement replaces a portion of the across-the-board spending cuts known as “the sequester” that have harmed students, seniors, and middle-class families and served as a mindless drag on our economy over the last year.  It clears the path for critical investments in things like scientific research, which has the potential to unleash new innovation and new industries.  It’s balanced, and includes targeted fee increases and spending cuts designed in a way that doesn’t hurt our economy or break the ironclad promises we’ve made to our seniors. It does all this while slightly reducing our deficits over time – coming on top of four years of the fastest deficit reduction since the end of World War II.  And because it’s the first budget that leaders of both parties have agreed to in a few years, the American people should not have to endure the pain of another government shutdown for the next two years.

This agreement doesn’t include everything I’d like – and I know many Republicans feel the same way. That’s the nature of compromise. But it’s a good sign that Democrats and Republicans in Congress were able to come together and break the cycle of short-sighted, crisis-driven decision-making to get this done. That’s the way the American people expect Washington to work. I want to thank Senator Murray, Congressman Ryan and all the other leaders who helped forge this bipartisan agreement. And I want to call on Members of Congress from both parties to take the next step and actually pass a budget based on this agreement so I can sign it into law and our economy can continue growing and creating jobs without more Washington headwinds.

But, as I said last week, the defining challenge of our time is not whether Congress can pass a budget – it’s whether we can make sure our economy works for every working American. And while today’s agreement is a good first step, Congress has a lot more to do on that front. In the immediate term, Congress should extend unemployment insurance, so more than a million Americans looking for work don’t lose a vital economic lifeline right after Christmas, and our economy doesn’t take a hit. And beyond that, they should do more to expand broad-based growth and opportunity – by creating more jobs that pay better wages, by growing our economy, and by offering a path into the middle class for every American willing to work for it.

Federal Government: Embarrassing to the Point of Painful

As the so-called “government shutdown” drags on, one thing is hard not to admit: the Obama Administration is acting in a manner that is attempting to extract the maximum amount of pain on the American people. While many are wondering how it came to this point, those of us who actually paid attention in Social Studies, Civics and American History classes – school subjects that are, today, given little, if any, attention –
understand it’s because the US Constitution and the purity of the original governmental process has been raped by the opportunistic political class.

Our nation has always had a robust political discourse, commencing from before we were even a documented nation. We have always been represented by a passionate, spirited political class; strong in their beliefs, but educated and knowledgeable enough to legislate and govern for the good of all the people. Today, this is not the case.

Today, we have a political class that insists on the importance of ideologically motivated political “achievements” over the honest representation of the American people; loyalty to political faction – of which each and every Framer and Founder warned – over loyalty to those who delivered them to power via the ballot box.

Today, we literally have people in the political class that have an inferior command of the English language, an inferior and under-performing understanding of the principles of the Constitution and the Charters of Freedom, and a devotion to Progressivism; a non-indigenous, Marxist-based ideology that believes the State is the Alpha and the Omega; the giver of rights and the final arbiter of freedom and liberty.

Today, we have a government that does not – does not – serve the American people, evidenced – in a singular point – by the overwhelming and sustained majority of Americans who do not want the Affordable Care Act implemented on any level.

FOX News reports:

Is the Obama administration employing a make-it-hurt strategy to gain political leverage in the budget battle on Capitol Hill?

Republicans are making that charge as the stalemate drags on, and point to the Pentagon furlough of 400,000 civilian staffers — even though Congress passed and the president signed a bill to supposedly keep them on the job…

Republicans argue that the intent of the law was to keep them on the job, and that the Obama administration “narrowly interpreted” it against congressional intent in order to furlough more employees.

It’s one example of how, Republicans say, the administration is making the partial shutdown of government services worse than it needs to be. Many have complained about the National Park Service cordoning off even open-air monuments in Washington, DC, such as the World War II Memorial.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), responded to criticisms by saying, “It is time for Speaker Boehner to stop the games.”

Shamefully, FOX also reported that correspondence on this situation has stalled because, as Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), stated, “Unfortunately, most of the staff who draft congressional correspondence are furloughed.”

A few notes on this shameful situation.

First, and to be equally critical to both sides, if “staffers that draft congressional correspondence” have been furloughed, perhaps those elected to Congress should learn to (and actually) write their own correspondence.

Second, to the Progressives, Democrats and our embarrassing President, it is never “game-playing” when the taxpayer’s money is being spent. It is “game-playing” when members of our military who have been maimed and permanently injured can’t get medical care because the politically opportune refuse to entertain appropriations passed through a traditional method (not every spending bill has to be an omnibus package, in fact traditionally, the 12 appropriation bills have been passed separately).

House Republicans “screwed the pooch” when they didn’t advance ACA funding as a separate, stand-alone appropriations bill from the start. When House Speaker Boehner stated that this Congress would operate under “regular order” he should have stated that the House would be de-bundling all legislation into stand-alone pieces, shining the light of truth and accountability on everything that passed across the House floor. Sadly, traditional, inside-the-beltway pork politics prevailed and the practice of bundling legislation to appease the politically greedy has delivered us to this point.

Truth be told, had the political class not blindly followed the Progressive Movement into ratifying the 17th Amendment, none of this would have ever come to pass. But, then, the Commerce Clause wouldn’t have even come close to allowing much of what the Federal government has done that encroaches into our daily lives.

Additionally, if Harry Reid would have operated lawfully, the omnibus appropriations package would have already been legislated, as he is – is – bound by law to have produced a budget by April 15 of each year. He has not done so since before Republicans took control of the House.

The sad, but glaringly true, fact is this. Our government has become too big and too bureaucratic. Our government has manipulated and strayed from the boundaries of the US Constitution, which is a mandated blueprint for limiting government.

Until We the People insist on repealing the 17th Amendment so as to re-employ constitutional protections for the States, and until Congress re-visits the Federal government’s grotesquely over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it will be up to the States to save the nation, either by Constitutional Convention (which in and of itself is very dangerous were the original words of the Constitution to be manipulated by the opportunistic) or by, God forbid, secession.

And it is with tears in my eyes for our country; for freedom; for liberty itself, that I acquiesce to the notion. Buy, my God, are we to allow the greatest achievement of freedom in the history of the world be extinguished at the hand of ideological bullies?

The words of Patriot Patrick Henry said so very seriously then, are just as cogent today:

“Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! — I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The Fomentation of a Government Shut Down

Well, it is upon us, the dreaded government shutdown. And yet the Earth still spins, the water still runs, the electric is on and Harry Reid is still tossing verbal grenades at anyone who dares represent an opposing view to the lock-step Progressive agenda. Imagine that! Our daily lives didn’t come to a grinding, catastrophic halt because the big government nanny state was sidelined by the fruits of their own discontent. In fact, to paraphrase an often heard chant at any Leftist-leaning protest march, “This is what not spending looks like!”

Truth be told, if our nation would have stayed true to our Founding Documents, the crisis that delivered unto us this dastardly government shutdown would never had existed. Indeed, if we would have executed government with fidelity to the Constitution, to governmental process and to the legislated laws instead of capitulating to the Progressive’s fundamental transformation of the United States of America (a transformation launched at the turn of the 20th Century), World War II veterans wouldn’t have had to push aside hastily erected barriers meant to shut down the World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC, Tuesday simply to experience the memorial erected in their honor.

I mention a lack of fidelity to the US Constitution and the rule of law because had two specific established protocols – Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution and The Budget Control Act of 1974 – been honored, not only would the environment in Washington, DC, been devoid of gridlock, but regular order would have mandated the annual delivery of appropriations to the various departments and agencies.

When our Framers crafted the US Constitution they included Article I, Section 3, which reads:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” (Emphasis added)

Where the members of the House of Representatives were to serve as the “voice of the people,” the Senate was supposed to act as the protector of States’ Rights. The check-and-balance between the co-equal branches of government was to have a check-and-balance within the Legislative Branch to assure that both the voice of the people and the rights of the States were balanced in any legislation that would emanate from that branch of government. By constructing this internal check-and-balance, the Framers enshrined the power to both force compromise with the Executive Branch and protect the rights of the minority (Read: States’ Rights) in the Legislative Branch.

But with the Progressive Era’s 1912-1913 achievement of the 17th Amendment, that check-and-balance, along with the protection of States’ Rights was obliterated, and a gigantic move toward a centralization of government power at the Federal level was achieved.

The 17th Amendment reads, in part,

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.” (Emphasis added.)

So, by effectively transforming the US Senate from a protector of States’ Rights to a redundant chamber catering to the voice of the people, Progressives created two chambers vulnerable to political faction; two competing political entities that could gridlock because their tasks were the same – their authorities derived from the same source.

Today, had the 17th Amendment not existed, the US House of Representatives would have advanced their bill to defund the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Senate – given that 38 States have indicated they do not support the ACA – would have concurred, sending a Continuing Resolution to fund the whole of government but defunding the ACA to President Obama. The President would have almost certainly vetoed the legislation which, by virtue of the Senates’ loyalty to their respective State Legislatures, would have been overturned by the whole of the Legislative Branch. Of course, this is predicated on the ACA ever having had become law in the first place, which, under the original intent of the US Constitution, would be questionable.

Additionally, had the United States Senate, under the disingenuous and corrupt political hand of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), not insisted on existing in defiance of a federal law – The Budget Control Act of 1974, the entire Continuing Resolution process wouldn’t have taken place.

The Budget Control Act of 1974 mandates that,

“…Congress pass two annual budget resolutions (it later was decreased to one) and set timetables for finishing budget work. The budget resolution specifies spending levels in broad areas and may direct congressional committees to find ways to save money. Initially the date for completing the budget resolution was May 15, but later the deadline was changed to April 15.

“It’s a deadline Congress seldom has met. Since 1974, Congress has only succeeded in meeting its statutory deadline for passing a budget resolution six times. Sometimes it’s months late. Sometimes, as in Fiscal 2011, Congress doesn’t pass a budget resolution at all.

“Another section of the Budget Act of 1974 states that Congress cannot consider any annual appropriations bills until it adopts an overall budget blueprint…In Fiscal 2011 there should have been 12 appropriations bills.”

So, had Senate Majority Leader Reid actually adhered to the law by advancing a budget resolution to be reconciled, this “showdown” might never have come to pass. But, because there are automatic increases built into each annual budget to account for inflation, etc., it was to the benefit of the spendthrifts in Congress to refuse to advance – or even negotiate – a budget resolution. By using a Continuing Resolution they didn’t have to cut any spending in the face of repeated requests from President Obama to raise the debt ceiling even as the citizenry – and the elected GOP – screamed for fiscal responsibility and debt reduction.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that Mr. Reid had an underhanded and completely partisan reason for not following the law. We should have come to understand that the Progressives of the 21st Century are vicious, win-at-all-cost, slash-and-burners when then-House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), dismissed the idea of legitimately legislating the ACA by saying,

“We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit.”

And we should have known that 21st Century Progressives would scald their own Mothers to submission to advance their cause when we were subjected to the over-the-top and venomous assaults they made on duly elected officials who dared to disagree with their political agenda:

“It is embarrassing that these people who are elected to represent the country are representing the TEA Party, the anarchists of the country…” – Sen. Harry Reid, (D-NV)

“Obama will not – he cannot – negotiate with a roving band of anarchists who say, ‘Build our oil pipeline or the troops don’t get paid.’” – Former Obama Speechwriter Jon Favreau

“I have never seen such an extreme group of people adopt such an insane policy.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

“These people have come unhinged.” – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (P-FL)

“I believe it’s terrorism…This is an attempt to destroy all we know of the republican form of government in this country.” – Chris Matthews, MSNBC

“What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.” – Dan Pfeiffer, White House Senior Adviser

“I call them ‘legislative arsonists.’ They’re there to burn down what we should be building up…” – Nancy Pelosi (P-CA)

I could go on but you get the picture.

The bottom line here is this. Progressives will do anything and say anything; they will lie, cheat and steal, to achieve their goals; their agendas. They will alter the Constitution, create new behemoth entitlement programs, spend, raise taxes and amass debt from which there is no return, in any and all efforts to advance their nanny-state, centralized government vision for our country. And if those who believe in Constitutional law, States’ Rights, individualism, personal responsibility the free market and liberty don’t take a stand – now…well, it will all be over very, very soon…at the hands of the Progressives’ ideological death panel.

Of course, these are just the ravings of an “unhinged, roving legislative arsonist touting an insane terrorist policy, a bomb strapped to my chest,” don’t you know…

Jabberwonky Budget Apocalypse Edition – September 29th

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

When: Sunday, September 29th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Jabberwonky on Blog Talk Radio

What:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Whether it’s “down the rabbit hole”, or “through the looking glass”, the world of politics is often referred to in the lexicon given to us by Lewis Carroll. No matter what, those terms are resurrected when referring to something that has gone terribly wrong. And that’s what’s here on Jabberwonky…

Tonight: So, everyone’s upset about the fact that the Republicans keep pushing a continuing resolution to temporarily fund the government that Obama doesn’t like, and won’t sign. What now? Other than the obvious, that the Democrats are gearing up to blame the GOP for whatever goes wrong, what else could be in their bag of tricks? Join us tonight with guest, Meredith Ancret (@MeredithAncret), as we discuss this, and whatever else comes to mind.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Government Shutdown?…Blame Obama & Reid

sankar govind (CC)

There are two statements one can make with certainty about the current situation inside the beltway. First, truth is a rare commodity. What was promised to be the most transparent administration in American history has proven to, by comparison, make Richard Nixon’s Administration look like Wikileaks. And second, the Republican Party, at its highest level, has a lethal messaging problem. These two truths combine for a moment in time when the United States government is not only susceptible to Progressive despotism, but well down the road to succumbing to it.

Where the transparency and honesty of the Obama Administration is concerned, the examples of dishonesty are many. From using the Internal Revenue Service to cripple their ideological and political opponents to advancing fiction as the cause of the slaughter of four Americans by al Qaeda operative in a quest for an election victory, the list of matters ringing dishonest emanating from this administration is profound:

▪ The IRS scandal
▪ Benghazi cover-up
▪ The NSA surveillance scandal
▪ Spying on the media
▪ Fast & Furious
▪ Being able to keep your current coverage under Obamacare
▪ The Pigford debacle
▪ Sebelius violating the Hatch Act
▪ The use of secret emails by agency heads
▪ Solyndra
▪ Dropping prosecution of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation

The list goes on and on and on, all the while the mainstream media provides cursory coverage at best, even as they provide rhetorical cover for the administration’s misdeeds.

But perhaps the most dishonest misinformation emanating from the Obama White House – and from the Democrat and Progressive controlled Senate, for that matter, is that Republicans want to shut down government. This out-and-out lie was false in 2011 and it is false today.

Since Republicans wrestled control of the US House of Representatives from the talons of Nancy Pelosi and her Progressive coven, the House has satisfied its constitutional obligation to craft and pass a budget, on time, each and every year, including for 2014. Conversely, Democrats and Progressives in the Senate have manufactured gimmicks and excuses to elude their budgetary obligations.

On January 7th, 2013, The Washington Examiner’s Byron York wrote:

“Tuesday marks the 1,350th day since the Senate passed a budget. The law requires Congress to pass a budget every year, on the grounds that Americans deserve to know how the government plans to spend the trillions of taxpayer dollars it collects, along with dollars it borrows at the taxpayers’ expense. But Majority Leader Harry Reid, who last allowed a budget through the Senate in April 2009, has ignored the law since then.

“There’s no mystery why. The budget passed by large Democrat majorities in the first months of the Obama administration had hugely elevated levels of spending in it. By not passing a new spending plan since, Reid has in effect made those levels the new budgetary baseline. Congress has kept the government going with continuing resolutions based on the last budget signed into law.

“While Reid has forbidden action, the House has passed budgets as required. Senate Democrats have been highly critical of those budgets, designed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. But under Reid’s leadership, Democrats have steadfastly refused to come up with a plan of their own.”

Yet the narrative advanced by Reid, his Democrat Senate cronies and the White House is that it is Republicans who exist as “the party of ‘no’” in the US Congress. The facts, as they present, prove otherwise.

Which leads us to the current misinformation spin being advanced by the Progressives in Washington, DC: The Republicans want to shut down government over Obamacare. Truth be told, even the staunchest TEA Partier in the House and/or Senate has gone on record as not wanting to shut down government.

Article I, Sections 7, 8 and 9, respectively, of the United States Constitution states mandates that the “power of the purse” resides solely with the US House of Representatives:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”

“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

A plan being advanced by the fiscally responsible in the US House proposes to fully fund the US federal government, devoid of any funding for the notorious and ill-crafted Affordable Care Act. The facts surrounding the proposal are thus:

▪ Government funding through the Continuing Resolution will expire on September 30th.

▪ The House should pass a Continuing Resolution to fund the entire federal government, except for Obamacare. To do so, the Continuing Resolution should include the Defund Obamacare Act (HR2682/S1292) to explicitly prohibit mandatory and discretionary Obamacare spending.

▪ If Republicans stand together, with 218 votes in the House and 41 in the Senate, we can win. House Republicans should send the Senate a Continuing Resolution that fully funds the government without funding Obamacare, and Senate Republicans should ensure that no Continuing Resolution providing Obamacare funding is signed into law.

▪ If Republicans do this, President Obama and Harry Reid will falsely accuse Republicans of threatening a government shutdown. But only they control whether to shut down the government just to implement their failed law.

To date, more than 60 House Republicans and 14 Senate Republicans have joined in this effort. The likes of Richard Shelby (R-AL), John McCain (R-AZ), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Roy Blount (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Orin Hatch (R-UT) have come out against the measure for what can only be construed as purely political reasons.

Given that the Progressives of the Obama White House and the Reid Senate have no issue with crafting falsehoods to advance their political power, Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and fiscally conservative Democrats should admit this inevitability. Whether fiscally responsible Republicans fund government devoid of Obamacare or not, Progressives and Democrats – including their sycophants in the mainstream media – are going to blame the GOP for any and all push back on the budget, the debt ceiling and the implementation of Obamacare, no matter what Republicans do.

This makes it all the more frustrating, if not infuriating, that Republicans at the national level – both elected and not – are miserable at messaging. In the last decades Republicans have shown not only a weakness in being able to message; to convey simple cognitive thoughts, to the American people, they have displayed a complete inability to craft and take control of “the narrative,” pre-emptively.

And while “establishment Republicans” (many of whom are Progressive elitists in their own right) blame their inability to communicate to the American people on a “facture within the party,” this avoids the stark truth that the national Republican party hasn’t had a coherent message or employed a potent counter-measure to the Progressive message since the days of Ronald Reagan.

(A note about the “facture within the party: It is more a confrontation between moderate Republicans who have allowed the party to be “nudged” to the ideological Left continuously and without reciprocation during their tenure, and those loyal to the party’s charter and tenets circa 1856; those identified as the TEA Party faction of the Republican Party; those advancing the “Defund Obamacare” movement in Congress. To wit, establishment Republicans didn’t want Ronald Reagan as their nominee either. He would have been considered a TEA Partier had the movement existed in his day.)

That said, the only thing keeping the Defund Obamacare initiative from saving the country from economic devastation and a nation devoid of individual rights is intestinal fortitude; courage and conviction.

On August 21st, 2013, a gunman, armed with an AK-47 and over 500 rounds of ammunition, entered a Georgia elementary school. Michael Brandon Hill, a 20-year-old man with a history of mental health issues, proceeded to take the school bookkeeper, Antoinette Tuff, hostage, in what could have been yet another senseless tragedy; another murderous rampage. Instead, the situation resolved in Mr. Hill being taken into custody unharmed, the children of the school safe and sound, all because Ms. Tuff had the courage to try to do the right thing. Ms. Tuff talked the would-be gunman into surrendering and seeking medical attention. Because of Ms. Tuff’s courage, because of her willingness to put the good of the children before her own self-preservation, everyone involved in the incident lives to see another day: Hill gets the help he needs and the children live to embrace their futures.

That the “establishment Republicans” on Capitol Hill would display the same courage as Ms. Tuff when it comes to doing the right thing; when it comes to making a decision to take a stand; when it comes to placing the good of the people about political self-preservation. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuffs on Capitol Hill. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuff’s in the Republican Party.

But there was a time when this was not the case.

WaPo on Obama budget: nearly all will pay higher taxes

Obama budge to tax nearly everyone

arrogant_obamaThe Washington Post reported the a nonpartisan analysis found that ” earners at nearly every income level would face a somewhat higher tax burden.”

The Tax Policy Center study found that Anericans earning less than $200,000 will pay higher taxes despite the President’s 2008 pledge to the middle class unequivocally stating that they would see absolutely no increase in taxation. The result will be less disposable income and a hit to charitable giving.

The tax increases come in three forms: an increase to tobacco taxes, changes in personal exemptions and a recalculation of inflation.

As more low-income earners smoke than higher-earners, the increase in taxes on cigarettes will be necessarily regressive – hitting the poor much more than anyone else. Obama’s budget nearly double the federal tax from $1.01 to $1.95 per pack.

Exemptions will diminish in value each year as a new inflation calculation formula forces middle-income earners into higher tax brackets each year.

Being forced into a higher tax bracket will leave less disposable income for those of moderate incomes. With more money being funneled to an inefficient federal government, middle class families will have fewer dollars to spend how they see fit.

As more earners get pushed into higher tax brackets, the amount they can claim for charitable giving diminishes. Combined with fewer dollars left after taxes, charities are likely to see more funds going to government programs that used to be directed to them by willing citizens.

The President’s budget reflects a core ideal: the government can take care of people better than private charities. As more government programs, like the Obamaphone give-away, are shown to be wasteful, taxpayers should question the redirection of money that would otherwise have likely gone to charities.

This is the second increase in taxes the middle class has seen from the President in recent months. Earlier this year, most Americans saw their paychecks shrink as the President discontinued the Bush tax cuts.

The hardest hit in Obama’s budget are those making more than $200,000. The same group the President targeted in his January tax increase.

Obama’s Budget Plan: Raise Taxes on Middle Class, Gut Charities

President's budget

President's budget to fail$800 billion in tax increases form the center of President Obama’s new budget plan with some $1.2 Billion in cuts to future spending growth. Neither side seems to willing to support the plan.

Democrats say that the tax increases don’t go far enough and point to the liberal plan from the Senate that raises taxes by more than twice what Obama’s budget calls for.

Republicans see no spending cuts at all. The budget doesn’t reduce spending year-over-year, only the rate at which spending will increase each year. In fact, Obama’s budget adds $1 billion for 15 manufacturing innovation institutes, additional funds for high-speed rail, and free pre-school for low-to-moderate income families.

Both sides are concerned about the tax increase on the middle class.

The only entitlement reform, the method most economists agree is the only way to save those programs, is to change the way inflation is calculated. Currently, inflation is calculated based on price increases in a set basket of goods. The president’s plan would switch to chained-CPI which takes into account the behavior of switching to alternative, cheaper products as the price of an item increases. The resulting inflation rate is slower. Inflation calculations are used in determining the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for government programs like Social Security and for determining increases in the tax brackets.

Democrats are concerned that using chained-CPI will result in seniors seeing their Social Security checks not keep up with actual cost-of-living. Republicans are concerned that more middle-income earners will be pushed into higher tax brackets or above the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) threshold and forced to pay higher taxes.

Senate Democrats are threatening to give Obama yet another zero-support vote and House Republicans have called the plan “dead on arrival” in the people’s chamber. Since this plan closely resembles the failed “grand bargain” from 20011, there is little hope that it will materialize into an actual budget.

There are also concerns over the supposed spending slow-downs in the budget. Much of it depends on cost savings due to Obamacare.

With this year’s delay of implementing the exchanges, skyrocketing implementation costs, quickly rising premiums and the projected shortfalls in available care, rampant cost overruns are the expectation. Even the Department of Health and Human Services was caught off-guard by the complexity and costs of the President’s marquee health care legislation.

The President’s budget plan also removes charitable deductions and home mortgage deductions for higher earners. Non-profit groups that rely on huge donations from wealthy contributors are understandably concerned that the new budget plan, if enacted, could decimate their efforts to help others. Add in middle-earners being hit with higher taxes and the two groups that mainly fund charitable efforts will be far less likely to do so.

Low-income families are often heavily-dependent upon charity groups for food and clothing. The President’s plan will likely do more harm to lower and middle-income earners than anyone else.

Shorter Jay Carney: Obama’s Not King, You Know

king

White Hkingouse Press Secretary Jay Carney spoke about the much delayed budget President Obama will finally unveil next week.

“What I will say is that this is not the president’s idealized budget,” said Carney,  “It is not what he would do if he were king, or if only people who supported his proposals were in Congress.

Have we ever had a president who more wished to be king instead of having to deal with those pesky other equal but separate, branches of government?

Gosh darn those Founding Fathers.

Obama pivots to spanish language television after failures on budget, guns, healthcare

Obama failures

President Obama failureThe President is scheduled for sit-down interviews with Spanish language television networks Telemundo and Univision in an attempt to refocus American’s attention from his failures on the budget and gun control and the growing negative view Americans have on Obamacare.

President Obama is likely to focus on immigration reform – something that is much more likely to yield bi-partisan support than most of the items he focused on during his two terms. The White House is confident that growing numbers of Hispanic voters, many who watch Spanish language television, will help to pressure Congress into passing an immigration reform bill.

Obama has publicly supported legislation that would seek a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States.

Obama had spent most of the first part of 2013 trying to paint sequestration as a doomsday device put in-play by Republicans despite press reports and noted journalist Bob Woodward’s expose demonstrating that the White House pushed for sequestration. Recently, the White House cancelled tours of “The People’s House” and threatened the East Lawn Easter Egg Hunt pointing to sequestration as the cause – all while Joe Biden had been taking weekend trips back home, the Obama’s continued to vacation like Hollywood elites, and the Vice President blew over a half-million on a hotel stay in Paris.

The Administration’s attempts to show that budget cuts are painful failed miserably. Sequestration didn’t actually cut the budget, it only reduced the size of recent increases in federal spending of tax payer dollars. With only minuscule cutbacks coming from sequestration, no real change to services or the economy are palpable. Obama’s credibility has taken a tremendous hit as his fiscal cliff turns into a non-event.

The President had also spent the last few months pushing for an outright Federal gun ban. Limitations on shotguns, pistols and incorrectly-labelled “assault weapons” were desired by the Commander-in-Chief – until now. With Harry Reid not wanting to lose his seat as Senate Majority Leader, he was forced to pull the gun ban from the gun bill – instead focusing on background checks and enforcement. Sen. Reid did not want to force Democrats from rural states to have to vote on a gun ban bill which would just about guarantee lost Democrat Senate seats and a Republican Majority Leader come 2014.

This month, even more negative impacts of Obamacare have been brought to the attention of Americans. More doctors are retiring early, fewer are seeking medical careers, the costs of the legislation are skyrocketing, healthcare claims costs will rise 32% on average and more than 80% in some states.

Obamacare, gun control and the budget – all important and highly-visible issues with voters. All issues the President would have liked to have define his Presidency. All of them not headed in directions in Obama’s favor. But not all of them the most important.

According to a March 26th Gallup poll, the economy, federal spending and healthcare are the top three issues with American voters. Obama is now pivoting away from federal spending, trying to pretend Obamacare isn’t really as bad as recent press says it is and has been failing on the economy overall since taking office.

Obama approval ratingServing in his second term, President Obama presides over a nation more divided than any time since the 1960’s.  Racial tensions, class warfare, and an economy taking much longer than expected to recover have left America with a melting pot in shambles. Hoping to prevent a two-term legacy of outright failure, Obama is seeking to use Spanish language television to get at least one thing accomplished that may be looked upon favorably in history’s eyes.

This Week On The Left

Obama+Biden+Meet+Congressional+Leaders+8ADIlY8vJ5Ml

Second Amendment: The Battle Rages On

It’s hard to believe that in 2013 there would still be an attack on Constitutional rights…but there is. The most recent(and surprisingly well sustained) is against our right to bear arms.

This past week President Obama re-upped his gun control push calling on Vice President Biden and NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who held press conferences, to push his initiative.

What’s more, on Wednesday, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed bills that require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds(via Politico).

While some view this as “common sense” legislation there is no argument that can convince most Americans that infringement of any of their rights is common sense. With more and more restrictions on the Second Amendment, we are left wondering what rights we will be forced to give up next.

Senate Democrat Budget

On Saturday Senate Democrats approved their first budget in four years. But not without opposition. It passed Democratic approval with just a 50-49 vote showing a deep divide within the formerly solid Democrat ranks.

The main problem: failure to address the deficit problem. Just last week Obama went on the record saying, “My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance.”

Apparently not all Democrats feel the same way. Many of the more moderate politicians on the left are beginning to see the importance of balancing the budget. Which could prove to be a major point of contention going into talks with House GOP.

As Senator Mark Begich (D.-AL) put it, “Passing this off to our children is not an option.”

And many other Democrats are starting to see that the ridiculous deficit and failure to balance the budget is not only failing to solve a current problem but also perpetuating a problem for future generations.

So, where does that leave us? Four *short* years later and a proposal that Senate Democrats can still barely agree on. Clearly, we’re not much further than where we started.

Obamacare Turns 3…!

At least that’s the excitement on the left. In spite of the fact that the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare has begun to wreak havoc on citizens from small business owners to private practice doctors and everyone inside, outside or in between; there are still many who are pleased with what they have been offered.

Of course, the biggest following of Obamacare is the hundreds of thousands of American women who may now receive free birth control. Women everywhere can rest assured that they do not have to be responsible for themselves because the government will take care of it.

I guess a loss of jobs, closing businesses and smaller paychecks are worth it after all.

Thanks Obama xoxoxo.

To Paris With Love

…$585,000 that is.

VP Biden is getting more than we bargained for. On a recent trip to Europe the Vice President is said to have accrued a $585,000 bill for a one night stay in Paris. Not to mention, another nearly $800,000 for additional trip related expenses for limousine service and a night in London.

According to Fox 2 News, rooms are rented out for staff, Secret Service, military and there are security expenses involved. While this is said to be standard operating costs, there is still a lot to be said for trips equaling millions of dollars on the taxpayer’s dime.

Yes, foreign relations are necessary and yes, the safety of the President, the VP and their teams is important but is there no way to trim these costs? With trips like these is it any wonder our country is in the position it is?

Cigarette Ban in NY

Quick folks, hide your Big Gulp…I mean cigarettes! With the overturn of the ban on drinks, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is back with a new ban to rile up NY residents. This time, it’s cigarettes.

Mayor Bloomberg has submitted a proposal to the NY city council to hide cigarettes from public view. He cites health concerns, particularly in underage smoking, as the primary reason for the ban.

Now, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, parents, in case you didn’t know(and the government believes you don’t) it’s your job to keep your kids from doing bad things. Not the government’s. There will always be arguments about children hiding cigarettes or drinking or drugs from their parents but if they can keep these things from ever attentive parents, rest assured, playing peek-a-boo with cigarettes in convenience stores isn’t going to keep them from smoking.

Biden: Giffords Mortally Wounded

If there was ever a #HeadDesk moment this would be it.

On Thursday during a gun control press conference Vice President Biden said, “Think about what happened out in — when Gabby Giffords, my good friend, was shot and mortally wounded.

Now, I’m not one to judge a poor use of vocabulary and/or grammar but it would seem that the man who is next in line as leader of the free world would know the difference between “mortally wounded” and, well, just wounded.

 This is the first weekly installment of TWOTL showcasing the attacks, laughs, and gaffes from the left. Proving why the smart money is on the conservative vote.

 

Follow me on Twitter @ReneeRankine

How Joe Biden Spent $585,000 for One Night in Paris

BidensParis

Have you really thought about that? Here’s how he did it.

There are more stories about this than I have toothpicks and we owned a restaurant. (Trust me, you end up with a lot of toothpicks after closing a restaurant.) I have a much different take on things but first “the facts:”

"No worries America"

“No worries America”

When you think about it – I mean really think about it – can you even imagine having the desires (plural), let alone the time and energy of what’s left in a 24-hour day, to think of all the places you could go or of all of the friends you could take or could you find enough hours in what’s left of that day to spend $585,000 for a one night stay – even in Paris with an entire security entourage? And just who’s running our country without this brain child of gluttony at the helm?

Rush Limbaugh hit this nail on the head: People like this self-serving hooligan could not and would not (because they could not) do such things with their own money. They couldn’t afford to, even on their Congressional pay and perks. OUR money is paying for this amoral gluttony and whether you are a Liberal or Conservative, if you aren’t mad as hell about this waste and excess then there’s something seriously wrong with you – get out of here. Now.

 

“The Facts”

Joe Biden’s $585,000 hotel bill makes no sense, MSN Money

Biden did spend an evening in Paris in early February, but there are no details in the document about whether this contract is accurate or what the final hotel bill came to. A standard room in the hotel costs about $475 a night, and the royal two-bedroom suite runs about $3,900 a night.The Weekly Standard also points to another government contract for Biden’s London hotel stay in early February. The contract, to the Hyatt Regency London, totaled $459,339. An associated document with that contract said it was for 136 rooms for 893 room nights.

Few expenses are spared when Vice President Biden hits the road, racking up five-star hotel bills of $500G, Daily News

It can cost in the neighborhood of $500,000 a night — and that’s just for the hotel.Biden’s one-day visit to Paris on Feb. 4 required more than 100 rooms at the five-star Hotel InterContinental Paris Le Grand.

The lodging cost taxpayers $585,000.50, according to federal contracting records that emerged Friday.

Joe Biden runs up bill of $585,000 for just ONE NIGHT in five-star Paris hotel (and taxpayers will pick up the tab), Mail Online

When Mr Biden and his hefty entourage stayed in Paris for an evening in early February and it cost $585,000.50 for that single night. The Vice President likely rented out more than 100 rooms in the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand, though they must not have gotten a group discount rate.

Biden One-Night Hotel Tab: $585,000, The Weekly Standard

The documentation for this contract is not as detailed as the London one, so the cost per room is not available.  However, just like his London hotel, the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand is a five star hotel. Again, security concerns prevent these type of contracts from being open to bidding, but if the government was able to do some comparison shopping, the Hotel Intercontinental has a special offer, “Find a lower price elsewhere and your first night is free.” The Vice President stayed in Paris for one night.

Biden One-Night Hotel Tab: $585,000, The Washington Free Beacon

Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, spent three days traveling Germany, London and Paris in February.They stayed at the five-star Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand then spent $459,388.65 at the Hyatt Regency London the next day, also according to the Weekly Standard:

Joe Biden Spends 1 Night In Paris, Racks Up $585K Bill [PHOTOS], Hip Hop Wired

(See photo essay.)

If you want to know how Biden did this against all reasonable human odds, you’re in the right place … Go here.

This is no joke. That’s the only reason I don’t parody this lamebrain administration’s unconscionable thuggary-theft of taxpayer money more. You need to read this linked article and make time for its video. Until then this will only get worse. GOP Old Guard Republicans are no better. They’re lovin’ it just as much. All on the backs of our labors (or entitlement program cut, whatever your case may be – it DOES effect you). Stop it or stop whining.

Contact your legislator today. Tell them to stop this gross spending as they deprive taxpayers who’re paying their overly extravagant bills. If not you, who? We could function better without a government than with this one. Pick your poison. I’ll take my chances with YOU any day.

Is House Passed GOP Budget Hopeless?

via Pennua.org

 

On Thursday, the House passed the GOP Budget Plan, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis). It passed almost entirely down partisan lines with a 221-207 vote.

Ryan’s plan is geared toward balancing the budget within 10 years through a series of huge spending cuts equaling $4.6 trillion that primarily affect funding of social programs while keeping current Social Security benefits intact. The budget repeals Obamacare and proposes a Medicare overhaul that revisits the idea of a voucher-like program for seniors. A seemingly sound plan that leads us to economic freedom by 2023.

But will any of this really make a difference? The Democrat controlled Senate just began debating their first budget since the 2009 budget that ushered in Obamacare. A budget that is on the other end of the spectrum from the House and actually increases spending after the sequester. Their budget does not propose a balance until tentatively 2040.

With a Democratic-run Senate and President Obama in the White House, it begs the question: is the House passed budget a hopeless one? There has been an ongoing struggle between the two parties over the economy and the battle could come to a head due to the drastically different proposals and different ideas about what is important for economic growth. Obama claims, “My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance.”

With such divisive plans, Obama will be looking to find a middle ground between the two proposals that could end up producing nearly $1 trillion in new taxes while saving social programs for the poor. While the idea may sound noble, it is simply another instance of working class Americans being punished for being contributing members of society, while those who are not are rewarded.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray(D-Wash.) says, “We need to tackle our deficit and debt fairly and responsibly.”

But fair to whom? Not to the citizens who are working harder for smaller paychecks due to increased taxation. Not to small business owners who have to cut costs somewhere due to Obamacare. And certainly not to our children who are suffering now but will suffer even more in the future due to the massive debt they are forced to repay.

We are increasingly becoming a nation dependent on our government for all of our relief—which only ends up applying more pressure. One that takes away the will to succeed and encourages accepting handouts. With that mentality, the House passed budget may not seem to be more than a pipe dream for many Americans. However, it is always in the roughest of times that Americans show of what we are truly made; which leaves hope that this proposal will be a first step in reaffirming American exceptionalism.

 

Follow Renee on Twitter @ReneeRankine.

 

 

 

 

Dem Senators On Budget Committee Unanimously Oppose Balancing The Federal Budget

!cid_image002_jpg@01CE20CE

During the mark-up of what would be the first Senate budget in four years, Senate Republicans offered two separate amendments to balance the budget in 10 years. Democrat members on Committee voted against both of these amendments. Sessions’ amendment would reduce revenues in the Chairman’s Mark to the level of revenues in CBO’s February baseline and reduce total outlays such that the Democrats’ budget would balance in FY 2023. Johnson’s amendment would create a new 60-vote point of order against any budget resolution that does not produce a surplus in any year after FY 2022.

SESSIONS AMDT.

JOHNSON AMDT.

This amendment would reduce revenues in the Chairman’s Mark to the level of revenues in CBO’s February baseline and reduce total outlays such that the Democrats’ budget would balance in FY 2023.

YEAS: Sessions, Grassley, Enzi, Crapo, Graham, Portman, Toomey, R. Johnson, Ayotte, Wicker

 

NAYS: Murray, Wyden, Nelson, Stabenow, Sanders, Whitehouse, Warner, Merkley, Coons, Baldwin, Kaine, King

This amendment would create a new 60-vote point of order against any budget resolution that does not produce a surplus in any year after FY 2022.

YEAS: Sessions, Grassley, Enzi, Crapo, Graham, Portman, Toomey, R. Johnson, Ayotte, Wicker

 

NAYS: Murray, Wyden, Nelson, Stabenow, Sanders, Whitehouse, Warner, Merkley, Coons, Baldwin, Kaine, King

« Older Entries