E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSErskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairmen of the president’s debt commission, write in The Hill that President Obama’s budget “takes some important steps toward putting this country on a more sustainable path.” But, they add about tackling entitlements, “Now it is incumbent upon him and leaders in Congress to provide the leadership necessary to create an environment in which a serious discussion can occur… [B]y focusing primarily on domestic discretionary spending, neither plan goes at all far enough to deal with our medium- or long-term fiscal challenges.”
More from the duo: “The nation desperately needs bipartisan leadership grounded in shared sacrifice, not politics as usual. Americans are counting on us to put politics aside, pull together — not pull apart — and agree on a plan to live within our means and make America strong for the long haul.”
“President Barack Obama is expanding his outreach to Capitol Hill by inviting House Democratic leaders to a White House lunch Thursday,” Roll Call writes, adding, “Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden and White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley will meet in the Oval Office with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Assistant Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) at 12:15 p.m., according to a White House statement Wednesday. … Several lawmakers will also be at the White House on Thursday for a morning discussion about reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act. According to the White House, Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) are expected to attend, as well as Reps. John Kline (R-Minn.), George Miller (D-Calif.), Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Dale Kildee (D-Mich.).”
“Vice President Joe Biden will travel to Russia next month as part of a three-country trip to Eastern Europe and Scandinavia,” The Hill reports. “Biden is scheduled to depart the U.S. the week of March 7, but further details surrounding his visit have yet to be released.”
Leave a Comment:
"Live within our means" has an interesting meaning when the middle class keeps losing wages. Our "means" get smaller and smaller. Then the middle class gets blamed for a financial crisis, not the war machines of Cheney or the big tax breaks to the wealthy who don't need them or the greedy wall street exec who raped our pension funds to line their pockets with our money. Now comes Union busting to push the middle class farther down the pay scale. Followed by more legislation on womens vaginas so we produce lots and lots of babies. Next will be child labor laws done away with, as one representative has already advocated. I feel the early 1900's coming back again and with it two world wars and a depression. All ginned up by News corporation, its Australian and Saudi Arabian owners, the Koch Brothers and the Republican party. Everyone better vote these thugs out 2012.
Wow. Your post is all over the place. But I will try to address each concern in the way I see things.
I couldn't agree with you more about the wars. End them both, I say. It will save us a lot of money in the long run. We should no longer be the world's police.
I am puzzled, however, about how you can equate unions with middle class pay. You may be surprised to know that very little of the private economy is unionized, and yet, there is still a middle class. If anything, as a boy growing up in Detroit, I am saddened to see what the unions have done to the automotive industry. They nearly single-handedly forced auto companies to seek refuge in other (less unionized) cities and states. Detroit had an opportunity to be the automotive capital of the world. That seems to be fading more and more everyday. Cars are now more commonly built in the south because of labor demands.
As far as babies are concerned, I don't have an issue with a woman (or a couple's) choice. Although abortion is not something I myself advocate, I don't believe in pushing my personal moral's or beliefs onto other people. Having said that, by forcing me to pay taxes to fund abortions, are you not advocating your beliefs on me? If it is a good cause, then I don't see why it can be handled through donations and charity.
For child labor laws, or any other labor laws for that matter, I believe it is an issue for the States, not the federal government. It is not constitutional for the federal government to meddle into States affairs, and I really wish they would stop doing it. You may also be surprised to learn that more than half the States in the Union already have higher minimum wages than what the federal government does. Let the States handle it, and then you can live in the State that most represents the society you wish to live in.
J.T.
Public money does not fund abortions. You would know this if you read a little. Read a little more and you will find out that wages and benefits are governed by what Unions bargain whether you are in a union or not. Why is that? Simply because the private sector wants to keep unions out and the best way to keep them out is to show you that you can get good wages and benefits without having to pay dues to unions. However everyone who has taken a history course knows once unions disappear, our wages, benefits and safety in the workplace disappears with them and child labor laws are no more.
If nothing else I hope you pick up a college level American history book and read.
Turns out I read quite a bit. But instead of insulting you in response, I'll once again assuage your concerns.
First, if you do not believe money that is going to entities such as Planned Parenthood, then I believe you should reassess.
As far as unions setting wages. That may have been true in the past, but is no longer the case. The average salary and benefits for private employees would not have seen only modest increases, while union benefits have gotten out of control. The beauty of the private industry is that they can only offer what they can afford. They cannot endlessly borrow. You would have us change nothing with the unions, until the government is no longer able to collect more revenue or borrow more money. And it will happen down the current path.
And your concerns about safety in the workplace and child labor laws are irrelevant. Once again, refer to the comment that States should handle these issues, not the federal government.
We already have OSHA on the federal and State levels to deal with workplace safety issues.
Republicans Response To Mr. Bowels & Simpsons
Check Please? Republicans Propose Major Cuts To Social Security Administration”Proposed Slashing Administrative Funds Federal Employees Needed To Run The Program, ie;
Can’t Process Social Security Checks!
"This reckless proposal would mean hundreds of thousands of Americans won't get their Social Security checks this year.
Don’t Forget “Loss Of Thousands Jobs!”
Consistent With The Republicans “No Jobs Agenda”
Continuing Saga “On The Backs Of The Old People, Old Sick People & Working Class” Call Entitlements With the "Dog Whhisper" being used 24/7 Exactly What They Are Going After Old People, Sick Old People & Disabled People
Going After The USA's Elderly To Correct The Economy Wrecked By Wallstreet, Corporations, Banks
They Have Been "Bailed Out" with Our Money Now Republicans Want To Bail Out The Near Depression On Our Backs After Giving The Rich a Trillion Dollar "Tax Cut"
House Republicans will wait until the budget fight this spring to attack Social Security head-on.
But in the meantime, they're coming after America's favorite entitlement at an angle. In the current spending bill, they're proposing to slash the administrative funds that federal employees use to run the program.
Democrats warn this will lead to furloughs and other service interruptions that could delay checks and prevent new retirees from enrolling.
"To jeopardize a lifeline for half a million new Social Security beneficiaries in order to score short term political points is simply bad policy," said Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee. "This reckless proposal would mean hundreds of thousands of Americans won't get their Social Security checks this year.
It's a perfect example of how little House Republicans seem to care if their rigid ideological crusade hurts real people."
In a statement, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), who chairs the Social Security subcommittee under Levin, says, "[T]his Republican plan would close down Social Security offices for an entire month this year.
That means half a million American seniors, disabled workers and surviving family members--working people who have earned their Social Security benefits--will find themselves placed into a backlog of unprocessed claims.
It means phones going unanswered, claims going unprocessed and a ripple effect of backlogged cases that will continue well beyond this year."
The Republicans claim the cuts amount to about $1 billion below what President Obama requested. But when dig in deeper, Democrats have found the cuts add up to about $1.7 billion -- a hefty chunk of SSA's operating budget.
This includes rescinded stimulus funds, and the $500 million SSA currently has in its reserve account to meet legal requirements and other operating expenses.
This comes at a time when the Social Security Administration is already stretched thin. SSA is operating under a hiring freeze because its current allocations are too low.
Democrats warn the cuts would cause blackout periods in SSA's operations, and create a huge backlog of claims across the program.
And, of course, things get even worse for beneficiaries if the spending impasse isn't bridged, and the government shuts down temporarily.
everything seems to be running fine, so why do we need more gov jobs? Wake up america and you should see whats going on. Do you want freedom or do you want gov interference in everything from what you eat to how you work or what they think you need. I ma an adult and very capable of making my own decisions for me and my children. Dems need to practice what they preach. This old world is headed down the wrong path. Freedom as you see it now would be gone.
Bipartisan politics? Working together? Who would of thunk it!