E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Boston Globe’s top story: “GOP’s Medicare plan falls in Senate.” The story: “Senate Democrats voted down a Republican budget yesterday along with its controversial plan to partially privatize Medicare, a vote that forced many GOP senators to endorse cuts to a popular program deeply valued by older voters.”
“Senate Democrats enthusiastically rejected the House’s budget blueprint Wednesday in a politically charged vote over the future of Medicare,” Roll Call writes, adding, “A handful of Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Scott Brown (Mass.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) — joined Democrats to reject the House budget, 40-57. Paul voted against it because Ryan’s plan still adds $8 trillion to the debt over the next decade. As dramatic as the vote on Ryan’s budget was, the next vote was even more jarring: 97 Senators voted against President Barack Obama’s budget proposal, with none voting in favor.”
The Washington Post notes that most Senate Republicans stood by the Ryan plan. “Wednesday’s vote underscored the pressure being exerted by the party’s tea party base to stick with the plan … and the calculation by Republican officials that they have time before the 2012 election to neutralize any of the Democrats’ political advantages. Moreover, in the Senate, the GOP has some breathing room, with only 10 members up for reelection next year and just one considered vulnerable.”
“A day after a crushing defeat in a New York special election, House GOP lawmakers defended their vote to reform Medicare but grumbled that their leaders must do a better job of messaging,” The Hill writes.
Changing the conversation: “House Republicans will seek to reset the economic-policy debate Thursday, offering a broad plan to boost jobs and growth by easing tax and regulatory burdens. The plan includes a 25% top tax rate on corporations and individuals, compared with the current 35%, as well as higher domestic-energy production, new curbs on government regulations and overhauls of U.S. patent and visa systems to help entrepreneurs and high-tech firms,” the Wall Street Journal says.
The New York Times: “Several lawmakers from both parties on Wednesday accused President Obama of violating the War Powers Resolution by continuing American participation in NATO’s air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, but they struggled with the question of what Congress can or should do about it.”
“In single-handedly blocking reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, Sen. Rand Paul has finally done what many expected when the Kentucky Republican arrived in Congress earlier this year — he's holding the Senate hostage,” Roll Call reports. “And many of his colleagues aren't happy about it.”
Leave a Comment:
With tax rates in Europe ranging from 16 to 20%, dropping the US rate to 25% is really not about job creation. It's about getting former US corporations now headquartered in Europe to come back to the US and pay US taxes. Although they're Headquarters are in Europe, they do most of their business in the US and pay no US taxes. As they maintain only a skeleton staff in Europe, this will create a minimal amount of jobs and give EVERY US corporation another 10% tax break. How does reducing corporate tax revenues help the US economy? Does anyone think these companies who left the US to take the additional profits will come back, take the extra income and create jobs cause it's their patriotic duty? I think not. Just another break for big business.
Groucho Marx
"Just another break for big business."
That's correct. it will be suicidal to cut taxes for these corporations. let them pay their fair share. the guys on the right would see it as anti business to tax these companies accordingly. hence they go after the middle class, their punching bag, to make up for the revenue lost to tax cuts. if tax cut create jobs, where are the jobs created under w bush? it evidently, that all republicans have proposed is all about taking wealth away from the middle class and giving to affluent.
Groucho Marx,
Sometimes I don't agree with you, but in this case I do. Well said.
Job1
Groucho Marx,
Sometimes I don't agree with you, but in this case I do. Well said.
Job 1..
Thanks. Told you I was a liberal to moderate republican. Don't judge us all by hate filled crap some of the extremists post here.
Wow. Hard to believe, but the GOP is playing right into the Dems hands:
Tuesday was a turning point; the GOP could have walked back their toxic Medicare position. But no. They are going to ride that puppy right over the cliff.
This is a great big gift for the Dems. I hope they don't screw it up like they usually do.
Yes sir, A great gift for the Democrats in the Senate. This has really helped their chances of getting re-elected.
Oops, it does not do anything to correct or address the massive debt issue, but it sure helps the Democrats. That is really all that is important right now. Defeat the GOP whatever the costs. The government is going bankrupt, but as long as one or the other political party looks good, that is all that matters.
Not a single senator voted for President Obama's budget? Not one? That just doesn't seem correct.
Did anybody catch that last part??
97 Senators voted against Obama's budget proposal and NONE voted for it.
NONE as in zero, nada, zilch. This means that his own party has abandoned him and his liberal agenda. They have decided to climb into the lifeboats rather than stay on the Titanic.
All Americans live with a budget of some kind. Some really sophisticated, some really simple. But, bottom line is, America at least knows what it means to live within our means. Conversely, Americans can understand what foolishness it is to spend way more than you take in, to borrow beyond your ability to pay back.
American's have the life experience to know that the Obama administration is being irresponsible with our money. The Senators sense this, and immediately try to distance themselves from Obama. They would like to be re-elected, and that means they can't be associated with the BIG SPENDER in the White House.
Sorry folks, as long as you carry the dreaded "D" after your name, you are viewed as part of the problem.
The budget did not get support because the administration has updated th budget they voted on. The budget put on the floor is obsolete. Believe it or not, it really is that simple.
Wayne, absolutely correct. But that won't stop the conservatives who don't read past the first line from crowing about this.
No Edward.....Republicans are all of the problem and have been for the past 3 decades. We are in this problem because of Repubican insistence of tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. Now the government can't function because we've cut taxes way too much. You are incorrect in your assertion that the Obama Administration is being irresponsible. This Administration stopped our economy and our country from going over a cliff. Your ideology might prevent you from absorbing that rather important fact but nonetheless it's quite true. Obama's health care law tries to reign in medical costs and does lengthen the solvency of Medicare by a number of years. It doesn't go far enough but as you must remember it was a challenge to get even this flawed piece of legislation through the Congress. I submit to you that you have no idea what's going on behind the scenes with regard to budgetary spending and what the Obama Adminstration has planned. Additionally, the vote was 97 to 0 because the Adminsitration had already come out with different proposals from their original budget in the interim and the Democrats stated that prior to the vote. Therefore, the President's budget had become moot. Americans are now fully aware of the "Problem" that Republicans present as a threat to the security and the prosperity of average working Americans. So in rebuttal to you, it is the Republicans that are the problem not Democrats.
Do you proofread your own posts??
The Republicans are the problem....Blah blah blah. Then, in the same post you admit that Dems rushed a "flawed piece of legislation" (known widely as the abortive Obama health care fiasco) to passage. Why would this administration pass a "flawed piece of legislation that is equal to 1/3 of our entire economy?? Is that being responsible??
No one can say that America was "going over a cliff" as you put it. Like the guy selling tiger repellent in Illinois. Did the spray work?? Well, you don't see any tigers do you??
Edward - What a stupid comment and it shows your ignorance. Proponents of health care pretty much agree that the health care legislation passed is a starting point and that much more needs to be done. Yes it was flawed. It didn't go far enough. It doesn't have a public option. I don't need a proof reader. I know what I meant to say and I said it exactly as I wanted to. Republicans tried their hardest to kill the legislation and almost succeeded. That we got as good a bill as we did is remarkable under the circumstances. And yes, this Administration prevented another Great Deprression but infusing money into the system when the banks were frozen. What exactly would you have liked to see happen....nothing and then deal with 25 or 30% unemployment?
Less regulation = more jobs? If that were the case, we should have had full employment under Reagan and later under Bush. Just like the nebulous budget cuts, I dare any legislature to name just one regulation that makes absolutely no sense, serves no purpose and actually costs employers so much in time or money to comply that they forgo hiring. Same with the patent law proposals. The GOP has no intention of adopting changes to benefit the small inventor. Any changes are designed to allow large corporations to protect their patents for longer, and claim patents on minor changes to prevent competition from generics and to streamline and lower their costs to challenge competing patents. It has nothing to do with jobs and everything to do with protecting the powerful.