E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy msnbc.com's Tom Curry
SEATTLE -- At a press conference here Wednesday, the new co-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, four-term Democratic Sen. Patty Murray urged the public and news media to "give us a little time and space and not try to pigeonhole each and every one of us" into ideological categories.
"There's a lot of disagreement in this country about what exactly we need to get done. There will be a lot of people who will try to divide us" before the members have even started their work, she said. Her job, she said, was "to bridge that divide."
She said she could do her job as committee co-chair as well as all her other jobs. Most noteworthy of those: chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee -- the fundraising & candidate recruiting arm of her party. "Multitasking is something every mom knows how to do," she said in response to a reporter's question.
Echoing President Obama, she said she'd pursue "a balanced approach" which implied both changes in entitlement programs and increases in tax revenues but she didn't even hint at any specific measures she might favor.
True to her traditional concern for those depending on entitlement programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, she made a point of saying she'd keep in mind "those who have been hurt the most" in the financial crisis and recession, "working families and our seniors. They're feeling especially vulnerable today."
And as she has before she said, "everyone in this country understands we have a fiscal deficit; they also understand we have a jobs deficit."
Murray passed when asked for her assessment of the Republican members of the committee.
Leave a Comment:
Is she living in Disneyland?
Is Patty aware of who the Teapublican picks are?
Or heard Eric Cantor already telling the tea bagger to stand firm on NO revenue increases?
Hostage negotiations 101 at it's finest!
The baggers have had a taste of the tea & will be back to the well to drink it dry!
And as she has before she said, "everyone in this country understands we have a fiscal deficit; they also understand we have a jobs deficit."
Patty Murray needs to realize J-O-B-S is the balanced approach NOT entitlement programs
Yes, Feisty, the baggers have had a taste of the tea & will be back to the well to drink it dry!
They are also smoking the residuals so it appears.
Balanced approach? Really? Don't make me laugh. How about the Dems in Congress grow a spine? This group sounds like the "Rubber Stamp" Committee.
Bev,
It's pretty much irrelevant. We all know the obstructionism will continue, perhaps even be heightened by the debt-ceiling-debate. These RWNJ's known as the Tea Party will literally sell their own children to stop Obama. Does anyone think they honestly care about triggering massive cuts to sacred cows on either side? They have pretty much proven that they are willing to do whatever is necessary to see Obama go down in flames. ANYTHING.
You are right Feisty the Dem's are going to end up giving away the farm on this deal, Mrs. Murrary knows exactly who the Republicans are who were appointed and that they will not compromise. And she also knows Baucus and Kerry will vote with the Republicans, really like I said before why not just call Grover and ask him what he wants and move on, this whole super committee is a farce, it has already been decided we are going to balance the budget squarely on the working and middle class, the rich don't want to contribute and since the rich own the government they won't, end of story.
I wish her well. She's gonna need it.
Now, when is Nancy going to complete the list?
Amen!
I'm exhausted from all the dog & pony shows!!!
Meanwhile, the market plunges another 500 points!
Just a thought, but having Reid squeeze out a budget just might help the whole debt commission thing-y..
How about you all - don't you find that it is helpful to create an operating budget each and every year?
Really helps the quarterly analysis, expense monitoring and inter-year planning. How does one go about cutting expenses when you don't have a budget? I don't know, it seems a little tricky. More difficult than it will certainly already be, no?
But man, you libies sure are down on your representatives. Of course given where we are, and their track records who can blame you?
That's all Ms. Murray has to do is put the Bowles-Simpson Commission report to a vote, approve it, and have someone go tell Obama he has to sign something. They'll be done before lunch on the first day. Don't tell Barry what he's signing though, he really doesn't much care, plus he's going on vacation and doesn't really like to be bothered with these things.
And quite the drop for the markets again. Wasn't Obama calling this the Summer of Recovery II?
Crusty Bed Head, don't attack Murray for trying to approach this in a productive and professional manner and do the right thing for the people. Not everyone is going to be foaming at the mouth like you and your clan of liberal nitwits. Clearly after your huge declarations yesterday about how Wisconsin was going to turn out today and put all those Dems in office on recalls (NOT....) its seems likely you don't exactly have your finger on the pulse of the nation.......you must have it up your, well ya know.
Ah. The compromiser. Now I see where this is going.
Gregor:
actually i'm in a pretty good mood in spite of the many problems facing all of us, only foam on my mouth is an IPA after the old work day is done
to answer your question....you can't have a civil conversation with nasty, miserable people like Frosty Head who never ever have anything positive to say only attack attack attack and silly jokes about "Tea Baggers" ha ha so original, so funny, so cutting edge
i'm willing to converse in good faith anytime - with those who deserve it (of all political persuasions for the record)
Sure you are Gregor... sure you are!
This is what's passing as civil conversation with you RWNJ's these days? lmfao!
Feisty - F@CK this kumbaya crap!
This is what's passing as civil? Always a class act.
JoannaSmith1 -- Do you support Simpson-Bowles? I'd be thrilled if the new Committee were to propose something like that, but not sure Republicans would support it.
Ummm... maybe you might want to go back to vote counting... appears to be more your speed!
You never did mention what you had for breakfast! lol
I see.
And what exactly have you done today to deserve it? Besides the foaming at the mouth post, I mean?
Let me know when you think of something, will you? In the meantime, pass the brew.
I dont count votes, not my thing. Read it again. geez
edward scott - the revenue question really doesn't even need to be on the table at this time. Proposed cuts in 2011 and 2012 are only in the billions and any real cuts won't occur untill 2013 and beyond.
Keep in mind that the obama (bush) tax cuts expire jan 2013 creating an estimated $1.3 trillion revenue stream over 10 years. The caveat here is that different sources have different estimates
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html
the bottom line is that the super commitee need not be concerned with the revenue issue but could go a long way in finding over $3 trillion in cuts to go along with the estimated $1.3 trillion in additional revenues by allowing the tax cuts to expire in 2013. The total package would then be more in line with the bowles-simpson report
PUHLEEZE GF -- why do you insist on making this so painful for you?
There usually comes a time where someone says ENOUGH!
Are you really THAT dumb & stupid or do you just play an idiot on First Read?
Senator Barrack H. Obama, March 16, 2006
I am so tired of Democrats 'reaching' out to the Teapublicans. Democrats extend a hand and it's bitten off up to the shoulder!
Senator Murray the Teapublicans have already drawn the line in the sand....it's the same line, only deeper, that they drew during the Dept talks. By now, it's a deep trench that they will drag the Democrats into........and claim victory!
Democrats are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and I for one am so tired of it!
Get some counseling Democrats..You care about the Country.....Teapublicans DO NOT!
I'm with you chilled!
F@CK this kumbaya crap!
Democrats are going to be trying to reset their tone as they've been steamrolling this country for the last several years force feeding their crap through and its time to pay.....they'll be holding on for dear life as we get closer to Part 2 (Part 1 was of course Nov '10 when Dems were dumped in historic numbers....) coming soon Nov '12
I'm with you two. This is going to the next screwing of the poor and working class.
If that happens then we're all F@CKED!!!! including you Gregor.
devie look around, we're already f@cked all we lack right now are a bunch of moronic soccer hooligans running rampant in the streets attacking people and breaking windows and stealing tv's
There ain't enough steel in the world to build that bridge.
Unfortunately that may be true. One can only hope the bridge can be built.
Mitch McConnell has already predicted that this committee will be ineffective because he says that no Republican on the committee will budge on their position whether on tax reform or personal ideological agenda.
I'm just going to toss this thought out. I don't view SS or Medicare as entitlements but rather insurance. We pay in & when its needed, we've been given to understand we can draw on it. The same as with homeowners insurance, car ins., etc.
Therefore, the only folks I'm seeing that feel they are "entitled" to their pay, benefits, pension are politicians. They really do little to earn the pay & contribute nothing(or little) to their benefits & pension.
So, following that line of thought, when they talk about "deep cuts to entitlements" can I dare to hope they mean themselves?
Correct, things like Medicaid are entitlement programs, and things like Social Security are trust funds. Don't expect Teabaggers to know the difference.
Or history...ever since the New Deal, Republicans have been trying to dismantle the social contract. It is an ideological position, not a fiscal one. Their masters (Koch brothers, Dick Armey, Murdoch/Ailes, Norquist, Limbaugh) use populist propaganda to make the Teapublican puppets believe it is a fiscal issue.
So your saying it's not a fiscal issue when these programs account for more than 60% of all federal dollars expended? Perhaps the reason these programs are in need of reform is the fact that they turned into something they were never intended to be. Keeping in mind that FDR and LBJ both promised these programs would be tiny. (FDR in the 1930's "only 1% of wage withholding" - LBJ in the 1960's "No more than $9 Billion a year.")
They way to obtain higher revenues from the GOP is to author a program / law that insures no new revenues contemplated by tax increases can be expended on anything other than deficit reduction. History has proved more than once that more tax revenues always turn into more spending. I find it indefensible to suggest new revenues without an explicit law commanding precisely how those revenues are to be expended. If the new revenues are for more entitlement spending, why would anybody want to chip in. It is just feeding the root of the problem. Tax and spend, and spend some more borrowed dollars. Not going to get a plurality of office holders or voters to buy into additional taxes without a block on their use for the next over budget entitlement program.
Independent -- You're not telling the whole story. Trust funds are paid into via FICA with-holdings. You would have to pay into any retirement plan or health insurance, which would be an even more expensive from the for-profit private sector. Who wants to go without a retirement plan or health insurance? This is not to say these trust funds can't be made more efficient, most notably removing fraud from Medicare and putting the power of negotiation back in place, especially for lower prescription drug costs from Big Pharma.
The GOP/TP balanced budget amendment is in essence anti-democracy dictatorship of a minority position. The 16% of GDP spending with no tax revenues would destroy our government and country as we know it. The founding fathers gave control over the purse strings to Congress to ensure that taxation and spending was done by officials elected by The People--and to ensure that a radical minority couldn't dictate their narrow agenda.
History has proved that a surplus is possible (e.g., at the end of Clinton's term). It was Bush&Co who passed tax cuts during wartime via reconciliation shenanigans who made the first mistake. By your argument the surplus should have been used to pay for deficit spending on the wars (which were taken out of the budget), but where were you then? It should have at least been used to pay the IOU on Social Security.
Separately, we could designate revenues from tax reform (by eliminating tax evasion loopholes--not a hike in tax rates) to specific things, like paying down the debt. We should also use it to create jobs and stimulate the economy -- per the S&P report (not my opinion). Do you know of any GOP/TP politician who is proposing this? Do you think the Tea Party would vote for this if such a bill was initiated? I don't.
There's an idea floating around that SS and Medicare would be converted to a "when it's needed" program---meaning to receive the benefits, one would have to apply. Too much money or too much wealth, then those benefits would be denied. The disturbing part is who would decide how much is too much money? How much is too much wealth? And how far would one have to drain personal savings to qualify for benefits? Social security benefits were meant to "supplement" retirement income, not be the only source.
Totally agree.
Hey, the SS/Medicare thought as insurance is just my lowly opinion. The fact that there has been zero mention by politicos to reduce what THEY feel they are entitled to is what irritates me.
As far as reforms, let me get out the files of paperwork I saved when dealing with my mom's nursing home care the last 4+ yrs of her life. Believe me, I argued sometimes daily about things they were doing-tests, procedures, drugs etc-that did nothing for Mom. I was told ad nauseum, but she doesn't have to pay, its covered by Medicare. (FYI they finally did give in to me but not before laying on massive doses of guilt)
I have no problem with some sort of means testing tho I have no idea how that would work. Removing that income cap for SS withholding seems to be logical. I sit & look at our finances & see that even with a 401k(which was never large), an IRA, an annuity & savings, we couldn't live without factoring in SS. Trust me, we have tried very hard to not make that the main source of income but circumstances weren't always the way we wished them to be. Stagnate wages for 4 yrs haven't helped either.
Sorry about the soap box but darn, I know a lot of folks like us who've tried really hard to play by the rules & then I see the likes of Eric Cantor saying there must be deep & massive cuts to these entitlement programs & I see red.
Have a good evening all!
candice & independent - yep! never have seen a politician look at a pile of cash and not try to spend it on some new agenda. Of course the populace looks at it in the same way. On two different occasions the Des Moines Sunday register carried two editorials on what the state of iowa could spend a projected surplus on. It appears that the public needs to be educated as well.
DebC - Thanks for your input. I wish I could sooth your concerns, but past politicians from both sides of the aisle have always found it easier to spend without looking at future costs just as the public have always asked for or taken more without concern for the future costs as well. Greece is a good example of how both politicians and the populace didn't look to future costs, especially if revenue plunges. Turmoil and riots.
This is also evident in many of our states and municipalities with their budgetary woes but without the riots so far. It won't be simple and it sure won't be without pain.
BTW - With the coming baby boomers, longevity and increasing medical costs, what we have paid in over the years to SS and medicare won't even come close to meeting the expected future costs.
For example the unnecessary invasion of Iraq, and tax cuts for the rich.
Riiight, so what we should do to prepare is abolish these programs altogether. Brilliant.
Patriot,
The tax cuts were for the middle class, too --you know, marriage penalty, child credit, qualified dividends, capital gains ---stuff like that. Why are you so angry towards the rich? If you work hard and take risks, you could be rich too.
If you want to be angry, Google "Government Waste."
DebC,
You're not alone in your frustration. Most who take the time and make the effort to save and invest and structure a retirement plan, count on anticipated social security income to supplement income from savings and investments. If the Government didn't want people to understand the program as forced saving, they should have presented Social Security as simply an unrecoverable tax without the implied guarantee. It makes me mad, too, to see Social Security and Medicare on the negotiating table when the politicians are forced to make cuts.
We can't deny, however, these programs are in need of revamping. Structural changes to save the programs are needed now --- otherwise it will just get worse and the programs won't be there for anybody.
american,
You mentioned turmoil and riots. I am very much afraid of that. With the incessant provocation of division, picking winners and losers, and class warfare, I am very afraid of that taking place in our streets.
Well then tell your Banana Republican representatives to stop creating it the divisive class warfare.
candice -- I'm not angry at the rich (especially since I've been in the richest 5% myself). I dislike the unfair tax code that everyone knows is unfair. That goes for credits for everyone including the child tax credit. What about people who don't have children who pay a higher tax rate? How is that fair? It is ALL a form of redistribution of wealth, most of which does nothing to improve conditions.
Here we go again...more of the J. Wellington Wimpy strategy on deficit reduction....I'd gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today!
First Barry " I want a clean debt ceiling bill now; we can work out the cuts later."
Now the chair of the super committee, "I need time and space to pidgeonhole all of the republican proposals."
How about a little transparency and actually putting proposals and agreements in writing, so the American people know the facts.
Sen Murray is a "Four-term Democratic Senator"?
How many wasteful pork barrel trillion-dollar federal boondoggles has she voted for in her 4 terms?
What a horrible selection ! A hack for the Party of Government whose job is to elect more Dem hacks...she has no interest in 'balance", just more Government.
However, she looks good compared to Sen "Lurch" Kerry.
I have a different take--the American people want Congress to work together to solve the nation's financial issues and I give credit to Sen. Murray for saying that she intends to do that. If the Republicans don't want to go along, let them explain that to the American people.
This committee should sequester themselves - no TV, no internet, no phones - and get down to business. If they really want to impress the American people, they should give themselves every chance to succeed.
how stupid. one of the dems works for the health ins., so goodbye medicare? the pubs already signed a pledge to never raise taxes, at least on the rich, so there goes my money. and social security, they all want that 22.6 trillion.
heres an idea, don't re-elect any of them!
a committee? give me a break! anyone could balance this budget and have it paid off in fourteen years
bob,
What do you think of McConnell and Boehner's picks?
Steeler fan is right its about time the Dems get humble, listen to the people and not create their own contrived echo chamber full of some liberal fantasy mandate - step up and do the right thing and yes that will put the pressure on the Repubs to do the same
Could it be this committee could actually do right by the country? The last committee did a pretty good job but their recommendations were completely dismissed by President Food Stamps
Patty Murray: The Stupidest Person in America
by Ann Coulter
09/29/2010
No liberal has standing to call any Republican stupid as long as Patty Murray remains in the U.S. Senate.
Soon after being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, Murray went on a radio show and said:
"When I was growing up, the big fear in my life was the nuclear war. I remember second- and third-grade teachers giving us skills to deal with it, if that big alarm goes off, which was 'Hide under your desk.' Would that do any good? I don't know. But as a child, that gives you a feeling there's something to do beyond panic. Today the biggest fear our kids live with is whether ... the kid beside them has a gun. We have to give them skills so they feel confident to deal with it."
The woman is not sure if ducking under a school desk would help in a nuclear attack. Not only that, but she wants to do something similarly pointless to help children "deal with" school shootings. Maybe imaginary bullet-proof vests!
With amazing understatement, one of Murray's Democratic colleagues in the state senate told The Seattle Times in 1992: "She just doesn't strike you as somebody who's been reading The New York Times every day for the past five years." I wonder when Katie Couric is going to ask Murray what newspapers she reads.
After Murray was elected to the U.S. Senate, the Democrats tried to keep her locked in her office to prevent her from saying anything that might end up in a newspaper. But in the confusion after the 9/11 attack, the leadership must have lost the keys and Murray escaped to say this about Osama bin Laden:
"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He's made their lives better."
Yes, Osama was out building "day-care facilities" -- and probably sponsoring "Bring Your Daughter to Work" days! I defy anyone to produce something stupider ever uttered by a homo sapiens. Not Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden or even John Edwards can hold their dimly lit candles to her.
Murray, whose college major was "recreation," got her start in politics fighting to save her own useless government job.
The laughably apocryphal story she tells is that she was told by some crusty old male politician, still unnamed decades later: "You're just a mom in tennis shoes -- you can't make a difference!" (You know how politicians love gratuitously insulting their constituents.)
This stuck in Murray's craw and so, filled with righteous anger, she ran for state office and won as a "mom in tennis shoes."
The real story is that Murray was teaching a "parenting" class at a community college, which no one was taking, so the state decided to cut it. Murray's reaction was, "Wait -- I'm a public employee! You have no right to fire me!"
She wasn't a parent upset that her child's school was dropping an art history class. She was a deadbeat public employee who didn't want her job cut. No one was taking her course, but she thought taxpayers should be required to pay her salary anyway.
Fighting to keep your own cushy job isn't a point of principle; it's evidence of a narcissistic personality disorder.
But you have to do a lot of research to find out that the class being eliminated was Murray's own. This deliberate policy on the part of the press to hide Murray's utterly self-serving motive for saving the class proves they know this is a problem for her.
The media's admiration for Murray's tenacious political start is like applauding the pluck of a stalker: "That guy sure has moxie and determination!" You're not supposed to be canonized for fighting to keep your own job.
Murray is the equivalent of a Wall Street fat-cat saying, "I'm going to fight for my $50 million severance package because it's the right thing to do!"
This remarkably unimpressive woman has tried to turn being a flat-footed dork into an advantage by selling herself as a tribune of regular folks. Yes, like most regular folk, she listed no religious affiliation whatsoever in the first few additions of the Congressional Almanac. (She probably couldn't remember she was supposed to say "Catholic.")
Soon after being elected to the Senate in 1992, Murray fought for a federal government jobs program by saying, "The highest-paying job I had before coming to Washington, D.C., paid $23,000 a year. ... I know what it's like to tell my kids they can't buy everything they want."
Is that what Murray thinks a senator should be doing? Ensuring that parents can tell their children they can buy everything they want?
True, Murray is a mom. You could also describe Hitler as a "war veteran and painter," but I think the more salient fact is that he was a German dictator.
Similarly, Murray's relevant characteristic is that she is a lifelong public-sector union zealot.
Again, Murray's class was on "parenting" -- the very definition of a pointless government program. Imagine going back in a time machine and trying to explain to someone from 1950 why the government was paying for classes on "parenting." How about classes on "waking up" or "getting dressed"?
Democrats have completely infantilized the populace in order to create jobs for useless social workers like Murray -- and then people wonder why states are going bankrupt under crushing debt burdens.
But I guess we have to fund these idiotic programs in order not to be outshone by Osama's "Partnership With Working Mothers Initiative" in Peshawar.
You lost me there! lol
Ann Coulter the spawn of Satan herself?
anyone who uses ann coulter as a source for anything they think is worthwhile is smokin'somthing illegal. She is dumber that the law should allow and twice as nasty. Rush Limbaugh in panties.
Fisty Red Bush, it doesn't matter what you think of Ann Coulter, the items she points out in the article are true. Thanks Harry Reid...great choice!
All Patty Murray is, is the spokesman for the butt-hole of Washington State. Seattle
Not all people receiving entitlements are bad. I have a son who has autism. He uses entitlements. Most disabled people use entitlements. Do you have any idea how many disabled people there are in this country. He already has autism what else do you want to do to him. Mayby he should be killed or left homeless. Maybe he's not worth worrying about. What about single parents who are not receiving child support. If we don't help out these kids now we'll have no choice to when they're in prison. Yes, there are people who abuse the use of entitlements and those are the people we should go after.