Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Economy
U.S. House minority leader calls for resignation of Obama's economic team
2010-08-25
(Xinhua) -- U.S. House Minority Leader John Boehner on Tuesday called for the resignation of Obama's economic team, quoting reasons that they failed to fulfill their promises of creating jobs for Americans.

"President B.O. should ask for -- and accept -- the resignations of the remaining members of his economic team, starting with (Treasury) Secretary Geithner and Larry Summers, the head of the National Economic Council," Boehner said in remarks at the City Club of Cleveland.

"(The mass firing) is no substitute for a referendum on the president's job-killing agenda. That question will be put before the American people in due time. But we do not have the luxury of waiting months for the president to pick scapegoats for his failing 'stimulus' policies," he added.

It is nothing new for the minority party to assault the administration's policies, particularly at a time when the midterm election is coming in less than three months.

"The American people are asking, 'where are the jobs?' and all the president's economic team has to offer are promises of 'green shoots' that never seem to grow," said Boehner, who is making a push to become the next House Speaker.

The jobless rate remained stubbornly high at 9.5 percent in July, and nonfarm payrolls have fallen for two straight months, according to the Labor Department. So far this year, private sector has added an average of 90,000 jobs per month, compared to nearly 8.5 millions jobs lost during the recession.

Boehner blamed recent healthcare legislation and Obama's intention to raising taxes for the lackluster pace of economic recovery and job creation, saying they create uncertainties for businesses and households.

"America's employers are afraid to invest in an economy stalled by stimulus spending and hamstrung by uncertainty," he said. "The prospect of higher taxes, stricter rules, and more regulations has employers sitting on their hands."
Link


Home Front: Politix
'Vote for Us - We're Not Democrats'
2010-07-25
Wonder if Ruth Marcus, the writer of this piece, got her talking points from the successor of Journolist, or whether she leaned over to the next cubicle and got them directly from Spence Ackerman and Ezra Klein.
I was at a luncheon today with House Minority Leader John Boehner at which just about every question for the Ohio Republican started the same telling way: If you become speaker.... The striking thing about Boehner's answers at the lunch, sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, was how little of a positive program he presented. The Republican agenda as sketched out by Boehner was more of an absence of Democratic policies than the implementation of Republican ones.
I've noticed that myself. Where's Newt when you need him?
It's like immigration reform: First close the borders...
He did say that Republicans would have more to say in September, after spending next month checking in with voters. "You have to listen before you outline an agenda, and we're listening," he said. For the country's sake, I sure hope they hear something worthwhile. Because what Boehner offered up was pretty unconvincing.
Of course, our journalist was prepared to be unconvinced. And she believes her readers share her viewpoint.
Asked the first three things he would do as speaker, Boehner rattled off a list that added up to Not Being Democrats.

The first: "repeal Obamacare," which Boehner described as a "giant impediment" standing in the way of job growth. Except... President Obama won't be signing that repeal even if it were to pass the House and Senate.
Deny the People, O, and run on that in 2012!
Political positioning for the presidential election in 2012. This keeps the issue front-of-mind for the next two years, instead of it quietly fading into the way things are done.
Second, "no cap-and-trade.... You raise the cost of energy, you raise the cost of doing business." Except... no cap-and-trade legislation appears to be on its way, Republican House majority or not.
Sez who?
And the Republicans get to take credit for it. That sure stinks for the Democrats.
Third, "not raise people's taxes," because "you cannot get the economy going again" without "giving people some certainty about what their taxes are going to be." Except... much as Boehner & Co. would like voters to think otherwise, the only question is whether the Bush tax cuts will be extended for everyone, or for almost everyone (other than those making more than $250,000 a year.)
This is the WaPo...
"On Election Day, if we win the majority a lot of the uncertainty is going to go away," Boehner said. That, he said, "will do more to help American employers than anything we can do."

Except... what part of the massive uncertainty? Boehner mentioned another going-nowhere-fast proposal, "card check," the labor-backed measure to make it easier for unions to organize, and another not-disappearing-anytime-soon measure, the just-signed financial services reform bill. Hard to see how having a Republican House - or even a Republican House and Senate - would change either of those situations.

It's better, no doubt, for Boehner and his party if the election is, as he put it, "a referendum on the job-killing policies that are coming out of this administration and my colleagues across the aisle." But voters are entitled to hear more from the man who would be speaker - and to hear it before Election Day.
Keep pushing back the tide, my dear. The exercise is good for you.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Dems' message: All about the gaffes
2010-07-05
The dust-up this week between President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), ostensibly about Wall Street regulation, revealed more about the two parties' midterm campaign strategies than anything else.

With polls showing voters deeply concerned about the economy and government spending and souring on Democrats, Obama and his party are seizing on gaffe after GOP gaffe, intent on making the election anything but a referendum on the majority.

That means an obsessive, hour-by-hour focus on a micro-message--grasping every opportunity to shift attention away from their unpopular or tepidly-supported policies and toward anything that smacks of Republican extremism.

For Republicans, the strategy is the opposite--a macro-approach in which they brush off the excesses of individual candidates or isolated blunders by reiterating a big-picture mantra that Americans are sick of the spending and job losses that haven't taken place on the majority party's watch.

The Boehner flap provided a case in point.

In an interview last week with a Pittsburgh newspaper, the House minority leader said that Democrats' Wall Street reform legislation amounted to "killing an ant with a nuclear weapon."

Not long afterwards, the DNC, which takes its orders from senior White House officials, jumped on the appearance that Boehner had minimized the financial meltdown by sending a furious barrage of blast emails and launching a web video.

And Obama himself elevated Boehner's remark by quoting it at an economic event in Racine, Wisconsin.

"He compared the financial crisis to an ant," Obama said, with a chuckle of incredulity.

Democrats secured their objective: capturing a few news cycles and perhaps even accumulating some fall television ad fodder for portraying Republicans as out of touch.

Boehner's reply: jobs and spending.

"Attacking Republicans is a lot easier than explaining to the citizens of Racine, who face 14 percent unemployment, why one in every 10 Americans in our workforce is unemployed nearly 18 months after the president's trillion-dollar 'stimulus' spending bill was enacted," Boehner said.
Link


Home Front: Politix
House GOP gets a single earmark in Homeland Security spending bill
2010-06-29
H/T Weaselzippers
All earmarks in the proposed Homeland Security spending bill for 2011 went to Democrats -- save one. Rep. Joseph Cao (La.) was the only House Republican to win a Homeland Security earmark: $800,000 for Federal Emergency Management Administration state and local programs and an emergency operations center in New Orleans. Every other earmark was sponsored by a Democrat.

The remaining $69.15 million in earmarked funds in the Homeland Security bill were for Democrats, a point Republicans were quick to note.

"This is a clear sign that House Republicans' principled stand for an earmark moratorium and real reform is having an immediate effect," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). "At a time when Washington Democrats' out-of-control spending is scaring the hell out of the American people, and they refuse to even pass a budget for the first time in modern history, the contrast on the issue of spending and jobs could not be more clear."

Cao's earmark does cut against the one-year earmark moratorium that Boehner and other GOP leaders have called for. While most of House GOP members are complying with the temporary ban, Cao, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) haven't committed to it.

The $43.9 billion Homeland Security spending proposal was reported out of a House Appropriations subcommittee last week. It's the first of a dozen spending bills for fiscal year 2011 to advance in Congress.

Earmarks are provisions that lawmakers insert in spending bills in order to steer federal money to specific projects.

The Homeland Security spending measure approved last year had $264 million in earmarks. It's too early to say whether earmarked spending will be lower in the 2011 bill, as senators -- who tend to be more prolific earmarkers -- have yet to take up the measure.

House members, however, appear to be on the path to lower earmark totals. Last year's House Homeland Security spending bill included a total of 146 earmarks requested solely by lawmakers worth $108 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan group. The total for the House bill for 2011 has 73 congressional earmarks worth $57.1 million. (Those numbers don't include earmarks requested by both the Obama administration and lawmakers.)

"Total earmarking is down and not only did Democrats not fill the vacuum left by the Republican earmark moratorium, but they actually cut their own totals as well," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

In the House proposal for 2011, the largest earmarks went to Democrats: $12.9 million for a National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center at Texas A&M University requested by Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas) and the White House; $4.75 million for the North Carolina Collaboratory for Bio-Preparedness at the University of North Carolina requested by North Carolina Reps. Bob Etheridge, Brad Miller and David Price; and $3 million for State and local cybersecurity training at the University of Texas requested by Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (Texas).

Earmarks have come under greater scrutiny from both parties. House Democrats have installed a permanent ban on earmarks that go to for-profit entities. Most of those earmarks have been attached to Defense spending bills and have gone to military contractors.


The growing momentum against earmarks is due in part to rising concerns about government spending and the $1.5 trillion deficit expected this year. But earmarked spending for 2010 spending bills accounted for just $10 billion of the $3.5 trillion federal budget.

Earmark watchers said the total number of earmarks was higher -- $15.9 billion, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, and $16.5 billion according to the Citizens Against Government Waste. Their totals include both the earmarks disclosed in official legislative reports and money steered toward specific projects by federal agencies at the request of lawmakers.
Link


Home Front: Politix
House Dems prepare alternative to budget that would avoid deficit vote
2010-06-22
House Democrats are readying an alternative budget measure that would set next years spending levels without requiring a vote on deficits.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) said the alternative would be the "functional equivalent" of a full-fledged budget. But because it won't be a traditional budget resolution, it will be silent on future deficits, which are expected to average nearly $1 trillion for the next decade.
There's just no end to the cowardice, is there.
Democrats have expressed concern about voting for a document showing lots of red ink in an election year.

A traditional budget resolution sets the discretionary spending levels and also lays out the majoritys fiscal policies for future years. Alternative budget measures, known in past years as "deeming resolutions," set spending caps but lack the statement on future spending and tax policies.

House Republicans have seized on Democrats inability to even bring up a budget resolution for consideration. Budget rules call on lawmakers to pass a budget by April 15.

Republicans had control of the House the previous four times Congress failed to approve a final budget resolution since 1974, when the current budget rules were put into place. But should Democrats move forward with an alternative budget measure, it would be the first time the House had failed to even propose a budget resolution.

"We need a real budget to stop Washington Democrats out-of-control spending spree, which is scaring the hell out of the American people, and to create jobs," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

In addition to setting spending levels for 2011, the alternative budget may have other provisions, such as squaring the pay-as-you-go law signed by President Barack Obama with the similar pay-as-you-go House rule, Spratt said. Both PAYGO measures require new tax cuts or that entitlement programs be paid for with tax increases or spending cuts, but the House PAYGO rule, in place since before the law was enacted, can be more easily bypassed than the PAYGO law.

Spratt cautioned the work isnt finished.

"It would have some other provisions we need to deal with, like maybe alignment of the statutory and House rules for PAYGO," Spratt said. "But we're making progress. I believe we're going to get to the endpoint. I don't want to misrepresent anything by saying we're there yet. We aren't. We're drawing alternatives."
Link


Home Front: Politix
Tea Party snubs GOP leaders
2010-04-16
The Tea Party is hosting a Tax Day rally on Thursday in Washington, but the Republicans leaders in the House and Senate are not invited.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.), House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) were not asked to speak at the April 15 rally in front of the Washington Monument.

According to officials with Freedom Works, the organization coordinating the event, the leaders haven't redeemed themselves since backing the 2008 Wall Street bailout bill.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), who chairs Freedom Works, told The Hill, "What [Tea Party activists] are saying to the officeholders and office-seekers is, 'Earn your spurs and you can get on our stage.' There's an old line: 'We don't call you a cowboy until we can see you ride.'

"How did McConnell and Boehner vote on [the Troubled Asset Relief Program]? TARP has been the acid test," Armey said.

Though the four Republican leaders won't partake in the Thursday festivities, a handful of their colleagues were invited to fire up a crowd of possibly thousands, including third-ranking House GOP Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), who voted against the Wall Street rescue measure.

Pence, however, will not be able to attend because he is introducing former President George W. Bush at an event in Indianapolis.

Republicans Reps. Tom Price (Ga.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Steve King (Iowa) and Ron Paul (Texas) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) are scheduled to address the crowd.

Price and Blackburn spoke at the Tea Party march on Washington last fall, an event organized by Armey's advocacy group as well as a coalition of fiscally conservative issues groups and Tea Party Patriots.

Even though no Democratic lawmakers are scheduled to speak, organizers of Thursday's event contend it is nonpartisan.

Mike Gaske, one of the national coordinators for the Tea Party Patriots, said, "This is the people's event. This is not a Republican event. It is a time for the Tea Party movement to get up and represent what the Tea Party is all about."

A recent poll showed that four of every 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats (13 percent) or independents (28 percent).

Politicians who voted for TARP hoping to crash the Tea Party gathering should think twice, said Max Pappas of Freedom Works.

"The Bush Wall Street bailout was the tipping point, and things kept getting worse from there and we have seen Republicans booed off a stage who voted for the bailout and then suddenly talking about how fiscally responsible they wanted to be," Pappas said.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Obama to Crush Economy with Massive CO2 Taxes as Early as Next Week
2010-04-02
Abandoning all loyalty to the democratic processes this nation holds dear, President Obama has made the decision that getting energy tax legislation through Congress with the approval of the American people is just too much of a pain to bother with. Instead he will have the EPA declare as early as next week that CO2 is a dangerous global warming gas and will start regulating its emissions immediately.

Obama's promise to open up vast stretches of ocean on the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico to energy exploration is simply a ruse to soften up the public for soon to be announced draconian regulations.

Similar to how Obama used the $50 million dollar study on healthcare companies competing across state lines to sell ObamaCare as a bipartisan bill, his recent decree allowing energy companies to explore (not drill, not produce energy from … just explore) new stretches of ocean for oil is also meant to be a trivial, yet impressive enough sounding carrot for conservatives right before he stuffs his Marxist trash down their throats.

House Minority Leader John Boehner responded to Obama by saying “At the same time the White House makes today's announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is plotting a new massive job-killer that the American people can't afford.'

Every American who doesn't live in a technology adverse commune in California will now pay even more of their hard earned cash to the federal government for absolutely no good reason.

Put simply, it means $8 for a gallon of gas and 2-3 times higher electricity bills. It also means the loss of millions more sorely needed jobs as businesses are hit with higher operating costs and the transfer of whatever remains of our manufacturing sector to China where energy is cheaper and they aren't so concerned about CO2.
In the first week alone, American businesses estimated that ObamaCare will cost them $14 billion. By most estimates this latest Obama nightmare will be far more expensive and may literally destroy the economy in less than 20 years.

All because of climate science that has been clearly exposed as inaccurate and untrustworthy. Obama may or may not be a communist plant sent to destroy America, but he sure is acting like one.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Breaking - House Appropriations And Defense Committies Ban For-Profit Earmarks
2010-03-10
The powerful House Appropriations Committee announced Wednesday it will no longer approve earmarks directed at for-profit companies.

Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) and newly appointed defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) made their ruling less than an hour after House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked that House Republicans meet to take up a unilateral moratorium on earmark spending.

In a statement Obey said that "these new policies are not intended to be a one-year experiment. They are intended to be a long-term proposition."

A number of Democrats and Republicans have undertaken efforts to rein in so-called "pork barrel" spending in recent days, sparking a battle between the parties over who can best reform the earmark process.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has lobbied members of her party in recent days to impose a moratorium on earmarks in order to get out in front of Republicans on the issue.

Republicans discussed enacting a ban in the last Congress, but a vote never materialized.

That the Appropriations Committee decided to bar for-profit earmarks signals that Democrats are looking to make a splash with their effort.
Without harming the 'community organizations' that are vital to their re-election hopes ...
Dicks' successor atop the defense appropriations subcommittee, the late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), was known for handing out millions of dollars in earmarks to defense contractors to create projects in his district. Murtha's propensity to dole out cash for his district sparked several probes by the ethics committee and federal prosecutors.

Government watchdogs have for years decried the use of earmarks, saying that they are wasteful and cause corruption.

Several lawmakers have pushed for reform for several years, but spending has ballooned under both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

Obey and Dicks claim that 1,000 earmark requests would have been turned down last year if the rule was in place on their panel. The ruling also requires agencies to audit at least 5 percent of non-profit earmarks.

They also announced the creation of a program that allow companies that don't have connections to the Pentagon to present their products to Defense Department officials.

In a release, the two Democrats also touted earmark reforms enacted by Democrats in 2007 and 2009 related to earmark disclosure.

But earmark disclosure reforms pushed by the Obama administration has not reduced the amount of spending, according to a recent report by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Two Republicans have taken up the issue in addition to Boehner.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has indicated he will force a vote on a one-year moratorium on earmarks when the Senate takes up its extenders bill, which is expected to happen Wednesday.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is planning to offer a privileged resolution on the House floor requesting better guidance from the ethics committee on taking campaign contributions from companies that accept earmarks.

Republicans have argued that Democratic proposals won't go far enough in cutting earmarks. In a statement, Flake praised the committee's move but said more is needed.

"Banning earmarks to private companies leaves untouched the millions of dollars wasted every year by earmarks, but it is a good first step in addressing the corruption that stems from the practice," he said. "I hope that Republicans take these restrictions a step further and impose a moratorium on all earmarks this year."
Link


-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Support Building to Unregulate CO2
2010-03-03
Republicans Tuesday launched the second congressional effort in a week aimed at preventing U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and other key Republicans plan to unveil a formal resolution that would effectively veto EPA's "endangerment" finding.

The resolution will mirror the controversial measures introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and several House Democrats. House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) are spearheading another House resolution introduced last week.

The resolutions are aimed at unraveling EPA's finding using the Congressional Review Act, which establishes special procedures for disapproving regulations from federal agencies. Also, EPA would be prohibited from reissuing that rule or any substantially similar one without the authority of another enacted law, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Congressman Joe Barton, (R-TX) ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, warned last December that the endangerment finding "has policy implications that threaten serious damage to the economy for generations to come. Congress has the right and the responsibility to nullify the decisions of the bureaucracy when they run counter to the people's interests and a formal Resolution of Disapproval is fully warranted in this instance."

Still, observers on and off Capitol Hill expect that efforts to block EPA using the Congressional Review Act would face an uphill battle clearing the Democratic-led Congress and would face a veto from President Obama.
Supposing it came to Zero's desk. Does he have the courage to veto it?
Link


Home Front: Politix
WH reveals details of compromise health care bill
2010-02-24
The Obama administration raised the stakes in the health care debate Monday, releasing a new blueprint that seeks to bridge the gap between measures passed by the Senate and House of Representatives last year.

If enacted, the president's sweeping compromise plan would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago. The White House said it would extend coverage to 31 million Americans.

Among other things, the White House said it would expand Medicare prescription drug coverage, increase federal subsidies to help people buy insurance and give the federal government new authority to block excessive rate hikes by health insurance companies.

It increases the threshold -- relative to the Senate bill -- under which a tax on high-end health insurance plans would kick in.

As with both the House and Senate plans, it includes significant reductions in Medicare spending in part through changes in payments made under the Medicare Advantage program.

President Obama's plan does not include a government-run public health insurance option, an idea strongly backed by liberal Democrats but fiercely opposed by both Republicans and key Democratic moderates.

It also eliminates a deeply unpopular provision in the Senate bill worked in by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, that would exempt his Midwestern state from paying increased Medicaid expenses.

Administration officials said Obama's measure would cut the deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years. They estimate the total cost of the bill to be $950 billion in the next decade.

The Senate bill would cost an estimated $871 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, while the more expansive House plan has been estimated to cost more than $1 trillion.

The release of Obama's plan sets the stage for a critical televised health care summit Thursday with top congressional Republicans. The White House is trying to pressure GOP leaders to present a detailed alternative proposal in advance of the meeting.

"We view this as the opening bid for the health meeting" on Thursday, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told reporters.

"We took our best shot at bridging the differences" between the House and Senate bills. "It is our hope the Republicans will come together around [their] plan and post it online" before the meeting.

Pfeiffer said Obama will come to Thursday's meeting "with an open mind." The president's willing to back decent Republican ideas if the two sides can have an "honest, open, substantive discussion" in which "both parties can get off their talking points," he said.

GOP leaders have indicated they will attend the meeting but have urged Democrats to scrap the Senate and House bills completely.

They characterized Obama's proposal Monday as setting the stage for a meeting that will amount to little more than political posturing.

"The president has crippled the credibility of this week's summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"This new Democrats-only backroom deal doubles down on the same failed approach that will drive up premiums, destroy jobs, raise taxes and slash Medicare benefits. This week's summit clearly has all the makings of a Democratic infomercial."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, released a statement calling the plan "disappointing that Democrats in Washington either aren't listening or are completely ignoring what Americans across the country have been saying."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the GOP criticisms, arguing that Republican leaders had asked for this week's meeting for months.

"If they're not the party of no, Thursday's the perfect venue to be the party of yes," Gibbs said.

Under Obama's plan:

• The health and human services secretary would work with a seven-member board of doctors, economists and consumer and insurance representatives to review premium hikes. This Health Insurance Rate Authority would provide an annual report to recommend to states whether certain rate increases should be approved, although the secretary could overrule state insurance regulators.

• New health insurance subsidies would be provided to families of four making up to $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Compared with the Senate bill, Obama's proposal lowers premiums for families making between $44,000 and $66,000, according to the White House. Compared with the House legislation, it lowers premiums for families making between $55,000 and $88,000.

• The Medicare prescription drug "doughnut hole" would be closed by 2020. Under current law, Medicare stops covering drug costs after a plan and beneficiary have spent more than $2,830 on prescription drugs. It starts paying again after an individual's out-of-pocket expenses exceed $4,550.

• A 40 percent tax would be imposed on insurance companies providing so-called "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $27,000 for families. The tax would kick in starting in 2018 for all plans. In contrast, the Senate bill would apply the tax to plans valued at more than $23,000 for families. The House bill does not include the tax, which labor unions vehemently oppose.

• The federal government would assist states by picking up 100 percent of the costs of expanded Medicaid coverage through 2017. The federal government would cover 95 percent of costs for 2018 and 2019, and 90 percent in the following years.

• Health insurance exchanges would be created to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage.

• Total out-of-pocket expenses would be limited, and insurance companies would be prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurers would be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person's gender or medical history.

• Individuals under Obama's plan would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income starting in 2016, whichever is greater. The House bill, in contrast, would have imposed a fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual's income. The Senate plan would have required a person to buy coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of his or her income. All three plans include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

• Companies with more than 50 employees under Obama's plan would be required to pay a fee of $2,000 per worker if the company does not provide coverage and any of that company's workers receives federal health care subsidies. The first 30 workers would be subtracted from the payment calculation. As with the individual requirement, this represents a compromise between the House and Senate plans.

• Some $40 billion in tax credits would be established for small businesses to help them provide health care options for their employees.

• States could choose whether to ban abortion coverage in plans offered in the health insurance exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own funds. The White House is following the Senate's lead. The stricter House version banned abortion coverage in private policies available in the exchange to people receiving federal subsidies.

• Illegal immigrants would not be allowed to buy health insurance in the health insurance exchanges. They would be exempted from the individual insurance mandate. As with abortion, the White House is adopting the Senate's language.
An "exemption" for illegals? Why should there be any mention of illegals other than they don't get insurance here? Shouldn't illegals have to go back home minus their belongings?
Link


Home Front: WoT
Ax this hack
2010-02-14
Republicans were up in arms last week -- and rightly so -- over the outrageous accusation by John Brennan, President Obama's top anti-terrorism advisor, that his critics "only serve the goals of al Qaeda."

Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said Brennan "needs to go" because he's no longer "credible" on security matters.

That's putting it mildly.

Indeed, there are several reasons -- apart from his shamefully partisan name-calling -- to question Brennan's effectiveness.

Start with the near-tragedy of the Christmas would-be airline bomber -- who was foiled only by alert passengers: Brennan has admitted that the governemnt failed to make use of available intelligence to prevent this attack.

Add the absurd decision to Mirandize the terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and send him to the civilian criminal-justice system -- rather than treating him like the enemy combatant that he is.

Now, a lot of people -- and not just Republicans -- have attacked the administration for these policy errors and others.

Brennan has a right to respond, of course. He did so -- in a published newspaper column that's so far over the top that it should be the last straw.

It is, as House Minority Leader John Boehner said, "a cheap, irresponsible political smear that doesn't help keep the American people safe."

And coming after seven years of the unconscionable abuse that Democrats -- including Obama -- heaped on then-President George Bush's anti-terrorism policies, Brennan's piece is particularly unseemly.

Brennan himself termed Bush's policies "a recruitment bonanza for terrorists." Unlike Bush, Brennan promised, Obama would not "validate al Qaeda's twisted worldview."

Now, instead of an independent, nonpartisan intelligence official, Brennan has turned into what Bond correctly labels "a mouthpiece for the political arm" of the White House.

That kind of irresponsibility is not just unseemly, it's potentially dangerous.

Brennan needs to go. Now.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Obama open to 'incremental steps' on job growth
2010-02-11
President Obama and top congressional leaders from both parties expressed cautious optimism Tuesday that they can reach agreement on a new jobs bill.

The positive assessment came after Obama spent much of the morning huddling with a bipartisan Capitol Hill delegation to discuss ways to help lower the country's 9.7 percent unemployment rate.

The president, in a surprise appearance before reporters, said he is confident "we should be able to come together" on a job-creation measure.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, indicated negotiators are close to a bipartisan agreement. He said the Senate could work through the weekend to pass it.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, told reporters it was possible "the Senate could get there with a small package." He also said on the Senate floor, however, that Republican senators might need more time to study any agreement before voting on it.

"My members need to be able to feel like they understand what they are being called upon to support," he said.

GOP sources said differences remain over the bill. They expressed concern Democrats are trying to jam it through before it's ready in order to gain political momentum ahead of an upcoming weeklong Presidents Day recess.

Obama said he "won't hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party." But, he cautioned, "I also won't hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that's rooted not in substantive disagreements but in political expedience."

Bipartisanship, he warned, "can't be that I agree to all of the things that [Republican leaders] believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in or want."
Don't forget about vice-versa there, ol' chap.
The measure being worked on in the Senate has a price of about $85 billion, according to aides. It combines tax breaks for businesses that hire new workers with spending on infrastructure and an extension of unemployment benefits.
Take it from the TARP fund if you must, but no new spending.
The package also incorporates several items not directly related to the creation of jobs, Senate sources said. For instance, it includes a one-year extension of the Patriot Act, $1.5 billion in disaster relief for farmers, extension of the flood insurance program, an increase in Medicare payments for doctors and the extension of several expiring tax credits.
The just can't seem to focus even in the most dire of circumstances. Throw the bums out.
The question of how to balance immediate economic concerns with growing fears of skyrocketing budget deficits is one of several contentious issues dividing Obama and the GOP leadership. Sharp debates over economic management, health care reform and other topics have contributed to what many observers characterize as a toxic political climate on Capitol Hill.

In his recent State of the Union address, Obama called for monthly meetings with both Democratic and GOP leaders as a way to help break the partisan logjam. Tuesday's meeting included House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Reid and McConnell, among others.

The same group is tentatively slated to meet February 25 to discuss health care reform.

"Part of what we'd like to see is the ability of Congress to move forward in a more bipartisan fashion on some of the key challenges that the country is facing right now," Obama said at the start of Tuesday's meeting. "I think it's fair to say that the American people are frustrated with the lack of progress on some key issues."
I'm frustrated by oversized government, it's supersized spending, it's inability to connect with the people's wishes or display any kind of common sense whatsoever.
The president said that while "the parties are not going to agree on every single item, there should be some areas where we can agree and we can get some things done." He also backed the idea of having more "vigorous debates" on subjects where a bipartisan agreement cannot be reached.

Referring to the jobs bill, McConnell stressed traditional GOP priorities such as nuclear power, off-shore oil drilling and clean coal technology. He also urged passage of stalled trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

Such measures, he argued, would be "jobs generators."

"Of course" McConnell likes those ideas, Obama later said. They are "part of the Republican agenda for energy, which I accept."
Well, what are you waiting for? Trying to use them to blackmail them or something?
The president said he's "willing to move off some of the preferences of my party in order to meet them halfway, but there's got to be some give from their side as well."
As long as it doesn't involve downsizing government, right?
Emphasizing deficit-related concerns, Obama noted he will be moving forward with an executive order creating a commission to examine long-term deficit reduction options. Last week, the Senate voted down a bill to establish such a panel when seven Republican co-sponsors eventually opposed the measure, an event Obama cited as an example of political obstinacy.

Boehner, in turn, said he urged the president to push for immediate spending cuts, as opposed to deciding to "punt all of this off to some spending commission."

Calls for bipartisanship have grown in the wake of GOP Sen. Scott Brown's upset win in the recent Massachusetts special election. Brown's victory stripped Democrats of their 60-seat Senate supermajority and gave Republicans enough votes to block most legislation.

Since Brown's election, Democrats have moved away from introducing a more comprehensive jobs bill similar to the $154 billion measure passed by the House in December. Even if the Senate passes a bill this week, the measure would still have to be reconciled with the House bill.

The first job creation bill of the new year, promoted by Sens. Charles Schumer, D-New York, and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, aids any private sector employer who hires a worker who's been unemployed for at least 60 days. That employer is absolved of paying the 6.2 percent share of the employee's Social Security payroll tax for the rest of 2010.

Also, employers who keep these workers on the payroll continuously for a year would be eligible for a $1,000 tax credit on their 2011 tax returns.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said Tuesday he supports the Schumer-Hatch proposal.

"If you're going to do a jobs tax credit ... you [should] key it to payroll so that payroll expands and you get credit obviously on expansion, not simply on changing new for old," he said. "If we're going to do it, that's the way to go."

Hoyer also said that "there was general agreement that getting lending moving to small business was absolutely essential if we're going to allow them to grow and grow jobs."

Sharp disagreements, remain, however, over how to fund such a proposal. Several Republican senators have come out against using Troubled Asset Relief Program bank bailout funds to jump-start lending to small businesses, and against raising taxes on the wealthy.

Obama has promoted the idea of boosting small business lending by giving $30 billion in TARP funds to banks and providing these firms with a $5,000 tax credit for each addition to their payrolls.

Norman Ornstein, a political observer at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, recently argued that out of all legislation before Congress, a jobs bill is most likely to bring Republicans and Democrats together.

"Not because Republicans are eager to give Obama and the Democrats the victory [and] not because they have a fundamental agreement with a lot of things they want to do," he said. But politically, "to say you're going to oppose even a government program on jobs is a harder thing to do than say you're going to oppose a government takeover of the health care system."
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More