Reply With Quote
free and reduced lunch and breakfast programs
The new plan to reduce the deficeit, what does this plan cut back on exactly?
Please just name a list of the programs and agencies this plan will take money away from.
free and reduced lunch and breakfast programs
military spending will be cut
however, the wiretap industry will see an unprecedented rise in earnings and profits
washingtonpost.com
With Cheney's Vote, Senate Passes Budget Bill
Legislation Would Trim $40 Billion Over 5 Years
By William Branigin, Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; 2:54 PM
The Senate narrowly passed a $40 billion budget-cutting bill today, with Vice President Cheney casting the deciding vote after the chamber split 50-50 on the measure.
Taking his seat as president of the Senate after cutting short a trip to the Middle East, Cheney announced he was voting for the legislation, making the final tally 51-50 in favor of passage.
President Bush praised the vote as "a victory for taxpayers, fiscal restraint and responsible budgeting," and he said it would help achieve his goal of cutting the federal deficit in half by 2009. In a statement, he said the bill marked "the first time in nearly a decade that Congress has reduced en lement spending."
The vote came after Senate Democrats used a last-minute parliamentary objection to force minor changes to the measure, stripping out three small provisions affecting health care policy. The new version now must go back to the House, which passed the legislation Monday 212-206. Although the House is considered sure to pass the bill again, its members would have to be called back to Washington, since most have already gone home for the holidays. Otherwise, final passage could be delayed until early next year.
The budget legislation would trim federal spending growth by nearly $40 billion over the next five years.
( how much have tax-cuts for the rich+corps REDUCED federal revenues and worsened the federal deficit? $40B in 5 years is the cost of about 6 weeks of the Iraq war)
Fearing a close vote, Cheney cut short his Middle East trip yesterday and flew back to Washington overnight after five Republican senators signaled they would vote against the measure, possibly leading to a 50-50 tie.
That turned out to be the case, as the five Republicans joined all 44 Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent to oppose the hard-fought budget bill, which tackles the growth of en lement programs such Medicaid and Medicare for the first time in nearly a decade.
(what happend to "it's your money"?? The beneficiaries who qualify have paid "their" money in, but they can't get "their" money? Compare with the $15B dubya gifted to energy industry for "research", $15B that will never be accountd for and the research never published)
"The bottom line is, we stood firm and we made tough choices," said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who joined other Republicans in hailing what they called a great, if narrow, victory.
( What's easier that cutting payments to people who have not donated to Santorum's/Repug's coffers?)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the bill aims to "put some discipline into the fiscal accounts of the federal government." In a final appeal before the vote, he said, "This is the one vote you'll have this year to reduce the rate of growth of the federal government."
(it's bald-faced class warfare. the poor and needy who don't contribute to the Repugs while cutting taxes for rich+corps)
But Democrats argued forcefully that the budget reductions take too much away from the poor and are essentially wiped out by a new round of GOP tax cuts passed earlier this month.
(holy . How could the Repugs make such a "mistake" ? )
The bill "robs from the poor to make room for tax giveaways to the wealthiest individuals in the country," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an ideologically driven, extreme, radical budget" that "caters to lobbyists and an elite group of ultraconservative ideologues here in Washington, all at the expense of middle class Americans."
The five maverick Republicans-- Susan M. Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island -- joined James M. Jeffords, an independent from Vermont, and all Senate Democrats in opposing the bill.
The legislation would allow states to impose new fees on Medicaid recipients, cut federal child support enforcement funds, impose new work requirements on state welfare programs and squeeze student lenders.
According to budget experts, the bill would barely dent the federal deficit, cutting less than one-half of 1 percent from an estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years. Opponents said the poor would bear the brunt of the cuts -- especially to Medicaid, child support enforcement and foster care -- whereas original targets for belt-tightening, such as pharmaceutical companies and private insurers, largely escaped sanction.
A House-passed provision, for instance, would have allowed states to establish preferred medication lists for Medicaid, then steer patients to cheaper drugs by charging higher co-payments for medicines off the list. Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) garnered headlines last month by winning an exclusion from the provision for mental health drugs, a boon for one of his state's biggest companies, Eli Lilly. But the final House-Senate compromise eliminated the preferred-drug list provision, even though it maintained a House provision that allows states for the first time to charge poor Medicaid patients co-payments, premiums and deductibles.
Likewise, the compromise eliminated a Senate-passed provision that would have saved the federal government $36 billion over the next decade by eliminating financial incentives to lure managed care companies into Medicare. Under White House pressure, the Senate provision was gutted in the House-Senate compromise.
The heated Senate debate yesterday also focused on complex student loan changes that would save $12.7 billion over five years. Under the provision, student loan interest rates would be locked in at 6.8 percent and could not be refinanced as commercial rates fluctuate. Private lenders would continue to be able to borrow money at a rate guaranteed to generate a profit.
Currently, any time the student loan interest rate is higher than the bank's guaranteed rate, the bank gets to keep the extra profit. Under the budget bill, that windfall would have to be returned to the federal government, a change that should yield $18 billion in savings. The change has strong Democratic advocates, including Sen. Kennedy.
But student groups, higher-education advocates and their allies in Congress say much more of those savings should go toward expanding higher-education assistance or lowering student loan rates, not deficit reduction. "They could give students a lower interest rate, but their choice is to keep interest rates high," said Luke Swarthout of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "They're asking students to pay for tax cuts."
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
The legislation would allow states to impose new fees on Medicaid recipients, cut federal child support enforcement funds, impose new work requirements on state welfare programs and squeeze student lenders.
ahh i finally got the response i was looking for
so, conservative leaders of the nation, why is it you get mad when mookie and i say we are disgusted by rich republicans again?
(also, gtownspur, feel free to bring up the fact that you became republican bc you are mexican)
they should be rich enough to afford college and healthcare
thats their problem
yeah, those little rugrats. They shoulda chosen better parents
By 'better' you must mean richer. The administration is changing the way student loans are guaranteed passing those costs on to borrowers (students) who are already shouldering mountainous tuition and university fees. Expected savings are supposed to be around $50 billion over 5 years, but many economists expect the real savings to be much less.
Meanwhile, expect the WH to ask for another supplemental $100-120 billion for military operations and 'cronyism' in Iraq and Afghanistan after the New Year.
It took Cheney's tie-breaking vote, but the planned cuts passed on a largely partisan vote...
Dec. 21, 2005, 11:21PM
Tie-breaking Cheney vote saves deficit cuts
Senate returns to the House $39.7 billion plan limiting growth of benefit programs
By DAVID ESPO
Associated Press
ChronicleWASHINGTON - In the final clashes of a year of partisan conflict, Senate Republicans salvaged a $39.7 billion package of deficit cuts on Vice President Cheney's tie-breaking vote.
Even Cheney's presence and the 51-50 vote it meant in favor of deficit cuts left the White House and GOP leadership short of final victory on the measure.
Democrats forced a few minor changes in the moments before it passed, enough to require the House to vote again before the measure can go to President Bush for his signature.
(snip)
Democrats said that however it was described, it would fall too harshly on lower-income Americans.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called the GOP legislation "ideologically driven," and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said it was prelude to $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy that Republicans plan to pass next year, a combination he said would increase red ink.
(snip/...)
Cuts from the poor? I thought Xray said this doesn't happen. No way.
thats fine but dont when it comes to light that the military doesnt have the necessary items to protect themselves in war and are ING RUNNING OUT OF AMMO and using weapons and ammo from WWII.
oh yeah, vote payraises in the military.
Those are good cuts mostly, maybe it will teach the poor to not have so many kids. They should have an increase on birth control spending? Why do mexicans become republicans?
ask Gtown
Steal from the poor and give to the rich. Something to be proud of this Christmas.According to budget experts, the bill would barely dent the federal deficit, cutting less than one-half of 1 percent from an estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years. Opponents said the poor would bear the brunt of the cuts -- especially to Medicaid, child support enforcement and foster care -- whereas original targets for belt-tightening, such as pharmaceutical companies and private insurers, largely escaped sanction.
Please spare me the crocodile tears. Who pays the taxes, not the poor.
That's the Christian way.
Yep, it sure is. God takes care of those who take care of themselves.
He didn't say anything about the people who lived under bridges. Those are
in your area of responsibility. There are those who need "our" care, but not
all those that are getting "our" care. Again, give me a break. You want
to give all the "deserving" care, give it to them, but don't ask the taxpayers
to foot the bill. You do that!
I worked weekends and paid my own way through college. My parents did pay crap.
so did I. I still have sympathy
The budgets cuts back on anything that isn't protected by politicians who have been purchased by SIGs and PACs and corps.
======================
washingtonpost.com
When the Cutting Is Corrupted
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005; A25
With indicted superlobbyist Jack Abramoff reportedly ready to cooperate with prosecutors and his partner, Michael Scanlon, already singing, 2006 is expected to be the year of congressional scandals.
Lord knows, a housecleaning in the Capitol is definitely in order. But the Abramoff scandal is just part of the corruption of our political system. There is another level of special-interest influence that cannot be handled by prosecutors: Only the voters can render a judgment on a politics of favoritism that has created a new Gilded Age. It's clear that the national government has placed itself squarely on the side of the wealthy, the privileged and the connected.
Rarely does a single action by Congress serve as so powerful an example of how the system is working. The recent budget bill, which squeaked through the House and Senate just before Christmas, is a road map of insider dealing. It shows that when choices have to be made, the interests of the poor and the middle class fall before the wishes of interest groups with powerful lobbies and awesome piles of campaign money to distribute.
Republican majorities in the Senate and House insisted that they wanted to cut the federal budget. But the Senate and House offered competing plans for achieving savings. When it came time to meld the two proposals, almost every choice congressional leaders made favored the interest groups.
Consider federal health programs. The House bill proposed substantial cuts for Medicaid beneficiaries, but the Senate bill -- partly because of pressure from moderate Republicans -- did not include those cuts. Instead, the Senate proposed to save taxpayer money by eliminating a $10 billion fund to encourage regional preferred-provider organizations, known as PPOs, to participate in the Medicare program. It also sought more rebates to the federal government from drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid.
Note the difference: Instead of imposing cuts on the poor, the Senate sought savings from corporate interests. Surprise, surprise: The final bill dropped the $10 billion cut to the PPOs and most of the rebate demands on drug manufacturers. Instead, the agreement hammered Medicaid recipients with $16 billion in gross cuts over the next decade. (The net cuts are lower because of new Medicaid spending, partly to help cover the scattered victims of Hurricane Katrina.)
The Medicaid cuts include increased co-payments and premiums on low-income Americans, and the budget assumes savings because fewer poor people will visit the doctor. As Kevin Freking of the Associated Press reported: "The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that such increases would lead many poor people to forgo health care or not to enroll in Medicaid at all -- contributing to some of the $4.8 billion in Medicaid savings envisioned over the next five years."
Ah, say their defenders, but these cuts will be good for poor people. According to the New York Times, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.), an architect of the Medicaid proposals, said the higher co-payments were needed to "encourage personal responsibility" among low-income people. Spoken like a congressman who never has to worry about his taxpayer-provided health coverage.
And that is just one instance among many of corporate interests being shielded from cuts, while child support enforcement and foster care programs were sliced. Shortly before the bill went to the House floor, Republican leaders, at the insistence of a group of GOP lawmakers from Ohio, dropped a $1.9 billion cut that would have changed Medicare payments to oxygen equipment manufacturers. The main beneficiary of this change was Invacare Corp. of Elyria, Ohio.
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) opposed the original, milder Senate budget bill but turned around and voted for the final, harsher bill. According to Congress Daily, Coleman backed the final budget "after negotiators took out cuts affecting his state's sugar beet growers." Coleman told the paper: "Karl Rove called me and asked what I wanted. A few hours later it was out of the bill."
The good news is that this budget is not law yet. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) used a clever procedural maneuver to force it back to the House for one more vote next year.
When this 774-page behemoth hit the House floor shortly after 1 a.m. on Dec. 19, many members were not fully aware of what was in it. Now that they know, maybe some of the moderate Republicans who caved to their leadership and voted for it will save their party's honor by killing this special-interest mess. If I may borrow from Mr. Barton, doing so would definitely "encourage personal responsibility" among Republican leaders.
[email protected]
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
andI worked weekends and paid my own way through college. My parents did pay crap.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
