For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.The plan, assembled by Senator Patty Murray of Washington, would raise nearly a $1 trillion in new revenue over a decade by eliminating tax loopholes and breaks that benefit wealthy taxpayers and corporations. It recommends either limiting the overall itemized deductions of the top 2 percent of taxpayers or eliminating individual loopholes like the favorable tax rates given to hedge-fund managers. Corporations would no longer be able to avoid taxation by hiding money overseas. At the same time, this budget cuts an equal amount of spending, $975 billion, in a way that avoids the reckless damage to vital programs and to the poor in the budget favored by the House. Nearly a third of the reductions come from new efficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid, building on the reforms in the Affordable Care Act. The rest comes from defense cuts after American troops withdraw from Afghanistan, along with cuts to wasteful programs like agriculture supports. These cuts and revenue increases would replace the arbitrary reductions of the sequester, which does not distinguish between good and bad programs or pay attention to the heavy damage it would inflict on the economy, destroying up to a million jobs. Ms. Murray’s plan, recognizing that government has to play a role in accelerating the recovery, would devote $100 billion to new job-creating investments: $50 billion for transportation projects, $10 billion for fixing dams and ports, $20 billion for repairing schools and $10 billion for an infrastructure bank for big projects. The proposal could have gone further. Under pressure from the false Washington “consensus” that the deficit is an immediate problem, the plan fails to spend enough on education or even on President Obama’s proposal for universal preschool. Unlike the budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it does not call for higher tax rates on the rich, or for a bigger estate tax, or for taxing capital gains as ordinary income. But it rejects the hard-right insistence that the budget must be balanced in the short term, the destructive goal of Paul Ryan’s House version. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted on Friday, Mr. Ryan’s budget gets at least two-thirds of its $5 trillion in nondefense cuts from programs that benefit low- and moderate-income people. While providing the rich with a tax cut, it would cut trillions from Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches, nutrition aid and Pell Grants. The Senate now needs to make a strong defense of the principles it has, at last, put on paper.
Showing posts with label Finally. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Finally. Show all posts
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Senate Democrats Finally Take a Stand
It’s been four years since the Democrats who control the Senate produced a budget. That has meant four missed opportunities to demonstrate what they stand for, in hard numbers and clear spending priorities. On Wednesday, the chamber’s leaders stiffened their spines and issued a 2014 budget. If the result isn’t quite a courageous resistance to political winds, it at least makes most of the right choices and is a solid rebuttal to the heartless collection of obsolete dogmas that is the House budget. For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.The plan, assembled by Senator Patty Murray of Washington, would raise nearly a $1 trillion in new revenue over a decade by eliminating tax loopholes and breaks that benefit wealthy taxpayers and corporations. It recommends either limiting the overall itemized deductions of the top 2 percent of taxpayers or eliminating individual loopholes like the favorable tax rates given to hedge-fund managers. Corporations would no longer be able to avoid taxation by hiding money overseas. At the same time, this budget cuts an equal amount of spending, $975 billion, in a way that avoids the reckless damage to vital programs and to the poor in the budget favored by the House. Nearly a third of the reductions come from new efficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid, building on the reforms in the Affordable Care Act. The rest comes from defense cuts after American troops withdraw from Afghanistan, along with cuts to wasteful programs like agriculture supports. These cuts and revenue increases would replace the arbitrary reductions of the sequester, which does not distinguish between good and bad programs or pay attention to the heavy damage it would inflict on the economy, destroying up to a million jobs. Ms. Murray’s plan, recognizing that government has to play a role in accelerating the recovery, would devote $100 billion to new job-creating investments: $50 billion for transportation projects, $10 billion for fixing dams and ports, $20 billion for repairing schools and $10 billion for an infrastructure bank for big projects. The proposal could have gone further. Under pressure from the false Washington “consensus” that the deficit is an immediate problem, the plan fails to spend enough on education or even on President Obama’s proposal for universal preschool. Unlike the budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it does not call for higher tax rates on the rich, or for a bigger estate tax, or for taxing capital gains as ordinary income. But it rejects the hard-right insistence that the budget must be balanced in the short term, the destructive goal of Paul Ryan’s House version. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted on Friday, Mr. Ryan’s budget gets at least two-thirds of its $5 trillion in nondefense cuts from programs that benefit low- and moderate-income people. While providing the rich with a tax cut, it would cut trillions from Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches, nutrition aid and Pell Grants. The Senate now needs to make a strong defense of the principles it has, at last, put on paper.
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.The plan, assembled by Senator Patty Murray of Washington, would raise nearly a $1 trillion in new revenue over a decade by eliminating tax loopholes and breaks that benefit wealthy taxpayers and corporations. It recommends either limiting the overall itemized deductions of the top 2 percent of taxpayers or eliminating individual loopholes like the favorable tax rates given to hedge-fund managers. Corporations would no longer be able to avoid taxation by hiding money overseas. At the same time, this budget cuts an equal amount of spending, $975 billion, in a way that avoids the reckless damage to vital programs and to the poor in the budget favored by the House. Nearly a third of the reductions come from new efficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid, building on the reforms in the Affordable Care Act. The rest comes from defense cuts after American troops withdraw from Afghanistan, along with cuts to wasteful programs like agriculture supports. These cuts and revenue increases would replace the arbitrary reductions of the sequester, which does not distinguish between good and bad programs or pay attention to the heavy damage it would inflict on the economy, destroying up to a million jobs. Ms. Murray’s plan, recognizing that government has to play a role in accelerating the recovery, would devote $100 billion to new job-creating investments: $50 billion for transportation projects, $10 billion for fixing dams and ports, $20 billion for repairing schools and $10 billion for an infrastructure bank for big projects. The proposal could have gone further. Under pressure from the false Washington “consensus” that the deficit is an immediate problem, the plan fails to spend enough on education or even on President Obama’s proposal for universal preschool. Unlike the budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it does not call for higher tax rates on the rich, or for a bigger estate tax, or for taxing capital gains as ordinary income. But it rejects the hard-right insistence that the budget must be balanced in the short term, the destructive goal of Paul Ryan’s House version. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted on Friday, Mr. Ryan’s budget gets at least two-thirds of its $5 trillion in nondefense cuts from programs that benefit low- and moderate-income people. While providing the rich with a tax cut, it would cut trillions from Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches, nutrition aid and Pell Grants. The Senate now needs to make a strong defense of the principles it has, at last, put on paper. 
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Democrat Leaders Join Forces and Finally Call for Weiner's Resignation (ContributorNetwork)
NBC has reported that, despite the response on Friday by Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Anthony Weiner's scandalous behavior and the initial efforts of DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz to downplay the significance of Weiner, Wasserman Shultz, Pelosi and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Steve Israel released statements within minutes of each other today calling for the disgraced congressman's resignation.
Where Democratic leaders had previously ridden the Weiner fence, revelations that a 17-year old girl was among the many females who have been receiving personal communications from the congressman has officially inspired enough panic to motivate a hasty, unified decision.
According to an exclusive report by Fox News, police in New Castle, Del., are investigating their discovery of direct online communications between Weiner and a 17-year-old girl.
According to the report by Jana Winter, two New Castle County police officers arrived at the high school junior's home on Friday while foxnews.com was speaking with a family member. After being asked to step outside, the 17-year old was seen walking up the driveway. Because she is a minor, her name is being withheld. However, when fox.com inquired, the 17-year old said, "I'm doing OK."
According to Jennifer Preston of the New York Times, Weiner's spokeswoman, Risa Heller said, "According to Congressman Weiner, his communications with this person were neither explicit nor indecent." However, Heller did not provide copies of the messages.
Of course, that Weiner first denied the "bulging underwear" photo was him then lied to say his Twitter account was hacked, any denials from Weiner or those in his camp would understandably be considered suspect.
Preston also reported that a family member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, characterized the messages as "harmless" but did express concern. While the family was aware of the exchanges between Weiner and the girl before the scandal erupted, they assumed all of their conversations had taken place on a public Twitter feed.
However, according to the New York Times, Weiner started following the girl's personal profile page two days after she signed up for his Twitter feed. After seeing her profile message that she hopes to be president someday, "How hip am I talking to a future president?" Weiner responded directly.
A group of conservatives who had been following Weiner's Twitter feed became concerned, firing off public Twitter warnings and even contacting the 17-year-old girl directly. Only after the minor told Weiner she was being bothered did he apologize and stopped following her on Twitter. But a month later, after an online shout-out by Weiner for more followers, the girl reminded him she used to follow him. On May 16, fully aware that the girl was a minor, he started following her again and a relative told the Times that Weiner exchanged messages with the girl for almost two weeks after that.
After being caught sending shirtless photos to a woman he met on Craigslist, Republican Rep. Chris Lee stepped down. Democrat, Kathy Hochul won a special election in New York's 26th congressional district to replace Lee. In the wake of the historic drubbing in the 2010 midterm elections, Democrats like Wasserman Schultz hailed the victory as a turning point for their party.
As quoted by ABC, "The reason that we believe that this is an indicator that we will continue to make progress and retake majority of the House and re-elect the president is that the voters got a glimpse of what it would be like under Republican control," Schultz said last month . "And they don't like it."
Today's frenzied response by Democrat leaders reveals their final grasp that, on top of President Barack Obama's tanking poll numbers, the sexcapades of Weiner may have given their "hailed turning point" a seriously official 180.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)