Senate Democrats Offer a Budget, Then the Amendments Fly

WASHINGTON — And on the 1,448th day without one, the Senate Democrats finally brought forth a budget, and Republicans saw that was good — but first, they made them pay.

After four years of hectoring Democrats to put their political and fiscal priorities to paper, Republicans got their wish on Friday and answered the effort with hundreds of amendments, some politically charged, others just odd, kicking off hours of laborious votes that sent the chamber into a marathon session just before spring recess.

There was the amendment thwarting regulations of greater and Gunnison sage grouse and eliminating funds to monitor the Utah prairie dog. In case a federal court ruling was not enough, Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, wanted to make sure money would be there to prevent the regulation of the size and quantity of food and beverage.

Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, stood vigil against any attempt by the United Nations to register American guns. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, went one better, demanding that the United States withdraw from the United Nations. Another amendment demanded that President Obama buy his health coverage on the new insurance exchanges being created under the new law. Still another would withhold the pay of the president’s budget director if he was ever late again with a White House budget. It was approved by voice vote, without opposition.

And even if any of those were to be adopted, none of them would have any force of law. “We all know this will come to naught. The House will pass a budget. We’ll pass a budget, and we’ll never agree on it. There’s a lot of folderol about it,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa.

“It’s a charade,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.

After all the complaints about Democratic irresponsibility on the budget front, what unfolded Friday boiled down to spectacle, hundreds of amendments, all advisory only, and more tailored to the next campaign than to actual governance.

Even the name of the session — the “vote-orama” — belied how seriously senators take the exercise. “Can’t hide from the vote-orama,” trumpeted a statement by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, pretty much showing the whole point of it.

In truth, a Congressional budget accomplishes far less than advertised. It sets top-line limits for the Appropriations Committees to live within as they work on the real, binding spending bills, and it sometimes sets up fast-track procedures to consider changes to tax and entitlement laws. Even those two functions can happen only if the Senate and House can reconcile their budget plans, a long shot this year.

Beyond that, all the details hung onto the document are largely meaningless, ignored by the committees that actually draft legislation.

“Are there political games being played? Yes, there always will be,” said Senator Tom Coburn,  Republican of Oklahoma, who had filed 66 amendments by evening.

Senators signaled widespread frustration on Friday night by adopting a nonbinding amendment, 68-31, to scrap the current budget process and start writing budgets every other year.

Most lawmakers expressed relief that finally, after so many years, the Senate was working on a budget. Its plan stands in stark contrast to the House plan that passed on Thursday. It includes $100 billion for an upfront job-creation and infrastructure program, instructions to expedite an overhaul of the tax code that would raise $975 billion over 10 years and could not be filibustered, and spending cuts and interest savings that total $975 billion, by Democratic calculations, and $646 billion in increases, by Republican accounting.

Even by Democratic estimates, the Senate plan would still leave a deficit of $566 billion in 2023, while adding $5.2 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade. The House plan ostensibly comes to balance that year.

That discrepancy did not dampen the enthusiasm.

“We’re doing our jobs. We’re doing the process,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota. “Our constituents are just so happy we’re moving forward on a budget.”

But such big numbers seemed almost beyond the point Friday, buried in a blizzard of meaningless amendments. The term “vote-orama” officially entered the Senate lexicon in 1977, according to the Senate historian’s office. By 2009, it had become ridiculous enough to prompt a hearing to demand changes. At that time, Democratic and Republican Budget Committee leaders lamented a process that had gone off the rails. In 2006, senators submitted 87 amendments. In 2007, there were 91, in 2008, 113.

This year, there were more than 500.

The main function of the vote-orama is to put senators on record on hot-button issues sure to show up in campaigns next year. Some votes were substantive, if nonbinding. On Friday evening, 62 senators — Republican and Democratic — voted in favor of building the Keystone XL pipeline. Democrats forced Republicans to vote on women’s access to employer-provided contraceptive coverage and to state whether they supported turning Medicare into a program that hands out vouchers for the purchase of private insurance. Republicans put almost all Democrats on the record opposing an amendment to block a carbon tax.

And though advisers to the Republican senatorial committee helped coordinate some of the amendments, the chairman of the campaign committee, Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, was not at all sure the votes would make a bit of political difference.

“I think voting records matter,” he said. “But I also know the public hears explanations about votes from Republicans and Democrats, and it’s hard to sort out what it really means. In the world of all this political activity and buzz, voters throw up their hands, shake their heads and say: ‘All these people in Washington, D.C., are a bunch of politicians. I don’t know what to believe.’ ”

Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting.

View the original article here

Senate Democrats Offer a Proposal to Head Off Automatic Cuts

The Democratic proposal would establish a 30-percent minimum tax rate on incomes over $1 million to raise about $54 billion over 10 years. It would raise $1 billion more by subjecting tar sands oil to a tax to pay for oil-spill cleanups and by ending a business tax deduction for the cost of moving equipment overseas.

The remaining $55 billion would come from $27.5 billion in defense cuts from 2015 to 2021 and $27.5 billion in farm-subsidy cuts.

The legislation is more a bargaining position than a solution. Republicans have said they will not accept any new taxes in a deal to head off the so-called sequester — across-the-board cuts to defense and domestic programs of 5 percent to 8 percent and totaling about $1 trillion over 10 years. But Senate Democratic leaders said Thursday that their party must rally support around an alternative to try to move negotiations forward.

“This bill is an important chess piece,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate.

Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio on Thursday repeated his demand that the Senate take the first steps to replace the spending cuts before the House considers its move, but no one predicted that the Senate Democrats’ proposal would rally the bipartisan support needed to overcome a near-certain Republican filibuster and reach the House.

“I would hope that we can get to 51 votes, and that majority would rule,” said Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, the chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I’m confident we will have the majority — if not the totality — of the Democratic caucus.”

Senate Democrats emerged from a protracted lunch meeting over the plan voicing only grudging support. Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the tax-writing Finance Committee, said he worried that wringing savings from farm subsidies now instead of in a broad farm bill would make it harder to pass an overhaul of agricultural programs that has been stalled for nearly a year.

Senators Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, and Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, denounced the 50-50 mix of cuts and taxes, after Democrats have swallowed far more spending cuts than tax increases over two years of deficit-reduction efforts.

Republicans dismissed the proposal as a worthless gimmick.

“This is not a solution — even they know it can’t pass; that’s the idea,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “It’s a political stunt.”

The White House praised the package. Jay Carney, the press secretary, called it a “balanced plan to avoid across-the-board budget cuts that will hurt kids, seniors, and our men and women in uniform.”

“Republicans in Congress face a simple choice,” he added. “Do they protect investments in education, health care and national defense, or do they continue to prioritize and protect tax loopholes that benefit the very few at the expense of middle- and working-class Americans?”

As the cuts approach, warnings of disaster are growing increasingly dire. The Senate Appropriations Committee released a barrage of letters from agencies spelling out how the cuts would be meted out: 600,000 low-income women and children dropped from federal nutrition programs; meat and poultry plants forced to close because of furloughed federal inspectors; deep cuts to the poor school systems that rely most heavily on federal assistance; delayed permits for oil and gas production; and shorter seasons, reduced operating hours and possible park closings in the national park system. Job losses could reach 750,000 this year, said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland.

While Republicans and Democrats agree the cuts would be destructive, neither side seems ready to negotiate a solution. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, reached out to Mr. Boehner on Thursday. Mr. Boehner said he told Mr. Reid what he has been saying publicly: The House will look at what the Senate can produce.

“This sequester was the president’s idea,” Mr. Boehner said. “His party needs to follow through on their plans to replace it.”

View the original article here

Offer thanks, not judgment, this Thanksgiving

(PNI) On this Thanksgiving Day, I hope all Arizonans and Americans will take time to truly reflect and pray and ask themselves these questions: Do you have a roof over your head? Do you have food on your table? Do you have a loved one who is in the hospital and receiving medical care whether or not they have insurance?

If you can answer yes to these questions, you are richly blessed. Please don't complain if our government has helped others in need achieve these three basic needs. Be thankful that you live in such a great nation that helps its own.

Please don't judge those who may not have reacted to negative experiences the same way you did. Count every blessing, deeply reflect and pray for all those less fortunate than you. In every way, we are the same.

Happy Thanksgiving.

-- Diana Hurst Wyllie,

Phoenix

Redistricting was a farce

So now, Arizona, which has a large majority of conservative Republican citizens overall, is being represented in the House by five Democrats and only four Republicans. This is a direct result of the underhanded gerrymandering pushed through earlier by the so-called Independent Redistricting Commission.

The commission was headed by a longtime Democratic Party activist who falsely filed as an independent when she was certainly not nonpartisan. She then banded together with the two Democrat members to ram through all the redistricting maps and decisions by a party-line 3-2 majority in all cases.

The redrawn maps, which greatly favored the Democrats in the election process, ended up with the desired result of having a Democratic Arizona majority in the House, even though this does not represent the desires of the majority of Arizona citizens.

The worst part is that this farce cannot be remedied for another 10 years. I guess crime does pay, as long as you're a crooked politician.

-- Brian Callahan, Sun City

Obama's gift: Respect

To those who think we voted for Barack Obama because we've received or expect to receive "gifts" from him:

Many of us voted for the president because he offers us the gift of respect.

Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and many other Republicans have shown contempt for women, minorities, LGBT people, immigrants, the poor, recipients of food stamps, Social Security and Medicare and -- above all -- contempt for honesty.

When you treat people with respect, we'll respect you in return. If you're contemptuous, we'll return your contempt with interest.

-- Tony Chambers, Tempe

Tax hike won't hurt rich

Do the voters really believe their taxes will not rise? Only the wealthy will see an increase?

Are the people so naive that they don't realize the wealthy have plenty of tax shelters and ways to hide their money? The middle class will bear the burden of these tax increases, not the wealthy.

A realistic voter.

-- J. A. Younger, Scottsdale

Not the captain we need

Having Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett do an "overhaul" of the voting process is like giving the captain of the Titanic the keys to a newer, bigger ship.

-- Tom Dunning, Payson

Embassy safety is crucial

The partisan wrangling over Benghazi is a sideshow to the real problem of addressing the purposes of our U.S. diplomatic objectives in the Islamic world.

Our embassies, consulates and missions are hiding behind fortresses with blast-resistant barriers, iron fences with razor wire and armed security guards. Embassy personnel have restricted access to the public and travel in body armor and reinforced vehicles. Increased security perimeters in vulnerable locations will not resolve how we communicate in Islamic countries.

If local governments cannot protect our missions, we should leave. The real issue for Congress is to rethink our global diplomatic mission in light of the overall terrorist threats and not score political points on a setback that exposed our vulnerabilities everywhere.

-- Don Sharpes, Scottsdale

GOP must change views

Since losing the presidential election, there has been a lot of talk among the pundits about changing the Republican Party. I contend there is no Republican Party, just as there is no color purple.

The Republican Party is a combination of people with many different viewpoints. To change the shading of the party, there must be change to the viewpoints of its membership.

For example, adopting a Dream Act for the sake of wooing voters is not a change in viewpoint, it is superficial. Allowing abortion and contraception for votes is not a change in viewpoint.

I therefore also contend that this change is more difficult because the views held by many, particularly in Arizona, are deeply ingrained.

Change can happen only when we change our views, and that comes from learning tolerance for other human beings.

-- Mike Ullery, Glendale

Hamas' deadly strategy

Question: What's the real reason Hamas fires rockets into Israel?

We would be wrong to believe they think they can significantly hurt Israel's citizens or military by doing this. The larger strategic purpose is simple: to provoke an Israeli air war on Gaza.

Look behind this cynical action and you'll find their strategic success: worldwide TV coverage of children killed and mass demonstrations in other countries supporting Hamas.

It is, clearly, the hate-filled, brainwashed Hamas leadership that brings the human tragedy of war on themselves.

-- Steve Berliner, Buckeye

The elephant in the room

OK, I'm going to say it. I'm going to say what no one seems willing or able to say:

Ken Whisenhunt must go.

-- Mary Ann Bashaw, Phoenix

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Senate Democrats to offer new tax cut plan (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Democrats plan to offer a new proposal on Monday to extend a popular payroll tax cut amid signals that Republican leaders would accept a compromise that covers the cost to the federal Treasury.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat, said that the offer would be a "serious attempt to move this ball forward," and avoid a December 31 expiration of the popular tax cut.

The proposal will be put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, on Monday, Conrad told the "Fox News Sunday" program. He declined to give details.

Conrad called Reid's proposal "a compromise," but a spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans were not consulted.

President Barack Obama and other Democrats want to expand and continue the payroll tax break for workers and extend it to employers, arguing it would help stimulate the sluggish U.S. economy. They have offered to cover the plan's cost with a new tax on millionaires.

Republicans instead offered to extend the tax break, which reduces the Social Security tax to 4.2 percent from 6.2 percent, and cover its roughly $110 billion cost largely by continuing a federal workers' pay freeze through 2015 and gradually reducing the federal workforce by 10 percent.

The competing plans were defeated on Thursday in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

While declining to discuss details, Conrad said the cost of Reid's proposal would be fully covered and not increase the nation's record $15 trillion debt.

"It will be paid for, it will be in a way that is credible and serious," Conrad said.

SKEPTICISM

Many Republican lawmakers are skeptical that extending the tax cut beyond this year will spur job creation, and they say it will have only a temporary effect on the economy.

Some also argue an extension would take money out of the government-run Social Security retirement program, which is under increasing financial strain.

Democrats contend that revenue from the federal government's general fund - money not earmarked for specific programs or activities - will be used to make up for any loss of funds intended for the Social Security program.

Fearing a possible backlash from voters in the 2012 elections, most Republicans want to at least extend the current tax break. Republican leaders announced last week a willingness to compromise with Democrats on the issue.

Obama has pushed for extending the payroll tax cut as well jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed in campaign-style trips around the nation. The nation's unemployment rate is currently 8.6 percent.

"Probably they both (payroll tax break and unemployment insurance) will be extended," Republican Senator Tom Coburn said on "Fox News Sunday."

The White House, investment banks and some economists have warned that U.S. economic growth could suffer in 2012 if the tax cut for workers is allowed to expire.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner put himself at odds with some members of his fellow Republicans who are skeptical of its benefits last week when he agreed that extending the tax break would help the economy.

Republican House leaders have not offered a counterproposal, but an aide said the chamber could consider its version of the payroll tax extension as early as this week.

(Editing by Paul Simao)

View the original article here