Archive for the ‘Houe of Rep Files’ Category


Employment Exhibition

Image by Modern_Language_Center via Flickr

Brad Anderson, CEO of Best Buy, added that Obamacare makes it impossible to achieve even basic certainty about future personnel costs:

“If I was trying to get you to fund a new business I had started and you asked me what my payroll was going to be three years from now per employee, if I went to the deepest specialist in the industry, he can’t tell me what it’s actually going to cost, let alone what I’m going to be responsible for.”

You would think a piece of legislation more than a thousand pages long would at least be clear about the specifics. But a lot of those pages say: “The secretary will determine …” That means the secretary of health and human services will announce the rules sometime in the future. How can a business make plans in such a fog?

John Allison, former CEO of BB&T, the 12th biggest bank in America, pointed out how Obamacare encourages employers not to insure their employees. Under the law, an employer would be fined for that. But the penalty at present –about $2,000 — is lower than the cost of a policy.

“What that means is in theory every company ought to dump their plan on the government plan and pay the penalty,” he said. “So you don’t really know what the cost is because it’s designed to fail.”

Of course, then every employee would turn to the government-subsidized health insurance. Maybe that was the central planners’ intention all along.

An owner of 12 IHOPS told me that he can’t expand his business because he can’t afford the burden of Obamacare. Many of his waitresses work part time or change jobs every few months. He hadn’t been insuring them, but Obamacare requires him to. He says he can’t make money paying a $2,000 penalty for every waitress, so he’s cancelled his plans to expand. It’s one more reason why job growth hasn’t picked up post-recession.


The reason Republicans swept the house of representatives & the Governor races was because of the Obama/Reid/ PELOSI failures….

When Al Gore needed support for his liberal global warming agenda, he turned to Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich to film an advertisement together. Filming an ad with Nancy Pelosi is another example of Newt Gingrich being an unreliable conservative and an unreliable leader.

Gingrich has since said that that ad, done four years ago, was “stupid” and a “mistake.”

GINGRICH: Everybody who was profiting from them [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] should pay the cost of having failed.

Including “historians” who made $1.6 million from them?

Team Romney is also sending around this exchange from his appearance on Fox earlier today, in which Romney addressed Gingrich’s hit-back that Romney should give back the money he made “bankrupting companies” at Bain Capital.

MARTHA MACCALLUM: “[Will you] give back all the money that you took in the bankruptcies, and the lost jobs and all of that. What is your reaction?”

MITT ROMNEY: “Well, unfortunately the Speaker is way off on that. In my enterprise, we had the occasion to help build tens of thousands of jobs. And he doesn’t understand the economy, if he doesn’t understand that sometimes businesses succeed and sometimes fail. The four enterprises I’ve led have all succeeded. We invested in hundreds of different entities — over a hundred different entities — not all of them succeeded. But to suggest that there is something un-American or something wrong about investing in enterprise that ultimately doesn’t succeed, bespeaks an extraordinary lack of understanding of how the economy works. And by the way, should he return the money that he got from Freddie Mac? That follows his own comment. He said anyone who profited from Freddie Mac should give the money back. Well, he profited $1.6 million from an agency that helped bring down the entire economy; he ought to give it back.”

Gingrich’s hit-back was a flop. Brit Hume led the way in describing it as the kind of thing we tend to hear from the left.


In the parlance of Washington, the Democrats are going to get the upper hand in the final round of the debt debate.  Republicans will succeed in making a vast cut in federal spending, unimaginable before the 2010 election and will block any tax increases.  Democrats will get an extension of the debt limit until after the election so as to avoid dragging Obama through this process again.

But the damage this debate has inflicted on the Obama Presidency is so deep and profound that it will have played a large part in dooming his re-election chances.  The injury to his popularity from the debt debate is far greater than the addition to his popularity he realized after killing bin Laden.

Here’s what will unfold in Washington:

Step One:  Reid and McConnell will craft a deal calling for larger so-called budget cuts (they’ll count the fictitious spending cuts achieved by avoiding foreign wars not now contemplated) and they will extend the debt limit until after the election.  McConnell will exact some language whereby Obama has to ask for the additional borrowing authority but it will require a two-thirds vote to deny it to him.  There will be a bi-partisan committee to craft further savings, but nobody will pay much attention to its results, certainly not Obama.

Step Two:  The Reid-McConnell compromise will pass the Senate with five or six defections by Democrats up for re-election and a dozen or two additions from non-tea party Republicans.

Step Three:  House Republicans will raise hell and refuse to pass the Senate bill.  Boehner will make a show of persuading them and then, finally, confronted by the “deadline” artificially ginned up by the president, he will permit it to pass with strong Democratic support.  A majority — or close to it — of his own party will vote no.

Outcome:  Obama will get credit for raising the debt limit.  Republican conservatives will be able to say they voted no.  Boehner will keep his credibility because he got a pure debt limit bill passed only with GOP votes before he crossed the aisle for final passage.

But the real outcome will be to have brought Obama’s job approval down from its bin Laden high of 55% to a new Gallup low of 40%.  That is ground he won’t be able to make up.  And, put through the rigors of tension and uncertainly, the economy will sink further into a double dip recession.  A recession brought on, in large part, by Obama’s crying wolf over the debt limit and creating an environment of financial and economic terror around its passage.

Republicans proved they can govern by passing their one-house debt limit increase.  Their fiscal conservative credentials are intact.  And Obama looks, once more, like a weak and easily cowed incompetent to his backers and a big spending and borrowing liberal to the rest of us.

Game to Obama.  Set and Match to the GOP.


Speaker of the House John Boehner‘s bill to raise the debt ceiling passed Friday night. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid‘s plan will be voted on Saturday night. What are the similarities and differences between the plans?

Similarities

Both plans would save about the same amount of money over ten years. The Reid bill would save $909 billion. The Boehner bill (including the July 29 changes) would save $917 billion.

Both plans would cut about the same amount (about $1 trillion) from the 2012 and 2013 budgets (the only budgets that this Congress has any real authority over). (This does not include Reid’s “war savings,” see below.)

Both plans create a super-committee – a bipartisan committee of 12 members from both houses – to come up with a bill that reforms taxes and entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security). Both houses would be required to vote on whatever bill the committee came up with.

Both plans cap discretionary (non-entitlement) spending. The caps rise with inflation after 2014.

Differences

Reid’s plan assumes a drawdown of United States’ forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to save $1.2 trillion. These savings are not included in Boehner’s bill. House Republicans are calling this part of Reid’s bill a “gimmick” because troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan will save money regardless of which bill is passed.

The Reid plan would raise the debt ceiling enough to get past the 2012 election in a single vote – a one-step process. The Boehner plan would require a two-step process – a small debt limit increase now, a large debt limit increase later which would be tied to the super-committee bill.

Under Reid’s plan, there would be no consequences if Congress did not pass the super-committee bill. Under Boehner’s plan, the second debt ceiling increase would come after passage of the super-committee bill. If Congress did not pass the super-committee bill, it would have to find another way to raise the debt ceiling.

After Boehner failed to get enough votes to pass his bill in the House on Thursday, he added a balanced budget amendment requirement to the bill in order to get more Republicans to support it. This requirement helped Boehner get the votes he needed to pass the House. It also made it less likely to pass the Senate.

The House passed the bill (218-210) Friday night. Twenty-two Republicans voted no along with every Democrat. The Senate will vote on the Reid bill Saturday night, sometime after midnight.

Conclusion

The bills are not that far apart in spending cuts, which suggests that the parties are closer to a compromise than public rhetoric would suggest.

Democrats argue that the Reid bill is better because all of the uncertainty produced by the two-step process in Boehner’s bill would be bad for the economy. Republicans argue that the Boehner bill would be better because it would force Congress to make tough choices on entitlement reform.

Tea Party Republicans do not like either bill. They do not like the Reid bill because it does not do enough to reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They do not like the Boehner bill because the super-committee could include tax increases.

Before this week, the differences between Republicans and Democrats appeared to be over tax increases. Republicans said they would not support a plan that increased taxes (even if it came from eliminating deductions, rather than increasing tax rates). Democrats said that they would not support a plan that did not include some tax increases (which could come from eliminating deductions). Ironically, the Reid bill, supported by Democrats, has no tax increases and the Boehner bill, supported by Republicans, most likely would increase taxes (by eliminating deductions) through the super-committee bill.

What the current debate shows, therefore, is that having a one-step process versus a two-step process is more important to the parties right now than whether or not tax increases are included in the bill.

The current debate also suggests that one of the most difficult parts of passing a bill will be getting past all the animosity members of each party have for each other. Republicans do not want to vote for a bill supported by Democrats and Democrats do not want to vote for a bill supported by Republicans.

This point was made by Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) when he explained his support for Boehner’s bill via Twitter, saying, “Boehner Plan is not a perfect bill. However, the fact Pelosi, Reid and Obama hate it doggone makes it perfect enough – where is their plan?”

SOURCE: CBO

Summary

CBO has been asked to compare the estimated cumulative budgetary savings for Speaker Boehner’s July 27, 2011, version of the Budget Control Act of 2011, to the savings that would be attributable to Majority Leader Reid’s July 25, 2011, version of the Budget Control Act without the estimated savings that are attributable to proposed caps on new funding for war-related activities (often called overseas contingency operations, or OCO). The attached table provides that comparison.

Speaker Boehner’s proposal: As noted in CBO’s July 27 letter to Speaker Boehner, we estimated cumulative savings, including debt service, of $917 billion over the 2012–2021 period for implementing the Budget Control Act of 2011, as proposed in the House on July 25, 2011, with an amendment proposed on July 27, 2011. (Those savings are measured relative to CBO’s March 2011 baseline, adjusted to reflect enactment of 2011 appropriations.) That proposal did not address future funding for war-related activities.

Majority Leader Reid’s proposal: In CBO’s July 27 letter to Majority Leader Reid, we estimated cumulative savings, including debt service, of $2,176 billion over the 2012–2021 period for implementing the Budget Control Act of 2011, as proposed in the Senate on July 25, 2011. (Again, those savings are measured relative to CBO’s March 2011 baseline, adjusted to reflect enactment of 2011 appropriations.) The cumulative savings for Majority Leader Reid’s July 25 proposal include the effects of establishing caps on new funding for war-related activities.

Excluding the effects of the caps on funding for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and similar activities from Majority Leader Reid’s July 25 proposal would yield 10-year savings of $909 billion, including debt-service effects, $8 billion less (over the 2012–2021 period) than estimated for Speaker Boehner’s July 27 proposal


House GOP gets behind Speaker Boehner‘s debt ceiling plan, passing it without Democratic support, but it is quickly put on ice by Senate Dems as Majority Leader Reid tries to advance his own plan to avert default…

WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR PLAN DEFAULTCRATS DEMOCRATS?


 

Speaker John Boehner pushed his debt-ceiling bill through the House Friday night with the support of 218 Republicans. Here are the 22 no votes:

Justin Amash (Mich.)
Michele Bachmann (Minn.)
Chip Cravaack (Minn.)
Scott Desjarlais (Tenn.)
Tom Graves (Ga.)
Tim Huelskamp (Kans.)
Steve King (Iowa)
Tim Johnson (Ill.)
Tom McClintock (Calif.)
Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)
Ron Paul (Texas)
Tom Price (Ga.)
Connie Mack (Fla.)
Jim Jordan (Ohio)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
Paul Broun (Ga.)
Tom Latham (Iowa)
Jeff Duncan (S.C.)
Trey Gowdy (S.C.)
Steve Southerland (Fla.)
Joe Walsh (Ill.)
Joe Wilson (S.C.)

SOURCE: POLITICO


Obama looses either way regarding the debt ceiling!

  • Obama caves and agrees with the Republicans: then his base will crumble even further into oblivion “I don’t see him doing this, his political career is already in shambles”.
  • The 14th amendment: Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, several English and French banks had lent money to the South during the war.[48] In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States government bond “went beyond the congressional power.” Section 4 has been cited (during the debate in July of 2011 over whether to extend the U.S. debt ceiling). Obama and the White House have both said that the President will not try the 14th Amendment approach because HE CAN’T RAISE THE DEBT CEILING WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL MEANING BOTH HOUSES…
  • DEFAULT: If the debt ceiling is not raised and the USA defaults then this will be the final nail in Obama’s political coffin. If this happens then while the house Republicans will take a beating politically as well the Republican Presidential Candidates that HAVE not spoke out on the Debt Ceiling will not of course be blamed. Romney for example has played this very smart he simply does not talk about the Debt Ceiling issues his message is focused on Jobs. While the Debt ceiling plays a major part in our economy and some in job creation and Pvt. Sector stability he simply just doesn’t mention it. Michele Bachmann on the other hand has come out saying she WOULD NOT raise the debt ceiling allowing the country to default which makes her very strong with the tea party but the tea party alone will not win her a general election.

So anyway Obama goes he looses, he has had more than enough time to raise the debt ceiling back when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress but instead they played golf, went on many tax payer funded vacations and basically didn’t do shit crap.