Welcome to the APBWeb.
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Terminator's Avatar
    Terminator is offline BANNED
    Join Date
    12-03-05
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    16,064
    Rep Power
    0

    Obama considering using a Senate procedural tactic so that only 50 votes would be rquired to pass major healthcare and energy reforms

    President Obama’s budget director said the White House would consider using a Senate procedural tactic so that only 50 votes would be required to pass major healthcare and energy reforms.

    Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the administration would prefer not to use the budget reconciliation process to push through its package.
    But he added: "We have to keep everything on the table. We want to get these.... important things done this year." Orszag called healthcare in particular "the key to our fiscal future."

    Orszag made the comments on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

    Because they can not be filibustered, budget reconciliations only require 50 votes to pass the Senate. Democrats hold strong majorities in Congress, but still come up short of the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to end debate, which makes it easier for Republicans to block legislation. House rules in comparison make it harder for the minority party to stop bills.

    Still, using budget reconciliation to pass policy proposals is controversial, even among some Democrats who believe doing so strains Senate rules and tradition.

    The Obama blueprint calls for major changes in both energy and healthcare policies that is likely to engender significant opposition from Republicans and business lobbies. The reforms are expect to win widespread support from Democrats and more left-leaning constituencies.

    The budget plan calls for a cap on carbon emissions, for example, and projects $645 billion in revenues from an auction of pollution permits that a variety of business groups, including oil companies, large manufacturers and utilities, would have to purchase.

    On healthcare, the plan calls for a $634 billion reserve fund to pay for a first step on healthcare reform.

    The president would pay for it in large measure by raising taxes on wealthy people and businesses by about $1 trillion over 10 years.

    Republicans on Sunday criticized the document as a return of big government that would dramatically raise the deficit without providing the needed jolt to the economy.

    The budget is "proposing massive tax increases on people and on businesses that can’t afford to pay them," said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who also appeared on This Week.

    Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl said the budget was "terrifying" in its policy implications and "mind-boggling" in its numbers.

    But Orszag defended the $3.6 trillion budget plan by saying the plan cuts taxes for 95 percent of all working Americans.

    "I just reject the theory that the only thing that drives economic performance is the marginal tax rate on wealthy Americans and the only way of being pro-market is to funnel billions and billions of dollars of subsidies to corporations," Orszag said.

    Still, Democrats like Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) have expressed concern about rising deficits. The budget estimates a deficit in 2009 of $1.75 trillion, quadruple the level the previous year. It also projects rapidly shrinking deficits, however, by the end of Obama’s first term.

    Considering the political difficulties attendant on budget issues and the tenuous state of the economy, Stephanopoulos asked Orszag if the administration would support the creation of a budget commission that would make spending and tax recommendations that would be either voted up or down with no possibility of amendments. Such a process is now used to close military bases.

    Orszag left the door open on such a proposal, and also indicated a less ambitious commission focused only on health care as a possibility as well.

  2. #2
    Retdetsgt's Avatar
    Retdetsgt is offline How did I get here!
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    12-07-05
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,944
    Rep Power
    7757748
    Let him propose all he wants. The Senate is quite protective of it's rules. Even a lot of Democrats aren't going to go with that. They know at some point Republicans will have a majority and they want to be able to block them.
    When I used to be somebody (I'm center top)

    "A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about". -Thomas Sowell-

  3. #3
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611628
    Well, you voted for it, America.

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  4. #4
    TXCharlie's Avatar
    TXCharlie is offline Former & Future Reserve Officer
    Join Date
    12-29-05
    Location
    Dallas Area
    Posts
    5,528
    Rep Power
    3224965
    The stupid Democrats were the ones who wanted the "Super Majority" rule in the first place, if memory serves. If they didn't dream it up, they certainly used it to block spending & tax cuts.

    (\__/)
    (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
    (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

  5. #5
    Retdetsgt's Avatar
    Retdetsgt is offline How did I get here!
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    12-07-05
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,944
    Rep Power
    7757748
    Quote Originally Posted by TXCharlie View Post
    The stupid Democrats were the ones who wanted the "Super Majority" rule in the first place, if memory serves. If they didn't dream it up, they certainly used it to block spending & tax cuts.
    Which is exactly why they aren't going to change it. Besides, Senators have always been possessive of their territory and have never welcomed any intrusions or even suggestions from outsiders, especially the President.

    FDR was more meddlesome than Obama and the best he could do was try to stack the Supreme Court. He was only partially successful at that.

    Key Democrats are already saying no to Obama's plans on reducing tax deductions for people making over 250K. They know those are the people that fill their reelection coffers too. Obama's free ride is quickly coming to an end, I think. He'll still get a lot of stuff done, but the Senate will never be a President's rubber stamp.
    When I used to be somebody (I'm center top)

    "A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about". -Thomas Sowell-

  6. #6
    TXCharlie's Avatar
    TXCharlie is offline Former & Future Reserve Officer
    Join Date
    12-29-05
    Location
    Dallas Area
    Posts
    5,528
    Rep Power
    3224965
    They may wind up with their tax increases swamped by tax protests anyway - This thing could snowball into a complete tax revolt, especially amoung the self-employed who can hide assets pretty well - There is strength and some degree of legal protection in numbers. Just the finite number of IRS investigators may mean that a revolt is a success.

    Unfortunately this crap isn't going to stop without a full-fledged grass-roots revolt which throttles their money supply..

    If I weren't concerned about how lawsuits and leins from the IRS would look to future employers, I'd probably be filing "exempt" on my tax returns and stopping withholding, transfering to rented assets, etc in preperation to make a "statement" for"change".

    (\__/)
    (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
    (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

 

 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •