Capitol Hill

Democrats Run Into Doubts About Benefits of Second Stimulus

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Members of Congress are turning their focus toward jobs creation in a bid to save their own, but they’re running into doubts from their own party about whether another stimulus-style package can do any good.

Democrats in Congress, knowing that the best way to keep their jobs may be to create some for others, are turning their focus toward another federal stimulus package. But they’re running into doubts about whether more of the same can do any good.

While the Obama administration is addressing jobs creation with a special forum on Thursday — a day before the government releases November jobless numbers — it is trying to stress deficit reduction and is avoiding making any more spending commitments. And Sen. Carl Levin, a powerful Democrat from hard-hit Michigan, said Sunday that he doesn’t see “a lot of evidence” that another stimulus would succeed. 

The downbeat assessments come as doubts are increasingly raised about the impact of the first $787 billion stimulus in February. The nation’s unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent in October, and it remains high even in states where the administration says the stimulus has saved or created the most jobs. In California, for instance, the administration says the package saved or created more than 110,000 jobs, but unemployment in the state is at 12.2 percent.

Critics say part of the problem is that the money is being used to keep government workers at the state level from being laid off, a move that saves jobs but does not necessarily spur economic growth. Other jobs, like those created through infrastructure spending, represent short-term employment gains. Such jobs would need constant infusions of public money to be sustained. 

“The only jobs we’re creating are government jobs. This nonsense about we’re creating and saving jobs — they’re non-existent,” former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said on “Fox News Sunday.” “This has been the biggest scam and waste of taxpayer money.” 

But some prominent Democrats are building the case for another stimulus, even if they won’t call it a “stimulus” by name. They want extensions in unemployment benefits, tax incentives, more construction spending and other measures — though more than two-thirds of the first stimulus hasn’t been spent yet. 

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean bluntly explained that the upcoming 2010 midterm congressional elections are a driving force behind Democrats’ support for more jobs legislation. 

“I think we’re going to have a tough election in 2010 unless we can start dealing with … the job situation,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” 

Click here to continue reading.

Chairman Price, Republican Leaders Ask President Obama to Adopt General McChrystal’s Recommendations

Friday, November 20th, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            Contact: Brendan Buck

November 20, 2009 Permalink (202) 225-4501

 

Chairman Price, Republican Leaders Ask President Obama to Adopt General McChrystal’s Recommendations

Washington, D.C. – Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) joined with House Republican leaders and Ranking Members to send the following letter to President Obama regarding the conflict in Afghanistan.

November 19, 2009

The Honorable Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you to express our deep concern over the state of your Afghanistan policy. For over two months you have been engaged in a strategy review that has left the country, our military, and allies uncertain about your commitment to the war in Afghanistan and unsure about your will to do what it is necessary to win this conflict. Worse, we fear this process has emboldened our enemies.

We believe that it is long overdue for our military to be in the execution stage of the strategy instead of the evaluation phase. While no one disputes that a Commander-in-Chief should deliberate before making decisions, particularly in matters involving life and death, we believe this review is having a detrimental impact on our efforts in Afghanistan. While 68,000 U.S. forces are fighting on the battlefield, your strategy review in Washington has returned the country to the policy drift that undermined our efforts in Afghanistan for much of the war. Members who have just returned from visiting theater report that our military believes they can succeed, but are unsure whether Washington will give them the opportunity.

Mr. President, only you can put this conflict back on a path toward success in our mission to deny al-Qaeda and the Taliban safe haven in Afghanistan to plan and execute attacks on Americans. Our military forces want to know that their mission has the attention and support of the Commander-in-Chief. While you rightly speak of military sacrifice, we seldom hear you speak of success. We encourage you to make a spirited defense of your strategy. Absent your leadership and a public determination to win in Afghanistan we simply cannot succeed.

Our collective view is that General McChrystal’s assessment and accompanying request for forces offer the best means to successfully implement your March 2009 strategy, which called for “[e]xecuting and resourcing an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.” We encourage you to adopt General McChrystal’s recommendation, and to provide him with the forces that will give us the highest chance for success with the lowest risk to the safety and security of our forces.

We respect your prerogative as Commander-in-Chief to validate that the assumptions underlying your strategy still apply in the current environment. However, we encourage you to heed General McChrystal’s assessment that time is critical and failure to gain the initiative in the short term “risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” We remind you that these words were written over two months ago.

Mr. President now is the time where the country needs your leadership. While our men and women in uniform are faithfully executing your mission in Afghanistan, they long for your voice to lead and guide the debate on the war here at home. Our military is the best fighting force in the world. Yet, it is the American will to win – not precision guided munitions – which is their most important weapon. As Commander-in-Chief you are responsible for ensuring this critical weapon is delivered.

It is our desire to standby you and to support a strategy that is resourced to win decisively. We urge you choose this course of action.

Sincerely,

Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
Rep. John Boehner
Rep. Eric Cantor
Rep. Mike Pence
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Rep. John Carter
Rep. Pete Sessions
Rep. Kevin McCarthy
Rep. Roy Blunt
Rep. Jerry Lewis
Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen
Rep. Peter Hoekstra
Rep. Tom Price

Blunt Urges Decision on Afghanistan Troop Levels

Friday, November 20th, 2009
       For Immediate Release

                Burson Taylor Snyder

       November 20, 2009

                               (202) 225-6536

 

BLUNT URGES DECISION

ON AFGHANISTAN TROOP LEVELS

–“We fear this process has emboldened our enemies.” –  

WASHINGTON, DC— Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt today urged President Obama to make a final decision about troop levels in Afghanistan.  In a letter signed by fourteen Republican Members of Congress, including Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio), Blunt calls on the president to adopt General McChrystal’s recommendations and provide the forces and strategic direction necessary to fight and win.  

In the letter, the Members write: “For over two months you have been engaged in a strategy review that has left the country, our military, and allies uncertain about your commitment to the war in Afghanistan and unsure about your will to do what it is necessary to win this conflict.  Worse, we fear this process has emboldened our enemies.”

“While no one disputes that a Commander-in-Chief should deliberate before making decisions, particularly in matters involving life and death, we believe this review is having a detrimental impact on our efforts in Afghanistan,” the letter further reads. “While 68,000 U.S. forces are fighting on the battlefield, your strategy review in Washington has returned the country to the policy drift that undermined our efforts in Afghanistan for much of the war.”

“Mr. President, only you can put this conflict back on a path toward success in our mission to deny al-Qaeda and the Taliban safe haven in Afghanistan to plan and execute attacks on Americans. Our military forces want to know that their mission has the attention and support of the Commander-in-Chief. While you rightly speak of military sacrifice, we seldom hear you speak of success. We encourage you to make a spirited defense of your strategy. Absent your leadership and a public determination to win in Afghanistan we simply cannot succeed. 

“Mr. President now is the time where the country needs your leadership. While our men and women in uniform are faithfully executing your mission in Afghanistan, they long for your voice to lead and guide the debate on the war here at home.  Our military is the best fighting force in the world. Yet, it is the American will to win – not precision guided munitions – which is their most important weapon. As Commander-in-Chief you are responsible for ensuring this critical weapon is delivered,” the letter concludes.

Health reform need not be bloated, expensive

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

By: Rep. Roy Blunt

As I’ve met with patients, doctors, small business owners and families to talk about health care, one thing is very clear: Missourians want to keep what works and fix what is broken. They are tired of bills whose importance is measured in length, rather than effectiveness. But the Washington Democrats’ response is to introduce a budget-busting, 1,990-page health care plan.

This plan is so unwieldy that no one knows exactly what’s in it. We do know that it will cost more than $1 trillion, increase premium costs, put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor and pay for most of it with Medicare cuts.

A rhetorical trick in this debate is arguing that we can do what the White House wants or we can do nothing. These aren’t the only two choices. I’ve drafted or sponsored 10 health care bills that can be debated individually. Find them at blunt.house.gov. Nothing I’ve proposed is hidden in a 1,990-page bill.

A significant hurdle to health coverage is a pre-existing medical condition. I’ve sponsored legislation to offer tax credits for Americans who purchase their own health insurance and expand risk pools for patients with pre-existing conditions, resulting in lower costs and more options (HR 3218).

I’ve sponsored legislation allowing small businesses to band together to provide coverage for their employees through small business health plans (HR 2607). Companies that don’t offer coverage could provide tax-free contributions to employees’ insurance plans under HR 3822.

Currently, Americans must buy their health insurance within their state, limiting the size of the insurance pool and inflating costs. Individuals should have access to any plan, regardless of whether it’s based in Kansas City, Mo., or Kansas City, Kan. (HR 3824).

Some young, healthy workers choose to forgo employer-offered health care plans. Thirty percent of Americans age 19 to 24 are uninsured. I introduced legislation to allow insurers to cover dependents up to age 25 under their parents’ plans, expanding options for 7.3 million Americans (HR 3887).

Click here to continue reading.

Government Still Trying to Take Over Health Care

Friday, October 30th, 2009

By: Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)

Yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrats unveiled H.R. 3962, their latest version of the health care legislation that’s been hotly debated for months in Congress and across the country. (Read it here.) 

One thing is clear. Your concerns about a government takeover of health care have been totally ignored by Speaker Pelosi and her allies, who worked behind closed doors to write this bill. After months of debate, the bill they introduced today is essentially the same bill the American people have already flat-out rejected. 

Government-run insurance? Still in the bill. Higher taxes? You betcha. An individual mandate that restricts choices and innovation by requiring Washington to define what qualifies as health insurance? Check. A job-killing employer mandate, a budget-busting expansion of the Medicaid entitlement, and countless provisions that set Washington bureaucrats firmly between you and your doctor? Better believe it.

What about comprehensive lawsuit abuse reform and a ban on taxpayer funded abortion? Not surprisingly, those important items are still NOT in the bill. 

Click here to read the entire article from Rep. Tom Price.

Blunt Supports Nine Bills to Fix What is Broken in Health Care

Friday, October 30th, 2009

For Immediate Release            Burson Taylor Snyder

October 30, 2009            (202) 225-6536

Blunt Supports Nine Bills to Fix

What is Broken in Health Care

–“Nothing I’m proposing is hidden in a 1,990-page bill”–

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt, Chairman of the GOP Health Care Solutions Group, has sponsored nine health care bills to improve what is working and fix what is broken in Americans’ health care.

“One of the Democrats’ rhetorical tricks in this debate over health care has been to argue that we can either do what the White House wants, or we can do nothing,” Blunt said. “These aren’t the only two choices. I’ve drafted or co-sponsored almost a dozen health care bills that can be debated one at a time, are easy to find at www.blunt.house.gov, and are understandable.”

Blunt continued: “In a week when the Democrat leadership unveiled their 1,990-page government-takeover of health care, we are listening to the American people, who are offended by confusing, thousand-plus-page bills whose importance is measured in length, rather than effectiveness. Nothing I’m proposing is hidden in a 1,990-page bill.”

“We should be making health care more affordable and accessible for everyone, regardless of pre-existing condition, and increasing quality and affordability,” Blunt said. “We should keep what works and fix what is broken, and the bills I’m supporting, after careful review of many ideas, will achieve those goals.”

BLUNT HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS

Expanding Access to Affordable Health Care

o H.R. 2607: Small Business Healthcare Fairness Act would expand access to health coverage by creating Small Business Health Plans. These would allow small businesses to band together through associations to pool their risk.

o H.R. 3218 Improving Health Care for All Americans Act would provide tax equity to individuals buying health insurance. It would also create expanded options for the purchase of low-cost health care from new pooling mechanisms.

o H.R. 3821 Improved Employee Access to Health Insurance Act would prohibit states from enacting laws which keep employers from ‘auto-enrolling’ employees in currently offered health benefit plans, provided the employee has the option to opt out with no penalty. Research suggests that auto‐enrollment mechanisms, by overcoming inertia and complexity, could increase coverage levels dramatically. In contrast to a federal mandate that all Americans must purchase insurance or face fines, the approach taken in this bill would protect individuals’ ability to make their own health care decisions.

o H.R. 3822: Improved Access to Employer Financed Health Insurance Act would allow employers who do not offer insurance to provide tax-free defined contributions to workers’ individually purchased insurance policies. Further, it would reform existing rules governing insurance markets that make it difficult for employers to help their workers buy health insurance on the individual market.

o H.R. 3823: Medicaid and SCHIP Beneficiary Choice Improvement Act would provide all Americans on Medicaid and SCHIP the ability to use premium assistance to purchase private insurance instead of participating in the government-run option.

o H.R. 3824: Expanded Health Insurance Options Act would authorize states to form regional compacts that will govern the sale of health insurance, which will increase the size of insurance pool and reduce premiums by spreading risk among a larger number of participants.

o H.R. 3887: Health Insurance Access for Young Workers and College Students Act would require that insurance companies continue to cover dependents up to age 25. In the age group 19-24, 30 percent are uninsured (about 7.3 million) and this bill will target that key population.

Medical Liability Reform

o H.R. 1086: HEALTH Act – this medical liability reform bill utilizes caps to help bring down costs. This bill will prevent double recoveries and limits the number of years plaintiffs can file suit.

Preserving Doctor/Patient Relationship

o H.R. 3002: Patients Act would protect patients by prohibiting the use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of items or services under Federal Health Care programs. This basically prevents the rationing of care.

In addition to these nine bills Blunt has sponsored or cosponsored, he is drafting bills to expand access to health information technology and enhance transparency for the price of medical procedures.

‘Public Option’ Gets a New Name — It’s the ‘Consumer Option’ Now

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Critics say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s attempts to rename the “public option” will do little to change the debate on health care reform, but history shows instances of successful rebranding.

If it quacks like a duck . . .

In an appearance at a Florida senior center on Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to government-run health insurance as “the consumer option.” Then Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who appeared alongside Pelosi, used the term “competitive option.” 

Apparently, the “public option” is sooooo last week. 

What’s in a name? A lot, it seems, so the lawmakers are rebranding it in an effort to get it past any lingering doubts among the public, consumers and competitors.

Pelosi says “public option” has been misrepresented and creates the impression that taxpayers will foot the bill for health care. Wasserman Schultz says she expects the speaker to give the new wording a test drive when she returns to Washington.

But critics say rebranding the “public option” won’t work.

“A lemon is a lemon. You can call it an orange or an apple,” Republican strategist and pollster Frank Luntz told Fox News.

“Now she’s realized that the so-called public option … is losing support on a daily basis, and so she’s trying to change the language behind it. The problem is the American people really don’t want Washington running their health care,” he said.

Click here to continue reading.

A GOP health plan

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate have spent the spring, summer and fall grappling with how to fix the health care system. They’re still trying to craft a bill they can sell to Americans — or even explain in plain English.

And the Republicans? Well, as the minority party, they’re mainly on the sidelines. They’ve become the party of “no,” sniping at every Democratic health care reform idea without promoting any of their own. Right?

Not entirely.

Over the summer and fall, Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced six — yes, six — health care reform proposals. You didn’t hear? Well, those plans didn’t produce much of a ripple because Democrats dominate the Congress.

But now Republicans are weighing a shift in strategy. Instead of taking more potshots, some Republicans say their party should present a coherent alternative to whatever final Democratic plans emerge in the House and Senate. Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee reportedly are drafting legislation the GOP could introduce when Democrats bring their proposals to the floor.

Here’s hoping they do. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who sponsored a health reform bill, said recently: “The job of the opposition is not just to point out all the flaws in legislation coming to the floor, but to offer ideas for how you would fix it.”

He’s right. Others offering proposals: Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

Click here to continue reading.

Republicans Stand Firm on Public Option Resistance, Despite Emergence of Compromise Plans

Monday, October 26th, 2009

The unyielding resistance ensures that Republicans will keep health care reform complaints in their arsenal for the 2010 elections and beyond. At the same time, they run the risk of reinforcing their image among critics as the “Party of No.”

Don’t expect a Republican change of heart on government-run health insurance any time soon. 

Even though several less sweeping versions of the public option are gaining steam on Capitol Hill, potentially providing an opening for GOP lawmakers to bargain for the least offensive, party leaders are sending a message: Not impressed. 

“At the end of the day, it’s a government-run plan,” one Republican aide told Foxnews.com. 

The unyielding resistance ensures that Republicans will keep health care reform complaints in their arsenal for the 2010 elections and beyond. 

At the same time, they run the risk of reinforcing their image among critics as the “Party of No.” And should health care reform pass, experience no significant cost overruns or bureaucratic fumbles, and be enormously popular, the Republican Party will effectively be on the losing team. 

But Republicans see any of these plans as a bureaucratic monster guaranteed to drive up already ghastly deficits and burden Americans with new taxes. They claim to have the wind at their backs, arguing that the upcoming Virginia governor’s race — where Republican Bob McDonnell leads the polls — is a “cautionary tale” to Democrats ahead of the 2010 elections and a sign of the angst directed at the incumbent party in Washington. 

“We’re going to offer alternatives. … and that will be important going into next year’s election,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told ABC’s “This Week.” 

Plus congressional Republicans know that Democrats, with their majorities in both chambers, don’t need to convince them anyway — they need to convince themselves. 

Scott Stanzel, former deputy press secretary to President Bush, said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is having a hard enough time whipping up a simple, 51-vote majority for the public plan, let alone the 60-vote bloc needed to crush a filibuster. 

“I think Republicans should stand firm on their principles that injecting more government control into our health care system is wrong,” he told Foxnews.com. If they cave, Stanzel said, “They essentially have to go silent on what the impacts of that public option could be” in the run-up to the next election. 

If they were inclined, Republicans would have a buffet of government-run options to pick from. One version, popular among Reid and other senators, would allow states to opt out if they wanted. Another version would allow states to opt in. Another version would provide for a “trigger” to activate the public option if the private insurance industry doesn’t meet certain conditions down the road.

In terms of payment, one proposal would set up a public plan that would use “negotiated” rates just like private plans do — an option expected to come with middle-of-the road premiums for consumers and therefore make less of a dent on the private industry’s client pool. This would be more moderate than the idea pushed by congressional liberals to use Medicare rates, plus five percent for doctors — this would lead to considerably cheaper premiums and could cause millions more people to leave private coverage. 

But Republicans, for the most part, say they have no interest in pushing for any of the above, even if their support could help push Congress toward a less robust version. Consider that all but one Republican on the Senate Finance Committee opposed a bill that didn’t even include a public option — it included a system of nonprofit cooperatives instead. 

Click here to read more.

The Ballooning National Debt

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Press Release: Republican Study Committee,  Chairman Tom Price, MD

The Ballooning National Debt

Through the Ceiling, Through the Roof

Washington, DC – The United States Treasury is prohibited by law from issuing more than $12.104 trillion in debt. For the moment, that is. You see, the Treasury has a simple way to raise this statutory limit whenever it runs up against it. All they have to do is ask Congress!

Treasury Secretary Geithner made just such a request last August, due in large part to the $1.42 trillion deficit the federal government racked up during the 2009 fiscal year.

“The Treasury and the OMB noted that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, not all of which has been used, accounted for 24% of the deficit total. As a result, the country is very near to breaching its so-called debt ceiling, currently set at $12.1 trillion. Lawmakers, however, are expected to vote to raise that ceiling this fall.” (CNN Money, 10/16/09)

The upcoming increase will probably set the debt limit somewhere north of $13 trillion. When the Democrats (including then-Senator Obama) regained control of Congress in January 2007, the debt ceiling was $8.965 trillion. Since then, they’ve raised the debt ceiling four times between September 2007 and February 2009 for a total of $3.139 trillion in more debt.

That’s a 35% increase in the debt ceiling in less than 17 months. Now, that takes determination.

And despite President Obama’s attempt to blame his predecessor and hide behind soothing rhetoric like…

“I just want things to work. But what I know will not work is us seeing our debt levels double again like they did under George W. Bush. We can’t do it and it’s a burden on future generations that I’m not willing to accept.” (CNN, 1/18/09)

…this ballooning debt burden is only going to get worse. In fact, though the President is apparently unwilling to accept a doubling of the national debt, he’s obviously okay with going above and beyond. Under his budget plan, the total national debt will actually more than double – reaching $24.498 trillion by 2019.

That’s gonna make for a lot of uncomfortable votes.

Download Full Movie Online All the President's Men download movie Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines download movie Coach Carter download movie The Sixth Sense download movie Clueless download movie Death Sentence download movie The Pink Panther download movie The Violent Kind download movie Alex & Emma download movie Murphy s romance download movie Dark reel download movie An american tail: fievel goes west download movie The crow download movie Friday the 13th part 2 download movie Eat your heart out aka skinned alive download movie midi ringtones downloads real ringtones no subscription download free custom ringtones normal phone ringtones All the President's Men download movie Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines download movie Coach Carter download movie The Sixth Sense download movie Clueless download movie Death Sentence download movie The Pink Panther download movie The Violent Kind download movie Alex & Emma download movie A Bronx Tale download movie Hawaiian Holiday download movie Emma's War download movie The Burrowers download movie Empire of the Ants download movie Cosmic Voyage download movie The Marine download movie Afro Samurai: Resurrection download movie Alfie download movie Bedknobs and Broomsticks download movie The Victoria's Secret Fashion Show download movie The Freshest Kids download movie Blow download movie Carry on Matron download movie Live Free or Die download movie Dimples download movie Radio Days download movie Pueblo Pluto download movie Statistics download movie Candyman: Day of the Dead download movie Rollercoaster download movie The Final Conflict download movie The 81st Annual Academy Awards download movie Gnomes and Trolls: The Secret Chamber download movie Kingdom Hospital download movie A Zed & Two Noughts download movie