In passing the tax break, the Senate ensured the average American worker will not face a tax hike of $1,000 on January 1st. While Democratic senators wanted to extend the tax cut for a full year, Republicans said they would only agree to a full-year tax cut if Democrats agreed to Medicare cuts. Democratic negotiators opposed these cuts.

Democrats will gladly renew this fight for middle class workers in late February, when the two-month tax cut extension expires.  It’s a debate we’re willing to have, to ensure that families can pay their bills and put food on the table.

Sen. Harry Reid heard the report and highlighted it on the Senate floor this morning.

“Millionaire job creators are like unicorns – impossible to find,” said Reid.

Safeguards that keep our water clean, our air fresh, and corporations honest are not killing jobs, as Republicans claim.

As former Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett said, the notion that cutting regulations will trigger significant job growth is “just nonsense. It’s just  made up.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the main reason business owners are feeling a drag on hiring is a lack of consumer demand for goods and services, rather than regulations.

According to former Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett, “Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans… it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment,” he said.

With 14 million Americans out of work, it’s time Republicans faced the facts and worked with Democrats to resolve the very real crisis of unemployment.

The VOW To Hire Heroes Act, introduced by Democratic senators, combines a key component of President Obama’s jobs plan with a bipartisan initiative to boost veterans’ employment opportunities.

Here’s what Democratic senators are saying about the VOW To Hire Heroes Act, and why it’s so important –

#1 Hundreds of Thousands of Veterans are Out of Work

Senator Reid (NV): “One in five young veterans, veterans under age 25, they’re unemployed. On any given night at least 75,000 veterans, including 2,500 in Nevada, sleep on the streets.”  Watch the video clip.

Senator Durbin (IL): “If we are serious, serious about dealing with this recession and putting people back to work, let’s not stop with the veterans of America. Let’s start with the veterans of America.”

Senator Reed (RI): “The unemployment rate for veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq is an indefensible 12.1%. [It’s] a significant blow to young men and women who are returning home after serving their country in very difficult circumstances.”

Senator Murray (WA): “On this Veteran’s Day, after almost ten years of war, nearly one million American veterans will be unemployed.”

#2 The Legislation Keeps America’s Promise to Protect Those Who Serve Overseas

Senator Pryor (AR): “We should not let our current financial difficulties take away the support we owe those who served.”

Senator Durbin (IL): “They fought for America. They shouldn’t come back home and fight for a job. Let’s give them a helping hand.”

Senator Reed (RI): “These veterans deserve our help as they transition from the military service to their civilian careers.”

Senator Murray (WA): “We have all made a promise to those who signed up to serve, and we all need to keep it..”

Senator Menendez (NJ): “Every veteran deserves better.”

#3 It Provides Job Training Services and Extends Disability Benefits

Senator Murray (WA): “It requires broad job skills training for every service member as they leave the military as part of the military’s transition assistance program.”

Senator Menendez (NJ): “This bill would give a credit up to $2,400 for short-term unemployed veterans] and up to $5,600 for long-term unemployed, and an increased credit up to $9,600 for hiring unemployed wounded veterans.”

#4 It Does Not Add a Dime to the Deficit  

Senator Reid (NV): “The bill wouldn’t add a dime to the deficit so there should be no objection there. It’s paid for with a nonconference extension of existing fee on fee-back mortgages. It is a version of the same one House Republicans already voted.”

Senator Menendez (NJ): “We cannot and should not balance the budget on the backs of those who have served. Veterans are not bankrupting America, they’re protecting it, and it’s not veterans’ programs, health care, or services that should be cut.”

The legislation, announced by Democratic senators Patty Murray (WA), Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Jon Tester (MT), combines a key component of President Obama’s jobs plan with a bipartisan initiative to boost veterans’ employment opportunities.

The unemployment rate among veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan is more than 12 percent, which is higher than the national average.

Nevada Senator Harry Reid took to the Senate floor today to urge Senate Republicans to support the bill.

Watch the clip:

Senate Democrats urge Republicans to join them in supporting putting Americans back to work.:

America agrees: the only way out of tough economic times is to invest in what makes this country great — its workers.

Seventy-two percent of Americans, including 54 percent of Republicans, support the bill. And 76 percent of them, including 56 percent of Republicans, agree with Democrats that it should be paid for by asking the nation’s wealthiest citizens to contribute their fair share.

Here’s a look at the key reasons to support it, according to Democratic senators:

#1 The Bill Creates Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs

Senator Coons (DE): “More than two million Americans who worked in construction have lost their jobs since this tragic recession hit. Including 8,000 in my home state of Delaware alone.”

Senator Merkley (OR): “More than 40,000 construction jobs have been lost in Oregon since 2007, all of which only thrive when we’re building homes in America.”

Senator Bingaman (NM): “Passage of this legislation would mean at least $284 million in my home state of New Mexico in immediate infrastructure investments. And that investment of $284 million would support a minimum of 3,700 local jobs.”

Senator Begich (A.K.): “This [bill] could put Alaskans to work on important projects: Bridge repairs outside the Denali National Park, a critical route between Alaska’s two population centers and a heavily traveled route for our tour operators and shippers.”

Senator Levin (MI): “In my home state of Michigan this legislation would result in more than $900 million going to infrastructure projects, it would create about 12,000 jobs.”

Senator Feinstein (CA): “The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every billion dollars of federal transportation spending, 27,822 jobs are produced. It is one of the biggest bang for the buck programs I know of.”

#2 It Would Repair and Rebuild Important Infrastructure

Senator Bingaman (NM): “The Federal Highway Administration estimates that about 22% of New Mexico’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Nineteen percent of our bridges are structurally deficient, or functionally obsolete, according to the Federal Highway Administration.”

Senator Begich (AK):  “We see it in the potholes in our streets, in the congested highways and public transit that lack the capacity to safely and efficiently get Americans where they need to go.”

Senator Feinstein (CA): In my state, 66% of our major roads are in poor condition, 68% of our urban interstates are congestion — congested, vehicle travel increased by 27% from 1990 to 2007, and 30% of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete…..”

Senator Klobuchar (MN): “The cracks in this system became abundantly clear to all of our country, and in fact the entire world, when on the afternoon of August 1, 2011, the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed into the middle of the Mississippi river, taking the lives of 13 Minnesotans and injuring so many more.”

Senator Wyden (OR): “You cannot have big league economic growth in America with little league transportation systems. It’s just not possible.

#3 It’s Entirely Paid For

Senator Reid (NV): “Republicans say they oppose this plan to hire hundreds of thousands of construction workers and rebuild our nation’s collapsing infrastructure because they believe the wealthiest Americans can’t afford to pay a few pennies more. Even a majority of the people who would pay this tax say this isn’t true. They support our plan.”

Senator Bingaman (NM): “The legislation would impose a .7% surtax on income exceeding a million dollars.”

Senator Levin (MI): “Every member of this body, Democrat and Republican, fights for adequate infrastructure spending for their state. If Republicans reject this legislation because of the funding mechanism, they are voting directly in opposition to the will of the American people.”

Senator Schumer (NY): “This money will not be wasted; it will go directly to infrastructure. We’re all worried that China will get ahead of us economically, well, right now, China is spending four times as much on infrastructure than we are.”

Senators Amy Klobuchar (MN), Joe Manchin (WV), Barbara Boxer (CA), Chris Coons (DE), Bill Nelson (FL), Richard Blumenthal (CN), Diane Feinstein (CA), Carl Levin (MI), Robert Menendez (NJ) and Sherrod Brown (OH) are all co-sponsors.

Called the Rebuild America Jobs Act, the bill is based on President Obama’s jobs plan, and would invest $50 billion in roads, rails, and runways across the country.

Additionally, the bill would invest $10 billion to establish a National Infrastructure Bank that would mix private and public sector money to support construction projects across the country — without adding a penny to the deficit.

The legislation would be paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay a small 0.7 percent surtax on their income.  This would affect less than one percent of Americans.

Everyone who has traveled past his or her front door knows our infrastructure needs work. There are 150,000 miles of roadway, 4,000 miles of train tracks, and 150 miles of airport runways in need of upgrades and maintenance nationwide. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives America’s infrastructure a “D.”

We need a top-notch infrastructure to compete in the global economy, and this bill would put Americans back to work building it.

Seventy-two percent of Americans and 54 percent of Republicans agree it’s time to upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. Even Senate Republicans have supported government investments in infrastructure in the past.

That is why Senator Reid has said it is time for Republicans “to put their political motivations aside and work with us on this common sense bill to create jobs.”

The Senate is expected to vote on the bill, which stems from President Obama’s jobs plan, before the end of the week.

With 14 million Americans out of work, Senate Democrats are committed to making sure teachers and those who protect our communities stay on the job. Watch video of yesterday’s rally here:

The bill would be paid for by a 0.5 percent surtax on millionaires and billionaires, who make up the top 1 percent of earners in America.

More than 300,000 teaching jobs have been lost since the start of the recession and schools across the country have had to slash their budgets to make ends meet.

The Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act would invest $30 billion in educator jobs, so that schools can put an end to layoffs and rehire teachers. An additional $5 billion would go towards protecting the jobs of police officers and firefighters.

As Nevada Senator Harry Reid puts it, “Teachers are out of work through no fault of their own and students who desperately need a good education are relying on us to act.”

First responders and teachers who visited Capitol Hill yesterday made it clear: without action from Congress, more jobs across the country will be on the line, putting our nation’s workforce will be at even greater risk.

And Senate Democrats held a rally yesterday to assure the first responders and teachers they will do everything they can to support job growth.

But as Democrats pointed out at the rally, Republicans need to start prioritizing jobs, too. To date, Republicans have chose to put politics ahead of putting Americans back to work.

The legislation, called the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Act, provides tools to impose consequences on countries that manipulate their currency and consequently, cost us jobs.

Our nation simply can’t afford to have American jobs shipped overseas because some countries impose unfair trade practices. By making its goods artificially less expensive than they really are, countries manipulating their currency gain an unfair advantage in the global marketplace.

China’s currency manipulation, for example, has already cost three million American jobs — two million of which came from our manufacturing sector.
The bill that passed tonight could create 1.6 million American jobs.
As Nevada Senator Harry Reid put it: “American businesses don’t need special advantages to compete. They just need an even playing field.”

Currency manipulation not only costs jobs, it can lead to unsustainable trade deficits. Our trade deficit with China has jumped from $10 billion in 1990 to $273 billion today.

We hope this common-sense, bipartisan bill will pass in the House. It’s time to put an end to this unfair trade practice, and put Americans back to work.

#1 The bill will save jobs

Senator Richard Blumenthal (Conn.): “China has been manipulate its currency, flagrantly and blatantly, at the expense of our businesses around the country, and most blatantly and flagrantly at the expense of American workers. This measure is necessary to protect American jobs and American workers.”

Senator Sherrod Brown (Ohio): China “devalues their currency, they underappreciate it, meaning they in a sense get a bonus.  When they sell anything to the U.S., anything, they get a 25% discount. They undercut American manufacturers that could be even more efficient than they are.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.): “The consequences of currency manipulation are deeply felt… by families who for generations have contributed to our growth as a nation by going to work every day and building things from cars and boats to toys and electronics.”

Senator Jack Reed (R.I.): “Unemployment throughout my home state of Rhode Island and the nation has been persistently high and is caused in part by the effects of currency manipulation, particularly Chinese devaluation of the yuan”

Senator Hagan (N.C.): It’s “The time for playing games with American jobs is over… the effects of China’s currency manipulation are damaging to our economy.”

Senator Harry Reid (Nev.) : “This is important jobs legislation.. The Senate is demanding justice for American companies”

#2 It’s a step toward economic recovery

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.): “A Rhode Island textile manufacturer CEO told me, ‘Addressing china’s manipulation of its currency would be a good first step to bringing our trade policy to where it needs to be, to help get American manufacturers moving in the right direction again.’”

Senator Jack Reed (R.I.): “The effects of unfair currency manipulation has resulted in distorted trade balances that have hurt U.S. workers and our nation’s economy as a whole.”

#3  Our trade deficit’s only getting worse

Senator Schumer (N.Y.): “The Chinese only understand one thing. Being tough, telling them if they don’t discontinue these actions, we are going to take action unilaterally on our own.. China’s policies get worse and worse and worse.”

Senator Levin (Mich.): “This is an unfair trade practice that contributes to large U.S. trade deficits”

Senator Cardin (Md.): “The legislation provides necessary mechanisms to help halt currency manipulation committed by any country.”

It has the same job-creating measures as the President’s original jobs bill, however, with a simple surtax starting in 2013 of 5.6 percent on income exceeding $1 million. The bill is entirely paid for.

Called the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Act of 2011, the legislation provides tools that impose consequences on countries that manipulate their currencies.

The legislation is particularly important in terms of U.S.-China trade.  China has significantly de undervalued the yuan, giving its goods an unfair advantage in the global marketplace.   Its currency manipulation is hurting American workers, many of whom are manufacturers the U.S. can’t afford to lose.

As Thomas Gibson, President and CEO of the American Iron and Steel Institute, once explained: “Beijing uses mercantilist and market-distorting industrial practices, like undervaluing its currency, to give its producers an unfair export advantage over global competitors.”

American businesses should be able to compete on a level playing field, particularly at a time when U.S. unemployment rates remain high.

From 2001 to 2010, our nation has lost nearly 2.8 million jobs due to our trade deficit with China.  In ten states, American jobs lost or displaced to China exceeded 2.2% of total employment.

Experts estimate that if China were to revalue its currency, more U.S. jobs would stay at home.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that if China revalued the yuan by 28.5%, U.S. GDP growth would support 1,631,000 U.S. jobs.  And if other Asian countries revalued their currency, too, we could support 2,250,000 jobs could be created.

According to Mark Zandi of Moody Analytics, “Nothing is more important from a macroeconomic perspective for manufacturing, then to get these currencies better aligned.”

There is no reason the Senate shouldn’t pass this job creation bill.

As Senator Reid put it, “this legislation that we’re going to move to will even the playing field, help American goods compete in a global market field and help keep American jobs here at home.”

The bill received bipartisan support, with twenty-six Republicans joining Democrats to approve funding through November 18th for the agency tasked with helping thousands of Americans recover from earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters.

The bill’s passage followed the Senate rejecting a bill from House Republicans that would have shortchanged FEMA, and killed jobs. As Senate Democrats have pointed out, Congress shouldn’t have to trade off jobs to help disaster victims.

Watch video of their discussion here:

As Senator Harry Reid put it: “When our fellow Americans are in crisis, we must make sure they get the aid they need without delay, not engage in a political debate. This vote upholds that principle.”

Since the 1990s, disaster relief has rarely been handled outside of the normal budget process. For the Senate’s bipartisan agreement to come to fruition, the House must return from recess and pass the bill.

We’re making sure victims of natural disasters can continue to rebuild their lives without interruption.

For nearly two decades,”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” threatened American values of liberty and equality for all, and prevented the Armed Forces from including the best and brightest service members.

The U.S. Military discharged more than 13,000 troops — who were qualified and dedicated to serving our country — because of the law.

Senate Democrats led the way on repealing DADT, with Senators Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, Carl Levin, Mark Udall and Kristen Gillibrand helping to push through legislation ending the policy.

Marking the importance of the law’s end, Nevada Senator Harry Reid told his Senate colleagues this morning: “There is no place for intolerance in this great nation, nor in the Armed Forces tasked with protecting it.”

He continued: “I am glad to say that today our military policies and our national values are at last in line.”

From today forward, no qualified man or woman willing to fight for a nation founded on the principles of tolerance and equality “will ever again be denied the right to do so,” Reid said.

The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” continues a pattern of our military reflecting American social progress. Equality of race, gender, religion and now sexual orientation have been integrated into the Armed Forces to show that America is a country where all men and women are treated fairly under the law.

For hundreds of years, Hispanic Americans have represented our country on the battlefield, in the classroom and in the workplace.

Hispanic Heritage Month is a time to pay tribute to their dedication.  The time period, September 15 through October 15, spans the days on which Latin American countries gained their independence from Spain.

Today, there are 50 million Hispanic Americans.  They play a crucial role in American society, helping to create jobs nationwide, for example.  More than 2.3 million Hispanic-owned businesses employ millions of Americans, and provide crucial goods and services.

Nevada Senator Reid took to the Senate floor on Thursday to honor this achievement and others.

Hispanic Americans “have spurred progress in the laboratory, playing field… and in our halls of justice. They have shaped our art and literature [and] the way we farm and the way we do business,” he said.

Hispanic Americans have also played an important role in times of conflict.  Their military service stretches back to the Revolutionary War.  In the last decade, nearly 30,000 Hispanic Americans have fought for the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And it’s clear that they are contributing greatly across the country.

In Nevada, for example, Hispanic Americans make up more than a quarter of the state population. Their work is evident at construction sites, casinos and shopping centers, noted Reid.

Their language even helped influence the state name.  In Spanish, “Nevada” means “snow-covered.”  The phrase “snow-covered” refers to the snow-capped mountain peaks of the Sierra Nevadas.

Reid said he looks forward to the opportunity Hispanic Heritage Month brings each year  “to honor a culture and people that are such an integral part of our national identity.”

Nevada Senator Reid took to the Senate floor on Thursday to honor this achievement and others.

Hispanic Americans “have spurred progress in the laboratory, playing field… and in our halls of justice. They have shaped our art and literature [and] the way we farm and the way we do business,” he said.

Hispanic Americans have also played an important role in times of conflict.  Their military service stretches back to the Revolutionary War.  In the last decade, nearly 30,000 Hispanic Americans have fought for the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And it’s clear that they are contributing greatly across the country.

In Nevada, for example, Hispanic Americans make up more than a quarter of the state population. Their work is evident at construction sites, casinos and shopping centers, noted Reid.

Their language even helped influence the state name.  In Spanish, “Nevada” means “snow-covered.”  The phrase “snow-covered” refers to the snow-capped mountain peaks of the Sierra Nevadas.

Reid said he looks forward to the opportunity Hispanic Heritage Month brings each year  “to honor a culture and people that are such an integral part of our national identity.”

Reid is the first Democratic Senate leader to hold a forum like this, according to Twitter.  

The town hall followed a week in which Twitter users asked the senator hundreds of questions about his initiatives to put Nevadans and Americans nationwide back to work.

During the town hall, Reid stressed the importance of growing small businesses, keeping American jobs in America, and his support for President Obama’s jobs proposals.  

The senator said that if Republicans would join Democrats to prioritize job creation, more progress could be made: ”The first eight months of this year, we have been held up because the Republicans have stopped us from doing anything.” Reid called on Republicans to support President Obama’s jobs bill in the days ahead. 

And remarking on the importance of Twitter as a communications tool, Reid encouraged his online audience to continue to pose questions about his work in Congress to @SenatorReid.  Media-wise, “Things in Washington have changed,” he said.

Recently, Reid noted, a friend even used Twitter to tell him he was visiting Las Vegas — and stopping by one of Reid’s restaurant recommendations (El Sombrero at 807 S. Main St.).

To watch the town hall from start to finish, click here.

The bill, titled the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, is expected to spur innovation and jobs.  By clearing a three-year backlog of patent applications, the legislation will put nearly 300,000 Americans back to work.

In other words, American investors can take the next iPod or electric car from the drawing board to the production line.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid commended his colleagues for passing the bill, and said he hopes the spirit of bipartisanship on display last night will continue:  “Our differences should not preclude us from taking action in areas where there is common agreement.”

CBO has also affirmed: The Senate plan’s $1 trillion in savings from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are real, undercutting the argument Republicans have tried to make that these savings are a gimmick. In fact, Republicans included these same savings in their budget and voted for them only a few months ago.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan is the only compromise plan out there that can avoid a devastating credit rating downgrade and a default – and now, it is the plan that will achieve the most bang for the buck in debt reduction. Unlike Boehner’s short-term patch, Reid says the Senate plan “is a long-term strategy to safeguard the economy and give the markets the stability they need.”  Time for House Republicans to pull the plug on the reckless Boehner bill and work with Democrats to prevent a default.

CBO has also affirmed: The Senate plan’s $1 trillion in savings from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are real. And even without the war savings, the Senate proposal saves more than Boehner’s bill, by a $18 billion to $1 billion ratio.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says there is no reason why the Senate plan should ultimately not pass in both chambers of Congress. Unlike Boehner’s short-term proposal, Reid says the Senate plan “is a long-term strategy to safeguard the economy and give the markets the stability they need.”

Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) “I Am Not Worried About Moody’s.” Rokita said, “I am not as worried about Moody’s or anyone else as this economy gets worse.” [ABC NEWS Topline, 7/18/11]

Rep. Todd Rokita  Doesn’t Believe the US Will Default if We Don’t Raise the Debt Ceiling.

QUESTION: Is August 2^nd an important date in your mind?

Rep. Rokita: Of course. But I don’t take the premise that we’re going to default on our obligations. [ABC NEWS Topline, 7/18/11]

THEY SHOULD REALIZE THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF A DEFAULT:

POLITICO: DEFAULT COULD ‘SINK THE WHOLE BOAT’

REUTERS: U.S. DEFAULT COULD PROMPT NEW RECESSION: STUDY

THE HILL: KEY ECONOMIST: FAILURE TO RAISE DEBT CEILING WILL CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE

Default Could Cost Raise Interest and Mortgage Rates And Cost Economy 800,000 Jobs Every Year. “A serious and extended debt ceiling breach could lead big U.S. bond investors such as China to demand higher interest rates, which would in turn mean higher borrowing rates for businesses and consumers.  That would inevitably lead to slower economic growth, fewer jobs, higher mortgage rates and perhaps a prolonged double-dip recession — or even a depression.  The long-term damage of even a slight increase in interest rates could be enormous. It could cause a 1 percent increase in interest rates that economists said could shave nearly 1 percent off economic growth and cost 800,000 jobs every year.” [Politico, 7/18/11]

Warren Buffett Called Risking Default Playing With Fire. “On the other hand, you’re playing with fire when you don’t need to play with fire. We don’t need to tell the rest of the world that anytime people in Congress start throwing a tantrum that we’re not going to pay our bills.” [CNBC, 7/7/11]

Former GOP Senators Howard Baker and Nancy Kassenbaum: We Need To Avoid Another Economic “Earthquake” From Default. “The prospect of default on the sovereign credit of the United States of America is so frightening, so significant, so sinister and so far-reaching in its impact that we can’t fail to deal with this issue. … the question is not really the debt limit but, rather, the fundamental commitment to honor our obligations. It’s about recognizing that the last thing a tenuous and fragile recovery needs is another earthquake, a wave of fear in the private sector that further inhibits job creation.” [Washington Post, 7/17/11]

Fed Chairman Bernanke: Default “Would Throw The Financial System Potentially Into Chaos.” ”Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke certainly drew a dire picture in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday. He said a default would be a ‘calamitous outcome’ and ‘create a severe financial shock.’ The global financial system relies on Treasuries, backed by the world’s largest economy and long considered one of the world’s safest bets. ‘A default on those securities would throw the financial system potentially into chaos,’ Bernanke said.” [AP, 7/17/11]

The Head of the IMF Said Default Would Be “A Real Shock,”  “Bad News for the U.S. Economy.” On ABC’s This Week, IMF Head Christine Lagarde Said “It would be a real shock, and it would be bad news for the U.S. economy. So I would hope that there is enough bipartisan intelligence and understanding of the challenge that is ahead of the United States, but also of the rest of the world.” [This Week, 7/10/11]

Moody’s Economist Mark Zandi: Failure To Raise the Debt Ceiling Would Throw The US into a Recession. At a Breakfast, Moody’s Economist Mark Zandi said, ““Even if Congress and the administration reverses themselves days later I think the damage will have been serious and we’ll probably be thrown into a recession.” [The Hill, 6/28/11]

235 Economists Including Six Nobel Laureates: Failure To Raise The Debt Ceiling “Could Push The United States Back Into Recession” ”We, the undersigned economists, urge Congress to raise the federal debt limit immediately and without attaching drastic and potentially dangerous reductions in federal spending. Not doing so promptly could have a substantial negative impact on economic growth at a time when the economy looks a bit shaky. In a worst case, it could push the United States back into recession.” [Economists’ Letter to Congress, 6/29/11]

Former Bush Treasury Official: An “Unprecedented” Failure To Raise The Debt Ceiling Could Push The Economy Back Into A Recession. Former Undersecretary of the Treasury for President George H.W. Bush Jerome Powell, “who spoke to House Republicans on Friday, said that if no deal is reached by the time the Treasury needs to pay interest and principal on its outstanding debt, the government would struggle to pay for much else — a spectacle that is ‘completely unprecedented’ and could spook investors. ‘So we service the debt and then we don’t service 50 percent of our remaining obligations, [such as education, social safety net and other programs] and that 50 percent is what the public sees,’ Powell said. ‘This gigantic cut in government spending is going to be a major negative shock to the economy, and it could push the economy back into recession.’” [Roll Call, 7/18/11]

DPCC REPORT: IF GOP FORCES A DEFAULT, EVERY FAMILY WILL PAY THE PRICE

Jeff Schapiro
July 17, 2011

Virginia’s young gun apparently shot himself in the foot.

Eric Cantor this past week had an opportunity to define himself for an audience beyond the Beltway as more than a rigid conservative with one word in his vocabulary: no. Instead, the U.S. House majority leader, seen as a deal breaker rather than a deal maker, may have only trivialized himself.

Having walked out of Joe Biden-led budget-and-deficit talks; undercut John Boehner on a big fix and engaged Barack Obama in verbal fisticuffs over the fine print of a possible deal, Cantor looked more the insipid pill than the professional politician. It was, David Weigel wrote for the online publication Slate, the “official Newt-ification of Eric Cantor.”

Cantor’s avuncular, bow-tied mentor-predecessor, Tom Bliley, isn’t sure how his protégé’s shtick is playing outside Washington, crush of crummy press notwithstanding. “He’s a hero to his conference and the right,” says Bliley. “But how far it would go with the independents — I don’t know. The jury’s still out on that.”

Events of the past week may have gone a long way toward casting Cantor the wrong way. Cantor wants to be seen as serious-minded. A trunk-load of degrees, stints in law and finance and a business-fed fundraising machine say as much. But his hissing match with Obama and spending cuts-only approach to budget-balancing strikes Republican plutocrats in his hometown as evidence that Cantor is serious all right — about politics, not governing.

That’s probably why Cantor, in a hurry-up effort at damage control, told The Associated Press, a news service with the widest possible reach, that he meant no disrespect to Obama. Cantor also attempted a show of solidarity with Boehner at a joint appearance that was more PDA — public display of affection — than news conference.

Bliley, a former Commerce Committee chairman-turned-lobbyist who has schmoozed Cantor on behalf of convenience store owners over a cap on debit card swipe fees, dismisses talk of a Cantor challenge to Boehner for the speakership. Cantor — as he did for Bliley’s seat, biding his time as a Henrico delegate in the General Assembly — will “wait his turn,” says Bliley.

But could events mean that Cantor, labeled the “shadow speaker” by New York magazine, won’t have to wait very long? “I don’t want to get into that speculation,” says Bliley. “That’s like asking me what’s going to happen in six months.”

In politics, that’s many lifetimes. And if one flashed before Cantor’s eyes as he was methodically demonized the first part of the week, another rolled out at week’s end, as he and Boehner conferred privately with the treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, and White House chief of staff Bill Daley.

The point being that Cantor — his literal Elvis-like lip curl yielding to a figurative fat lip — remains relevant if only because of his rank: second-in-command of a House Republican Conference infused by tea partiers, who, despite Cantor’s no-no-a-thousand-times-no stance on new taxes, know that his record on fiscal issues is, at best, mixed. He previously voted to raise the debt ceiling, backed the deficit-financed Medicare drug benefit for seniors, two unpaid-for wars, the bank bailout and angled for Obama stimulus bucks for high-speed rail.

Having outmaneuvered Cantor for now, the president — alternately the smooth-talking conciliator and punch-in-the-nose Chicago pol — appears to be practicing an old-school rule: after stranding your adversary on a limb, you have to help him crawl back in.

Senators Chuck Schumer (NY), Ben Cardin (MD) , Mark Begich (AK) and Chris Coons (DE) warned this morning of a calamitous outcome if the GOP forces the U.S. to default on its debt for the first time in history. The chart below illustrates just how difficult it would be for our country to pay its bills (explanation of chart below).

Download full-size PDF version of these charts.

Senator Schumer, explaining the stakes as shown above, said –

“We are definitely going to want to pay Social Security benefits, and that takes 50 billion dollars off the table.” [He took the Social Security tile off the obligations chart and placed it onto revenue chart]

And we have to make sure America’s seniors continue to get healthcare so we need to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. There goes another $50 billion [He took the Medicare/Medicaid chart off of the obligations chart and placed it onto the revenue chart]

So now we have 72 billion left.  We have to pay our troops, keep our promise to America’s veterans, and fund our  defense priorities. That is going to take us almost up to the limit.  [He then took the troops, veterans, and defense tile off of the obligations chart and placed it on the revenue chart]

And we still have the interest on our debt, and that takes up most of the difference. [He then took the interest on treasury securities tile off of the obligations chart and placed it on the revenue chart]

We wouldn’t have a dime for Student loans, the FBI, Cancer Research, IRS refunds, or border patrol agents… What from this list are you going to remove to fund these jobs that keep America safe?

Do you want to stop paying hundreds of thousands of troops? [He removed the troops tile]. Do you want to stop paying 60 million social security recipients? [He removed the social security tile] That is the choice, and the consequences we face if we don’t raise the debt limit.”

As Senator Coons put it, “This is the most predictable financial disaster in our history. Let’s avoid it.”

“What Cantor wants now is power — and he is prepared to risk the full faith and credit of the United States to get it.”

[Washington Post, Milbank Column, 7/13/11]

CANTOR’S INSISTENCE ON ALWAYS GETTING HIS WAY IS PREVENTING A DEBT DEAL

JUNE 23, 2011 Cantor Quits Debt Limit Talks Over Revenues in the Deal [New York Times, 6/23/11]

JULY 6, 2011 Cantor Rules Out Closing Tax Loopholes To Reduce Debt [New York Times, 7/7/11]

JULY 11, 2011 Cantor Pulls Plug on Grand Bargain That Boehner Was Working On With President [Politico, 7/11/11]

JULY 11, 2011 Cantor’s Attempts to Undercut Boehner Hurt Debt Negotiations [Los Angeles Times, 7/11/11]

JULY 12, 2011 Cantor Pushes Massive Medicare Cuts Without Any Savings From Revenues, a Poison Pill Approach [The Hill, 7/12/11]

JULY 13, 2011 Cantor Takes Hard-line Position Against McConnell’s ‘Last Chance’ Option [Weekly Standard, 7/13/11]

“The main obstacle to finding common ground is Republicans’ stubborn insistence on protecting taxpayer-funded giveaways to corporations and individuals who don’t need the giveaways,” said Senator Reid. Watch the clip below for more details.

Submit your question now — and join Senator Reid online Wednesday afternoon.

UPDATE: The WashingtonPost.com Q&A has concluded.  You can view the full discussion here: http://live.washingtonpost.com/harry-reid-jobs-0622.html

Ethanol Vote Is Rebuke To Right-Wing Groups’ Position That All Taxpayer Subsidies Must Be Kept Off Limits

Senator Alexander: ‘A Good Way To Reduce The Debt Is To Get Rid Of Unwarranted Tax Breaks’

Rebuking right wing interest groups that have tried to keep tax expenditures off the table in the ongoing deficit reduction and endorsing Democrats’ argument that these subsidies should be targeted in deficit reduction, 34 Senate Republicans voted yesterday to end $5 billion worth of ethanol subsidies. The watershed vote means that Grover Norquist’s so-called “Pledge” has been blown “wide open” and now “makes no sense”, according to one leading Senate Republican. This opens the door to other types of revenues – as well as spending cuts – when it comes to cutting the debt – depriving Republicans of their rationale for protecting wasteful subsidies for oil companies, companies that ship American jobs overseas, and other companies that do not need the taxpayer handouts they currently receive.

Senate Republicans Endorse Getting Rid Of Spending Through The Tax Code To Reduce the Deficit

Senator Alexander Called Getting Rid Of Unwarranted Tax Breaks “A Good Way To Reduce The Debt.” “But the No. 3 Senate GOP leader said Tuesday that eliminating tax breaks might be a legitimate way to solve the nation’s current fiscal crisis. ‘My view is a good way to reduce the debt is to get rid of unwarranted tax breaks,’ GOP Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) said.” [Roll Call, 6/15/11]

Senator Cornyn Said Eliminating Subsidies “Hardly Is The Same Thing As Raising Taxes.” Even National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) agreed that eliminating subsidies “hardly is the same thing as raising taxes.” [Roll Call, 6/15/11]

Senator Kyl Said “We Shouldn’t Be Picking Winners and Losers.” “Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.), who is the Senate negotiator in debt limit talks led by Vice President Joseph Biden, said he supports killing the special tax provision as well. ‘I’m just looking at it from the standpoint of tax policy. We shouldn’t be picking winners and losers,’ Kyl said.” [Roll Call, 6/15/11]

Senator Grassley Noted Oil Subsidies “Enacted Nearly A Century Ago Cost The American People As Much As $114 Billion,” “And This Doesn’t Even Include The Subsidies During The Past 11 Years.” During a Speech on the Senate floor, Senator Grassley said “A report issued by the General Accounting Office in the year 2000 looked at the subsidies for the oil production. They record a 32-year period between 1968 and the year 2000. During that time frame, intangible drilling subsidy cost the American people as much as $52 billion. The percentage depletion subsidy cost the American people $82 billion. So these two provisions enacted nearly a century ago cost the American people as much as $114 billion from 1968 until the year 2000, and this doesn’t even include the subsidies during the past 11 years.” [Floor Statement, 6/13/11]

The GOP’s No-Tax Pledge Has Been Blown “Wide Open,” “Has No Credibility”

Senator Johanns Said The Pledge Has Been Blown “Wide Open,” Now “Makes No Sense” Whatsoever. Several Senate Republicans are angry at anti-tax activist Grover Norquist’s position on a major ethanol vote, creating a rift between one of Washington’s most influential conservatives and a Republican Party that has marched largely in lock step with his campaign tax pledges over the years. “What Grover Norquist has just done is blown his pledge wide open,” Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) told POLITICO. … Johanns — who hails from one of the largest corn-producing states in the country — said the pledge may be “very, very meaningless” because senators can now point to other measures they support that cut taxes. “It makes no sense to me whatsoever,” Johanns said. “Now it’s kind of blown open. Once it’s out there, no member will ever be caught in a bind as long as you follow the Norquist exception. And that’s what he’s done here.” [Politico, 6/15/11]

Senator Chambliss Said Norquist “Has No Credibility.” Some Republicans who are open to raising tax revenue have faced the wrath of Norquist — and they are none too pleased. “Grover Norquist has no credibility, so I don’t respond to him,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) told POLITICO. “He doesn’t deserve being responded to.” [Politico, 6/15/11]

Senator Thune Said Norquist Is Doing A “Tremendous Amount of Gymnastics” on The Pledge. “This is a tremendous amount of gymnastics to try to get the pledge to fit so they can say that this amendment is OK,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. The No. 4 Senate Republican said in an interview: “I think that’s going to make it increasingly difficult for the pledge to have credibility going forward. What they’re doing here is really contortion.” [Politico, 6/15/11]

Senator Grassley Said The Pledge Has “A Certain Inconsistency.” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), one of ethanol’s biggest proponents, said “there is a certain inconsistency because there are two separate votes. … I would think an organization, in order to have credibility, has to be consistent.” [Politico, 6/15/11]

Senator Thune Accused Norquist of A “New Interpretation of The Pledge.” But Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who opposed the Coburn amendment, accused Norquist of making up a new set of rules for his pledge to give cover to Republicans who backed the Coburn amendment. “It’s a whole new interpretation of the pledge, which I think is going to make the pledge less and less relevant,” he said. [Roll Call, 6/15/11]

Rank And File Republicans Support Ending Tax Subsidies

Chambliss Says Revenue Reform Must Be A Part Of Solving Debt. “Can the folksy Georgian persuade his fellow Republicans, including his buddy Speaker John Boehner (Ohio), to embrace a tax reform package that lowers rates but raises revenue to cut the deficit? …‘John [Boehner] and I have had conversations about the fact that solving this problem is going to be very, very difficult. We have not gotten into the specifics of it,’ Chambliss said. ‘Ultimately I’m hopeful that Republicans in the House and Democrats in the House will see that this problem is so serious and the only way you are going to solve it is to look at the three pillars — cuts in discretionary, entitlement reform and revenue reform.’” [Roll Call, 4/13/11]

Lamar Alexander Says Federal Subsidies for Coal, Oil, and Gas “May Be too Expensive.” At a Department of Energy, Energy Innovation Summit, Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander said, “Sometimes we get so entranced with an idea that we initiate a federal subsidy for it, and it never goes away.  We’ve done that with renewable energy, ethanol, mature sources such as coal, oil and gas. That may be too expensive.” According to Platts, “Later, on the sidelines of the conference, Alexander, the third ranking Republican in the Senate, said he may support some of President Barack Obama’s proposal to eliminate $26 billion in oil and gas tax breaks.” [Platts.com, 3/2/11]

Johanns: Let’s Not Take A Thing Off The Table. Johanns said, “You know when I did a letter, and got 32 Republicans and my colleague, Michael Bennet, got 32 Democrats, that letter went to the President. I was asked the same question and I said, look, let’s not take a thing off the table. We’ve got to go into the room ready to work through this. The more we take off the table, the more we say you can’t do this you can’t do that, the less chance we can solve this…I do not like tax increases. But let’s go into the room, everybody with an open mind. And let’s start working through this.” [ABC, 4/13/11]

Senator Mark Kirk Believes Supports Nixing Big Oil Subsidies; They’re “Doing Just Fine on Their Own.” Q: “Why can’t we start collecting royalties, finally, from the oil companies? Or do something about the subsidies that these very wealthy corporations have? Why can’t we get rid of these tax havens? Why can’t we talk about those things? Why can’t we put those on the table as well?”

KIRK: “I think we should. In the House of Representatives, I voted to wipe out many of the oil company subsidies. They’re doing just fine on their own. I think that many of the corporate welfare programs are misplaced.” [CSPAN, 3/1/11]

Senator Dan Coats on Deficit Reduction: “I Said Everything is on Table and That Includes Ethanol, That Includes All Subsidies.” Coats said, “I said everything is on the table. And that includes ethanol, that includes all subsidies. We have got — I’m elected here to come to Washington to make the tough decisions. And even though they go against the political grain of things, no pun intended there regarding ethanol there — I’ve talked to ethanol people. I’ve said that this is something that’s got to make economic sense.” [ABC News, 4/13/11]

Chaser: SAME POLL: Among independents 58% percent oppose the GOP plan while less than half (43%) of Republicans support it. Overall 58 percent said they were opposed to the GOP Medicare plan. [CBS News Poll, 6/13/11]

CBS News Poll:

• Support for the Republican Medicare plan: Continue as it is now: 58% Change to a payment program (Republican Plan): 31%
• Among independents 58% percent oppose the GOP plan while less than half (43%) of Republicans support it.

Washington Post/ABC News Poll:

• Who do you trust to do a better job protecting the Medicare system? Obama: 49%  Congressional Republicans: 35%
• Support for the Republican Medicare plan: Oppose: 49%  Support: 32%

CNN Poll:

• Support for Republican Medicare plan:  Oppose 58%  Support 35%
• Opposition to Republican Medicare plan among seniors: 74%

Reuters Poll:

• Support for Republican Medicare plan:  Oppose: 43%  Support: 37%

Pew Poll:

• Among those 50 and older opposition to the Republican Medicare plan is 51% with 42% strongly opposed

Washington Post/ABC News Poll: “Republicans Appear to Have Handed Obama an Opening on Medicare in the Budget Blueprint They Adopted This Spring.”

• Who do you trust to do a better job protecting the Medicare system? Obama: 49%  Congressional Republicans: 35%
• Support for the Republican Medicare plan: Oppose: 49%  Support: 32%

CNN Poll: “Majority Gives Thumbs Down to Ryan Plan.”

• Support for Republican Medicare plan:  Oppose 58%  Support 35%
• Opposition to Republican Medicare plan among seniors: 74%

Reuters Poll: “More Oppose Than Support Republican Medicare Plan.”

• Support for Republican Medicare plan:  Oppose: 43%  Support: 37%

Pew Poll: “Opposition to Ryan Medicare Plan from Older, Attentive Americans.”

• Among those 50 and older opposition to the Republican Medicare plan is 51% with 42% strongly opposed

Cantor: All GOP candidates should back Ryan plan

Chaser:

Reuters: More oppose than support Republican Medicare plan: poll

CNN Poll: Majority gives thumbs down to Ryan plan

Safe Over 55? Maybe Not.

Republicans say their Medicare plan wouldn’t affect anybody near retirement age. But it would.

by Tim Fernholz, National Journal Magazine

Republicans are convinced that burnishing the public’s view of their unpopular proposal to overhaul Medicare depends on assuring today’s seniors that they won’t be affected.

“The retirees are going to be taken care of; there’s no ifs, ands, or buts about it,” House Speaker John Boehner vowed in an interview with CBS last month. The plan’s architect, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has said time and again that the changes wouldn’t affect anybody getting close to retirement. “We propose to not change the benefits for people above the age of 55,” Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, insisted last week.

There’s only one problem with the strategy: It’s not true.

The policies in the House GOP budget, if enacted, would begin affecting millions of seniors almost immediately by increasing their costs for prescription drugs and probably long-term care. Further, Medicare costs could rise over time if healthier seniors choose to abandon the traditional benefit program.

Exploiting the fear of change is a constant in health care politics, so nearly every reformer tries to play down the dislocation inherent in plans to make the system fiscally sustainable. During his own reform push, President Obama promised citizens they could keep their existing health insurance plans if they liked them. That was not exactly true: Although the new law doesn’t eliminate the current insurance system, it does put in place new incentives that experts predict will significantly change individuals’ health care options.

Republicans capitalized on the fear of those potential changes, as well as of hundreds of billions in genuine cuts to Medicare spending that were part of last year’s law, and they won heavily in November’s midterm elections. The president’s party lost seniors by more than 20 percentage points after splitting their vote 50-50 with the GOP in the prior midterm election. This year, however, it is the Republicans’ turn to be nervous, as opinion polls and their surprising loss in a special election in upstate New York revealed voter anxiety about their plan.

In response, the GOP is doubling down on the idea that today’s seniors won’t be affected. That’s partly true. Ryan’s plan to convert Medicare into a limited insurance subsidy, the most controversial aspect of the budget, wouldn’t take effect until 2022.

But the proposal would also repeal last year’s health care law, which means reopening a coverage gap in Medicare’s prescription-drug benefit that the statute closed. The gap, commonly called the “doughnut hole,” requires seniors to pay 100 percent of any prescription costs after the annual total reaches $2,840 and until it hits $4,550. Those who spend more or less have at least three-quarters of the costs covered. Under the 2010 health law, Medicare will pay 7 percent of the cost of generic drugs and 50 percent on name-brand pharmaceuticals; by 2020, the doughnut hole will be closed.

If Congress were to pass Ryan’s plan and repeal the law, as House Republicans want, the 3 million to 4 million seniors left in the doughnut hole each year would immediately face significant out-of-pocket costs. They and all other Medicare beneficiaries would also lose access to a host of preventative-care benefits in the health care law, including free wellness visits to physicians, mammograms, colonoscopies, and programs to help smokers quit.

Perhaps more jolting, the Republican budget would cut spending on Medicaid—health care for the poor—much of which goes to long-term care for the elderly. Some 9 million seniors qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and about two-thirds of all nursing-home residents are covered by Medicaid. The GOP budget proposes cutting some $744 billion from Medicaid over 10 years by turning the system into block grants that limit federal contributions and give states more choice in structuring benefits. No one knows exactly which Medicaid services states would choose to cut back, but senior citizens account for a disproportionate share of Medicaid outlays and would almost certainly bear some of the burden.

“We know that two-thirds of the dollars in Medicaid go to people who are disabled or over 65, so this is the big funder of long-term care in this country,” said David Certner, AARP’s legislative-policy director. “We also know this could have an impact on home- and community-based care, which is the kind of care individuals prefer the most [and] often the ones that will be cut first.”

The plan to grandfather traditional Medicare for those older than 55 could also have negative consequences for current seniors: In 2022, when the limited-subsidy program would be introduced, seniors who qualified for traditional Medicare would be allowed to switch to the new program. If healthier or younger beneficiaries make the change to lower their out-of-pocket costs, those still participating in Medicare would be part of an insurance pool that is less healthy and more expensive. To cover those higher per-person costs, Medicare might well be forced to either raise premiums or limit reimbursements to health care providers—which could prompt many to stop taking Medicare patients.

Republicans say that comparing their plan with the projected costs of unsustainable programs is an exercise in magical thinking. They have a point. But the idea of cutting benefits deeply without affecting anyone over 55 is almost as fantastic.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/ryan-plan-would-have-immediate-effect-on-seniors-20110602?print=true

Having grown up in a family that could not afford health care, I know how difficult it can be to go to a doctor when you need one.

That’s one of the reasons I worked on health insurance reform. No person in the United States should go without care when they need it.

I remember an afternoon in October 1951 when my 10-year-old brother Larry fell off his bike and broke his leg. There was no money for a doctor. His leg was never set, and it eventually healed crooked.

Doctor visits were not an option in my home — not for us kids and not for my parents either. My mother’s teeth fell out one by one because she never could pay to see a dentist. She had to gum her food and couldn’t eat the meat we had, so we ate a lot of beans and rice.

Last year’s health insurance reform law provides benefits to seniors on Medicare, people with preexisting and chronic conditions, and small businesses. We have eliminated lifetime limits and made preventive care more affordable.

When writing the law, we knew it would take time to implement, and we worked to minimize the number of people who would have lost coverage before health insurance reform was fully enacted. We provided funding for employers to continue early retiree coverage and gave tax credits to small businesses — both groups were susceptible to losing coverage in the current system.

And we wanted to ensure that low-income children, the elderly, and people with disabilities would be protected, so we included an important provision requiring states to keep Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP) strong. It prevents states from cutting Medicaid coverage for adults prior to January 1, 2014 and protects children’s coverage in Medicaid and CHIP through 2019.

Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have introduced a bill that would unravel these stability protections, possibly denying hundreds of thousands of women and children access to health care provided through Medicaid and eliminating or cutting the Children’s Health Insurance Program, depending on the state.

Republicans argue that cutting kids and parents from Medicaid saves money. In fact, such cuts would prove quite costly. Hospitals, community health care centers, and other providers would have increasing rates of uncompensated care, leading to increased costs for everyone else.

By 2013, 400,000 deserving people — two-thirds of them children — would lose vital health care services under the Republican plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The stakes get even higher in 2014. That’s when Medicaid will expand. The lowest-income citizens will be eligible for Medicaid coverage. We will truly see a decline in the uninsured in this country. But if the Republican plan becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office estimates 1.7 million children would lose health insurance by 2016. Half the states could entirely eliminate their CHIP programs, while remaining states would dangerously roll back coverage.

Medicaid and CHIP provide care for Americans who cannot afford it. Most recipients are women and children. The Republican plan would let states drastically limit enrollment and eligibility rates — and must be opposed.

There are a lot of people today who are just like my mother and brother — people who cope with unnecessary pain because they lack money. In Nevada, for instance, nearly 250,000 people rely on health services through Medicaid that they otherwise could not afford.

Medicaid and CHIP exist to provide mothers and children, among others, the safety net they need. These programs have helped reduce the child uninsured rate by more than half, to less than 10 percent, over the last decade. Without them, the health of low-income Americans would be much worse.

Helping people treat conditions that may become life-threatening is far less costly than helping people whose conditions have already reached a critical stage.

This July marks the 46th anniversary of Medicaid, an opportunity to reflect on the millions of Americans whose lives are supported or saved, thanks to its existence.

There is no better way to mark this anniversary than by making sure we keep Medicaid strong and viable, and oppose attempts to weaken it.

The airline industry accounts for nearly 11 million U.S. jobs and $1.2 trillion in annual economic activity. This bipartisan job creation bill gives it the resources it needs to remain strong.

In addition to creating jobs, the FAA bill will:

• Invest in technology to reduce delays by 20% and improve safety for consumers
• Protect passengers while they are on an aircraft
• Improve access to rural communities

“This significant FAA package will force airlines to be more accountable when they make passengers wait on planes or at airports. This will make lives much easier for travelers in West Virginia and across the country. The bill supports thousands of jobs, strengths airline safety and provides much-needed funds for high-tech investments in large as well as small and regional airports,” said Senator Jay Rockefeller, Chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

Senators will continue to file amendments to the bill throughout the next week. For up-to-date information from the Senate floor, tune in to: C-SPAN 2.

Kathleen Chrismer, a food-safety victims’ advocate, applauded the bill, saying of this legislation, “[It’s] the closest we’ve gotten in over 20 years to acceptable food safety reform that will prevent contaminated food from entering the marketplace, instead of forcing producers and FDA to scramble to react in the aftermath of a major outbreak.”

Specifically, the food safety bill improves our capacity to protect our nation’s food supply by making the following improvements:

• Hazard analysis and preventive controls — Focuses on prevention of contamination by ensuring that each facility develops and implements a food safety plan to identify, evaluate and address hazards and prevent adulteration.
• Records access during a food safety emergency — Helps contain a food safety emergency by providing FDA access to certain facility records.
• 3rd party testing — Recognizes laboratory accreditation bodies to ensure that U.S. food testing labs meet high quality standards, and requires applicable lab results to be reported to FDA.
• Imports — Ensures imported food meets the same safety standards as domestic food by requiring importers to verify the safety of foreign suppliers and imported food.

The bill also improves our capacity to detect and respond to food-borne illness outbreaks through advancements in inspection, surveillance, traceability, mandatory recall and suspension of facility’s registration.

With 20 co-sponsors, including eight Republicans, there’s no reason this legislation should not receive majority support in the Senate. “For far too long, the headlines have told the story of why this measure is so urgently needed: foodborne illness outbreaks, product recalls and Americans sickened over the food they eat,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “This 100-year-old plus food safety structure needed to be modernized.”

According to Amie Newman, Managing Editor at RHRealityCheck.org, many American workers “have not been expressly permitted to discuss wages at work without fear of potential repercussions from employers. The Paycheck Fairness Act remedies this by stating that employees may be allowed to discuss each other’s wages, without recrimination.” The Paycheck Fairness Act would prohibit employer retaliation against employees for sharing salary information with their co-workers — so now men and women can better understand wage disparities and determine whether they’re experiencing wage discrimination or not.

In advance of today’s vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — an original co-sponsor of this legislation — sent a message to his Republican colleagues, saying:

Will my GOP colleagues do the right thing & vote today in support of wage equality for women? Vote’s @ 11am ET. Stay tuned. #fairpay

We’re hopeful that Senate Republicans — many of whom voted in support of the Lilly Ledbetter bill — will heed Reid’s advice and vote to support fair pay today.

Today the Senate Democratic Caucus voted to determine who would lead their members for the next two years. Both the Democratic and Republican leadership will remain the same for the incoming 112th Congress.

The caucus chose Nevada Senator Harry Reid to remain as Majority Leader, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois to continue as Whip and Assistant Majority Leader, New York Senator Charles Schumer to stay on as Vice Chair of the Demcratic Conference and Senator Patty Murray of Washington to remain Conference Secretary.

“It has been my great honor to lead this caucus for the past six years,” said Reid. “I am grateful and humbled that my colleagues have asked me to continue to serve in that role. We have a great leadership team, and I’m looking forward to continuing our work together. We stand united and will work together toward a common purpose. Right now, that purpose is putting people back to work.”

The Senate Democratic Leadership for the 112th Congress:

Daniel Inouye, President Pro Tempore
As President pro tempore, Senator Inouye will continue to provide the Democratic Caucus leadership and experience gained from a lifetime of public service.

Dick Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
As Assistant Majority Leader, Senator Durbin will continue to serve as the Majority Leader’s key aide on and off the floor, helping to lead the Democrats’ fight to protect America and help working families get ahead.

Charles E. Schumer, Vice Chair of the Conference and Chair of the Democratic Policy Committee
The third-ranking member of the Democratic leadership, Senator Schumer will continue to oversee strategy and policy to keep and build support for Democratic values.  He will also coordinate messaging for the caucus and help integrate legislative- and message-crafting function into a central, coordinated entity that encompasses policy, media and politics.

Patty Murray, Secretary of the Conference
As Secretary of the Conference, Senator Murray will continue to play a critical role in helping shape and set the Democratic agenda while working with Senators Reid and Durbin to move that agenda through the Senate floor.

Debbie Stabenow, Vice Chair of the Democratic Policy Committee
Senator Stabenow will continue to help guide the Senate Democratic caucus’ messaging and strategy efforts.

Mark Begich, Chair of Steering and Outreach Committee
Senator Begich will serve as Chair of the Steering and Outreach Committee.  In his role as chair, Senator Begich will engage Democratic Senators and community leaders across the country in an active dialogue about the pressing issues facing our nation.

This afternoon the Chamber will receive a visit from Vice President Biden, who will swear-in Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Chris Coons of Delaware, who were winners in special elections to fill the remaining terms of vacant Senate seats.

On Tuesday Senate Democrats will elect leadership members of their Caucus, including Majority Leader, Whip, Vice-Chair and Conference Secretary.

On Wednesday the Senate will kick off the legislative session with a cloture vote on the Promoting Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles Act of 2010. We also hope to consider the Paycheck Fairness Act and FDA Food Safety & Modernization Act.

Stay tuned here and at twitter.com/DemWarRoom for more updates as the week progresses.

The “grandfather” regulation, which was released by the Administration on June 17th, is based on the health care reform law’s requirement that individuals and businesses be allowed to keep their current health insurance plans if they like it. This regulation keeps the market stable while protecting consumers from insurance industry abuses between now and 2014, when insurance market reforms are in place and all Americans. At that time, Americans and small businesses will have access to more affordable choices through private insurance exchanges — the same choices as Members of Congress.

This effort led by Senator Enzi is one more sign that Republicans are determined to take us back to the days when insurance companies were in charge and consumers suffered.

Throughout the last two years, U.S. workers have faced some of the toughest challenges since the Great Depression. The manufacturing sector, in particular, has witnessed huge job losses across the country. For example, since 2000, Ohio has seen more than 250,000 jobs evaporate. Despite these dramatic losses, manufacturing continues to be the bedrock of some states’ economies.

Democrats believe we need to do everything we can to stop companies from sending American jobs overseas. Some of these offshoring companies even force American workers to train their foreign replacements — robbing hard-working Americans of their economic security and their dignity, just to drive up profits. Republicans, alternatively, are protecting these offshoring companies and their CEOs, voting against closing tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping jobs overseas.

Senate Democrats have responded to this crisis with commonsense legislation that will provide tax cuts for companies that create American jobs and create disincentives to moving American jobs overseas.

Specifically, the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act would:

• Provide a payroll tax cut for companies that return jobs to the United States from overseas; and
• End tax loopholes that encourage the off-shoring of jobs.

For more specifics on the bill’s major provisions:

Incentives to Create American Jobs
This legislation will create a payroll tax holiday for companies that return jobs to the U.S. from abroad. To be eligible, businesses must certify that the U.S. employee is replacing an employee who had been performing similar duties overseas. This payroll tax relief is available for 24 months for employees hired during the three-year period beginning September 22, 2010.

Disincentives to Moving American Jobs Overseas
The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act creates two major deterrents for relocating American jobs to foreign countries.

First, this bill would eliminate subsidies that U.S. taxpayers provide to firms that move facilities offshore. Companies would not be allowed to take any deduction, loss or credit for amounts paid in connection with reducing or ending the operation of a trade or business in the U.S. and beginning or expanding a similar operation overseas. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this provision will raise $277 million over ten years.

Second, this bill would end the federal tax subsidy that rewards U.S. firms that move their production overseas. Current law has inadvertently promoted the system of “deferral” — where U.S. companies can defer paying U.S. tax on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries until that income is brought back the U.S. The result of such a system puts these firms at a competitive advantage over U.S. firms that hire U.S. workers and make products at home. This bill would end such a practice. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this provision will raise $92 million over ten years.

—————

A vote on the motion to proceed to the bill is expected for Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 11:30am ET.

This legislation will require organizations, corporations and special interests involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of their CEOs in their advertisements and release details on their political expenditures. “No one is saying they can’t run ads. The Constitution allows it.” said said Sen. Chuck Schumer. “All we’re saying is that if you attack us, put your name on the ad.”

The bill also prohibits entities that receive taxpayer money from turning around and spending that money to influence elections. “We have these nameless, faceless individuals spending huge amounts of money, corporate money,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “These ads are being run on television and on radio around the country. No one knows where the money comes from, how much it is.”

Despite the fact that Americans of both political parties overwhelmingly oppose the Citizens United decision, Republicans filibustered the DISCLOSE Act in the Senate, and a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the bill failed on July 27, 2010. Though similar opposition still exists, Democrats won’t give up. We are determined to stop Wall Street, Big Oil and U.S. corporations from secretly manipulating elections by funneling money to secret groups that run anonymous election advertisements.

For more information on the DISCLOSE Act, go here.

Along with the leadership of Senator Lincoln, First Lady Michelle Obama and celebrity food chef Rachel Ray stepped in to provide crucial public support. “Child hunger and malnutrition in the world’s wealthiest nation is morally unacceptable,” said Rachel Ray. In an op-ed published in The Washington Post this week, the First Lady urged Congress to pass this legislation to “bring fundamental change to schools and improve the food options available to our children.”

This bill couldn’t come at a more crucial time. According to the New York Times, since the recession began in late 2007, the use of federal free and reduced-price lunches has increased by 13.7%, with 21 million children benefiting from the program. Without these nutritious meals, many of our country’s children could be left with “a legacy of ill health.” In a study released this week by Harvard Medical School medical professionals concluded that younger children who were ever hungry because the family didn’t have food or money to buy it were more than twice as likely to suffer poor general health as those who were never hungry.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 will address these issues by:

• Expanding program access to reduce childhood hunger
• Improving nutritional quality to promote health and address childhood obesity
• Simplifying program management and improving program integrity

For more details, please review the Agriculture Committee’s fact sheet on this important legislation.

“I know some would rather we introduce and force a vote on a comprehensive climate bill today, even if 60 Senators do you not yet want to pass it,” said Reid. “I understand their position and share their frustration. But we don’t have the luxury of wasting the American people’s time. An unsuccessful vote might be politically satisfying, but it does nothing to create jobs, hold BP accountable, lessen our dependence on oil, cut energy costs or protect the planet. Our bill, on the other hand, does each of these things.”

This bill will address several critical issues:

1. Ensure that BP pays to clean up its mess.
2. Invest in Home Star, a bipartisan energy efficiency program that lowers consumers’ energy costs and creates jobs.
3. Protect the environment by investing in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
4. Reduce our dependence on oil by making investments in vehicles that run on electricity and natural gas.
5. Increase the amount that oil companies are required to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

Reid said this week that he hopes to hold a vote on this plan early next week. In the meantime, Reid and his Senate colleagues will continue working to get the votes needed to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill. “We can accomplish both,” said Reid. “We have to.”

The Citizens United case allows corporations and unions the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertising. As soon as the decision was announced in January of this year, President Obama declared, “This ruling gives the special interests and lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”

Today’s Washington Post described Citizens United’s broad and alarming implications.

Corporations can now funnel money to a trade association to target Representative U or Senator X. The trade association must report its spending to the Federal Election Commission, but it doesn’t have to say where the money comes from. Labor unions could set up front groups to do the same. Under another gap in disclosure rules, wealthy individuals who want to influence election without the inconvenience of having their cash exposed can give money to nonprofit groups set up under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. Such organizations face limits on how much they can spend on election-related activities, but the limits are hardly an impediment.

These issues can be addressed with the DISCLOSE Act. If passed, corporations and special interests would be forced to disclose the top five donors in their political ads. This legislation would also require that the head of a company or group behind an ad would have to appear in it, similar to how a candidate now has to “approve this message” in their campaign advertisements.

As the Post’s editors wrote today, “it’s central focus is critical to ensuring that democracy is not for sale to the highest bidder.”

According to the Center for American Progress, nearly 50% of the unemployed have been out-of-work and actively seeking a job for at least six months. For those on the hunt for a new position, the competition is steeper than ever — there are five workers looking for work for every job available.

For months Senate and House Democrats have attempted to pass a long-term extension of unemployment insurance but each time their efforts have been blocked by Republicans. To middle class families who are in great need of this assistance, Republicans seem to have only one thing to say: ‘tough luck.’

TIMELINE OF GOP OPPOSITION TO EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE THIS YEAR ALONE

Today at 2:30pm ET, the Senate will again vote to pass a long-term extension of these benefits that will last through November 2010. This time, we hope that at least a handful of our Republican colleagues will join us in providing financial assistance to jobless Americans and help our economy recover.

On seven previous votes the majority of Republicans have said “no” to America’s unemployed. As an explanation of their obstructionism, a top Republican Senator incredulously claimed that unemployment assistance is a ‘disincentive for [jobless Americans] to seek new work.’ Another senior Republican Senator said that these Americans ‘don’t want to go look for work.’ A third senior member of the GOP justified his efforts to block the bill by saying, ‘We should not be giving cash to people who basically are just going to blow it on drugs.’

It shouldn’t take a supermajority of our Senators to do what’s right. Democrats see the struggles their constituents are going through. They haven’t given up, so Democrats couldn’t give up either. That’s why we’ll keep fighting for them.

Despite a lack of support from their Republican colleagues, Democrats have fought for passage of this bill to:

• End taxpayer bailouts
• Bring transparency and accountability to shadowy markets
• Create an independent agency to protect consumers

This legislation has been hailed by a whole host of economic experts.

Henry Paulson — former U.S. Treasury Secretary under President George W. Bush — praised the bill, telling The New York Times, “We would have loved to have something like this for Lehman Brothers. There’s no doubt about it.”

Elizabeth Warren — Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel — praised the consumer financial protection agency this bill creates, saying, “It has a lot of capacity to reshape the consumer credit market in a way that just works…a market where consumers can see the products and say, ‘Oh, that’s how much it costs that’s how much risk is associated with it,’ and make comparisons.”

Ezra Klein, economics reporter at the Washington Post, wrote this week, “If there’s any problem [this bill] solves, it’s the regulatory confusion and weakness we saw amidst the last financial crisis.”

Felix Salmon, an economics reporter for Reuters, wrote in late June, “In general the bill makes as robust an attempt as could reasonably be expected to both monitor and ring-fence the kind of things which can cause systemic meltdowns.”

Highlighting the positive impact the bill will have on consumers, The New York Times’ Your Money reporter, Ron Lieber, wrote, “Mortgage shoppers stand to gain under the new rules and millions of people will now have access to a free credit score.”

To read a summary of the Wall Street reform conference report, click here.

To read the Wall Street reform conference report in full, click here.

As Kagan’s confirmation hearing continues today, we will see 30 minute rounds of questioning from each Senator on questions about her tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School, her view of the Constitution and the impact of recent Court decisions on everyday Americans. Stay tuned to C-SPAN 3 for live TV coverage, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s live webcast if you’re at a computer and to the Democratic Caucus’ Elena Kagan YouTube channel for important video clips.

"In the Louisiana marsh, oil-coated pelicans flap their wings in a futile attempt to dry them. A shorebird repeatedly dunks its face in a puddle, unable to wash off. Lines of dead jellyfish float in the gulf, traces of oil visible in their clear "bells."
– Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin & David A. Fahrenthold, May 26, 2010

Even if BP’s plans to block the leak work, it will do nothing to solve the crisis created by the oil that has already escaped. As we examine what can be done to prevent a disaster like this from happening again, it is imperative that we address our nation’s dependence on foreign oil. 
Senators John Kerry and Harry Reid today urged the country to support a move to renewable energy. "If the Gulf oil thing tells us anything, folks, it’s that this is not a good risk we’re taking," Sen. John Kerry said to USA TODAY’s Susan Page. "The sooner we can move off fossil fuels and into a new energy paradigm, the better for our nation." Reid shared Kerry’s sentiment on the Senate floor this morning. "We will never be a secure nation [when] we’re dependent on foreign oil," said Reid. "This is an opportunity for us as a country to move away from fossil fuel, to do a better job of looking at renewable energies that are available to us all over this country."

"After the darkest days of the depression, Franklin Roosevelt summoned the courage of the American people to stand up again to believe in the future. But he also summoned the courage of Congress to pass important legislation to make certain that we would never go down that path again as a nation. It was an historic moment when that New Deal Congress addressed the causes of the Great Depression and passed the legislation which has carried us to this day. Tonight is another historic moment. It’s an historic moment when this President summoned us in the House and the Senate to rise to this occasion again to make certain that we learned the lessons of this recession and made the changes so that we wouldn’t revisit the horros that we’ve lived through."

— Senator Dick Durbin, May 20, 2010

Consumer advocates who have pushed Congress to pass tough Wall Street regulations praised the bill’s passage last evening. "No bill that deals with big issues is ever perfect," said Elizabeth Warren, head of the Congressional Oversight Panel. "But the Senate’s Wall Street reform package will go a long way toward preventing the kinds of abusive practices that brought our economy to its knees." 
Here is a look at several of the major components of the bill:

• Too Big To Fail. After witnessing large financial firms nearly bring this country to its knees in 2008, the government will now have the ability to seize and shut down large, failing firms as a result of this bill. A new council of regulators can recommend that large companies hold more capital to cover potential losses and limit borrowing. 

• Consumer Protections. In the past, regulators were responsible for prioritizing consumers with mortgages, autor loans and credit cards, but all too often, consumers took a back seat. Congress sought to force regulators to make consumers a top priority again through this legislation. A new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will now be set up at the Federal Reserve to safeguard borrowers. 

• Reign in Risky Bets. Derivatives — complex financial instruments also known as ‘risky bets’ — lacked any oversight leading up to the 2008 economic crisis. With so much of the derivatives industry cloaked in secrecy, investors panicked because they didn’t know whether parties on either side of these bets would be able to pay what they owed. This legislation requires that nearly all derivatives deals be conducted through central clearinghouses. In addition, most derivatives will be traded on public exchanges now.

• Financial Watchdog. Prior to the 2008 economic meltdown, there was no agency charged with monitoring the financial system and pinpointing potential problems. As a result public and private sector actors were blindsided by the meltdown of AIG, for example. This bill sets up a Financial Services Oversight Council made up of several existing regulators and chaired by the Treasury secretary.

• Regulator Shopping. Financial firms have, in the past, been able to shop around for a regulator that gives them the best bang for their buck. Unfortuntaely, there are cases where regulators don’t have the necessary expertise or appropriate staffing to oversee the firms who have selected them. As a result of this legislation, the Federal Reserve, FDIC and Office the Comptroller of the Currency will each have authority over different types of banks.

While oil continues to gush into the waters off the Gulf Coast, it’s difficult to imagine anyone making an argument in defense of oil companies, rather than constituents, but, as David Roberts from Grist notes, "You underestimate the Republican party."

By blocking Democrats’ efforts to pass the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act, Republicans are leaving American taxpayers on the hook for bailing out BP. "If you’re involved in a dangerous activity, one that can create enormous environmental and economic damage, then you should face the liability for such, whether you are BP or whether you are some intermediate entity," argued Sen. Bob Menendez.

Just two days after President Obama announced Solicitor General Elena Kagan as his nominee to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid met this morning with Kagan to discuss her upcoming confirmation hearing.   At the conclusion of his meeting Kagan, Reid released the following statement:

“My meeting with Solicitor General Kagan today left me confident that she is the right choice to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court.  She has a strong belief that the Supreme Court should be a forum where the rule of law wins out and where people from every walk of life can receive a fair hearing.  Her impressive credentials and understanding of the real-world impact of the Court’s rulings on Nevadans and all Americans will serve her well in this role.    “After a fair review of her record and individual meetings, I believe that Elena Kagan should receive strong bipartisan support similar to that which she received just last year when she was confirmed as Solicitor General.  I look forward to ensuring her a swift, fair and respectful confirmation process.”

• Conduct financial audits
• Audit the Fed’s supervision and regulation of financial firms
• Audit all of the assistance provided under section 13(3), including the loans to AIG and Bear Stearns

"If we’re going to protect our economy and middle-class Americans, we have to know what happened to cause the recent financial crisis so that history never repeats itself," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

• First woman to serve as Dean in Harvard Law School
• First woman to serve as Solicitor General
• Would be the fourth woman to serve on the Supreme Court

  Kagan’s life experiences, both in academia and in government, were made possible through a solid upbringing that prized education and service to others. Elena’s father was a housing lawyer devoted to the rights of tenants. Her mother was a public school teacher committed to helping her students realize their potential.    Kagan attended an all-girls public high school, where she learned that anything she set her mind to was possible. Following in her parents’ footsteps, Elena became a lawyer like her father, using her legal training to serve others, and a beloved teacher like her mother, inspiring the next generation of students to use their legal expertise to improve the lives of Americans.    Despite Kagan’s experience working on real-world problems, some Republicans, have expressed concern over Kagan’s lack of judicial service. Sen. Susan Collins, for example, said, "Ms. Kagan has an impressive resume of dedicated public service and strong legal credentials but she does not have extensive writings by which one can assess her judicial philosophy." Far too many Republicans seem to have forgotten their past support for nominees who also lacked prior judicial experience.    Let’s look at the facts –   

• 40 of 111 Supreme Court justices had no prior judicial experience.

• Two of the past four chief justices – William Rehnquist and Earl Warren – did not have prior judicial experience, and both were nominated by Republican presidents. 

• Former Chief Justice John Marshall and former associate Justices Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurther had not served as judges prior to their nominations. 

• Citing Frankfurther, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch in March 2009 publicly expressed his comfort with SCOTUS nominees that lacked experience serving on the bench. "I have long believed that prior judicial experience is not a prerequisite for successful judicial service."

  "Someone as gifted as Elena could easily have settled into a comfortable life in a corporate law practice," said President Obama. "Instead, she chose a life of service — service to her students, service to her country, service to the law and to all those whose lives it shapes."

If Republicans insist on playing games with Wall Street reform, then so can you. The Senate Democratic Communications Center invites you to play a round of Republican Bingo with your friends or colleagues. You’ll find yourself an expert on GOP talking points, courtesy of Republican consultant Frank Luntz, in no time.   http://democrats.senate.gov/bingo/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 29, 2010 Contact: Erin Skinner Cochran, Reid (202) 224-1454   EXCLUSIVE TRAILER FOR THE BLOCKBUSTER OF THE SUMMER: "BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!"   WASHINGTON, DC – On day 21 since Republican Senators met in secret with Wall Street executives, an exclusive trailer previews what promises to be the blockbuster hit of the summer — a spine-tingling, hair-raising epic that looks at what happens when Republican Senators and Wall Street executives go…BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!   Starring: Sen. Mitch McConnell Republican Sen. John Cornyn And featuring: Mysterious Wall Street Executives   Excerpt: "They said they wanted transparency, but when it came to Wall Street reform, they went…BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!"What was discussed?"What deals were made?"No one will ever know. [Sinister laugh]"Will Republicans change their ways? Will they stop protecting Wall Street, and stand with Democrats for hard-working Americans?
"Stay tuned for the thrilling conclusion to…BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!"
WATCH THE TRAILER NOW AT: www.democrats.senate.gov   "Behind Closed Doors in the latest smash hit from Executive Producer Rodell Mollineau, creater of the 2009 existential thriller "Middle Class" and the 2010 Cannes Palme d’Or winner, "Republicans, Les Amis de la Rue Wall."   ##

• Ending Taxpayer Bailouts.  As long as giant financial firms believe the government will bail them out if they get into trouble, they only have the incentive to get larger and take bigger risks.  This bill guarantees that taxpayers will never again be forced to bail out reckless Wall Street firms by creating a safe orderly liquidation mechanism for the FDIC to unwind failing significant financial companies through a panel of bankruptcy judges;  shareholders and unsecured creditors will bear losses; and management will be removed.

• Ending “Too Big To Fail.”  The bill provides for strict new capital, leverage, liquidity, risk management and other requirements as companies grow in size and complexity, with significant requirements on companies that pose risks to the financial system. The Federal Reserve will be authorized, as a last resort, to require a large complex company, to divest some of its holdings if it poses a grave threat to the financial stability of the United States. 

• Putting a New Cop on The Beat To Watch Out For Consumers.  The bill establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council to focus on identifying, monitoring and addressing systemic risks posed by large, complex financial firms as well as products and activities that spread risk across firms. 

• Bringing Sunlight and Transparency to Shadowy Markets.  The legislation eliminates loopholes that allow risky and abusive practices to go unnoticed and unregulated – including loopholes for over-the-counter derivatives, asset-backed securities, hedge funds, mortgage brokers and payday lenders.

• Guaranteeing Clear Information in Plain English.  The bill creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will have the sole job of protecting American consumers from unfair, deceptive and abusive financial products and practices and will ensure people get the clear information they need on loans and other financial products from credit card companies, mortgage brokers, banks and others.

• Protecting Against Bernie Madoff-Type Scams.  The SEC has failed to perform aggressive oversight and is unable to understand some of the very companies it is supposed to regulate.  This bill creates a program within the SEC to encourage people to report securities violations and mandates an annual assessment of the SEC’s internal supervisory controls.  The bill also establishes a new Office of Credit Rating Agencies at the SEC to strengthen regulation of credit rating agencies, many of which failed in the past to warn people about risks hidden throughout layers of complex structures.

• Ending Taxpayer Bailouts.  As long as giant financial firms believe the government will bail them out if they get into trouble, they only have the incentive to get larger and take bigger risks.  This bill guarantees that taxpayers will never again be forced to bail out reckless Wall Street firms by creating a safe orderly liquidation mechanism for the FDIC to unwind failing significant financial companies through a panel of bankruptcy judges;  shareholders and unsecured creditors will bear losses; and management will be removed.
• Ending “Too Big To Fail.”  The bill provides for strict new capital, leverage, liquidity, risk management and other requirements as companies grow in size and complexity, with significant requirements on companies that pose risks to the financial system. The Federal Reserve will be authorized, as a last resort, to require a large complex company, to divest some of its holdings if it poses a grave threat to the financial stability of the United States.
• Putting a New Cop on The Beat To Watch Out For Consumers.  The bill establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council to focus on identifying, monitoring and addressing systemic risks posed by large, complex financial firms as well as products and activities that spread risk across firms.
• Bringing Sunlight and Transparency to Shadowy Markets.  The legislation eliminates loopholes that allow risky and abusive practices to go unnoticed and unregulated – including loopholes for over-the-counter derivatives, asset-backed securities, hedge funds, mortgage brokers and payday lenders.
• Guaranteeing Clear Information in Plain English.  The bill creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will have the sole job of protecting American consumers from unfair, deceptive and abusive financial products and practices and will ensure people get the clear information they need on loans and other financial products from credit card companies, mortgage brokers, banks and others.
• Protecting Against Bernie Madoff-Type Scams.  The SEC has failed to perform aggressive oversight and is unable to understand some of the very companies it is supposed to regulate.  This bill creates a program within the SEC to encourage people to report securities violations and mandates an annual assessment of the SEC’s internal supervisory controls.  The bill also establishes a new Office of Credit Rating Agencies at the SEC to strengthen regulation of credit rating agencies, many of which failed in the past to warn people about risks hidden throughout layers of complex structures.

These provisions would hold Wall Street accountable and put consumers back in control, but we cannot pass them as long as Republicans continue to protect Wall Street.

• Eleanor D. Acheson, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Policy Development under President Clinton
• Kenneth Starr, Solicitor General under President George H.W. Bush
• Walter E. Deillinger III, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, Acting Solicitor General under President Clinton
• Arthur Culvahouse, White House Counsel to President Ronald Regan

It’s easy to see why Schroeder has received broad support from both sides of the aisle when you look at his record.

• Currently serving as Duke University’s Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Professor of Public Policy Studies, and the director of the Program in Public Law
• Serves Of Counsel at O’Melveny & Myers
• Previously served as Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, where he assisted in providing legal advice to the Attorney General, the Executive Office of the President and other executive branch agencies on a broad range of issues.
• Previously served as Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
• Has served on committees of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine to evaluate the use of human intentional dosing studies by EPA and the adequacy of the U.S. drug safety system.

Despite Schroeder’s experience and background, his nomination has been pending on the Executive Calendar for more than 230 days. Never before has the Senate witnessed obstruction of this nature for this position at the Office of Legal Policy. 
President George W. Bush’s first nominee to head the office, Viet Dinh — a prolific and sometimes controversial law professor — was confirmed just one month after he was nominated. Each of the three Bush-appointed Assistant Attorneys General who succeeded Dinh, — Daniel Bryant, Rachel Brand and Elisabeth Cook — was confirmed by voice vote in less time than Schroeder’s nomination has been pending. 
Schroeder will today finally see a full Senate vote on his nomination this afternoon. Stay tuned to C-SPAN 2 for live coverage.

As a result of delays on Superior Court Judges like Demeo, Lee Satterfield, the Chief Judge of the D.C. Court, has written Senators Reid and McConnell on several occasions to talk about the "dire situation" on the D.C. Court, which continues to face a backlog due to retirements and vacancies.

There’s simply no legitimate reason why Demeo should be blocked from a confirmation vote. She is highly experienced and qualified for this position. 

• Since 2007, Demeo has served with distinction as a Magistrate Judge in the D.C. Superior Court’s criminal division.  She has presided over more than 100 bench trials and more than 300 detention and preliminary hearings. 
• From 2004 to 2007, Demeo served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C.  As a federal prosecutor, she obtained 30 indictments and tried 45 criminal cases.
• Demeo served as regional counsel at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), where she became an expert on immigration law and other policy issues affecting the Hispanic community.
• Demeo began her legal career at the Department of Justice, where she served for three years as a trial attorney in the DOJ honors program.
• Demeo has also served as adjunct professor at Howard University Law School, teaching criminal and immigration law.

Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was forced to file cloture on Demeo — the first time in history that the Senate has filed cloture on a D.C. Superior Court Judge. Her confirmation vote is set for this evening.

• Lael Brainard, of the District of Columbia, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury
• Marisa Demeo, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
• Christopher Schroeder, of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Attorney General
• Thomas Vanaskie, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit
• Denny Chin, of New York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit

All of these nominees were nominated by President Obama between six months to one year ago. None of them have been, as the The Center for American Progress‘ blogger, Matthew Yglesias, has reported, "political hot button(s)." Furthermore, never before have the Senate’s "advise and consent" responsibilities been abused in such a broad fashion.
Brainard, who is set up for a cloture vote today at 5:30pm ET, has been nominated to serve in a position critical to engaging China and representing U.S. interests at the G-20, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, among others. 
Brainard, a highly qualified expert in international economics, is a devoted public servant who has spent most of her career serving the American people. She previously served with distinction as:

• Deputy National Economic Advisor for President Bill Clinton
• Vice President and Founding Director of the Brookings Institution’s Global Economy and Development Program
• Associate Professor of Applied Economics at MIT Sloan School
• White House Fellow
• National Science Foundation Fellow

Brainard is supported by:

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• Business Rountable
• U.S. Council on International Business
• Business Council for International Understanding
• Council of the Americas
• Coalition of Services Industries
• Emergency Committee for American Trade
• National Foreign Trade Council
• National Association of Manufacturers

After Brainard was voted out of committee with bipartisan support in December 2009 her confirmation process has ground to a halt due to a hold that’s been placed on her nomination and two other senior Treasury nominees. The hold is tied to a policy issue that is unrelated to her Treasury portfolio.
The unfortunate truth is that the use of "holds" to block the confirmation of nominees is an all too common occurrence in this Congress. And Republicans seemed to have perfected the use of them to the detriment of our government’s urgent policy priorities.

Democrats:  On the Side of Middle-Class Americans

98 percent - The percentage of all working families and individuals in America who got a tax cut in 2009 thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. [Citizens for Tax Justice, 4/13/10]

$3,000 - The record average tax refund taxpayers are seeing this tax season thanks to the tax cuts in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. [White House, 4/12/10]

40 million – The number of American families with incomes up to $88,000 (for a family of four) that will receive a tax credit to help pay for health care coverage in the exchange, thanks to health insurance reform. [House Majority Leader Hoyer, 4/12/10]

Republicans:  On the Side of the Wealthy

$120,000 – The average amount that the richest 0.3 percent of households with incomes above $1 million received in 2007 from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts [CBPP, 5/9/08]  (To put this number in context, sending your child to a private college for 4 years costs, on average, $105,000 in tuition and fees alone. [College Board, 2010])

$46 million – Average tax cut per filer received by the 400 wealthiest taxpayers in the entire country in 2007. [CBPP, 2/23/10]  (To put this number in context, a person earning $50,300 per year, or the median income in the U.S., would have to work 914 years to earn as much. [US Census data for 2008])

$18 billion – Total tax cuts for the 400 richest households in the U.S. in 2007. [CBPP,2/23/10]  (To put this number in context, $18 billion is the economic output of the entire nation of Bolivia. [CIA World Factbook])

2 percent - The percent of total benefits of the capital gains and dividend rate reductions in 2010 that went to the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, compared to 89 percent of the total benefits that went to the wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers and 58 percent to the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers. [CBPP, 8/7/08]

1 – Number of years President Bush took to turn the budget surplus he inherited from President Clinton into a budget deficit. [OMB Data]

According to McConnell, somehow Senator Chris Dodd’s Wall Street reform legislation is pro-bailout. "If you need to know one thing about this bill, it’s that it would make it official government policy to bail out the biggest Wall Street banks," said McConnell.   As Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly wrote this week, "Remember, it doesn’t have to make sense. It doesn’t have to be true. It doesn’t even have to be persuasive. It just has to be repeated, endorsed by conservative media, embraced by right wing activists whose ignorance is easily exploited, and folded into the ‘debate’ for the American mainstream." Dodd rose to set the record straight on McConnell’s claims today. "Suggesting somehow that there’s a bailout provision in this bill — nothing could be further from the truth," Dodd explained. "The bill, as drafted, ends bailouts. Nothing could be more clear in the legislation. And let me tell you how we do it…This bill imposes tougher standards on large, risky Wall Street firms. It eliminates the federal government’s capacity to bail out financial companies and it requires that the financial firms write their own shut down plans an even pay for the liquidation process if it’s needed."   McConnell has clearly not read Dodd’s Wall Street reform bill and he’s using talking points from a political strategist to kill this legislation. "It’s a naked political strategy," said Dodd. "And if it succeeds, and this legislation does down, and another crisis sinks the American economy, then the next recession, and ll the damage that it will bring to the working families in this country, will have happened for the sake of that false talking point that Mr. Luntz has been proposing."

The Recovery Act that was passed last year reduced federal income taxes for tax year 2009 for 98% of all working families and individuals. On average, these tax cuts saved working families and individuals an average of $1,158 on the tax returns they will file on Thursday. 
Despite this good news, the majority of Americans do not perceive that they have received a tax cut under the Obama Administration. 
According to a new report released today by the Citizens for Tax Justice only 12% of Americans believe that the president has cut their taxes. 
In light of this widespread misunderstanding, we’ve highlighted many of the Recovery Act’s key tax cuts: 

• Tax savings of up to $2,500 to pay for college expenses with the American Opportunity Credit
• Up to $1,500 in tax credits for home energy-efficiency home improvements with Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Incentives
• An $8,000 tax credit for the purchase of a first home with the First Time Homebuyers Tax Credit
• Tax deductions for the state and local taxes or fees paid on a new vehicle 
• Expanded tax credits for moderate income families with children
• Up to $2,400 in 2009 unemployment benefits tax-free

As a result of these efforts, the average tax refund is up 10% or $266 for a record average of $3,036 so far — an increase the IRS says is largely due to the Recovery Act. 

As for the future of your tax burden, nothing could have helped more than health care reform, which provides the biggest health-related tax cut in the last two decades. That’s progress worth celebrating.

"For too long, in too many ways, [health insurance companies] treated simply being a woman as a pre-existing condition."   
- Sen. Barbara Mikulski

It has been said many times in the Senate chamber — health care is a women’s issue. It’s true. Every day millions of women make decisions about their health care and that of their family members. According to the Department of Labor, women make nearly 80% of all family health care decisions. Our current health care system, however, does not adequately meet the financial and delivery needs of women, making health care reform a necessity. 

Take a look at some of the alarming facts provided by the National Women’s Law Center:

• Women are more likely than men to require health care throughout their lives, including regular doctor’s visits to reproductive health care providers
• Women are more likely to have chronic conditions that require continuous health care treatment
• Women use more prescription drugs on average
• Certain mental health problems affect twice as many women as men

According to Marcia Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center, the health care reform law that the president signed into law this week, "marks a turning point for millions of women and their families who are closer than ever to securing access to desperately needed health care."

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act make several critical changes to our current health care system that will have a significant impact on women. 

• Provides affordable, easy access to preventive screening, such as mammograms 
• Prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to a women because of a pre-existing condition
• Allows children the opportunity to remain on their parents’ insurance policy until age 26
• Ends lifetime and annual limits on benefits

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act small businesses will receive a number of key benefits, including:

• Cost controls
• Health insurance exchanges
• Tax credits
• Anti-discrimination reform

Small businesses will now enjoy the same leverage that big businesses have to buy coverage through a health insurance exchange. The exchange gives business owners greater buying power in the marketplace and spreads the cost of coverage across a much broader pool, helping to hold down premiums.

The president dedicated the momentous occasion to several individuals, including his mother, "who argued with insurance companies even as she battled cancer in her final days," and Marcelas Owens, an 11-year old boy whose mother died after she fell ill and lost her job and insurance coverage.
While Democrats celebrate this health care victory, the legislative work on this measure continues. Senate Majority Harry Reid will today introduce a package of changes intended to improve the bill. "We have one more leg of this journey to complete," said Reid. "The Senate has worked closely with the House to make this good bill even better, and we plan to finish our work as soon as possible. This is the change that we were sent to Washington to deliver."

• Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. 
• Small businesses would benefit from tax relief that will help them cover their employees. 
• There will no longer be lifetime or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care you receive from your insurance companies. 
• Medicare beneficiaries will have less reason to worry about their prescription drug bills because of a new $250 rebate for those who fall into the prescription drug "donut hole."
• Children can remain on their parents’ health insurance plans until age 26.

   These are critical new improvements to a health care system badly in need of a makeover.  

"As the Senate prepares to complete our work on this historic effort," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, "Senate Democrats reaffirm our commitment to reform because we know it’s good for middle-class families, seniors and small businesses in Nevada and all across America."

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) today released a score on the final health care reform bill, which is due for a vote in the House in the coming days.   Here are the key details:  

• Cuts the deficit. Over the first ten years, health care reform will cut the deficit by $130 billion, followed by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.
• Reins in wasteful Medicare costs. Reduces the annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4% per year. Extends Medicare’s solvency by at least 9 years.
• Closes the prescription drug donut hole. Seniors will receive more assistance in purchasing prescription drugs.
• Expands and improves health coverage for middle class families. Expands coverage to 32 million Americans. Guarantees that 95% of all Americans will be covered.
• Provides more generous subsidies to middle class Americans.

Today the Senate passed the bipartisan HIRE Act by a 68-29 vote. Through investments in our nation’s infrastructure and small business tax cuts to hire workers, this fully paid-for bill has the potential to create or save one million jobs this year.    The $18 billion dollar measure includes four key provisions aimed at job creation, including:  

• A tax credit for employers who hire employees this year;
• An extension of the highway bill to find job-creating transportation projects across the country;
• A provision allowing small businesses to write off the cost of major purchases; and
• Build America Bonds, which provide a much-needed funding mechanism for projects such as work on courthouses, schools, roads and public safety buildings.

Despite strong progress on their jobs agenda, Democrats believe passing this jobs bill is just one effort of many to come to improve our economy. "This is just the first, certainly not the last, piece of legislation that we will put forward in relation to jobs, "said Sen. Charles Schumer. "If we don’t create jobs, the economy will not move forward."

• Federal Election Commission
• Department of Energy
• The Judiciary
• Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
• Small Business Administration
• National Labor Relations Board
• Legal Services Corporation
• Department of Homeland Security
• Army
• Executive Office of the President
• Amtrak Board of Directors
• National Transportation Safety Board
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
• Farm Credit Administration
• Department of Commerce
• Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Department of Treasury
• Department of Health and Human Services
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• Department of State
• Department of Energy
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• National Council on Disability
• Tennessee Valley Authority

In looking through this long list of nominees, Sen. Jeff Merkley said, "I think you get the picture that this is a list of systematic efforts to undermine the ability of the executive branch to do its job."
"One of the things that united us in coming here this morning is that the nominations process is broken," said Sen. Mark Warner. "We need to start doing our job and start voting up or down on these nominees that are languishing on the Senate calendar.

"Today 70 Americans will die for lack of health insurance. And when the Republicans tell us — "Go slow, Start over, Take your time" — we’ve got to add it up. It’s 70 a day. How much time can we take?" 
– Senator Dick Durbin

Given the length of Congress’ health care debate, it’s not unusual that media coverage often focuses on process and procedure. But on days like today, when Marcelas Owens, an 11-year-old boy, traveled across the country on his birthday to advocate for health reform, Senators and press have reason to pause and reflect on the necessity of changing our broken health care system.

Marcelas Owens began speaking out about the need to end health insurance industry abuses since his mother died after she fell ill and lost her job and insurance coverage. Speaking at an event today with Senate leadership, Owens said, "I am here because of my mom. My mom was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension in 2006. She missed so much work she lost her job. And when my mom lost her job, she lost her health care. And losing her health care ended up costing her her life."
"Our fight for health reform is driven by stories like that of Marcelas and his mother Tifanny that too many Nevadans and too many Americans know all too well," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Opponents of reform would rather focus on process. Our work is about real people like Marcelas and his mother who deserve a better health system."