GOP Plan Would Force Seniors to Pay $2.5 Billion More In Prescription Drugs Next Year Alone By Reopening Drug ‘Donut Hole’

New State-By-State Reports Showing Devastating Local Impact on Seniors Found Here

Washington, D.C. – Today, the Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC) detailed the devastating effects of the new Republican budget in a series of state-by-state reports. The Republican budget introduced by Paul Ryan is anything but balanced. It would end Medicare as we know it, forcing seniors into a costly voucher system, while providing more tax breaks to millionaires. It would gut investments that strengthen the middle class, while protecting tax loopholes that benefit corporations that ship jobs overseas.

“The closer you look at the numbers, the worse the House Republicans’ budget gets for the nation’s seniors. The Republican budget that would end Medicare as we know it is anything but balanced. Rather than taking a balanced approach to deficit reduction, the Republican budget would kick millions of seniors into a voucher program, and force them to pay more for prescription drugs,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Center. “This reckless budget would gut programs that are essential to the middle class, while preserving tax breaks for the wealthy and huge corporations. The Democratic plan preserves investments in job-creating programs, cuts wasteful spending, and protects Medicare for our seniors.”

Under the proposal, set to receive a vote in the House next week, seniors would see their out-of-pocket costs increase by as much as $5,900 per year.
The Republican budget would also reopen the prescription drug donut hole for millions of current seniors, forcing them to pay an additional $2.5 billion dollars for prescription drugs next year alone. A county-by-county breakdown of seniors’ savings on prescription drugs thanks to the Affordable Care Act through December 2012 can be found here. These savings would be wiped out in the Republican budget plan.

Report Highlights:

• The Republican plan could increase out-of-pocket health care costs per senior by $5,900.
• Nationwide, over 3.5 million seniors saved more than $2.5 billion in prescription drug costs last year. The GOP budget would eliminate those savings in the years to come.
• Over 34 million seniors could pay more for preventive services this year.

“This budget reflects the same skewed priorities… Americans rejected in November.”

“It will take more than accounting gimmicks to achieve real deficit reduction.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding Representative Paul Ryan’s budget proposal. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Early this year, with November’s election losses fresh in their minds, top Republicans promised a kinder, gentler Republican Party – a Republican Party that cared about “every American…achieving their dreams.” Republicans bandied about words like fairness and opportunity. They made overtures toward women and Hispanics. They promised cooperation and an end to brinksmanship. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor even spoke of, “an agenda based on a shared vision of creating the conditions for health, happiness and prosperity for more Americans and their families.” The rebranding was under way.

Then a few weeks passed. And the Republican emphasis on fairness and equity passed along with them.

Today House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan will unveil an extreme budget that is anything but balanced. This budget reflects the same skewed priorities the Republican Party has championed for years – the same skewed priorities Americans rejected in November. The Ryan Republican budget will call for more tax breaks for the wealthy, an end to Medicare as we know it and draconian cuts to education and other programs that help America’s economy grow and prosper.

As Yogi Berra famously said, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” We’ve seen this show before. The Ryan Republican budget will shower more tax breaks on millionaires and continue to tilt the playing field to the advantage of big corporate interests, while raising taxes for the middle class. And, like last year, the plan refuses to close a single tax loophole in order to reduce the deficit.

Meanwhile it guts investments in education, health care, public safety, scientific research and job-creating clean energy technology. The Ryan Republican budget would end the Medicare guarantee and force seniors into a voucher program. It would ax preventive health care such as cancer screenings and charge seniors more for prescriptions. And it would further reduce funding for food inspectors, police officers and first responders.

And as if protecting wealthy special interests while shifting the burden to seniors and the middle class wasn’t bad enough, the Republican budget also devastates the economy, costing jobs and slowing growth. Not only is this the wrong approach, it’s the same old approach.

And to make matters worse, the Paul Ryan Budget 3.0 uses the same fuzzy math as his previous two budgets. It relies on accounting that is creative at best and fraudulent at worst to inflate its claims of deficit reduction.

Democrats believe it is critical that we stabilize the deficit. But it will take more than accounting gimmicks to achieve real deficit reduction. And at a time when corporations are making record profits, the stock market is soaring and wealthy Americans’ income continues to rise, that deficit reduction shouldn’t be come at the expense of middle-class families, senior citizens and the poor.

Americans have demanded a fair approach to deficit reduction that makes sensible cuts, but asks profitable corporations and the wealthiest among us to share the burden. Democrats have been listening. That’s why this week Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray will introduce a budget that reflects those balanced principles. The Democratic plan will cut wasteful spending and reduce the deficit, close tax loopholes that benefit the rich and invest in what the economy needs to grow. It will encourage a strong middle class.

Congressman Ryan and his Republican colleagues in Congress have taken a different approach – an approach that makes it plain they missed the message of the November elections. Their budget will once again put moneyed special interests ahead of middle-class families. And no amount of rebranding will hide that.

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding on Nevada judicial nominee Andrew Gordon, on a continuing resolution to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year and on the 2014 retirement of Senator Carl Levin. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

This evening, the Senate will vote on two judicial nominations: Richard Gary Taranto, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit and Andrew Patrick Gordon, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada.

Andrew Gordon, of Las Vegas, graduated from Harvard Law School in 1987 after receiving his Bachelor’s degree from Claremont McKenna College. He is a partner with the law firm of McDonald Carano Wilson, where he has been a partner since 1997. Mr. Gordon handles complex commercial disputes. He also focuses on alternative conflict resolution, and regularly serves as an arbitrator and mediator.

Mr. Gordon also performs a variety of pro bono work, including handling adoption proceedings and representation of an inmate on death row in a habeas corpus proceeding. He has consistently been named as one of the Best Lawyers in America. I have no doubt he will serve the court well, and I look forward to his confirmation.

This week the Senate will also take up legislation to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. I applaud Appropriations Committee Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby for working diligently through the weekend to reach a bipartisan agreement on a path forward.

Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby, two seasoned veterans, have worked hard to get this legislation ready. They are two of our most senior members. They are also two of our most respected members.

The measure passed last week by the House of Representatives is not perfect. Senators will wish to offer amendments. And we are working out a process to consider those amendments.

This week will offer another opportunity for the United States Senate to return to the regular order – an opportunity for this body to legislate through cooperation and compromise. It will also be a test of the Senate’s good will.

America’s economy is poised to grow and expand. And the last thing it needs is another manufactured crisis – such as a government shutdown – to derail its progress.

Senator Carl Levin Announces Retirement

For some public servants, the political fire is lit by their first trip to Washington, D.C. or by a moving and memorable party convention speech. For others, a history of military service leads to a career in public service. For still others, a single issue – such as a proposed freeway through a vibrant community – propels them into politics. But for Senator Carl Levin, serving Michigan families is something of a family business.

Senator Levin’s father, Saul, served on the Michigan Corrections Commission. His uncle, Theodore Levin, was the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan. And I was elected to Congress in 1982, the same year as Carl’s brother, Sander Levin, the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

The first time I met Senator Levin, I mentioned that I had come to the House of Representatives with his brother. And Carl said, yes, Sandy is my brother, but he’s also my best friend. That’s something I’ve never forgotten. These two brothers, natives of Detroit, have done so much for the state of Michigan.

Carl Levin is a truly outstanding Senator and an even better man. The senior Senator from Michigan is the longest serving Senator in his state’s history. But he dedicated his life to serving residents of Michigan long before he was elected to the United States Senate.

Senator Levin served as general counsel of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and as assistant attorney general for the state of Michigan. And he served two terms in the Detroit City Council, including one term as council president.

As a Senator, Carl Levin has consistently stood up for Michigan families – whether that meant supporting the auto industry, protecting Lake Michigan, holding credit card companies accountable or securing funding for sons and daughters serving in the United States military.

As Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin is one of the nation’s most respected voices on national security issues and most powerful advocates for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

And as chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, he has sought the truth on behalf of American families time and time again. He led investigations of the 2008 financial crisis, abusive credit card practices and the Enron collapse.

Carl’s dedication to the United States Senate is matched only by his dedication to his own family. He has been married to his wife, Barbara, for more than 50 years. They have three daughters and six grandchildren. And I’m sure Carl is looking forward to spending more time with those grandchildren.

But when he retires in two years, the Unites States Senate will be sorry to lose this powerful voice for military service members and Michigan families.

“Republicans should give Congress true flexibility – flexibility to cut wasteful subsidies, flexibility to close unnecessary tax loopholes and flexibility to ask the richest of the rich to contribute a little more.”

“As usual, Republicans have put the demands of special interests over the needs of middle-class Americans.

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding across-the-board sequester cuts that will take effect tomorrow. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Today the Senate says goodbye to a valued and accomplished staff member, Rick DeBobes, who is retiring after ten years as staff director of Chairman Levin’s Senate Armed Services Committee. Rick DeBobes came to the Senate more than two decades ago, after a distinguished, 26-year career as a Judge Advocate in the United States Navy. He has spent his entire Capitol Hill career with the same committee – a rare occurrence in the Senate – working first for Chairman Sam Nunn and then for Chairman Levin.

For the last decade, Rick has led the committee’s oversight of two of our longest-running wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, working to reward the dedication of military personnel and their families. Under Chairman Levin’s guiding hand, he has also filled the ranks of the Armed Services Committee staff with the next generation of national security professionals.

Rick’s expertise, integrity and commitment to public service will be missed by Republicans and Democrats. And on behalf of the Senate community, I thank him for his service and wish him well in retirement.

Rick’s departure from the Senate Armed Services Committee comes during a trying time for our nation’s military – as deep, across-the-board spending cuts are set to strike. Hundreds of thousands of civilian employees of the Defense Department will be furloughed in coming weeks and months. Families and businesses across this country are also bracing for the pain of deep cuts to programs that keep our food safe, our water clean and our borders secure.

But it’s not too late to avert these damaging cuts – cuts for which the overwhelming majority of Republicans in both houses of Congress voted. Democrats have a balanced proposal to remove the threat of the sequester. Our proposal would reduce the deficit by making smart spending cuts. It would also close wasteful tax loopholes that allow companies that outsource jobs to China or India to claim tax deductions for doing so. Our plan would stop wasteful subsidies to farmer, some of whom don’t even farm anymore. And it would ask the wealthiest among us – those making millions each year – to pay just a little more to help reduce the deficit.

Almost 60 percent of Republicans around the country favor this balanced approach to reduce the deficit with a combination of revenue and smart spending cuts. But because this proposition would ask millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations to contribute even a tiny fraction more, Republicans here in Congress won’t support it. Republicans in Congress are going after our proposal because it goes after special interests.

Now, after days of infighting, Senate Republicans have announced their own so-called “plan.” Instead of replacing the pain of the sequester with something smarter and more reasonable, their plan would embrace these devastating cuts, while abandoning any of the responsibility that goes along with them.

Republicans call the plan “flexibility.” But let’s call it what it really is: a punt. As President Obama said Tuesday, it would simply raise the question: “Do I end funding that helps disabled children or poor children? Do I close this Naval Shipyard or that one?”

It is not a solution. And even members of the Senate Republican caucus have questioned the wisdom of this proposal.

Republicans should give Congress true flexibility – flexibility to cut wasteful subsidies, flexibility to close unnecessary tax loopholes and flexibility to ask the richest of the rich to contribute a little more. Instead, they’re completely inflexible – insisting we risk hundreds of thousands of American jobs, as well as programs that strengthen families and small businesses across this nation.

But that should come as no surprise. As usual, Republicans have put the demands of special interests over the needs of middle-class Americans.

“President Obama is right: to give our economy a foundation for growth Congress must replace the sequester with a balanced approach to deficit reduction. Senate Democrats will soon vote on a plan to temporarily replace the harsh austerity of the sequester with a combination of smart spending cuts and measures that close wasteful corporate tax loopholes and subsidies, and ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.”

“But for Congress to act, Republicans must get off the sidelines. So far, Republicans have shown that they would rather let the sequester go into effect, or make even deeper cuts to Medicare, education and medical research, than close a single wasteful tax loophole. Republicans’ position is untenable, but only time will tell how many people must lose their jobs before Republicans listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans, and work with Democrats to forge a balanced approach.”

“A clean debt ceiling increase that allows the United States to meet its existing obligations should be the standard.”

“Congress will continue to work to reduce the deficit. But we’ll do it without the threat of default over our heads.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today about the Senate’s upcoming vote on the House-passed legislation to suspend the debt ceiling. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery.

Later today, the Senate will vote on the House-passed legislation to suspend the debt ceiling until this summer and remove the specter of default hanging over the nation’s economy. I expect this legislation will pass on a strong, bipartisan vote – sending the message loud and clear that, while we are willing to negotiate on many things, we will not engage in another irresponsible debate over whether the United States government should pay its bills. I would remind my Republican colleagues that most of them voted to incur the debts now coming due. And suspending the debt limit won’t authorize a penny of new spending – but it will ensure we pay the bills we’ve already incurred.

I was reassured by House Republicans’ decision last week to back off their reckless threat to hold the debt ceiling hostage. The legislation before the Senate sets an important precedent – that the full faith and credit of the United States will no longer be used as a pawn to extract painful cuts to Medicare, Social Security or other initiatives that benefit the middle class. A clean debt ceiling increase that allows the United States to meet its existing obligations should be the standard.

Congress will continue to work to reduce the deficit. But we’ll do it without the threat of default over our heads. We have already made nearly $2.5 trillion in historic, bipartisan deficit reduction. Democrats believe we should do more. And it’s critical that we use a balanced approach that couples smart spending cuts with revenue from the wealthiest Americans and from closing wasteful tax loopholes.

Obviously, Democrats would prefer a longer suspension of the debt ceiling, which would provide additional economic stability as we continue to find ways to decrease the deficit. Raising the possibility that the United States could default on its obligations every few months is not an ideal way to run a government. But a short-term solution is better than another imminent, manufactured crisis.

Even Republicans admit default would rock our financial system to its core. However, injecting uncertainty into the system every few months also has a chilling effect on the economy. This insecurity doesn’t just affect big investment banks or wealthy investors. It costs jobs. And all around the country, ordinary Americans with 401k’s and college savings accounts are affected.

I am glad Republicans set aside their plan to gamble with default. It was bad politics and even worse policy. Middle-class Americans remember the last time Republicans put us through a protracted fight over the debt ceiling in an effort to force deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other programs important to the middle class. They remember how the Tea Party forced the nation to the brink of default in 2011 – sending the stock market into a tailspin and prompting a historic downgrade of America’s credit rating. They remember how the economy suffered, and their own bottom lines suffered with it. They remember the consequences of Republicans’ willingness to threaten a national default. I’m relieved that this time Congress was able to reach a compromise and avoid a fight, so middle-class families get the certainty they badly need.

“It’s time for the Speaker and all Republicans to return to the negotiating table. It’s time for Republicans to work with us to find the middle ground.”

“In the meantime, the Speaker should bring the middle-class tax cut passed by the Senate five months ago to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.”

Washington, D.C. –Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the status of budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Last night the House of Representatives proved what Democrats have known all along: Speaker Boehner’s plan to raise taxes on 25 million middle-class taxpayers while handing out $50,000 bonuses to millionaires and billionaires was dead on arrival.

We knew the so-called Plan B was no plan at all.

It couldn’t pass the Senate.

Turns out, it couldn’t pass the House, either.

It’s too bad Speaker Boehner wasted a week on this futile political stunt.

But at least now House Republicans have gotten the message loud and clear that any comprehensive solution to the looming fiscal cliff will need to be a bipartisan solution.

No comprehensive agreement can pass either chamber without both Democratic votes and Republican votes.

Which means any solution will have to ask the most fortunate among us to pay a little more to reduce the deficit and ensure partisanship doesn’t take the nation to the brink of default a few months from now.

Nothing that has passed the House of Representatives fits this test.

A few days ago President Obama and Speaker Boehner appeared poised to strike a grand bargain.

But instead of making hard choices or compromising, as President Obama has been willing to do, Speaker Boehner retreated to his corner and resorted to political stunts.

But the stunt fell flat.

It’s time for the Speaker and all Republicans to return to the negotiating table.

It’s time for Republicans to work with us to find the middle ground.

That is the only hope of averting the devastating impacts of the fiscal cliff entirely.

And in the meantime, the Speaker should bring the middle-class tax cut passed by the Senate five months ago to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.

The clock is ticking until the nation goes over the fiscal cliff and taxes go up for every family in America.

But there’s still time for Speaker Boehner to hit the brakes and avoid the cliff.

The Senate-passed bill would protect 98 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses from crippling tax hikes while President Obama and the Speaker work toward a comprehensive agreement.

If Republicans truly want to ensure American families’ taxes don’t go up on January 1, they should simply pass the Senate bill.

The only reason Speaker Boehner hasn’t brought our bill to the floor sooner is that he knows it will pass.

Americans are not fooled by the Speaker’s phony, procedural excuses for failing to bring this solution to a vote. They’re tired of excuses. They expect action.

Let me be plain: there is nothing preventing the Speaker from taking up our bill and giving middle-class families certainty.

So I say to my friend, the Speaker, this isn’t a game.

It isn’t about scoring political points or putting wins on the board.

There will be very serious consequences for millions of families if Congress fails to compromise.

And there will be very serious consequences for our economy if Congress fails to act.

It’s time for Speaker Boehner to return to the negotiating table ready to compromise.

And it’s time for House Republicans to remember what’s at stake.

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) released the following statement today after Senator McConnell filibustered a bill to give the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling – a bill that Senator McConnell introduced earlier today.

“The Senate should pass Senator McConnell’s proposal to give the President the authority to avoid the knock-down, drag-out fight we had over the debt ceiling last year – a fight that caused the first-ever downgrade of this country’s credit, and cost our economy billions. Senator McConnell’s filibuster prevented us from having this vote today, but I will continue to seek an agreement to hold an up-or-down vote on his proposal to avoid another debt ceiling debacle.

“After leading three hundred and eighty five filibusters in recent years, Senator McConnell took obstruction to new heights by filibustering his own bill. Republicans’ obstruction and intransigence turned the last debt ceiling fight into a disaster for the middle-class. We should give American families the security of knowing we will never go through such a harmful ordeal again.”

“The only question left is how long Speaker Boehner will make middle class families wait for relief and how long he’ll force the financial markets to wait for certainty.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding tax and budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Democrats have been saying it for more than four months: it’s time for the House to pass the middle-class tax cut approved by the Senate.

But as the days until the country goes over the fiscal cliff tick by, more and more Republicans have joined our chorus. They realize Republican leaders’ unwillingness to compromise sooner has put them in a real bind.

So reasonable Republicans are asking their House leadership to allow a vote on the Senate-passed legislation. What was once a trickle has become a flood.

Last week Republican Rep. Tom Cole said it was time to give middle-class families certainty their taxes won’t go up by $2,200 on January 1.

Then Rep. Tim Scott, also a Republican, admitted the Senate’s middle-class tax cut would surely pass the House – since it will take only 26 moderate, Republican votes to ensure passage.

Conservative opinion makers piled on. Columnist David Brooks, of the New York Times, wrote: “Republicans have to realize that they are going to cave on tax rates.”

Then on Tuesday the Senior Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, urged House Republican leaders to end the suspense for middle-class taxpayers.

They shouldn’t have to wonder, she said, whether “we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people.” I assure them, we won’t.

And on Wednesday Senator Susan Collins, joined her colleague from Maine, agreeing the idea of ending the suspense for the middle class “has merit.”

Yesterday, it seemed every practical Republican left in Washington was suddenly willing to say out loud what we’ve known for weeks: the only remaining option is for the House to pass the Senate bill.

Dozens of House Republicans signed onto a letter urging Speaker Boehner to take the last exit before the cliff.

Neither President Obama nor Democrats in Congress have ever been ambiguous about our proposal – to provide economic security for 98 percent of American families, while asking the wealthiest 2 percent to contribute just a little more to stop runaway debt.

And now that even a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Senator Coburn has endorsed the Democratic approach, Speaker Boehner has the political cover he needs.

“I know we have to raise revenue,” Senator Coburn said Wednesday. “I would rather see the rates go up,” he said, than eliminate tax credits and deductions that benefit the middle class.

It’s apparent how this will end. The only question left is how long Speaker Boehner will make middle class families wait for relief and how long he’ll force the financial markets to wait for certainty.

The longer he delays, the greater the risk to our economy. So I urge Speaker Boehner, if you won’t listen to me, listen to your own caucus. Listen to prudent members of your own party.

We can argue whether to give more unnecessary tax breaks to the wealthy tomorrow. We can discuss balanced, responsible ways to reduce our deficit next week. We can reform our tax code next year. But we must give economic certainty to the middle class today.

Democrats agree. Independents agree. Republicans agree. Americans agree. Even dozens of CEOs of major corporations – whose personal taxes would go up under our plan – emphatically agree.

I’ve been saying for weeks that the only people who aren’t on board are Republicans in Congress. But now even they are crying out for compromise. I only hope Speaker Boehner is listening.

“The few reasonable Republicans left in Congress agree we need to give certainty to middle-class families now.”

“I still believe there are 26 reasonable Republicans willing to put their promise to serve constituents ahead of their pledge to Grover Norquist.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the failure of the disabilities treaty and ongoing tax and budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Across the country, Americans are lamenting the lack of progress in negotiations to avoid a massive tax increase on middle-class families. I share their frustration.

But for insight into why negotiations have been difficult, consider yesterday’s failure of the Disabilities Convention at the hands of the Tea Party.

This shouldn’t have been a battle. But extreme elements of the Republican Party picked a fight where there was none.

Thirty-eight Republicans voted against the Convention, including several who were on the record supporting it.

This treaty, already ratified by 125 countries, would hold foreign nations to the same high standard of treatment the U.S. already maintains for people with disabilities.

And it would safeguard American citizens traveling, working and serving abroad.

The treaty has the support of veterans groups and disability groups from around the country.

It wouldn’t cost taxpayers a penny. It wouldn’t require any changes to existing U.S. law. And the issue is as bipartisan as they come. This is what one Senator said about the treaty:

“Protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, ANY person, is not a political issue. It is a human issue, regardless of where in the world a disabled person strives to live a normal, independent life where basic rights and accessibilities are available. Disability rights and protections have always been a bipartisan issue and ratifying this treaty should be no different.”

That wasn’t some ultra-liberal. That was Senator John McCain, a veteran, who broke with the extremists and Tea Partiers in his party and voted to ratify the treaty.

The Convention also had strong support from a number of other leading Republicans, including President George H.W. Bush and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole.

Senator Dole, a disabled veteran of World War II who led the fight to pass the treaty, was here yesterday urging Republicans to support it.

One by one, those Republicans greeted the 89-year-old war hero and patriot, who just last week was in Walter Reed hospital.

And then, one by one, all but a handful of them voted against the treaty – ensuring its failure.

But their professed reasons for opposing it had no basis in fact. Even many Republicans acknowledge that.

There is no justification for sending a message / that every individual around the world / who strives to lead a full and productive life / in spite of a disability / does not deserve the same just treatment.

There is no justification for telling disabled Americans – especially those who have sacrificed their very bodies for our freedom – that they do not deserve the same protections abroad / that they do at home.

Yet that is the message 38 of my Republican colleagues sent yesterday.

And these are the same Republicans with whom Democrats are supposed to reach an agreement to protect middle-class families from a tax increase.

It’s difficult to engage in rational negotiation when one side holds well-known facts and proven truths in such low esteem.

That doesn’t mean compromise is out of reach.

But as negotiations continue, I hope my Republican colleagues will keep in mind the oft-repeated words of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

The stakes are high. The days run short. But there is still a quick, easy way out of this predicament.

The House must take up the Senate-passed, middle-class tax cut. The few reasonable Republicans left in Congress agree we need to give certainty to middle-class families now.

Yesterday, Senator Olympia Snowe, the Senior Senator from Maine, who is retiring, said Congress should fight about tax rates for the top 2 percent after we’ve reassured the middle class.

Americans, “should not even be questioning that we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people.”

If House Republican leaders allow a vote on our legislation, it will pass. Every Democrat will vote for it.

It will only take 26 Republican votes to push the legislation across the finish line.

And I still believe there are 26 reasonable Republicans willing to put their promise to serve constituents ahead of their pledge to Grover Norquist.

“Given the choice between millionaires and the middle class, Republicans sided with the wealthiest few.”

“Democrats won’t pass it. President Obama won’t sign it. And the American people won’t support it.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding tax and budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

It’s been nearly three weeks since leaders from both parties commenced negotiations with President Obama to avert the fiscal cliff.

But yesterday, after weeks of delay – and as the days dwindled until taxes are set to go up for millions of families and businesses – Republicans finally showed up to the negotiating table.

And now we know why they’ve been holding their cards so close to the vest: their proposal would raise taxes on the middle class.

Their plan to raise $800 billion in revenue by eliminating popular tax deductions and credits would reach deep into the pockets of middle class families.

Republicans are so intent on protecting low tax rates for millionaires and billionaires, they are willing to sacrifice the economic security of the middle class to do it.

Their proposal was short on specifics. But we know from independent analyses that it’s impossible to raise enough revenue to make a dent in our deficit without doing one of two things: raising tax rates on the top two percent or raising taxes on the middle class.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center called it “mathematically impossible” to reduce the deficit and give more tax cuts to the rich without harming the middle class.

As usual, given the choice between millionaires and the middle class, Republicans sided with the wealthiest few.

In fact, their plan doesn’t just keep rates low for the richest 2 percent – it actually lowers them further.

Democrats’ plan would protect 98 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses from painful tax increases by asking the top 2 percent to pay a little bit more to reduce the deficit.

Republicans’ plan, on the other hand, is more of the same.

Not only does it balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, it voids our promise to seniors with steep cuts to Social Security and Medicare – all to pay for even more handouts to the rich.

At least now we know where they stand.

Republicans have sought cover by invoking Erskine Bowles’ name, but he has disavowed their plan in no uncertain terms.

We are glad to finally see Republicans joining in the negotiating process instead of watching from the sidelines.

But while their proposal may be serious, it’s also a non-starter.

They know any agreement that raises taxes on the middle class in order to protect more unnecessary giveaways to the top 2 percent is doomed from the start.

Democrats won’t pass it.

President Obama won’t sign it.

And the American people won’t support it.

They are tired of budget-busting giveaways to the wealthiest few – people who have enjoyed growing paychecks and shrinking tax bills for more than a decade.

The American people want a balanced deal. And simple math dictates that a balanced deal must include higher tax rates for the richest few.

Republicans would be wise to keep that in mind as negotiations move forward.

Democrats are willing to compromise.

But we will not consign the middle class to higher tax bills while millionaires and billionaires avoid all the pain.

“To protect millionaires, Speaker Boehner’s offer would force middle class families to pay higher taxes. Raising taxes on the middle class is bad policy and flunks the test of balance. To protect the middle class while reducing the deficit, simple math dictates that tax rates must rise on the top two percent of taxpayers next year. The sooner Republicans grasp that reality, the sooner we can avoid the fiscal cliff.

“Democrats are willing to compromise, but any agreement must protect the middle class. We have also been clear that we have no intention of kicking the can down the road. Not only does Speaker Boehner’s proposal delay revenues into 2013, it sets up another destructive fight over the debt ceiling first thing next year.

“Republicans have made an offer, but now it is time for them to get serious about forging a balanced approach.”

“The sooner they make a legitimate offer, the sooner we can all start working to find the middle ground.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the tax and budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Before I came to Congress, I was a lawyer.

I tried lots of cases – including more than 100 jury trials.

But my greatest victories were the cases that never saw the inside of a courtroom.

As the English poet George Herbert said, “A lean compromise is better than a fat lawsuit.”

It’s always better to settle than to fight it out. So I’ve done my fair share of negotiating – both as a lawyer and as a lawmaker.

And I have a bit of negotiating advice for Republican Leaders: you’re doing it wrong.

Generally during a negotiation, each side brings an offer or demand to the table. And then the two sides sit down and find middle ground everyone can live with.

It’s not always easy and it’s rarely ever fun. True compromise means no one gets everything they want.

But unless both sides come to the table with an offer, you can’t even begin the negotiation.

In fact, unless both sides come to the table with an offer, it’s not really a negotiation at all.

Over the last week, Republican Leaders from both Chambers have complained that Democrats put forward a proposal for resolving the fiscal cliff that reflected our priorities. What did they expect?

Our proposal is simple: we want to end unnecessary tax breaks for the richest of the rich and provide security for everyone making less than $250,000.

No one should be surprised by President Obama’s offer. It is exactly what he has said he supports time and again.

It’s what I have said I support time and again.

It’s what Democratic Senators campaigned on across the country.

This plan to protect 98 percent of American families from a tax increase also passed the Senate four months ago.

And it has the support of the American people.

Sixty percent of Americans – including 63 percent of independents – support raising taxes on those making more than $250,000.

I wish I could share with you the details of the Republicans’ answering proposal.

Unfortunately, they have yet to produce one.

We’re not going to do their homework for them.

It is Republicans’ responsibility to respond with a counter-offer – not a hint dropped during a Wall Street Journal interview or a Sunday talk show, but a real offer.
And the sooner they make a legitimate offer, the sooner we can all start working to find the middle ground.

Let me remind my Republican colleagues that, as we work toward a final agreement, millions of middle-class families are nervously watching and waiting.

For four months, Republicans have held them hostage to protect the richest 2 percent of taxpayers.

Reasonable, rank-and-file Republicans are urging their leadership to stop delaying Senate-passed legislation that would give millions of middle-class families making less than $250,000 the certainty their taxes won’t go up by $2,200 on January 1.

It wouldn’t be hard for Speaker Boehner to pass our bill. Every Democrat in the House will vote for it.

To reach 218 votes to pass our legislation, it only takes 26 reasonable Republicans willing to put the needs of the middle class ahead of the demands of Grover Norquist.

As my friend and colleague, the Senior Senator from Missouri, Claire McCaskill, said on Sunday, John Boehner has a decision to make.

This is what she said: “He’s got to decide, is his speakership more important or is the country more important?”

As we continue to hope for a balanced agreement that will safeguard the economy, I hope Speaker Boehner ends the suspense for millions of American families.

Reid to House Leadership: “Show Americans You Are Still Capable Of Accomplishing Something of Utility” By Passing Middle-Class Tax Cut

Vows to Keep Senate In Session as Long as Necessary If House Will Ask Millionaires and Billionaires to Pay Their Fair Share

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) responded to a letter from House Republican leadership by reminding them that the sequester cuts – which each of the Republican signatories voted to pass – exist at their behest, and urging them to pass the Senate’s middle class tax cut, which is the only bill to avoid the fiscal cliff that can be signed into law.

“At the insistence of Republicans, and in recognition of the significant savings possible from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, sequestration included military and other spending cuts, but not a penny of savings from closing a single corporate tax loophole,” Senator Reid writes. “Given this history, it is shocking that Republicans now want to renounce the spending cuts required by sequestration, without the balanced deficit reduction it was designed to produce.”

Senator Reid pointed out that the House has wasted the entire year with political show votes, instead of focusing on middle class families.

“For nearly two years, the Republican-led House has ignored the will of the American people by accomplishing virtually nothing of bipartisan substance,” he writes. “I urge you to show Americans that you are still capable of accomplishing something of utility by passing the only bill to avoid the fiscal cliff for middle-class families that has a chance of being signed into law: the Senate’s middle-class tax cut. In contrast, the bill being considered by the House today has already been rejected by the Senate on a bipartisan basis.”

Senator Reid asserted he would be happy to keep the Senate in session if Republicans dropped their dogmatic opposition to asking millionaires to pay their fair share.

“If the House is prepared to ask millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share, the Senate is prepared to remain in session as long as necessary to approve an agreement on a balanced deficit reduction package… Sadly, the House has wasted the year on empty, political show votes, while ignoring major job-creating legislation passed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis. The Senate’s farm bill, for example, would support 16 million jobs and strengthen the rural economy. Our postal reform bill would sustain over 8 million jobs and modernize the postal service. Yet these and other important bills, such as the Violence Against Women Act, stagnate in the pool of idleness and inactivity that the House has become.”

Full text of the letter is below. Identical copies were sent to Speaker John Boehner, Leader Eric Cantor, Whip Kevin McCarthy, and Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling.

August 1, 2012

The Honorable John Boehner
Speaker
United States House of Representatives
H. 232 – U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Boehner:

Thank you for your letter insisting that the Senate pass Republican legislation to provide more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, and increase taxes on 25 million families, while reneging on spending cuts enacted in the bipartisan Budget Control Act.

It is worth reviewing how we got here. One year ago, Republicans threatened to force the United States into default unless Democrats agreed to cut Medicare and other programs important to America’s middle class. At the same time, at the behest of Tea Party radicals, the GOP rejected any proposal to ask millionaires, billionaires or large corporations to contribute a penny more to reduce the debt.

Democrats believe these GOP demands remain extreme and wrong. In our view, we should strengthen the middle class, not weaken it. And rather than handing out even more budget-busting tax breaks to those who need them least, we should cut spending responsibly, while asking the super-rich to contribute their fair share.

The vast majority of Americans – Democrats, Republicans and independents – agree with us.

Notwithstanding our deep differences with congressional Republicans, Democrats agreed to join with the GOP to pass the Budget Control Act, which avoided a catastrophic default and called for substantial spending cuts. The Act – which each of you voted to pass – also established sequestration, which threatened even deeper cuts in order to force the hard choices necessary to address our nation’s long-term fiscal challenges in a balanced and fair manner.

At the insistence of Republicans, and in recognition of the significant savings possible from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, sequestration included military and other spending cuts, but not a penny of savings from closing a single corporate tax loophole. As Republican Senator Lindsay Graham said just today, “my party has their fingerprints all over [sequestration]. It was the Republican leadership who agreed with the concept…”

Given this history, it is shocking that Republicans now want to renounce the spending cuts required by sequestration, without the balanced deficit reduction it was designed to produce. This would be fiscally irresponsible. It would be more irresponsible, even immoral, to abandon deficit reduction while handing out more tax breaks for the super-rich.

Democrats have no intention of giving up on balanced deficit reduction. At the same time, we fully agree about the importance of avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff. Toward that end, the Senate recently passed legislation that cuts taxes for 114 million middle class families. By not extending tax breaks that only go to the very wealthy, the bill also produces critical savings that could be used to suspend sequestration as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction package.

I strongly urge the House of Representatives to approve these middle class tax cuts as soon as possible. For nearly two years, the Republican-led House has ignored the will of the American people by accomplishing virtually nothing of bipartisan substance. I urge you to show Americans you are still capable of accomplishing something of utility by passing the only bill to avoid the fiscal cliff for middle-class families with a chance of being signed into law: the Senate’s middle-class tax cut. In contrast, the bill being considered by the House today has already been rejected by the Senate on a bipartisan basis.

If the House is prepared to ask millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share, the Senate is prepared to remain in session as long as necessary to approve an agreement on a balanced deficit reduction package. Of course, I understand that such an agreement is unlikely in the short term given the refusal of House Republicans to work on a bipartisan basis to create jobs or pass any substantive legislation that has a chance of becoming law. Sadly, the House has wasted the year on empty, political show votes, while ignoring major job-creating legislation passed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis. The Senate’s farm bill, for example, would support 16 million jobs and strengthen the rural economy. Our postal reform bill would sustain over 8 million jobs and modernize the postal service. Yet these and other important bills, such as the Violence Against Women Act, stagnate in the pool of idleness and inactivity that the House has become.

While it is unfortunate that the House has temporarily been overtaken by partisanship and ideological extremism, I remain confident that, in time, we will be able to work together to address the serious problems facing our nation. As you must recognize, holding the middle class hostage in support of multi-millionaires is not a sustainable position. And surely, eventually, sequestration will overcome ideological extremism, as intended, and help force an agreement.

Whenever you are ready, Democrats will work with you cooperatively to strengthen the middle class, rebuild our economy, and address our nation’s long term fiscal challenges in a balanced and fair manner.

Best regards.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID
Majority Leader

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced an agreement with House Speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama on a six-month Continuing Resolution (CR) that will avoid a government shutdown while funding the government at $1.047 trillion.

“This agreement reached between the Senate, the House and the White House provides stability for the coming months, when we will have to resolve critical issues that directly affect middle class families. The funding levels in the six-month CR will correspond to the top-line funding level of $1.047 trillion. I hope that we can face the challenges ahead in the same spirit of compromise.”

“The bill passed with the votes of a majority of House and Senate Republicans and the encouragement of — wait for it — Mitt Romney.”
[Milbank, Opinion, Washington Post, 7/25/12]

“The GOP refused to include automatic tax increases as part of this sequester. But automatic cuts to national defense? This Republicans were willing to risk.” [Thiessen, Opinion, Washington Post, 3/15/12]

Republicans Chose to Cut Defense Rather Than Cut Millionaire Tax Breaks

Republican Refusal to Consider Revenues Resulted in Sequestration. “To bridge the divide, McConnell and administration officials had been trying all week to design a mechanism to force the committee to act, giving Republicans their cuts and Obama his debt-limit increase. Republicans were opposed to a trigger that would force automatic tax increases; Democrats were opposed to a trigger with spending cuts only. On Saturday, Democrats appeared to have conceded the point in exchange for big automatic defense cuts, which they said would give Republicans a powerful incentive to work with Democrats toward a more palatable compromise.” [Washington Post, 7/31/11]

American Enterprise Institute Scholar March Thiessen: “The GOP Refused To Include Automatic Tax Increases As Part Of This Sequester. But Automatic Cuts To National Defense? This Republicans Were Willing To Risk.” “The GOP shares a large part of the blame for putting our military in this predicament. As part of last year’s Budget Control Act, Republicans agreed to $600 billion in automatic defense cuts (scheduled to begin in January 2013) if the congressional deficit-reduction supercommittee failed to reach agreement. The GOP refused to include automatic tax increases as part of this sequester. But automatic cuts to national defense? This Republicans were willing to risk.” [Washington Post, 3/15/12]

Majority of Republicans in Both Chambers Voted for Sequestration as Part of BCA

174 House Republicans Voted For the BCA—Including 106 from the Republican Study Committee:

Speaker Boehner Called the BCA “A Positive Step Forward.” “This is a positive step forward that begins to rein in federal spending…” [Press Release, 8/1/11]

Majority Leader Cantor Called the BCA “The First Significant Move” “To Turn Washington Around.” The agreement “…will finally begin to change the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. As is the case with any major change, these things will take time and this is the first significant move – of many to come – to turn Washington around.” [Press Release,8/1/11]

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) Said The BCA “Takes The Critical First Steps Toward Bringing Fiscal Responsibility Back To Washington.” “This legislation … takes the critical first steps toward bringing fiscal responsibility back to Washington.” [Press Release, 8/1/11']

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) Called The BCA “A Bipartisan Compromise Providing At Least $2.1 Trillion In Deficit Reduction.” “I voted on August 1 for the Budget Control Act, a bipartisan compromise providing at least $2.1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade forged by Speaker Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and President Obama …” [Press Release, 8/4/11]

28 Senate Republicans Voted for the BCA:

Sen. McConnell Praised The Budget Control Act As One Of The “Things We Agree On”, “Will Get Us A Trillion Dollars In Savings Over 10 Years.” McConnell said, “Well, regretfully, it never gets talked about, but there actually are things we agree on. We passed the Budget Control Act last August, this past August. It will get us a trillion dollars in savings over 10 years.” [Meet the Press, 9/18/11]

Sen. McConnell Said the BCA “Puts us on the Path to Recovery.” The deal “… puts us on the path to recovery. We’re nowhere near where we need to be in terms of restoring balance. But there should be absolutely no doubt about this: we have changed the debate. We’re headed in the right direction.” [Press Release, 8/2/11]

Sen. Alexander Said BCA Was “Welcome Change In Behavior That I am Glad to Support.” “Finally, Washington is taking some responsibility for years of spending money we don’t have. At a time when the federal government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends, this is a welcome change in behavior that I am glad to support. Make no mistake. This is a change in behavior—from spend, spend, spend to cut, cut, cut.” [Floor Remarks, 8/2/11]

Sen. Barrasso Called BCA “A Victory Over More Wasteful Washington Spending.”“… this agreement is a victory over more wasteful Washington spending…” [Press Release, 8/2/11]

Sen. Boozman Said BCA “Gives Us Some Direction Toward A Long-Term Solution To Our Financial Problems.” “This bill, while far from perfect, is certainly a step in the right direction.  It saves our nation from defaulting on our obligations while combining real spending cuts with a mandatory vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment.  It cuts deficit spending without raising taxes.  It gives us some direction toward a long-term solution to our financial problems.” [Press Release, 8/2/11]

Sen. Cochran Called BCA “a Significant Step Forward in the Long Process of Getting our Fiscal House in Order.” “I see this measure as a significant step forward in the long process of getting our fiscal house in order.” [Press Release, 8/1/11]

Sen. Crapo Said BCA “Requires Serious Reforms That Carry Weight” To Deficit Reduction. “For years, our country has been headed down the road to this unprecedented and unsustainable fiscal crisis.  It requires serious reforms that carry enforcement and weight beyond this Congress and into the future.  This legislation starts us on that path.” [Press Release, 8/2/11]

Sen. Hoeven. Called BCA “An Essential Step” Towards Growing Our Economy. “It is also an essential step toward addressing the most pressing long-range challenge our nation faces: creating jobs and growing our economy.” [Press Release, 8/2/11]

Sen. Hutchison Said BCA “Moves Us In the Right Direction.” “The Senate vote today endorsed an agreement that, while not perfect, makes serious spending cuts, with no tax increases, and moves us in the right direction.” [Press Release, 8/2/11]

Sen. Isakson Commended BCA Sequester “Enough Teeth and Enough Fear” to Force Action. “As far as the select committee, there was a fear among many that it would only be a paper tiger; that it would not have the claws or the teeth to actually do what it needs to do on the cuts. While I would have done a different type of sequestration, I commend those who negotiated this sequestration on putting one in that has enough teeth and enough fear to force this select committee to do what it needs to do.” [Floor Remarks, 8/2/11]

Sen. Lugar Called Mandatory Sequester Cuts “A Victory for Conservative Fiscal Responsibility.” “Additional deficit reductions will be determined by Congress and not an outside commission nor the President. If the Congress fails to find agreement, then mandatory cuts kick in. This is also a victory for conservative fiscal responsibility.” [Press Release, 8/2/11]

Sen. Murkowski Said the BCA Had “Real Teeth,” Including “Triggers Requiring Future Action.” “The deal has real teeth – serious reforms, significant spending cuts, future spending caps and triggers requiring future action … ” [Press Release, 8/2/11]

Sen. Portman Called BCA “A Step in the Right Direction.” “This is a step in the right direction because it begins to address Washington’s addiction to higher spending and dangerous levels of debt. It is only a first step and there is more to do, but I support the agreement because for the first time ever it begins to address Washington’s underlying spending problem while raising the debt ceiling and avoiding default.” [Press Release, 8/2/11]

Sen. Risch Called BCA “A Step in the Right Direction.” “This is a step in the right direction.  We are making actual cuts to government spending, putting spending controls in place and providing for a vote on a balanced budget amendment without raising taxes.” [Press Release,8/2/11]

Sen. Sessions Said BCA “Does Represent Fiscal Progress.” “This bill will reduce spending and does represent fiscal progress.” [Floor Remarks, 8/2/11]

Sen. Snowe Called BCA “The First Step” To Control Spending. “… It was the first step in what will be many to reclaim control over the U.S. Government’s out-of-control spending. This bill cuts current spending, it caps future spending, and it controls previously unrestrained government budgets over the next decade, while also protecting critical Social Security benefits.” [Press Release, 8/2/11]

Sen. Thune Called BCA “A Good First Step” “With the deck stacked that heavily against Republicans, we were able to negotiate a deal that is a good first step in the opposite direction President Obama and Congressional Democrats wanted to take this country.” [Press Release,8/2/11]

Sen. Wicker Said “The Budget Control Act Makes Real Spending Cuts and Represents a Change in Direction for Washington.” [Press Release, 8/1/11]

The Chamber of Commerce Championed the BCA Deal

U.S. Chamber Of Commerce On Debt Deal: “This Legislation Is The Right Thing To Do.” In a key vote letter supporting the Budget Control Act of 2011, the US Chamber of Commerce said: “… this legislation is the right thing to do, now. … The Chamber strongly supports the ‘Budget Control Act of 2011..’” [U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, Key Vote Letter, 8/1/11]

Chamber President Said “This Bill Begins The Process Of Getting America’s Fiscal House In Order And Was Necessary To Avoid A Default.” ‘While far from perfect, this bill begins the process of getting America’s fiscal house in order and was necessary to avoid a default that would have resulted in an economic catastrophe,’ said Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.” [Atlanta Business Chronicle, 8/2/11]

If you own a business in this country, your goal is to make a profit.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Millions of hard-working America entrepreneurs are the backbone of our economy.

And if your company boosts profits by sending jobs overseas, that’s your right as a business owner.

But American taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize your business decision to outsource jobs, especially when there are millions of people in this country looking for work.

Over the last 10 years, 2.4 million jobs in call centers and sales centers, in financial firm and factories were shipped overseas.

And American taxpayers helped foot the bill.

Every time U.S. companies ship jobs or facilities overseas, taxpayers help cover their moving costs.

The Bring Jobs Home Act would end these disgraceful subsidies for outsourcing. And it would give a 20% tax credit for the costs of moving production back to the United States.

But Republicans are filibustering this common-sense legislation.

It’s no surprise Republicans are on the side of corporations making big bucks sending American jobs to China and India.

After all, their presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, made a fortune outsourcing jobs, too.

So Republicans are once again putting tax breaks for big corporations and multi-millionaires ahead of the needs of ordinary Americans.

And what most Americans need is a good job here at home and the assurance their taxes won’t go up on January 1.

Yet Republicans in Congress are filibustering legislation to bring jobs home to America.

And they’ve twice blocked a vote on legislation to keep taxes low for 98 percent of American families.

It was Republicans who asked for a vote on their plan to raise taxes for 25 million families and a vote on our plan to keep taxes low for 135 million American taxpayers.

So we offered them what they wanted. We offered them up-or-down votes on both proposals.

No procedural hoops. No delay tactics. Just simple, majority votes on our plan and on theirs.

They refused.

Maybe they refused because they don’t have the votes for their plan to raise taxes on 25 million American families.

Or maybe they refused it because a majority of Americans support our plan to keep taxes low for 98 percent of families, while asking the top 2 percent to contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit.

Even a majority of Republicans in America support our plan.

Yet still Republicans in Congress are holding hostage tax cuts for nearly every family in America to extort more budget-busting giveaways to millionaires and billionaires.

For a year, the budget deficit was all Republicans talked about.

They were willing to end Medicare as we know it, slash nursing home benefits for seniors, cut investments in education and raise taxes on the middle class – all in the name of deficit reduction.

But now that Democrats have a plan to reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars simply by ending wasteful tax breaks, Republicans have given up on fiscal responsibility.
So I say this to my Republican friends: you can’t have it both ways.

You can’t call yourself a deficit hawk, then fight for more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

And you can’t call yourself a fiscal conservative, then fight to protect tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs to India or China.

The report, entitled “Winners and Losers: Understanding the Ryan Plan’s Potential Tax Implications for America’s Workers,” analyzes the impact on families of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s proposal to replace the current progressive tax code with just two tax brackets – 10 percent and 25 percent – while eliminating the alternative minimum tax.

The report finds that the top 0.1 percent of households would receive an estimated average federal tax cut of nearly $1.18 million in 2015 under the Ryan plan, corresponding to a 14.1 percentage point drop in the federal tax rate.  Lower-income earners (the bottom quintile) would see the slightest tax savings of only $67 and would enjoy just a 0.06 percentage point drop in their federal tax rate.

To pay for the tax cuts, the JEC report finds, Ryan would potentially have to eliminate tax expenditures that deliver significant tax benefits to middle-class workers.  These include tax deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable contributions as well as the tax exclusions for employer-sponsored health insurance benefits and contributions to 401(k) plans.

After eliminating these tax expenditures, those at the top of the income ladder would still experience a net reduction in taxes – the typical household making more than $1 million will see their taxes fall by more than $286,000 under Ryan’s budget.  However, eliminating these tax expenditures would increase the tax burden facing middle-class workers:  a household making between $50,000 and $100,000 would face a tax increase of at least $1,358.

“We’ve seen this movie before and it doesn’t end well,” said JEC Chairman Casey.  “The Ryan plan doles out tax cuts for the wealthy and asks the middle class to pick up the bill.  This new JEC report makes clear that the middle class will be hit hard by the Ryan proposal.   To pay for his tax cuts, Chairman Ryan has no choice but to eliminate or drastically reduce tax benefits that help middle-class families meet their health care needs, pay for their homes, and save for their retirement.    This is the wrong approach.  As we recover from the Great Recession, our focus must be on creating jobs and helping middle-class families – not giving the wealthiest few more tax breaks.”

It’s almost universally acknowledged that Republican obstructionism has reached new heights in the Senate.

Democrats would have to break a filibuster to declare the sky blue or the Earth round.

And passing even the most common-sense, consensus legislation can take weeks or months. So, with a mile-long to-do list, we can’t afford to waste time.

Yet today Republicans will force the Senate to waste a day on a series of political show votes.

We’ll spend hours debating and voting on a handful of non-binding budget resolutions – even though we already have a legally-binding budget.

The Senate could spend the day passing tax cuts for small businesses that grow and hire or legislation to keep the FDA running.

We could be considering the Paycheck Fairness Act – ensuring American women receive equal pay for equal work.

We could be debating cyber security legislation, working on a farm bill or protecting 7 million students from rate hikes on their federal loans.

We could even move a series of appropriations bills to implement the budget we’ve already enacted.

Instead we’ll debate and vote on a series of stunt budgets.

Republicans aren’t interested in getting anything done this year – they’re more interested in trying to defeat President Obama. So they don’t mind wasting a day of the Senate’s time on useless political show votes.

Republicans will say over and over they’re only forcing votes on four budgets today because Democrats failed to pass our own budget. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

In August, Congress passed and President Obama signed a budget that reduces the deficit by more than $2 trillion – the Budget Control Act.

Twenty-eight Senate Republicans – including my friend, the Minority Leader – voted for that legally-binding budget.

But since August those Republicans have developed a case of amnesia. Why else would they walk around Washington claiming we don’t have a budget?

And unlike the hollow Republican budget resolutions the Senate will waste the day debating, the Budget Control Act actually has the force of law.

If Republicans were serious about reducing the deficit, they wouldn’t be working so hard to undo that August law, which cuts more than $2 trillion from the deficit.

Democrats agree the across-the-board cuts to domestic spending and defense programs – agreed to in the Budget Control Act – aren’t the ideal way to solve our nation’s fiscal problems.

But the cuts were designed to be tough so lawmakers were forced to reach to a balanced deal.

Unfortunately, Republicans refused to be reasonable. They refused to raise even a penny of new revenue, or ask millionaires to contribute their fair share to help reduce our deficit.

And Democrats won’t agree to a one-sided solution that lets the super-wealthy off the hook while forcing the middle class to bear all the hardship.

These four stunt budgets all take that one-sided approach, which protects wealthy special interests at the expense of ordinary Americans.

And they clearly illuminate Republicans’ priorities – to shower the wealthy with tax breaks paid for by the middle class.

All four of the Republican plans cut investments that help middle class families get back on their feet in order to increase tax breaks for businesses that ship jobs overseas.

All four plans would double the student loan interest rate – putting college out of reach for many students – in order to protect tax loopholes for special interests.

All four plans end Medicare as we know it, gutting seniors’ health benefits to lavish more tax breaks on millionaires and billionaires.

Yesterday the Senate showed it’s possible to advance policies that improve our economy and put Americans back to work – as long as Democrats and Republicans work together.

On an overwhelming, bipartisan vote, we passed an Export-Import Bank reauthorization that will support hundreds of thousands of jobs and help American companies sell their products overseas.

But every moment we waste refighting old battles or revisiting Republicans’ failed economic policies is time that could be better spent creating jobs.

The time for show votes is over. Now it’s time for the Senate to get back to work putting Americans back to work.

Fundamentally Skewed Priorities in Republican Budget Would Hand More Tax Breaks to Wealthy at Expense of Middle-Class Families

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding Republican attempts to go back on an August budget agreement in order to protect multi-millionaires and corporate defense contractors at the expense of ordinary Americans. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Yesterday Republicans continued to filibuster Democrats’ plan to protect 7 million students from skyrocketing interest rates on federal student loans.

What’s worse, they seem proud of it. Not a single Republican voted to allow the debate on this bill to go forward.

But this fight is not over. Democrats have not given up efforts to keep college affordable for almost 30,000 Nevadans and more than 7 million students nationwide.

I hope Republicans will come to their senses, and work with us toward a compromise.

As Democrats work to create jobs and make college affordable, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are operating under a different set of priorities.

In the House, Republican efforts are underway to undo a hard-fought August agreement to cut more than 2 trillion from the deficit over the next decade.

But the Republican budget and their so-called reconciliation bill don’t just renege on that bipartisan, bicameral agreement to reduce spending.

They reflect fundamentally skewed priorities. They hand out even more tax breaks to multi-millionaires and shield corporate defense contractors, all at the expense of hard-working, middle-class families, the elderly and those in greatest need.

They would slash investments that strengthen our economy and shred the social safety net.

President Dwight Eisenhower once said: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

In a balanced world – one where a strong national defense and a strong social safety net are both valuable pillars of a successful society – that need not necessarily be true.

But the Republican plan would enshrine into law a set of truly unbalanced priorities – and ensure the kind of terrible math Eisenhower envisioned.

Unlike defense contractors and billionaires, ordinary Americans don’t have high-priced lobbyists to protect them. That’s our job.

But Republicans are going after those who can’t fight back – hard-working Americans and struggling families.

Let’s review a bit of history. The sequester isn’t the first bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit.

Over the years there have been many efforts to reach comprehensive, bipartisan solutions to our deficit.

There was the Fiscal Commission, Bowles-Simpson, the Gang of Six and the Supercommittee. They all failed.

Although President Obama was willing to make difficult concessions to achieve meaningful deficit reduction, Republicans and Speaker Boehner could never go against Grover Norquist.

This is a Grover Norquist Congress.

So we’re left with the threat of almost $500 billion in cuts to domestic programs and almost $500 billion in cuts to defense programs.

Democrats agree the sequester – which includes across the board cuts both to domestic spending and the defense budget – is far from the ideal way to solve our nation’s fiscal problems.

It’s a tough pill to swallow. But that was the point.

Those cuts were designed to be tough enough to force lawmakers to compromise.  They were designed to be tough enough to force the two sides to reach to a balanced deal.

But Republicans refused to be reasonable. They refused to raise even a penny of new revenue, or ask millionaires to contribute their fair share to help reduce our deficit and our debt.

I’d like to read a short excerpt from a piece by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein from the Washington Post.

They eloquently describe the GOP’s unwillingness to compromise here:

“We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.”

They went on to say:

“The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

Republicans insisted on balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class, seniors, students, single mothers and so many others who could least afford it.

And it is their intransigence – their refusal to compromise – that leaves us facing the threat of the sequester, and its difficult but balanced cuts.

Going back on the August budget agreement now in order to protect wealthy special interests is no solution.

Neither is refighting the battles of last year.

Democrats agree we must reduce our deficit and make hard choices.

But we believe in a balanced approach that shares the pain as well as the responsibility.

Is the sequester the best way to achieve that balance? Absolutely not.

But Republicans refuse to consider a more reasonable approach – one that asks every American to pay his fair share while making difficult choices to reduce spending.

And Democrats won’t agree to a one-sided solution that lets the super-wealthy off the hook while forcing the middle class, and those in greatest need, to bear all the hardship.

Democrats believe we can protect Americans’ access to health care, create jobs while investing in the future and protect the poor and elderly.

And we can do all that while reducing the deficit in a responsible, even-handed way.

But we can’t do it alone. It will take hard work and compromise.

And so far Republicans have been unwilling to make a serious effort to achieve that compromise.

Republicans have rejected our balanced approach. Their one-sided solution to across-the-board cuts would take from the many to give to the few.

So, here’s what their plan would do:

• Cut Medicaid benefits, increasing the number of uninsured children, parents, seniors and people with disabilities by 300,000. It would also put seniors in nursing homes at risk.
• Punish Americans who receive tax credits to purchase health insurance when their financial circumstances change – causing 350,000 Americans to forgo coverage.
• Weaken Wall Street reforms, protecting big banks at the expense of consumers.
• Once again target middle-class workers, including food inspectors, air traffic controllers and border patrol, drug enforcement and FBI agents.
• Cut funding for preventive health care programs that fight chronic illnesses – such as heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes – that cause 70 percent of deaths in America.
• Slash Block Grant funding that allows states to help 23 million children, seniors and disabled Americans live independently and out of poverty.

No segment of the population is immune from the pain of this Republican plan – except maybe millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations.

The Republican proposal cuts Meals on Wheels for seniors.

It reduces food assistance for 1.8 million needy people.

And it cuts off 280,000 kids from free school lunches at a time when one in five children lives in poverty.

That’s why the U.S. Conference of Catholic of Bishops said the Republican plan fails a “basic moral test.”

This budget sets very clear priorities. The problem is, they’re the wrong priorities.

President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.”

Republicans would do well to remember our nation is judged not only by the strength of its military, but also by the strength of its values.

“Sequestration is a tough pill to swallow. But that was the point. Those cuts were designed to be tough enough to force lawmakers to compromise. They were designed to be tough enough to force the two sides to reach a balanced deal.

“But Republicans refused to be reasonable. They refused to raise even a penny of new revenue, or ask millionaires to contribute their fair share to help reduce our deficit and our debt. Republicans insisted on balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class, seniors, students, single mothers and so many others who could least afford it. And it is their intransigence – their refusal to compromise – that leaves us facing the threat of the sequester, and its difficult but balanced cuts.

“Democrats agree we must reduce our deficit and make hard choices. But we believe in a balanced approach that shares the pain as well as the responsibility.”

As a Result, 30 Million Americans Could Get Kicked Off Medicaid – Forcing Seniors to Be Denied Critical, Life-Saving Care

New State-by-State Analysis of Impact of Extreme GOP Budget Found HERE

Washington, DC—The Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC) today released new national and state-by-state reports (see below) revealing the devastating impact the Republican Medicare-ending budget would have on seniors, families, and nursing home residents.  The report shows that, on top of ending Medicare as we know it and increasing seniors’ out-of-pocket health care costs by nearly $6,000, the GOP budget would also cut $1.7 trillion in Medicaid benefits for seniors, families, and those in nursing homes, which could force as many as 30 million Americans off of the program.

The GOP budget cuts $550 billion in health care benefits specifically for seniors and the disabled, which could lead to them being denied access to life-saving care and shutting nursing homes down across the country.  With state governments across the country already cash-strapped, the reduced federal support and increased burdens included in the GOP proposal would require them to drastically slash benefits, increase taxes, or both.

Report Highlights:

• The Republican plan could force as many as 30 million Americans off of Medicaid.
• The Republican plan cuts over $1.7 trillion from health care services provided through Medicaid, including $550 billion in health care for seniors and the disabled.  As a result, nursing homes across the country could be forced to slash services, turn away seniors, or close their doors.
• The Republican plan would shift costs to state taxpayers at a time when 41 states already face a budget crisis.  This could lead to huge tax hikes on taxpayers in states across the country.

The Republican budget also doubles-down on their effort to end Medicare as we know it. Under their plan, over 45 million soon-to-be seniors would be forced out of Medicare’s guaranteed benefits and onto a voucher, and out-of-pocket costs for the typical senior could go up by nearly $6,000.  The DPCC national report and state-by-state breakdown on the impact on Medicare can be found below:

National
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

BUDGET DEAL

For it...

...Before they were against it.

SENATE HIGHWAY BILL

For it...

...Before they were against it.

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

For it...

...Before they were against it.

Budget Will Immediately Reopen Prescription Drug ‘Donut Hole’, Costing Current Seniors Over $10,000 by 2020

New State-By-State Reports Showing Devastating Local Impact on Seniors

Washington, D.C. – The Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC) today released new state-by-state reports that outline the devastating impact of the new Republican budget. Instead of strengthening Medicare, the new Republican budget would end Medicare as we know it, raise the eligibility age to 67, and turn guaranteed benefits for over 45 million seniors into a voucher that will shift higher costs to seniors over time. Under the proposal, set to receive a vote in the House next week, seniors would see their out of pocket costs increate by as much as $5,900 per year.

In addition to ending Medicare as we know it, the Republican budget would also force millions of current seniors across the country back into the prescription drug “donut hole,” costing them more than $10,000 over the next 10 years. A county-by-county breakdown of what seniors saved in prescription drug costs in 2012 can be found here. Seniors would lose all of that money out of their pockets going forward if the GOP budget was enacted into law.

Report Highlights:

• Over 45 million Americans who are in 47-56 “near retirement” age group would be forced onto health care “vouchers” when they retire, starting in 2023.
• The Republican plan could increase out-of-pocket health care costs for a typical 67 year-old senior by $5,900.
• Nationwide, over 3.2 million seniors saved more than $2.1 billion in prescription drug costs last year. The GOP budget would eliminate those savings in the years to come.
• Over 35 million seniors could pay more for preventative services this year.

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arkansas
• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• District of Columbia
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• Nevada
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Virginia
• Vermont
• Washington
• Wisconsin
• West Virginia
• Wyoming

“While CBO’s report shows a lower deficit in 2012, it also demonstrates that we must do much more to put the nation’s long-term budget outlook on a sustainable path. The deficit reduction included in last summer’s Budget Control Act cannot be the end of the story. We need to achieve about $4 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years, including what has already been enacted, to stabilize the federal debt and begin to bring it down as a share of the economy.

“In his State of the Union Address, President Obama called for a balanced approach to reducing the debt, with both spending cuts and new revenue. We will not solve this problem unless both sides, Democrats and Republicans, are willing to move off their fixed positions and find common ground. Republicans must be willing to put revenue on the table and accept a tax code where everyone, including the wealthiest, pays their fair share.

“CBO’s report also shows the importance of Congress completing work on extending the payroll tax cut and emergency unemployment benefits through the end of the year – two measures that provide significant ‘bang-for-the-buck’ in generating economic growth and job creation. Although the economic recovery is strengthening, it is clear the economy remains fragile. Failing to extend these critical measures would add further drag to the economy and jeopardize the gains we have already made.”

–New York Times, 8/28/11

The Budget Control Act, passed by the Senate in August, set the federal budget for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 – a fact acknowledged in recent months by leading Senate Republicans:

Sen. Collins Called the Budget Control Act a “Budget Agreement” and a “Budget Plan.” “The budget agreement also requires a vote on a balanced budget Constitutional amendment by the end of the year…While I supported the budget plan recently passed by Congress, I did so with serious reservations.” [Collins Column, 8/5/11]

Sen. Grassley Called the Budget Control Act a “Budget Agreement.” “We should be doing those things not only in this budget agreement, this deficit reduction agreement, but in all the decisions we make in the Congress.” [Congressional Record, 8/1/11]

Sen. Alexander Called the Budget Control Act a “Budget Agreement.” “The budget agreement we came to in August pretty well got 40 percent of the budget under control, the part we call discretionary spending – everything from national defense to national parks. It’s only growing at about the rate of inflation over the next 10 years.” [NPR, 9/22/11]

(Prepared by Majority Staff, Senate Budget Committee)

It is wrong to assert that there is no budget. The Budget Control Act enacted in August contained the budget for this year. It was passed by both the House and Senate, signed by the President, and enacted into law.

The Budget Control Act achieved all of the essential elements of a traditional budget – setting discretionary caps, providing enforcement mechanisms, and creating a process for addressing entitlement spending and revenues.

In many ways, the Budget Control Act was even more extensive than a traditional budget:

• It has the force of law, unlike a budget resolution that is not signed by the President.
• It set discretionary caps for 10 years, instead of the one year normally set in a budget resolution.
• It provided enforcement mechanisms, including a two-year “deemer,” allowing budget points of order to be enforced.
• And it addressed entitlement spending and revenues by creating the “Super Committee,” which was given explicit authority to reform entitlements and the tax code. The Super Committee process represented an enhanced version of the reconciliation process that can be established under a budget resolution. And it was further backed up with a $1.2 trillion sequester.

Republican rhetoric aside, Congress did pass a budget. The Republican-controlled House passed it; the Democratic Senate passed it; and the President signed it. The Budget Control Act set 10 years of spending caps; it established a two-year “deemer” to enforce spending levels; and it created a reconciliation-like process to consider entitlement and tax reform.

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.

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today on the Senate floor regarding FEMA funding for victims of natural disasters. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Two weeks ago the Senate passed a bipartisan bill to fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency – FEMA. And for two weeks, House Republicans have been sitting on that bill, taking no action.

But Democrats have not given up on funding FEMA and keeping our government open.

A House Republican bill that would have killed 45,000 American jobs did not have the votes last week to pass the Senate. But that doesn’t mean we have to shut down the government or abandon Americans in need.

Democrats have made a good-faith effort to compromise. Today the Senate will consider compromise legislation to fund FEMA and keep the government open without killing jobs.

Our compromise includes a clean continuing resolution – a bill to fund the government for the next few weeks. Republicans in both chambers have already agreed to – and voted for – the funding levels in this CR. So this shouldn’t be a controversial vote for them.

The legislation also includes $3.65 billion in funding for FEMA, which will give American communities ravaged by floods, wildfires and tornadoes the help they need. We know House Republicans support that funding level as well, since they voted for it last week.

Democrats would have given FEMA more, since President Obama has declared disasters in 48 of 50 states this year. Unfortunately, this bill will force us to revisit this issue in a few weeks, when FEMA funds will be depleted again.

But this compromise legislation will provide for FEMA’s immediate needs.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support this good-faith compromise to help disaster victims now.

The folks on the ground in states that have been hard-hit by disasters – people who have seen the devastation first hand – are all saying the same thing: there’s no more time to waste.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors has begged us to act. A bipartisan group of governors has pleaded with us to act. And tens of thousands of Americans in nearly every state in the union are demanding that we act.

Republicans must not continue to block FEMA from getting the resources it needs to help disaster victims.

This compromise legislation should satisfy House Republicans. It includes their own much lower FEMA funding number.

And it satisfies Democrats because it does not include a $1.5 billion cut that would kill jobs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers has warned us that this thoughtless cut would kill 45,000 jobs at a time when our economy and our country can least afford it.

The program Republicans are targeting “promotes manufacturing in the U.S. and is an important component of America’s energy security,” the Chamber of Commerce wrote.

“Defunding [the program] would hurt manufacturers and their employees,” wrote the National Association of Manufacturers.

Democrats believe – and American auto producers agree – that we should not have to choose between saying no to disaster victims and killing American jobs.

So, as you can see, this legislation is fair to both sides. It will get disaster victims the help they need without killing jobs.

It is a common-sense solution that should pass both chambers with bipartisan support. We will vote on it shortly.

I am cautiously optimistic that my Republican colleagues in the Senate will not force a government shutdown.

Earlier this month, when the Senate passed bipartisan legislation funding FEMA, 10 Senate Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill. It would have given FEMA nearly twice the funding that this compromise legislation does.

At the time, those 10 Republicans said they believed disaster relief should be immune to partisan politics. They believed their constituents shouldn’t wait a moment longer for help.

I can only assume those Republicans are as angry as I am over the delays by their Republican colleagues in the House.

In the weeks since that vote, the disasters have not gone away in their home states of Missouri, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, North Dakota, Alaska, Florida and Pennsylvania. Roads and bridges, homes and schools in those states and many others must still be repaired and replaced.

Yet millions of dollars of restoration work has stopped in those 10 states alone. Nationwide, work on nearly $470 million worth of reconstruction has been delayed because FEMA is out of money.

But even with construction projects at risk in communities that were only just beginning to get back on their feet, FEMA’s disaster fund will still run out of money this week.

FEMA has devoted every penny in its coffers to pay for food and shelter for families who lost their homes in major disasters in the last few months. There isn’t a dime left for anything else.

And now even that money will run dry if we don’t act quickly.

That is why I am hopeful Republicans will do the right thing today.

We must remember that we are not talking about zeros on a budget spreadsheet.

FEMA takes care of people who have lost mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, spouses and friends.

Without additional funding, thousands of people who have lost literally everything they owned will be forced to go without food and shelter.

And reconstruction will be delayed in communities where homes and schools and roads have been wiped off the map by tragedies so terrible they’re difficult to comprehend.

To families in Joplin, Missouri – where 153 people died in a terrible tornado – this is more important than politics.

To families in Nags Head, North Carolina – where Hurricane Irene left houses under water or washed them out to sea – this is more important than politics.

To families in Texas – where wildfires have burned thousands of homes – this is more important than politics.

To families in Cairo, Illinois – where the Mississippi River overflowed its banks and swept away everything in its path – this is more important than politics.

And it ought to be more important than partisan posturing to every member of the Republican Party. It certainly is to me.

Truman once said, “America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand.”

No amount of money can ever replace what the people of Joplin or Cairo have lost.

But at least we can help them get back on their feet. We can help them start over.

That’s what FEMA does. That’s FEMA’s job.

It’s up to Congress to give FEMA the resources it needs to do the job at hand.

“The bill the House will vote on tonight is not an honest effort at compromise. It fails to provide the relief that our fellow Americans need as they struggle to rebuild their lives in the wake of floods, wildfires and hurricanes, and it will be rejected by the Senate.

“I was optimistic that my House Republican colleagues would learn from their failure yesterday and move towards the middle. Instead, they moved even further towards the Tea Party. They insist on holding out on Americans who have suffered devastating losses. Americans are tired of this partisanship. They deserve to know that when disasters strike, we will be there to help them. The American people should not have to worry that the relief they need will get tied up in partisan gridlock.

“There is a clear solution. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill to get disaster relief to the people who need it as quickly as possible. The Federal Emergency Management Agency could run out of money as soon as Monday. People who need help will not get it. We cannot allow that to happen. House Republicans should stop playing political games, and pass the Senate’s bipartisan bill without delay.

“The Senate is ready to stay in Washington next week to do the work the American people expect us to do, and I hope the House Republican leadership will do the same.”

I was saddened to hear of a terrible accident on Friday at the Reno air show, which killed 10 people and injured many more.

My heart goes out to those who were hurt. And my thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives, including the pilot of the World War II-era plane that crashed into spectators.

I commend the many first responders who rushed to the scene Friday. Their quick thinking and skillful assistance saved many lives.

While this crash was devastating, I am glad the pilot took quick action to prevent additional loss of life by avoiding a grandstand packed with thousands of spectators.

My four grandchildren attended the show on Thursday. And my oldest grandson, Mitchell was at the even with his scout troop earlier on Friday.

Although officials are still investigating the crash, initial reports indicate that a piece of the plane’s tail broke off prior to the accident.

I hope this terrible event – the first of its kind in this nation – will not deter people from attending air shows in the future.

Thousands of people enjoy these shows every year. The late Senator Ted Stevens attended the Reno show many times and told me it was the best of its kind.

I will continue to monitor the investigation.

This weekend Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, the progressive Republican and father-in-law to our own Senator Rockefeller, died at the age of 91.

Although I did not serve with Senator Percy, I knew him by reputation. He was an independent thinker and a moderate who always put country before political party. The Senate could use more of his brand of pragmatism today.

Senator Percy was a proponent of tougher environmental regulations and consumer protections, an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War and a proponent of nuclear nonproliferation. He was also a Navy veteran and a businessman, and was often mentioned as a presidential contender.

The Senate honors him for his faithful service to his country as a sailor and in Congress. My thoughts are with his family, including Senator Rockefeller and his wife Sharon, today.

Last week, the President presented the country with a roadmap to reduce our jobs deficit – a proposal to create nearly 2 million jobs and reduce unemployment by a percentage point.

Today President Obama laid out a common-sense pathway to substantially reduce our budget deficit as well.

It is a concrete strategy to cut the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade and do it fairly. I congratulate him for his vision.

His plan calls for shared sacrifice from all Americans, including those who can best afford to help. It calls on those who benefited from the tax policies that sunk this country deeper and deeper into debt to help get us out of debt.

Americans know shared sacrifice is the best path to fiscal sustainability. Many of the richest few agree, including Warren Buffet.

That is why the President has proposed the so-called Buffet Rule – that no American making more than $1 million a year should pay a lower tax rate than this nation’s middle-class families.

This rule would apply to the top three-tenths of one percent of Americans – the richest of the rich, like Mr. Buffet.

Warren Buffet believes it is unfair that he pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary. This is what he said: “If you’re in the luckiest 1 percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.”

There are about 22,000 people in this country who make more than $1 million each year, yet pay less than 15 percent of their income in taxes.

The top 400 earners in this country – all of whom make more than $110 million a year – pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than plumbers and teachers and factory workers do.

More than anyone else, these millionaires and billionaires benefited from Bush tax cuts that contributed $3 trillion to our deficit. They helped plunge this nation into a financial hole.

Yet Congressional Republicans believe middle-class families and seniors – not the millionaires and billionaires who have enjoyed trillions in tax breaks – should bear the burden of getting us out of that hole.

A balanced approach to reducing our deficit means those who have benefited the most from policies that created our deficit crisis should also help solve our deficit crisis.

A balanced approach means everyone pays his or her fair share. It means the middle-class, seniors and those who can least afford it will not bear the heaviest burden.

I commend the President for insisting on basic fairness as we address our deficit problem.

Last week was a productive one here in the Senate.

We reached a bipartisan agreement to pass emergency aid for communities affected by devastating floods, tornadoes and wildfires.

We also reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration, keeping 80,000 safety inspectors and construction workers on the job.

And we passed a highway bill that will keep 1.8 million people at work building roads and bridges. Congress has no duty more pressing than to putting Americans back to work, and this highway legislation will do that.

But we can and must do more to ease the unemployment crisis in this country.

That’s why this week the Senate will take up Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation. The TAA program helps U.S. workers who lose their jobs because of international trade to learn new skills so they can reenter a changing workforce. And it helps them pay for health insurance while they’re training for new jobs.

A global economy means fierce global competition. And unless our workforce is flexible and well-trained, we cannot hope to compete.

Between 2001 and 2008, America lost 2.4 million jobs because of trade with China. The TAA program is retraining many of those people, getting them back into the workforce and boosting our economy at the same time.

It’s unfortunate that my Republican colleagues, who say they care so much about free trade agreements, have prevented three such agreements from moving forward because of objections to this TAA legislation.

As we struggle to rebound from the worst recession in generations, it is unthinkable that we would abandon hardworking Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. TAA provides the lifeline they need to get back on their feet.

Schumer Urges House GOP Leaders To Stick By Agreement, Ignore House Conservatives’ Calls To Reopen Budget Fight

Washington, D.C. – Senator Charles E. Schumer delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday in response to reports that House Republican leaders are considering ignoring the bipartisan agreement contained in the August debt limit deal by seeking deeper cuts to next year’s budget.

Below are Schumer’s remarks, as prepared for delivery.

Floor Remarks by Senator Charles E. Schumer
FY2011 Continuing Resolution
September 14, 2011

There has been a promising new tone in Congress since our return from the summer recess. This has taken some by surprise. But even more striking than the new tone is that it has brought with it a few modest signs of a new spirit of cooperation.

The House this week has sent us a highway extension and an aviation extension that are clean. During August, there were clamors from some corners in the Republican party to mount a fight over the gas tax or insist on harmful cuts to road and bridge repair, even if these demands risked a shutdown of road construction projects.

And as recently as last Friday, Republicans were planning to insist on a five-percent cut to the FAA’s budget—a move that could well have threatened another shutdown of that agency like the one we saw in August.

But both these fears have receded. Barring a setback in the Senate, we should be able to extend both the FAA and highway measures on time and without controversy.

This is a very positive sign. There was a sour taste left in everyone’s mouths at the end of the debt ceiling debate. This has caused a change in behavior. It has brought us together.

The debt ceiling process was made unnecessarily difficult because of the extreme tactics practiced by a bloc within the House Republican caucus. The political process broke down. And the public noticed.

In the aftermath of that debate, it seems that everyone finally realizes that there is a premium on reasonableness. The public does not want to see a “may or the highway” approach from anyone anymore.

That’s why it was head-scratching earlier this week to hear a new rumor in the Capitol that the House Republican leadership might consider seeking to reopen the debt ceiling fight by disregarding the agreed-upon spending level for FY2012.

As you know, Mr. President, the deal included a top-line budget number of $1.043 trillion for the fiscal year that begins on October 1. This was a significant cut of $7 billion from the FY11 level.

This agreement was ratified by all those who voted for the final debt ceiling agreement. It was hailed as one of the better aspects of the overall debt ceiling deal because it would mean a lesser likelihood of another budget fight on September 30.

However, since this number was agreed to, some extreme Republicans have started looking to cause trouble. They have tried to say the $7 billion in cuts represented by the $1.043 trillion dollar figure should be considered a “floor, not a ceiling.”

This would be a violation not just of the spirit of the debt limit deal, but the letter of that deal.

The public will not stand for another budget fight. Republicans should understand that more brinksmanship on the budget at the end of September is not in either side’s interest.

Some in the House leadership seem to realize this. Majority Leader Cantor, in a memo sent to the House Republican caucus in August, warned against picking another budget fight on the CR.

Leader Cantor wrote: “While all of us would like to have seen a lower discretionary appropriations ceiling for the upcoming fiscal year, the debt limit agreement did set a level of spending that is a real cut from the current year level. I believe it is in our interest to enact into law full-year appropriations bills at this new lower level.”

Leader Cantor affirmed these remarks earlier this week.

I say to my Republican colleagues: A deal is a deal. I cannot imagine you would go back on the debt limit agreement, but if you are even considering it, please stop.

We already will likely need to take time next week to resolve what level of FEMA funding we should appropriate for FY2012. Early indications are that House Republicans may want to shortchange the level of funding FEMA says it needs for next year.

I can’t imagine why House Republicans would play games with disaster relief. But if they want to debate that, they should not at the same time be re-opening a budget fight that is already resolved and that nearly caused a default the first around.

We have enough debates on the docket without reopening the ones we’ve already settled.

The public is tired of these fights. And the public understands who keeps instigating them. To the House Republicans, I say: don’t go back on your word on the CR. Leader Cantor was right the first time when he said in August you should abide by the level agreed to over the summer. Stick with that decision, and let’s move on to other issues.

Thank you.

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer released the following statement Wednesday in response to the budget outlook released by the Congressional Budget Office today:

“This analysis reveals two productive trends—reduced long-term deficits and gains in economic growth—but neither is as robust as is needed to get our economy going again.  This makes the case for immediate jobs measures to boost growth, and for ending tax breaks for millionaires in order to keep us on the path towards a balanced budget.  It’s clear from this report that the Republican approach to the economy is harmful to both growth and deficit reduction, and is holding back the recovery.”

“We are grateful and humbled that Leader Reid asked us to join this Committee to help tackle this critical issue for the American people. While some will argue there is peril in serving on this committee, we believe there is far greater peril in leaving these issues unaddressed. It is long overdue to step beyond the partisanship and politics that have overwhelmed these discussions for months.  The true danger lies in inaction, so we look forward to working with our colleagues to find solutions for our economy and for our country. We very much want this joint committee to be a serious committee because these are among the most serious challenges we’ve ever faced in the Senate.

“This is an important moment for our country. Millions of Americans are struggling in this tough economy, working overtime to pay the bills, find a job, and find a way forward for their families, and they want this Committee to force the federal government to make similar sacrifices without the red hot partisanship and brinksmanship of the last months.

“Every member of Congress knows the importance of getting our fiscal house in order.  We hear every day about the importance of ensuring our country is strong for generations to come, and we look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to address these issues in a balanced, pragmatic and practical way.  This is not going to be easy. Our challenge is to find common ground without damaging anyone’s principles.  We believe we can get there.  This Committee was designed to require bipartisanship, and we are going to work hard with our Republican colleagues to attain it. We know Americans will stand by us if we work together to tackle our debt and deficit and help get our economy back on track.

“This Committee has to tackle the urgent challenge we face today, but it’s also about what we want our country to look like 10 years from now, 20 years from now, and for generations to come. Americans are demanding leadership, and we are going to work hard to deliver it.”

The JSC was originally conceived by Senator Reid during the negotiations that led to passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Act created the JSC to devise a long-term approach to reducing our nation’s deficit. The bipartisan, bicameral committee will be comprised of 12 members, 6 from each Chamber, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. The JSC is charged with developing legislation to achieve at least $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by Thanksgiving. The committee has been given broad leeway to examine all areas for deficit reduction, and its legislation will be given expedited consideration, with a guaranteed up-or-down vote in the Senate before Christmas.

Senator Reid issued the following statement regarding the appointments:

“The Joint Select Committee has been charged with forging the balanced, bipartisan approach to deficit reduction that the American people, the markets and rating agencies like Standard and Poor’s are demanding. To achieve that goal, I have appointed three senators who each posses an expertise in budget matters, a commitment to a balanced approach and a track record of forging bipartisan consensus.

“I have great faith in Senator Murray as the co-chair of the committee. Her years of experience on the Senate Budget and Appropriations committees have given her a depth of knowledge on budget issues, and demonstrated her ability to work across party lines. Senators Baucus and Kerry are two of the Senate’s most respected and experienced legislators. Their legislative accomplishments are matched only by their records of forging strong bonds with their Republican colleagues.

“As the events of the past week have made clear, the world is watching the work of this committee. I am confident that Senators Murray, Baucus and Kerry will bring the thoughtfulness, bipartisanship, and commitment to a balanced approach that will produce the best outcome for the American people.”

Today the House will consider legislation that would force the nation to default on our financial obligations for the first time in history unless Congress adopts a radical new constitutional amendment.

That amendment would impose arbitrary, reckless budget caps that would – without a doubt – force massive cuts to Medicare, Social Security and other crucial benefits. At the same time, it would constitutionally protect wasteful loopholes and tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

To meet an arbitrary spending cap frozen at 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product, it would shrink benefits and services back to levels not seen since 1966. In 1966, Medicare was one year old and there were 100 million fewer people in this country.

For those who think rewinding 45 years is a good thing, consider how much America has changed since 1966. For example, life expectancy is 9 years longer today than it was 45 years ago.

Medicare has allowed Americans to live longer, healthier lives. This legislation would roll back that progress.

And it would enshrine in the Constitution a set of priorities so backward, even Republican advisors to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have called it unwise.

In the first decade alone, it would mean more than $3,000 a year in cuts to each senior’s Social Security check. It would slash our social safety net, decimating Medicaid and cutting Medicare benefits by $2,500 for every senior.

In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that within 25 years, it will slash government benefits and services in half. That includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits and every other government service, no matter how essential.

Yet it would make it almost impossible to end even the most wasteful tax breaks and loopholes already in place, such as handouts to oil companies making record profits, corporations that ship jobs overseas, and rich people who buy yachts or and private jets. It would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress to raise even a penny of new revenue.

Meanwhile, it does absolutely nothing to protect our economy from the kind of recession from which we are beginning to recover. In fact, if the economy wasn’t already in a recession, experts say this legislation would quickly produce one.

Bruce Bartlett, an economic advisor to President Reagan and a Treasury official under President Bush, said the kind of rapid spending cuts called for in this House legislation would “unquestionably throw the economy into recession.”

This legislation goes beyond the draconian budget that Republicans passed earlier this year. That budget would have ended Medicare as we know it. It would also have cut clean energy by 70%, axed education funding and cost hundreds of thousands of private-sector jobs.

This is worse. It would attack all the same programs, but its cuts would be deeper. And it would slash Social Security as well.

This legislation is so restrictive, Republicans’ own budget – the budget they passed this year – would not meet its standards.

It is so restrictive, not one year of either the George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan administrations would meet its standards.

Of the last 30 years, the only two years that would make the cut were during the Clinton administration.

As the Washington Post said, “Every single Senate Republican has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would’ve made Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policy unconstitutional. That’s how far to the right the modern GOP has swung.”

Bruce Bartlett, the economic advisor to Reagan, said this about the legislation:

“This is quite possibly the stupidest constitutional amendment I think I have ever seen. It looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.”

And that, in my opinion, is being awfully hard on the interns.

Bill Hoagland, a budget advisor to Republican Congressional leaders for 25 years, described it best when he labeled this legislation a “misleading political cheap shot.”

A balanced budget is something we can all get behind. But this legislation isn’t really about balancing the budget. It’s about scoring political points.

But based on 30 years of evidence and Republicans’ own measuring stick, the stunt falls flat.

After all, who do you think helped President Clinton balance the budget during the only two years of the last 30 that actually lived up to the restrictive rules outlined in this legislation? It was Democrats in Congress.

Today, Democrats are trying to rein in spending again. We’re also trying to avert a catastrophic default on our nation’s financial obligations.

Republicans are the ones standing in the way of a deal to avert default, refusing to move an inch despite our offers to cut trillions from the deficit.

As conservative columnist Ross Douthat wrote in the New York Times yesterday, we could already be on the way to a deal if, “more Republicans had only recognized that sometimes a well-chosen concession can be the better part of valor.”

McConnell Said No to All Forms of Revenue. “President Barack Obama stepped back into deficit-reduction talks Monday, only to be greeted by a double-barrel blast from Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who peremptorily rejected any deal that would include the added revenues Obama wants together with spending cuts. McConnell’s meeting with the president stretched more than an hour, but even before the two men sat down together, the Kentucky Republican had delivered a toughly worded speech on the Senate floor and posted an opinion piece on CNN.com demanding that ‘tax hikes’ come off the table.”  [Politico, 6/27/11]

McConnell: “Talking About Tax Revenue Not Helpful.” [AP, 6/26/11]

…AND NOW HIS CAUCUS IS SAWING IT OFF.

Cornyn Open to Revenues in Debt Limit Deal. “When asked about Democratic leaders’ demands that tax breaks be eliminated to raise billions of dollars in additional revenue, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the subject should at least be up for consideration in the debt limit talks. ‘I think the president’s own fiscal commission pointed out that there’s a lot of money being used in tax expenditures. I think we ought to get them all out on the table and look at them and see which ones make sense,’ he said. Cornyn, who heads the Senate GOP campaign organization, indicated that he was at least open to closing some tax breaks without requiring that the revenue raised be offset with spending cuts elsewhere. ‘I would tell you that I think that would be a fruitful area for discussion.’”  [CQ Today, 6/28/11]

Graham Get Rid of Subsidies and Pay off the Debt. On “Meet the Press” Graham said, “No one on the Republican side is going to vote to raise taxes, but I think many of us would look at flattening the tax code, doing away with deductions and exemptions and take that revenue and help pay off the debt.  One way to do this is to do away ethanol subsidy and a bunch of other subsides that go to a few people, take that money back into the federal Treasury and pay off the debt.”  [Meet the Press, 6/19/11]

Senator Alexander Called Now “A Good Time To Take a Hard Look At Unwarranted Tax Breaks” “ Schumer pointed to Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) as a Republican who wants to reduce the deficit by ending permanent tax breaks that favor particular industries. ‘At a time when we are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend, it is a good time to take a hard look at unwarranted tax breaks, and one appropriate use of those funds is to reduce the deficit,’ Alexander said Thursday.” [The Hill, 6/17/11]

Senator Johanns Said “We’re Looking at Everything Now” “More than two-thirds of senators voted to immediately end an existing 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit for blending ethanol in gasoline that expires at the end of the year. ‘I think we’re looking at everything now,’ said Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns, a former governor and George W. Bush-era agriculture secretary. ‘Trying to figure out what to do with the budget has caused us all to come to grips with some things we’ve supported in the past, all of us.’” [Politico, 6/17/11]

Senator Coburn Said The Vote To End Tax Subsidies “Should Send A Good Signal” To The Biden Talks. “The vote could also have implications for deficit reduction talks Vice President Joe Biden is leading with bipartisan congressional leaders. ‘It should send a good signal,’ Coburn told reporters. ‘We’ve got to do what’s in the best interest of the country, not what’s in the best interest of special interest groups.’” [Politico, 6/17/11]

Senator Coats Said It’s Entirely Appropriate To End Niche Tax Subsidies. According to The Hill, “Coats says it’s entirely appropriate to end niche tax subsidies, or what he calls tax expenditures, to reduce the deficit. He said the thinking has changed since the 2010 election. Before then, he said, the assumption was that money saved from ending tax breaks would be spent on other federal programs.” [The Hill, 6/17/11]

Senator Kyl Said “Revenues Have Never Been Off The Table.” According to Roll Call, Senator Kyl said “Revenues have never been off the table.”  [Roll Call, 6/28/11]

Washington, D.C.–Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today on the Senate floor regarding Republicans’ willingness to risk our economy to protect tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jets. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Yesterday I sat down with the President to talk about how to avoid a default crisis that would be black mark on this country’s reputation.

If we fail to avert this crisis, it would be the first time in our nation’s history that we have defaulted on our financial obligations. And it would send shock waves through the global economy.

I’m not the only one saying that. The most respected voices in the business and financial community are saying the same thing. Default would be awful.

Business leaders, economists, bank executives, credit rating agencies and even a Republican advisor to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush have used some very serious words to describe the kind of crisis defaulting on our debt would cause.

The word many have used is “catastrophe.”

Warren Buffett said allowing the United States to default on its debt would be Congress’ “most asinine act” ever.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said a failure to avert default would have “catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades.”

Failure to avert this crisis would have dire consequences. It would result in the most serious financial crisis this country has ever faced. Millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Social Security checks could stop. So could paychecks to our troops.

So, what could be so important that my Republicans colleagues are willing to put our economy at such dire risk? What could be worth walking away from the negotiating table? Tax breaks for wealthy oil companies and corporate jets.

Republicans have gone to the mat for Big Oil – fighting again and again to preserve wasteful taxpayer-funded giveaways to companies that made $32 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year alone. And Republicans walked away from the negotiating table to save tax breaks for corporate jets.

So, which big industries and special interests will they fight for next? Oil companies? Companies that ship jobs overseas? Corporate jets?

If they were truly serious about reducing the deficit, they would admit this kind of waste must end.

Yet some top Senate Republicans say eliminating these subsidies shouldn’t even be part of the discussion as we find a way to reduce the deficit and avoid a catastrophic default.

Several rank-and-file Senate Republicans have said handouts to oil and gas companies and other wasteful tax breaks should be on the table as we negotiate. And 34 Republicans endorsed the view that ending taxpayer giveaways should be part of the solution when they voted to eliminate subsidies for ethanol.

It seems Republicans can’t even agree among themselves whether subsidies and giveaways are sacrosanct.

The one thing they can agree on: they’re willing to balance the budget on the backs of seniors instead. They’re willing to end Medicare as we know it. They’re willing to slash Medicaid, jeopardizing coverage for 80 percent of American seniors in nursing homes.

Republicans’ priorities are clear. They’re also dead wrong.

Democrats know we need to make difficult spending cuts to reduce our deficit. But to dig ourselves out of this financial hole, we must also create jobs to spur our economy. And we must break the cycle of wasteful giveaways – not break our promise to seniors.

The junior Senator from South Carolina, a Republican, threatened that any Republican who votes to avert a default crisis will be “gone” – voted out in a wave of Tea Party anger. This kind of inflammatory language is irresponsible. There is simply too much at stake.

Also, he didn’t mention that 235 Republicans in the House and 40 in the Senate – including the junior Senator from South Carolina – have already voted to increase our debt this year. Their ideological budget would have increased the debt by more than 60 percent over the next 10 years. That’s nearly $9 trillion in a decade.

And what did Americans get for their $9 trillion? A plan that ends Medicare as we know it. A plan that would slash Medicaid, jeopardizing coverage for 80 percent of American seniors in nursing homes. A plan that protects tax breaks for billionaires and oil companies while putting millions of seniors at risk.

The psychologist Alfred Adler once said that “it is easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them.” Republicans shouted loudly and repeatedly about reducing the debt. Then they gave us 9 trillion reasons not to trust their rhetoric.

The time for empty rhetoric is over. Now it is time for my Republican colleagues to put the good of our economy ahead of their own good politics.

 
TRUE: Kyl Says GOP’s Own Budget Increases National Debt By Trillions of Dollars. “The Ryan Budget That Passed The House and that most of us on the Republican side voted for over here adds $5 trillion to the debt over the next ten years.”  [Kyl Floor Statement, 6/27/11]

• House GOP Budget Would Raise the Debt By More Than 60%, to $23.1 Trillion. The federal debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion. Under the House Republican budget, the amount of public debt subject to the limit would be $23.1 trillion in Fiscal Year 2021, meaning the GOP plan forces an $8.8 trillion in additional debt – an increase of more than 60% – over ten years. [H. Con. Res. 34 (Page 5); Los Angeles Times, 4/15/11]
• LA Times: ‘Do House Republicans Realize They Just Endorsed a Higher Debt Limit?’“As far as I could tell, no amendments were offered to reduce the levels of spending outlined in the budget to hold that level of debt at or below $14.3 trillion. So, I guess that means Republicans won’t object to raising the current debt ceiling within the next few weeks so that the federal government can honor the commitments it has already made?” [Los Angeles Times, 4/15/11]

FALSE: Kyl Says GOP’s Budget Increases National Debt By Only $5 Trillion. “The Ryan Budget That Passed The House and that most of us on the Republican side voted for over here adds $5 trillion to the debt over the next ten years.”  [Kyl Floor Statement, 6/27/11]

• GOP Budget Called For Almost $9 Trillion Worth of Debt Limit Increases Over the Next Ten Years. [H. Con. Res. 34]

Republicans’ Reckless Plan Would Jeopardize Seniors’ Current Benefits and Double Their Out-of-Pocket Costs, Leaving Them At The Mercy Of Private Insurance Companies

In Letter to Vice President Biden, Senators Bill Nelson, Cardin, Brown, McCaskill and Tester Urge “Unwavering Opposition” to Medicare-Ending Proposal During Deficit Discussions

Washington, DC— Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Jon Tester (D-MT) today called for Republicans to take the House-passed plan to dismantle Medicare off the table in bipartisan deficit reduction talks. In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, who is leading these discussions, the senators urged the administration to continue to oppose any GOP efforts to insert their plan to dismantle Medicare into a deficit reduction package.

“As the working group moves beyond areas of consensus and into parts of the budget that will require the toughest choices, we wish to identify in advance one proposal that we cannot support in any form—the House-passed plan to dismantle Medicare,” the senators wrote.

“For the good of the nation’s seniors, it must remain off the table,” the senators continued.

Despite the public’s overwhelming rejection of the GOP proposal to dismantle Medicare, many Republican leaders are insisting that the plan be part of a package to lower the debt.  House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan recently declared that the plan to dismantle Medicare is “part of the debt ceiling talks.” And last week, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell echoed that it is “on the table.”  Further, the House majority recently reaffirmed its commitment to this plan through the adoption of a rule that declares the House-passed budget shall have “force and effect.”

Numerous reports have revealed the devastating impact the GOP’s Medicare-ending budget would have on the nation’s seniors.  Across the country, the GOP’s reckless plan would cost 2 million private sector jobs over the next five years and increase seniors’ out-of-pocket health care costs by $6,359 in 2022 – more than double what they would otherwise pay.  Analyses also show that starting next year if the GOP plan is law, nearly four million seniors nationwide will be forced to pay $2.2 billion more in prescription drug costs, and at least one million seniors will have to pay more than $110 million more for annual wellness visits in 2012.

The senators called the GOP plan to end Medicare unacceptable, saying: “Our nation’s seniors are not responsible for the fiscal challenges we face, and they should not be responsible for shouldering the burden of reducing our deficits.”

A copy of the letter appears below.

The White House

Vice President Joe Biden

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

First Floor, West Wing

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Vice President Biden,

It has come to our attention that the bipartisan working group you are leading is making considerable progress in identifying ways to reduce the deficit. We are encouraged by the progress being made in these negotiations and stand ready to work with you towards the passage of a responsible deficit reduction package that will set our nation on a healthy fiscal course.

But as the working group moves beyond areas of consensus and into parts of the budget that will require the toughest choices, we wish to identify in advance one proposal that we cannot support in any form—the House-passed plan to dismantle Medicare.

As you know, the House-passed budget would end Medicare as we know it by destroying the guaranteed-benefit system and instead requiring seniors to enter the private insurance market. Despite the public’s overwhelming rejection of this proposal, and even after the Senate vote against it, many top congressional leaders are now saying they want the plan included as part of a package to reduce the deficit. Just last week, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan declared that the plan to dismantle Medicare is “part of the debt ceiling talks.” Then on Sunday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell echoed that it is “on the table.”

This proposal would never pass Congress on its own, and it does not belong in a larger deal either. It would be devastating for America’s seniors, who would see their out-of-pocket costs for health care double and the benefits they currently enjoy jeopardized.  Under this risky proposal, insurance company bureaucrats would decide what care seniors get.

We are aware the administration has rejected this proposal since its passage by the House, and we applaud your efforts to educate the American people about its serious implications. We encourage you to remain unwavering in opposition to this scheme. For the good of the nation’s seniors, it must remain off the table.

We share the goal of ensuring the long-term health of Medicare. We hope to identify delivery system reforms and other sources of savings that can extend the life of Medicare in its current form. But we will never allow any effort to dismantle the program and force benefit cuts upon seniors under the guise of deficit reduction.  Our nation’s seniors are not responsible for the fiscal challenges we face, and they should not be responsible for shouldering the burden of reducing our deficits.

Thank you again for your leadership in these budget talks and for your continued work standing up on behalf of the nation’s seniors.

Sincerely,

Senator Bill Nelson

Senator Ben Cardin

Senator Sherrod Brown

Senator Claire McCaskill

Senator Jon Tester

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

“Republicans are holding the United States’ credit hostage to ram through their plan to end Medicare. They are now saying they won’t accept any plan to reduce the deficit unless it also cuts Medicare. Voters have resoundingly rejected this ideological agenda. Republicans should drop it and move on.”

###

McConnell: I Won’t Agree To Raise The Debt Limit Without Medicare Cuts

Brian Beutler | May 27, 2011, 12:17PM

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says substantial Medicare cuts must be part of a spending and deficit cut package to get his support to raise the debt limit.

In a Capitol briefing with reporters Friday, McConnell declared affirmatively that unspecified Medicare cuts are on the table in bipartisan debt limit negotiations, led by Vice President Joe Biden, and, he expects, will be part of the solution. But in response to a question from TPM, he went further than he has in the past in laying down a marker on that issue. Medicare cuts must be part of that deal to get his support — even if negotiators manage to find trillions of dollars in savings elsewhere, even if his other priorities are met.

“To get my vote, for me, it’s going to take short term [cuts, via spending caps]… Both medium and long-term, entitlements.,” McConnell said. “Medicare will be part of the solution.”

To clarify, I asked “To clarify, if [the Biden group] comes up with big cuts, trillions of dollars worth of cuts, but without substantially addressing Medicare, it won’t get your vote?”

“Correct,” McConnell said.

That’s not a filibuster threat, but it is a clear indication of what the GOP is demanding in private deliberations. McConnell repeatedly cited Bill Clinton and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, who this week acknowledged — as have many Democrats — that resolving the long-term deficit problem will require addressing Medicare. Hoyer in particular said that Medicare will be on the table in current debt negotiations, and with revenues off the table — that means they’re talking politically dangerous cuts. And for Republicans, that’s the point.

Here’s how McConnell described it, in response to a different question about the political cost to Republicans of having voted already to privatize Medicare.

“I think the 2012 election will take care of itself — it’s about a year and a half from now,” he said. “I would think that we will hopefully have done something significant in this area by then, and the American people can decide whether they want to punish both sides for having done that, because it will take both sides to do it. It will come out of the conversations that are going on now led by the Vice President.”

Of course, not all Medicare cuts are created equal, and Medicare spending can be reduced without necessarily cutting seniors’ benefits. But the idea here is clear: if the country’s to avoid defaulting on its debt, there has to be a bipartisan vote to cut Medicare. And the hope for McConnell and the GOP is that this will obscure the test vote they took on phasing the program out entirely.

The question now is whether Democrats will be on board with this, or whether they’ll try to call the GOP’s bluff.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/mcconnell-medicare-must-be-cut-to-raise-debt-limit.php

…But That Just Isn’t True. The GOP Plan to end Medicare Would Re-Open the Donut Hole, Forcing Millions of Seniors to Pay More for Prescription Drugs From Day One.

Nationwide, nearly four million seniors would pay $2.2 billion more for prescription drugs in 2012 alone under the Republican plan.  [DPCC Report]

In Nebraska, more than 28,000 seniors would pay $16 million more for prescription drugs in 2012 alone under the Republican plan.  [DPCC Report]

The Republican plan could force at least 6,200 Nebraska seniors to pay over $660,500 more for annual wellness visits in 2012. [DPCC Report]

This vote is about more than public policy.  It is about priorities.  It is about whether we hold fast to our values, or break our promises.

There is a lot wrong with the House Republican budget on which each Senator is about to cast a vote.  But among the most irresponsible and indefensible ideas in it is the radical plan to end Medicare as we know it.

Doing so would break a solemn promise between our society and our seniors.  It’s a promise that for more than four decades has saved seniors from poverty, illness and worse.

The promise of Medicare is this: if you work hard and contribute, America will make sure you are protected in retirement from the hardships of affording health care.

The Republican budget would break this promise.  It would make life significantly more difficult and painful for America’s seniors.  It’s as simple and as serious as that.

The Republican plan would kill Medicare.  Even the conservative Wall Street Journal admitted this – even if most Republican Senators still refuse to face this reality.

Here’s what it would do: It would turn over seniors’ health to profit-hungry insurance companies.  It would let bureaucrats decide what tests and treatments seniors get.  And it would ask seniors to pay more for their health care – charging every senior $6,000 more every year – in exchange for fewer benefits.  That’s a bad deal all around.

Those voting for this Republican plan would be forcing seniors in Nevada to pay more than twice as much as they pay today in out-of-pocket costs.

Those voting for the Republican plan to kill Medicare would be voting to re-open the doughnut hole that we closed to help seniors afford expensive prescription drugs.  Opening the doughnut hole would send drug prices through the roof, costing 27,000 Nevada seniors thousands of dollars between now and the year 2020.

Those voting for the Republican plan to kill Medicare would also be forcing our seniors to pay almost a million dollars more for annual wellness visits.  They would make it harder for seniors to access nursing homes and long-term care, and would make at least 34 million more Americans uninsured.

The Republican plan to kill Medicare was written in the name of saving money.  But it costs seniors so much money, that it doesn’t even do that.  One study found that seniors would spend $14 more for every dollar the government saves.  That’s not effective economics – and it’s certainly not worth endangering the health of our seniors.

The Republican plan to kill Medicare is a plan that tries to balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors.  That is a clear window into the other party’s priorities.  While it asks seniors pay more and more, it allows the wealthiest to pay less and less.  It gives even more tax breaks to those who need it the least: oil companies, billionaires and multinational companies that ship jobs overseas.

It comes down to this: The Republican plan to kill Medicare is a plan to make the rich richer and the sick sicker.

A well-worn metaphor characterizes the Senate as a saucer – as the deliberative body that cools the intense heat and occasional zeal of the House of Representatives.  In voting today down the radical Republican House-passed plan to end Medicare – in keeping our nation’s priorities straight and keeping our promise to our seniors – we are bringing our Founding Fathers’ image to life.

Arizona Republic (AZ): Anthem Audience Challenges Quayle During Presentation On Medicare. “U.S. Rep. Ben Quayle had finished a Power Point presentation on the national debt this week when members of the audience started a running commentary and flashing signs that read ‘Hands off our Medicare.’ About 225 people filed into the Fellowship Church in Anthem on Monday to hear about a $14.3 trillion budget shortfall and ways to resolve it. The gathering quickly turned into a sort of political rally, with people arguing with the freshman lawmaker who represents Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District, which includes Phoenix, Scottsdale and Paradise Valley.” LINK

The Palm Beach Post (FL):At Town Hall Meetings, Critics Confront GOP Rep. West Over Medicare Cuts. “The shouting began before U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, uttered a word at his town hall meeting here Tuesday afternoon. ‘Where are the jobs?’ a man yelled from the audience as West was about to begin a slide presentation. … Democrats and their allies have turned up the volume at town halls across the U.S. since the Republican-controlled House voted to change Medicare for those now 54 and younger from a fee-for-service program to one in which the government provides subsidies for seniors to buy private insurance plans.” LINK

The Vancouver Columbian (WA): Crowd Pulls Few Punches At Herrera Beutler Town Hall. “Several hundred people showed up at Skyview High School for the session. They passed a couple dozen protesters near the entrance who hoisted signs saying, ‘Save Medicare: Tax the Rich’ and ‘People not Profits.’ Several supporters of Planned Parenthood wore pink T-shirts to protest Herrera Beutler’s vote to end federal funding of family planning services. … when she insisted that the Republican budget blueprint for 2012 ‘protects Medicare,’ a chorus of boos and catcalls and shouts of “liar” erupted in the auditorium. ” LINK

Ocean City Today (MD): Rep. Harris Told GOP Plan “Will Kill Medicare As We Know It.” “The auditorium was filled with senior citizens concerned about Medicare and, as with the numerous town hall meetings of 2009, the crowd reached pitched debate on health care issues. George Benton of West Ocean City was concerned about the costs for future generations and that costs could increase for existing beneficiaries within several years. ‘The Paul Ryan bill will kill Medicare as we know it,’ argued Benton. ‘These good people want their tax dollars to go toward their grandchildrens’ costs. We’ve been borrowing all this money from China to pay for the Iraq War and for Bush-era tax cuts on the wealthy.’” LINK

Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV): Heck Town Hall Meeting Sparks Passions. “The crowd didn’t just argue with Republican Rep. Joe Heck at a town hall meeting in Boulder City on Wednesday. The 50 people in attendance often shouted at each other, indifferent to whether the Republican federal budget Heck was there to discuss would hurt or help Medicare and the job market.” LINK

Associated Press(MN): Freshman Rep. Cravaack Defends Medicare Vote. “Terry Bell, 62, of Cambridge, criticized the slides for being inaccurate. He asked Cravaack to point out the last time Republicans produced a balanced budget. ‘Your party has added to the deficit ever since the Ford administration,’ Bell said. ‘The only time you get the least bit concerned is when the Democratic Party gets in.’” LINK

Connecticut Post (CT): Seniors Express Fear Over Possible Medicare Changes. “James Marbury has been through a lot in his 84 years. He fought in the Korean War. When he came home from fighting, Marbury, who is black, experienced rampant racism, not being allowed in certain restaurants and being forced to use a separate YMCA from his white peers. With all he’s experienced, he feels that he and other seniors have earned the right to certain protections in their old age, such as the reassurance that they’ll be able to get affordable health care whenever they need it.” LINK

KSAZ Fox News (AZ): Congressman Quayle Takes Heat for Medicare Decision. “Monday night at a town meeting in Anthem, it was Ben Quayle who got beat up a bit while meeting with his constituents. Many people in the crowd were fired up about his stance on the proposed changes to the Medicare system. Quayle favors the Republican plan which would give seniors vouchers to buy health insurance on the private market.” LINK

South Florida Sun Sentinel (FL): Rep. Allen West Faces Tough Questions At Town Hall In Pompano Beach. “Plenty were hostile. For example, one asserted that the House Republican plan to change Medicare ‘is obviously not something Americans want. Even Republicans have been backing off of this unpopular plan.’” LINK

WBFB ABC News (FL): Congressman’s Meeting Interrupted By Shouting. “Another town hall meeting organized by U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, devolved into a shouting match Monday night. About 100 people came to hear the congressman speak. Police escorted one person out of the meeting.  … ‘I didn’t agree with his explanation about Medicare. I’m very concerned about cutting Medicare and changing Medicare without looking at the revenue side,’ resident Dave King said.” LINK

Duluth News Tribune (MN): Sparks Fly In Cravaack’s Visit To Iron Range. “But it was clear that most in the audience, a diverse mixture of active and retired union members, small-business owners, visible DFL supporters and people who were busy drawing on one or more of those entitlement programs, had come to ask more specific questions or simply raise their own talking points. It wasn’t far into Cravaack’s slide show presentation — he jokingly called it ‘death by PowerPoint’ — that people began jumping in. … After the meeting, Reeths said Cravaack seemed to be ‘toeing the party line,’ he said. ‘So far, I haven’t seen any points where he’s willing to step away from the party line and say he supports some compromise; that’s very disappointing.’” LINK

Associated Press (WA): Lively Vancouver Town Hall For Jaime Herrera Beutler. “the Camas Republican fielded sometimes hostile questions about her vote to restructure Medicare and her reluctance to support raising the federal debt limit… Protesters near the entrance held signs saying, ‘Save Medicare: Tax the Rich’ and ‘People not Profits.’ Several supporters of Planned Parenthood wore pink T-shirts to protest Herrera Beutler’s vote to end federal funding of family planning services.” LINK

ThinkProgress: Rep. Webster Threatens To Kick Out Town Hall Constituent For Asking About Raising Corporate Taxes. “The town hall backlash that began last month over the Republican plan to end Medicare and extend tax breaks for the wealthy is showing no signs of abating. Rep. Dan Webster (R-FL) encountered many angry constituents Tuesday night during a town hall meeting outside Orlando. Attendees repeatedly admonished Webster for his support of the Ryan budget and pleaded with him to do more to ensure corporations pay their fair share in taxes.” LINK

From Day One, Republicans’ Reckless Plan Will Force Millions of Seniors to Pay More for Prescription Drugs and Wellness Visits

New Interactive State-by-State Map, With Data, Can Be Found at http://democrats.senate.gov/gop-budget/

Washington, DC— The Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC) today released national and state-by-state data revealing the devastating effect the Republicans’ Medicare-ending budget would have on the economy and seniors’ health care costs.  Across the country, the GOP’s reckless plan would cost 2 million private sector jobs over the next five years and increase seniors’ out-of-pocket health care costs by $6,359 in 2022 – more than double what they would otherwise pay.

The report also shows that starting next year if the GOP plan is law, nearly four million seniors nationwide will be forced to pay $2.2 billion more in prescription drug costs, and at least one million seniors will have to pay over $110 million more for annual wellness visits in 2012.  The Republican budget could also cut more than $503 billion in federal health care funding for seniors and the disabled through Medicaid, including life-saving nursing home coverage.

The DPCC national report and state-by-state breakdown can be found here.  Earlier today, the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), chaired by Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), released a state-by-state report detailing how the GOP budget will more than double seniors’ out-of-pocket costs by 2022.  That analysis can be found here.

Report Highlights:

• The Republican plan to end Medicare will increase out-of-pocket health care costs for a typical 65 year-old senior by $6,359 in 2022 – more than double the cost under current law.

• The Republican plan could force at least one million seniors to pay over $110 million more for annual wellness visits in 2012.

• Nationwide, nearly four million seniors would pay $2.2 billion more for prescription drugs in 2012 alone under the Republican plan.

• By turning Medicaid into a block grant program, the Republican plan could cost America more than two million private-sector jobs over the next five years.

• Nationwide, the Republican plan could cut more than $503 billion in federal health care funding for seniors and the disabled through Medicaid, including life-saving nursing home care.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a typical 65-year-old Medicare beneficiary in 2022 would see their out-of-pocket health care costs increase from $6,154 to $12,513 under the Republican budget.  Using that data along with cost-sharing data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the JEC has estimated out-of-pocket costs on a state-by-state basis.  While the increase varies by state, residents in all states will see their out-of-pocket expenses more than double when they turn 65 in 2022.  Residents in Florida face the largest increase –$7,383.

The report also shows that current Medicare beneficiaries will be harmed by the GOP budget, immediately losing preventive services such as mammograms and facing higher prescription drug costs.

“This new JEC analysis helps to fill in the picture on just how disastrous and costly the Republican Medicare plan is for our older Americans,” said Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Chairman of the JEC.  “If Republicans have their way, traditional Medicare will no longer exist in 2022.   Instead, our elderly will get a voucher to purchase private insurance, but the voucher won’t keep pace with health care costs.   The result would be a staggering increase in out-of-pocket costs beginning in 2022.  In my state of Pennsylvania, someone turning 65 in 2022 would face a $6,300 increase in their health care expenses.  Our elderly Americans cannot afford to have their health care expenses double, but that’s exactly what the Republican plan delivers.”

The increased out-of-pocket costs result from older Americans bearing a larger share of health care costs under the Republican plan and the increase in total health care costs that results from shifting from traditional Medicare to a less efficient, more expensive voucher program.

“The Republican Medicare plan doesn’t rein in health care costs,” continued Casey.  “Instead, it simply shifts the costs onto the backs of our elderly.  The Republican ‘solution’ is providing our elderly with dramatically higher costs and less care.   Current beneficiaries will suffer and the next generation will face retirement without Medicare and without the peace of mind it offers.”

Current Medicare beneficiaries will lose key benefits under the GOP budget, the report notes.  The Republican plan reopens the donut hole – the gap in Medicare Part D that had forced beneficiaries to pay 100 percent of their drug costs after they exceeded an initial coverage limit and until they qualified for catastrophic coverage.  Additionally, the Republican plan eliminates the free annual wellness exam beneficiaries currently receive and forces older citizens to pay for preventive services such as mammograms.

Please click here for the state-by-state breakdown of the increase in out-of-pocket health care costs.

###

The Joint Economic Committee, established under the Employment Act of 1946, was created by Congress to review economic conditions and to analyze the effectiveness of economic policy.

www.jec.senate.gov

WASHINGTON, DC—House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on Wednesday became the latest and highest-ranking Republican so far to dismiss the looming threat of a U.S. default as no big deal, joining a chorus of Republicans who continue to downplay the fallout of a default as they seek leverage to impose their plan for ending Medicare.

“House Republicans are so fixated on imposing their plan to end Medicare as we know it that they are trying to wish away what every credit market analyst says would be an utter catastrophe for our economy,” U.S. Senator Charles E.Schumer said.

A round-up of recent Republican statements denying the consequences of a default appears below.

UPPING ANTE IN BID TO END MEDICARE, HOUSE GOP DENIES DEFAULT WOULD COUNT AS CRISIS

Washington Post; “Cantor is latest Republican to dismiss importance of debt-ceiling deadline for financial markets.” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in Richmond Wednesday that financial markets watching discussions over raising the nation’s debt limit are looking to see progress on cutting spending in Washington — rather than a resolution of negotiations by any deadline.  ‘What I think is that the markets are looking to see credible progress on changing the fiscal trajectory in Washington,’ Cantor said, after a job forum for local business executives at Virginia Commonwealth University. ‘The markets are not fooled by some date imposed to say that that is the trigger for the collapse.” [Washington Post, 5/18/11]

More Than One Hundred House and Senate GOPers Have Signed Onto Bill to Prioritize Payments of Debt Over All Other Spending, Including Troop Pay and Social Security. “Almost 100 House members and 22 senators have since signed onto Toomey’s Full Faith and Credit Act, which would require Treasury to first make interest payments on the debt. The bargaining positions of congressional Republican leaders have hardened. And the philosophy taking hold among conservatives is that if the country tips into a default, Geithner is to blame, not Republicans who held out for a better deal.”  [Politico, 5/17/11]

Toomey Not Worried About Negative Effects on Social Security Recipients or The Economy If Republicans Force Default. “Andy Sullivan of Reuters asked Toomey if he worried it ‘would push the country back into recession if, for example, we have to suspend Social Security payments.’ Toomey wasn’t worried. ‘I don’t think it’s going to have an adverse impact on the economy in the days, weeks or perhaps even months that this would continue,’ he said, allowing that ‘this is not an optimal arrangement indefinitely.’”  [Washington Post, 5/18/11]

·         Toomey: “I want to say categorically that is absolutely false: Failure to raise the debt limit upon the deadline submitted by the Treasury Secretary does not equate to a default on our debt at all.” [Washington Post, 5/18/11]

·         Toomey A US Default Would be not be a “Catastrophe.” “They acknowledge the administration will need to make deep and painful spending cuts but argue that Geithner can avert default if he prioritizes which bills to pay. It would be more like a partial government shutdown, Toomey said.   “That’s disruptive; that’s not optimal,” Toomey conceded in an interview. ‘But it’s not a financial crisis. It’s not a default on our debt. It’s not a catastrophe. It’s a disruption.’” [Politico, 5/17/11]

Republican Study Committee Chair Jim Jordan: “Keeping the debt ceiling at its current level would force Congress to prioritize spending, but it would not force a default on our debt.  The only thing forcing a default would be Treasury Secretary [Timothy] Geithner allowing such a catastrophe to take place.”  [Washington Post, 5/16/11]

Arizona Rep. David Schweikert: “The one acting like his hair is on fire is Mr. Geithner.  It’s absolutely silly. We have plenty of cash flow to pay debt, which means I’m trying to figure out how credibly the administration can keep using that language.”  [Politico, 5/17/11]

Millions of Seniors In “Donut-Hole” Would Pay over $9,300 more for Rx Drugs by 2020

Senate Dems Release New National And State-by-State Report on Increased Cost Current Enrollees Would Face in Coming Years Under Republican Budget

Washington, DC— Today, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) revealed the immediate and devastating impact the extreme House Republicans’ budget plan would have on at least four million seniors across the country.  The Republican budget would reopen the prescription drug donut hole, costing each of the four million seniors who fall into the coverage gap up to $9,300 by 2020.  In total, it would cost seniors $44 billion in prescription drug costs over this time period, including $2.2 billion next year alone.  It would also force at least one million seniors and people with disabilities to pay over $110 million more for their annual wellness visits in 2012.

The Senators released a state-by-state report detailing the number of seniors who would be thrown back into the prescription drug donut hole, the additional costs seniors would pay for prescription drugs, and the number of Medicare enrollees who would pay more for their annual wellness visit under the Republican budget [LINK].

“There’s a right way to preserve Medicare, and that’s by improving it,” Secretary Sebelius said. “President Obama has begun to do just that. The Republican plan would end Medicare as we know it and impose significant costs on today’s seniors and tomorrow’s seniors. That is clearly the wrong way.”

“Since passing their reckless budget plan, Republicans have continued to make the false claim that their plan protects Medicare benefits for seniors – this is simply not true,” Senator Rockefeller said.  “Medicaid is just as important for seniors as Medicare and Social Security, and we ought to be asking Republicans why they want to slash our country’s only long-term care program.”

“The Ryan budget jeopardizes women’s health at all stages of life – it is devastating to seniors, women of child-bearing age, and even children,” Senator Mikulski said. “It continues the assault on women that House Republicans began in H.R. 1. It decimates Medicare and Medicaid, but gives a bailout to rich insurance companies. This budget is so ridiculous that it’s hard to take seriously, but I know they are serious. And I’m serious about stopping them.”

“The Republican budget would pull the rug out from under seniors in order to finance extra tax cuts for millionaires,” Senator Brown said. “If enacted, seniors would see their prescription drug costs explode and would lose access to no-cost annual wellness visits and preventive care. It would hand an $89 million prescription drug tab to split among 159,000 Ohio seniors in the first year alone. Meanwhile, seniors would see an end to Medicare as we know it through privatization. They would be handed vouchers that wouldn’t cover the cost of the health services they count on – doubling their out-of-pocket costs in the first year alone.”

“With Rhode Island seniors struggling to keep up with rising costs at the pharmacy, grocery store, and gas pump, this is not the time to tamper with Medicare by reopening the doughnut hole and taking away access to free preventive screenings,” Senator Whitehouse said.  “I will stand strong against efforts to increase the out-of-pocket health expenses of Rhode Island seniors.”

The Republican budget would also require that seniors pay deductibles, co-insurance, and copayments for many preventive services currently covered by Medicare, including mammograms; colorectal, cervical and prostate cancer screening; cholesterol and other cardiovascular screenings; diabetes screening and flu shots.

Background:

Under the Republican Plan, Nearly Four Million Seniors Will Be Forced to Pay $2.2 Billion More for Prescription Drugs in 2012. The Republican budget would “reopen” the prescription drug donut hole and cost the average senior who falls into the coverage gap approximately $9,300 between 2012 and 2020. Over that time, the Republican budget will cost seniors an estimated $44 billion in prescription drug costs, including $2.2 billion next year alone.  [HHS, 11/4/10; CBO, 3/18/11]

Under The Republican Plan, At Least One Million Seniors and People With Disabilities Will Pay Over $110 Million More For Their Annual Wellness Visits In 2012. At least 1,000,000 seniors are expected to see their physician for an annual wellness visit in 2012. These visits are critical to positive health outcomes for seniors across the country. As a result of the Republican plan, these seniors would each pay an additional $160 for the first visit and $105 for a subsequent visit. [HHS, 3/16/11; Kaiser State Health Facts, accessed on 5/5/11]

All Seniors Enrolled In Medicare Will Be Forced to Pay More for Health Care Services Under the Republican Plan. The Republican plan will require that seniors pay deductibles, co-insurance, and copayments for many preventive services currently covered by Medicare; including cancer screenings such as mammograms and colonoscopies as well as annual wellness visits. Seniors could be forced to pay for many other health services that Medicare currently covers free of charge to the patient, including mammograms; colorectal, cervical and prostate cancer screening; cholesterol and other cardiovascular screenings; diabetes screening and flu shots. [HHS, 11/4/10]

“Imagine there’s a choice Congress has to make.  We’re standing before two doors, and have to pick one.  Behind door number one is a choice the Chairman of the Federal Reserve calls ‘catastrophic.’

“The Secretary of the Treasury says that if we open that same door, it could lead to a financial crisis ‘more severe than the crisis from which we are only now starting to recover.’

“And the majority of the American people we represent say opening that door would be ‘disastrous.’  Not just a bad idea, not one that would lead to discomfort – but one that would lead to disaster.

“It wouldn’t be just irresponsible to make that choice.  We would be out of our minds.

“Well, we’re going to have to make up our minds sooner rather than later.  That’s because today, America has hit a milestone, but it isn’t one anyone’s celebrating.  Today is the day we hit our debt limit, which means we’ve reached the maximum amount the United States is allowed to borrow.

“It means that with each passing day, we’re that much closer to the disaster that would come from defaulting on our debts – the day we would forfeit, for the first time ever, the full faith and credit of the United States.

“This is the crisis Chairman Bernanke called ‘catastrophic,’ what Secretary Geithner warned would make the Great Recession look small, and what the American people demand we avoid.

“Defaulting on our obligations would be unprecedented.  But it’s not unavoidable.  We can be responsible leaders and choose to open the other door.  It might not be ideal, but we have to make a choice.  And door number two is a much better, safer and smarter choice.

“Let’s be clear about what the debt limit does and doesn’t mean.  Raising the debt limit when it’s absolutely necessary – and right now, it is – lets us pay the bills that have already come due.

“We borrow a lot of money in this country.  That’s not a new phenomenon, or unique to one party.  It’s how America has done business for centuries.  And borrowing a lot of money means we owe a lot of money.  We cannot cut off our own ability to pay those debts.

“Here’s what it doesn’t mean.  The emergency we enter today isn’t about a penny of new spending.  It’s not about new programs or new taxes.  It’s not about creating new obligations, only meeting existing ones.  The debt limit is about paying what we already owe.

“If we don’t act – if we allow the United States to default – the day of reckoning will be much, much worse than today.  Things will be much, much worse for Americans jobs, families and businesses than they already are.  And the fallout will be felt around the world.

“Right now, a lot of people are reaching for that first door – the one that leads to catastrophe and crisis.  They’re looking at this choice through a political lens, not an economic lens.  And they’re willing to risk the strength of our economy just to make a political point.

“We can’t afford to play these political games and trigger a default crisis that would lead to catastrophe.  We can’t afford to make unrealistic demands or hold hostage policies that affect real people.

“Speaker Boehner recently asked everyone to act like adults and reach a solution.  I second that request.  Let’s open the second door, and honor our obligations.

“Once we avert this crisis, we can have another important, adult conversation – a conversation about saving money.

“One good way to do that – not the only way, but a good, easy, obvious way – is to cut wasteful spending.  Taxpayer giveaways to companies pulling in record profits are the epitome of wasteful spending.

“We all know which companies I’m talking about – the five biggest oil and gas companies.  It’s time to take away incentives that they don’t need and we can’t afford.

“That’s the question that will come before the Senate this week.  It’s a question of fairness.

“The bonus checks taxpayers are writing to Big Oil are absurd and obscene.  They defy common sense.

“Big Oil isn’t hurting.  It doesn’t need a hand.  In the first three months of this year, the oil industry made $36 billion in profits alone.  Not revenues – profits.  That’s $12 billion a month.  That’s $3 billion a week.  That’s pretty good money.

“Meanwhile, the American taxpayer is giving these same successful companies $4 billion a year.

“So when you take these companies’ profits and add in the handout you, me and every taxpayer gives them, America is saying to Big Oil: You make $3 billion a week for 52 weeks, and we’ll basically give you a 53^rd week for free.

“But what about the average American taxpayer – the one who’s footing the bill for this Big Oil bonus?  ExxonMobil now pays a smaller share of its income in taxes than the average taxpayer.

“This isn’t because the average American is paying more in taxes – it’s because Big Oil is paying less.

“Over the last four years, since Democrats have controlled the Senate, we’ve cut taxes for middle-class families nine different times.  The Democratic Senate has passed a trillion-and-a-half dollars in tax cuts.  And now families pay less in federal taxes as a share of the economy since 1950, when Harry Truman was President.

“So this is a question of fairness – it’s about Big Oil paying its fair share.

“It’s also a question of priorities.  The people who want to keep giving their Big Oil buddies four billion taxpayer dollars a year are the same ones who want to take the social safety net away from the sick, seniors and the poor.  These people kick and scream about investing in cancer research, or protecting student loans that help so many afford the rising costs of college.

“But ask them to recognize the absurdity of giving Big Oil taxpayer money it doesn’t need, and they cover their eyes and plug their ears.  Ask them to defend it, and they can’t do it.

“That’s what happened last week.  The nation watched the Big Oil bosses try to defend it.  Frankly, they didn’t do a very good job.  It’s not their fault for doing so poorly – they were trying to defend an indefensible position.  But I do hold him responsible for holding that position.

“So this is a question of fairness and a question of priorities.  It’s certainly a question of economics.  But it is not a question of gas prices.

“Independent, nonpartisan experts – and even some of the CEOs themselves – say taking away these giveaways doesn’t have a thing to do with the price at the pump.  Anyone who claims otherwise is simply not telling the truth.

“Those distractions are disruptive to this debate.  So are gratuitous attacks on the patriotism of the debaters.

“One of these companies, ConocoPhillips, said using taxpayer money to pay down the deficit rather than pad Big Oil’s pockets was ‘un-American.’  That’s ConocoPhillips’ word, not mine.

“Attacking another’s patriotism has no place in this debate.  It’s offensive that this company has done that, and shameful that its CEO refuses to recant it or apologize for it.

“I disagree strongly with his position on this issue.  I disagree with his claim that only one side of this debate loves its country.  I question his sense of fairness, and I question his priorities.  But I don’t question his patriotism.  He shouldn’t question mine.”

STATEMENT FROM SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER:

“The Speaker is entitled to his own opinions about how to reduce our debt, but not his own facts. We will never cure what ails our economy

if the Republicans keep misdiagnosing the problem because of their ideological blinders.”

WHAT THEY’RE SAYING ABOUT BOEHNER SPEECH …

Washington Post: Boehner’s Remarks Undergirded By a “Incoherent, Impervious-to-Fact Economic Philosophy.” “Even more alarming, because it has consequences beyond the debt-ceiling debate, is the incoherent, impervious-to-facts economic philosophy undergirding Boehner’s remarks…Listening to Boehner, I began to think the country suffers from two deficits: the gap between spending and revenue, and the one between reality and ideology. The first cannot be solved unless we find some way of at least narrowing the second.”  [Washington Post, Marcus Column, 5/10/11]

New York Times: Boehner Speech Devoid of Accurate Diagnosis or Rigorous Prescriptions for the Debt Issue. “Even before the White House and the Republicans began talks on the debt limit, John Boehner made clear that he was looking for a political fight, not a compromise. There is no way to solve the country’s fiscal ills without an accurate diagnosis and rigorous prescriptions for a cure. Mr. Boehner’s speech was devoid of both… [Boehner’s argument] makes no economic sense.” [New York Times, Editorial, 5/10/11]

Bloomberg: Boehner’s Views on Economy Contradicted by Studies.  “House Speaker John Boehner, giving Wall Street leaders his prescriptions for growing the U.S. economy and reducing the nation’s debt, built his case on several assertions that are contradicted by market indicators and government reports.”  [Bloomberg, 5/11/11]

BOEHNER’S RHETORIC VS. REALITY

Boehner Rhetoric:

“We’re calling for an end to the government spending binge that is crowding out private investment and threatening the availability of capital needed for job creation.” [Boehner Speech, 5/9/11]

Reality:

Business Investment Up Over 15 Percent in 2010 and up over 11 Percent in First Quarter of 2011. [Bloomberg, 5/11/11]

Economist: Very Hard to Come to a Conclusion That There’s Any Kind of Crowding Out. Nariman Behravesh, chief economist of IHS Inc., a research firm based in Englewood, Colorado  said, “Look at interest rates. Look at capital spending.  It’s very hard to come to a conclusion that there’s any kind of crowding out.”  [Bloomberg, 5/11/11]

Boehner Rhetoric:

“The recent stimulus spending binge hurt our economy and hampered private sector job creation in America.”  [Boehner Speech, 5/9/11]

Reality:

Non Partisan Congressional Budget Office: The Bipartisan American Recovery and Reinvestment Act…

·         Raised GDP by up to 3.5 Percent.

·         Decreased Unemployment Rate by up to 1.9 Percentage Points.

·         Increased the Number of Employed People by up to 3.5 million.

·         Increased the Number of Jobs by up to 5 Million Than Otherwise Would Have Been Created. [CBO, 2/23/11]]

BLS 2.1 million Jobs Created Since February 2009. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5/6/11]

Boehner Rhetoric:

“It’s possible to make changes in a way that will ensure future beneficiaries will have access to the same kinds of options as Members of Congress currently have.  The budget put forth by our Budget Committee Chairman, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, accomplishes this.” [Boehner Speech, 5/9/11]

Reality: CBO Projection: GOP Plan Covers Seniors’ Health Benefits at Less Than Half the Amount They Cover for Members of Congress. “The CBO projected in an April 5 report that under the Republican plan, by 2030 the government would pay 32 percent of the health-care costs of a typical 65-year-old. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s benefit handbook says the government pays as much as 75 percent of the health-care costs of federal workers, including members of Congress.”  [Bloomberg, 5/11/11; CBO, 4/5/11]

STATEMENT FROM SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER:

“The Speaker is entitled to his own opinions about how to reduce our debt, but not his own facts. We will never cure what ails our economy

if the Republicans keep misdiagnosing the problem because of their ideological blinders.”

WHAT THEY’RE SAYING ABOUT BOEHNER SPEECH …

Washington Post: Boehner’s Remarks Undergirded By a “Incoherent, Impervious-to-Fact Economic Philosophy.” “Even more alarming, because it has consequences beyond the debt-ceiling debate, is the incoherent, impervious-to-facts economic philosophy undergirding Boehner’s remarks…Listening to Boehner, I began to think the country suffers from two deficits: the gap between spending and revenue, and the one between reality and ideology. The first cannot be solved unless we find some way of at least narrowing the second.”  [Washington Post, Marcus Column, 5/10/11]

New York Times: Boehner Speech Devoid of Accurate Diagnosis or Rigorous Prescriptions for the Debt Issue. “Even before the White House and the Republicans began talks on the debt limit, John Boehner made clear that he was looking for a political fight, not a compromise. There is no way to solve the country’s fiscal ills without an accurate diagnosis and rigorous prescriptions for a cure. Mr. Boehner’s speech was devoid of both… [Boehner’s argument] makes no economic sense.” [New York Times, Editorial, 5/10/11]

Bloomberg: Boehner’s Views on Economy Contradicted by Studies.  “House Speaker John Boehner, giving Wall Street leaders his prescriptions for growing the U.S. economy and reducing the nation’s debt, built his case on several assertions that are contradicted by market indicators and government reports.”  [Bloomberg, 5/11/11]

BOEHNER’S RHETORIC VS. REALITY

Boehner Rhetoric:

“We’re calling for an end to the government spending binge that is crowding out private investment and threatening the availability of capital needed for job creation.” [Boehner Speech, 5/9/11]

Reality:

Business Investment Up Over 15 Percent in 2010 and up over 11 Percent in First Quarter of 2011. [Bloomberg, 5/11/11]

Economist: Very Hard to Come to a Conclusion That There’s Any Kind of Crowding Out. Nariman Behravesh, chief economist of IHS Inc., a research firm based in Englewood, Colorado  said, “Look at interest rates. Look at capital spending.  It’s very hard to come to a conclusion that there’s any kind of crowding out.”  [Bloomberg, 5/11/11]

Boehner Rhetoric:

“The recent stimulus spending binge hurt our economy and hampered private sector job creation in America.”  [Boehner Speech, 5/9/11]

Reality:

Non Partisan Congressional Budget Office: The Bipartisan American Recovery and Reinvestment Act…

·         Raised GDP by up to 3.5 Percent.

·         Decreased Unemployment Rate by up to 1.9 Percentage Points.

·         Increased the Number of Employed People by up to 3.5 million.

·         Increased the Number of Jobs by up to 5 Million Than Otherwise Would Have Been Created. [CBO, 2/23/11]]

BLS 2.1 million Jobs Created Since February 2009. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5/6/11]

Boehner Rhetoric:

“It’s possible to make changes in a way that will ensure future beneficiaries will have access to the same kinds of options as Members of Congress currently have.  The budget put forth by our Budget Committee Chairman, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, accomplishes this.” [Boehner Speech, 5/9/11]

Reality: CBO Projection: GOP Plan Covers Seniors’ Health Benefits at Less Than Half the Amount They Cover for Members of Congress. “The CBO projected in an April 5 report that under the Republican plan, by 2030 the government would pay 32 percent of the health-care costs of a typical 65-year-old. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s benefit handbook says the government pays as much as 75 percent of the health-care costs of federal workers, including members of Congress.”  [Bloomberg, 5/11/11; CBO, 4/5/11]

Money Saved Would Reduce The Deficit By Tens of Billions

Washington, DC—Nevada Senator Harry Reid and New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez today sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to Senate Republicans asking them to cosponsor legislation that would reduce the deficit by ending wasteful taxpayer handouts to big oil companies making record profits while American families pay $4 at the pump.

The bill would eliminate more than $21 billion in subsidies for the five largest, most profitable oil companies in the world. Some Republicans have publicly expressed a willingness to consider supporting legislation to cut wasteful subsidies for oil companies.

“It is encouraging that some Republicans have publicly expressed a willingness to consider supporting legislation to cut wasteful subsidies for oil companies and we look forward to working with all of you to lower the deficit,” the Senators wrote. “If we are to truly address our national debt, we will all have to tighten our belts and make sacrifices – even the most wealthy and powerful among us… The Big 5 oil companies have made nearly $1 trillion in profits in the last decade – and more than $30 billion of that in the first three months of this year alone. At the same time, many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, find a job, or fill their gas tanks with $4 per gallon gasoline. We simply cannot solve our budget problems by asking working class families to shoulder the burden alone.”

Full text of the letter is below:

Dear Colleague:

We are writing to ask that you consider cosponsoring S. 940, legislation we introduced this week to eliminate more than $21 billion in oil subsidies for the five largest, most profitable oil companies in the world.  It is encouraging that some Republicans have publicly expressed a willingness to consider supporting legislation to cut wasteful subsidies for oil companies and we look forward to working with all of you to lower the deficit.

If we are to truly address our national debt, we will all have to tighten our belts and make sacrifices – even the most wealthy and powerful among us.  The Big 5 oil companies have made nearly $1 trillion in profits in the last decade – and more than $30 billion of that in the first three months of this year alone.  At the same time, many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, find a job, or fill their gas tanks with $4 per gallon gasoline.  We simply cannot solve our budget problems by asking working class families to shoulder the burden alone.

Some have claimed that cutting $2 billion in annual oil subsidies to the Big 5 oil companies will somehow make oil and gasoline more expensive.  We all know this argument is false.  If we just compare the $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the projected $125 billion in profits the Big 5 oil companies are expected to make this year, it becomes very clear that repealing these subsidies would be only a small sacrifice for these companies.  If the Big 5 oil companies could live with just $123 billion in profits, they could pay their fair share in taxes, help lower the deficit, and not raise the price of gasoline.

Thank you for taking the time to consider cosponsoring our bill to eliminate more than $21 billion in oil subsidies for the Big 5 oil companies.  Please do not hesitate to contact either of us or our staff if you have any questions.  We look forward to working with you to lower the deficit in an equitable and effective manner.

Sincerely,

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Senator Robert Menendez

Schumer: GOP Tried To Throw Medicare Privatization Plan Overboard But It Is An Anchor Still Tied Around Their Ankles

WASHINGTON, DC—Earlier this week, there were reports that House Republicans might remove their plan to end Medicare from their budget proposal. But Republicans in both the House and Senate quickly defended the original plan, which would end Medicare as we know it and double out-of-pocket costs for millions of seniors.

“House Republicans tried throwing their Medicare plan overboard, but it is still an anchor tied around their ankles. They may not want to embrace the plan anymore, but they still own it,” U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer said.

Below is a round-up of top Republicans who raced yesterday to double down in support of their plan to privatize Medicare.

Speaker Boehner: Plan to End Medicare “Absolutely Not” Off the Table.Speaker John Boehner tweeted, “Saving Medicare off the table? Absolutely not.” [Boehner Tweet, 5/5/11]

Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s Position “Is the Ryan Budget, Period.” Including Plan to End Medicare. “Eric made very clear that our position is the Ryan budget which — as you know — assumes a debt limit increase and includes Medicare, Medicaid and $715 billion in mandatory savings,” Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring told POLITICO. “Whether the Democrats will agree to the proposals we’ve outlined is yet to be seen, but that is our starting point so we don’t continue to kick the can down the road and make real cuts and real reforms this year.” “To be clear, the Republican position is the Ryan budget, period,” spokeswoman Laena Fallon said in an email to reporters. [Politico, 5/4/11; The Hill, 5/5/11]

Rep. Joe Walsh: “I Would Be Very Disappointed If We Didn’t Follow Through” With Plan to End Medicare. “I would be very disappointed if we didn’t follow through,” said Representative Joe Walsh. “We have spent, gosh, a month or two now trying to educate the American people to a pretty good reception. I appreciate the chairman’s notion, but I would continue to respectfully challenge him to get this thing through committee.” [New York Times, 5/6/11]

Sen. Rob Portman: “It’s Not a Wise Strategy to Be Taking Things Off the Table.” “It’s not a wise strategy to be taking things off the table today before we’ve begun any discussion to find consensus. I would hope that instead of talking about what’s not on the table we’d be talking about how to find consensus,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a former director of the Office of Management and Budget in the George W. Bush administration, told reporters Thursday. [Washington Post, 5/5/11]

Sen. Ron Johnson “Disappointed”If Plan to End Medicare Isn’t in GOP Budget. After it was reported that Medicare would be removed from the Republican plan, Sen. Ron Johnson said he was “disappointed” by the report. [Financial Times, 5/6/11]

Rep. Jeff Flake: “Surprised”to Hear Rumors of GOP Pulling Back on Medicare. “I don’t know how you can continue to exclude entitlement spending,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.), who said he was “surprised to hear the talk of pulling back” GOP expectations. [Wall Street Journal, 5/6/11]

Schumer: GOP Tried To Throw Medicare Privatization Plan Overboard But It Is An Anchor Still Tied Around Their Ankles

WASHINGTON, DC—Earlier this week, there were reports that House Republicans might remove their plan to end Medicare from their budget proposal. But Republicans in both the House and Senate quickly defended the original plan, which would end Medicare as we know it and double out-of-pocket costs for millions of seniors.

“House Republicans tried throwing their Medicare plan overboard, but it is still an anchor tied around their ankles. They may not want to embrace the plan anymore, but they still own it,” U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer said.

Below is a round-up of top Republicans who raced yesterday to double down in support of their plan to privatize Medicare.

Speaker Boehner: Plan to End Medicare “Absolutely Not” Off the Table.Speaker John Boehner tweeted, “Saving Medicare off the table? Absolutely not.” [Boehner Tweet, 5/5/11]

Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s Position “Is the Ryan Budget, Period.” Including Plan to End Medicare. “Eric made very clear that our position is the Ryan budget which — as you know — assumes a debt limit increase and includes Medicare, Medicaid and $715 billion in mandatory savings,” Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring told POLITICO. “Whether the Democrats will agree to the proposals we’ve outlined is yet to be seen, but that is our starting point so we don’t continue to kick the can down the road and make real cuts and real reforms this year.” “To be clear, the Republican position is the Ryan budget, period,” spokeswoman Laena Fallon said in an email to reporters. [Politico, 5/4/11; The Hill, 5/5/11]

Rep. Joe Walsh: “I Would Be Very Disappointed If We Didn’t Follow Through” With Plan to End Medicare. “I would be very disappointed if we didn’t follow through,” said Representative Joe Walsh. “We have spent, gosh, a month or two now trying to educate the American people to a pretty good reception. I appreciate the chairman’s notion, but I would continue to respectfully challenge him to get this thing through committee.” [New York Times, 5/6/11]

Sen. Rob Portman: “It’s Not a Wise Strategy to Be Taking Things Off the Table.” “It’s not a wise strategy to be taking things off the table today before we’ve begun any discussion to find consensus. I would hope that instead of talking about what’s not on the table we’d be talking about how to find consensus,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a former director of the Office of Management and Budget in the George W. Bush administration, told reporters Thursday. [Washington Post, 5/5/11]

Sen. Ron Johnson “Disappointed”If Plan to End Medicare Isn’t in GOP Budget. After it was reported that Medicare would be removed from the Republican plan, Sen. Ron Johnson said he was “disappointed” by the report. [Financial Times, 5/6/11]

Rep. Jeff Flake: “Surprised”to Hear Rumors of GOP Pulling Back on Medicare. “I don’t know how you can continue to exclude entitlement spending,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.), who said he was “surprised to hear the talk of pulling back” GOP expectations. [Wall Street Journal, 5/6/11]

Voters Dislike GOP Plan to Change Medicare, Medicaid

By Patrick O’Connor

Republicans have some selling to do.

Changes to Medicare and Medicaid remain wildly unpopular and more than two-thirds of registered voters want to repeal Bush-era tax cuts for households that make more than $250,000 a year, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll.

More than twice as many voters oppose efforts to change Medicare than those who favor limiting benefits under the popular health-care program for seniors. And a distinct majority opposes new limits on Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor.

What’s worse for the GOP, the numbers don’t change much when voters were told how much federal spending Medicare and Medicaid consume.

Quinnipiac told half of the 1,408 registered voters the university polled that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense spending consume 60% of the budget. The other half weren’t. Among those who were told, 70% opposed efforts to change Medicare, compared with the 75% who weren’t told. For Medicaid, 57% of the first group opposed limits, compared with the 59% of the control group that also opposed changes. The only significant change came on the question of defense spending, with support for cuts increasing by 7% when voters were told how much the government spends on the military.

“So much for the idea that if the public only understood the budget numbers they would be much more amenable to reductions,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of polling at the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Except for defense spending.”

The House Republicans’ budget would turn Medicaid into a system of block grants to the states and transform Medicare from a fee-for-service program to a menu of subsidized private insurance plans for people under the age of 55. Many GOP lawmakers got an earful from their constituents about the budget blueprint during a recently concluded two-week recess.

In addition, 69% of the voters polled favor repealing Bush-era tax breaks on households than earn more than $250,000. Republicans would keep the current rates indefinitely, while President Barack Obama has promised to raise them for people whose income exceeds $250,000.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/04/voters-dislike-gop-plan-to-change-medicare-medicaid/

“After Senate Republican leaders spent weeks embracing House Republicans’ plan to end Medicare to give tax breaks to millionaires, why are they suddenly afraid to vote on it? They’ve already praised this plan to end Medicare as we know it, so they shouldn’t be afraid to put it in the record.”

McConnell Called Ryan Budget A “Serious And Detailed Plan.”In a statement Senator McConnell said: “Today, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan, is releasing a serious and detailed plan for getting our nation’s fiscal house in order. Congressman Ryan’s plan would put us on a path to reducing the national debt. It would strengthen the social safety net so we can keep the promises we’ve made to America’s seniors… It’s my hope that our friends on the other side recognize this effort for what it is — a serious, good-will effort to do something good and necessary for the future of our nation and that, for the good of the nation, they’ll join in the effort at some point before it’s too late.” [McConnell Floor Speech, 4/5/11]

Kyl Praised Ryan Budget, An “Effective Blueprint.” Kyl said in a statement, “House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who authored the budget, believes it could reverse Washington’s trend of spending beyond its means and passing the debt onto our children and grandchildren.  I believe he’s right on target…I think Congressman Ryan’s budget proposal is an effective blueprint for economic growth.” [Kyl Release, 4/11/11]

Scott Brown Praised Ryan Plan. “Brown also praised a budget plan crafted by Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan that would slash federal spending by about $5 trillion over 10 years while revamping health programs for the elderly and poor. Brown credited Ryan’s budget for its fresh approach, adding that it forced Obama to come up with his own spending plan.  ‘I think, ultimately, if you think that if we can do nothing and you think Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are going to be viable in years to come, then you’re wrong,’ said Brown. ‘We need to do something.’”  [Lowell Sun, 4/28/11]

Cornyn Praised Ryan Budget, “Filled a Leadership Void.” In a statement Senator Cornyn said, “Congressman Paul Ryan and the House Republicans stepped up and filled a leadership void that the President and Senate Democrats have steadfastly refused to fill. The House Republican budget proposal speaks directly to the frustrations of the American people and addresses the long-term fiscal challenges that we all know we have to face. Instead of demagoguing this serious proposal, I hope President Obama and Congressional Democrats take this opportunity to engage in a constructive debate to get our nation’s fiscal house back in order.” [Cornyn Release, 4/5/11]

Sessions Called Ryan Plan “Honest, Responsible, Serious.” In an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, Senator Sessions said, “And it’s never easy to make changes, but Hugh, this thing is, we’re in a deeper hole than in ’94. This is a deep hole, and Paul Ryan’s plan is an honest, responsible, serious plan to get us out of this fix.” [Hugh Hewitt Show, 4/7/11]

Johanns: “Ryan Budget Is A Serious Effort.” In a statement, Senator Johanns said, “Chairman Ryan’s budget is a serious attempt to address our ballooning debt in a responsible way, and I applaud his leadership.” [Johanns Release, 4/5/11]

Hatch Said Ryan Plan Put “Serious Ideas On The Table,” Hatch said in a statement,“…Paul Ryan has put serious ideas on the table to reform Medicare and Medicaid, streamline our tax code, cut spending, and confront our debt. He rightly includes a proposal to kick Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac off the government dole, fully repeal the budget-busting $2.6 trillion health law, and extend the 2001 and 2003 tax relief permanently, while reducing our corporate tax rate.” [Hatch Release, 4/5/11]

CNN: Crowd Turns Loud At Town Hall Session For Freshman GOP Rep. “House Republicans back home for congressional recess have been getting some tough questions about plans to overhaul Medicare, but GOP freshman Daniel Webster’s town hall meeting in Orlando, Florida, Tuesday was beyond tough – it turned into a chaotic scene. Webster used charts and graphs to try to explain the controversial House GOP budget he voted for, but he could barely be heard over angry yelling – mostly about the Medicare proposal. As one man held a sign saying ‘keep your hands off my Medicare,’ another woman screamed that the congressman voted to give corporations a tax cut ‘but take away Medicare for people like me.’”  LINK

Washington Post: Republicans Facing Tough Questions Over Medicare Overhaul In Budget Plan. “Anxiety is rising among some Republicans over the party’s embrace of a plan to overhaul Medicare, with GOP lawmakers already starting to face tough questions on the issue at town hall meetings back in their districts. … Democrats, eager to win back the seniors and independents who abandoned the party in last year’s midterm elections, have declared the vote a ‘moment of truth’ and this week launched a media campaign accusing GOP House members of dismantling Medicare and endangering retirees. The assault has taken some Republicans by surprise, prompting concerns that the party is ceding ground in a policy debate that GOP strategists already viewed as perilous.” LINK

USA Today: Republicans In Congress Get Earful On Medicare. “Some Republicans in Congress are getting an earful back home over their votes to dramatically revamp Medicare for seniors. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who proposed changing the federal entitlement into a voucher program, got booed at such a meeting in his district last week. LINK

Los Angeles Times: House Republicans Face Backlash At Home Over Budget Plan. “Congress is on its first recess since Republican leaders unveiled a plan to end the federal deficit by dramatically changing Medicare, cutting other government programs and reducing taxes. With members of the House returning home to meet with constituents, politicians have been anxiously looking for signs of trouble. … A similar argument broke out among voters at a knitting circle in the Southern California district of Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Palm Springs). …’I don’t trust these guys,’ said Barbara Walden, 77. Once Republicans begin ‘stripping away’ Medicare and Medicaid benefits for the younger generation, she said, they will eventually renege on their promise to protect the program for current seniors. ”  LINK

ABC News: Republican Lawmakers Face Angry, Confused Constituents on Medicare, Budget Cuts. “Americans are particularly concerned, and somewhat confused, about the proposal to overhaul Medicare, a central feature of the Wisconsin congressman’s proposal.” LINK

TIME: The Ryan Budget Vote: An Upstream Swim for Charlie Bass. “Bass spent a lot of time at his town hall trying to explain why it’s not, in his characterization, a voucher system. But he didn’t convince Spitzbarth and Loomis. ‘I like Medicare the way it is,’ Spitzbarth told Bass to applause from the audience, ‘don’t screw it up.’”  LINK

National Journal: Republicans In Swing Districts Take Heat For Supporting Ryan’s Medicare Plan. “Republicans who used seniors’ rage over health care changes to sweep into office last fall are now facing the same type of heat over the same issue: Modifications in Medicare and Medicaid. Many who voted for the plan House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., laid out to privatize the programs in future years have been in constituents’ crosshairs during Easter recess town-hall meetings. Others have simply avoided meeting with constituents.” LINK

Politico: Freshmen Feel The Heat Back Home. “Any lawmaker in a swing district can expect to take criticism from his right flank at a town hall meeting. But at an American Veterans outpost tucked deep in the Pocono Mountains this week, freshman Republican Rep. Lou Barletta took heat from every direction — from Democrats angry with the tax cuts in the GOP budget, to conservatives who thought he caved on the last continuing resolution vote, to a precocious 16-year-old critical of the lawmaker’s environmental record.” LINK

Orlando Sentinel: Angry Crowd At Town-Hall Meeting Could Be The Norm For Dan Webster. “A town-hall meeting held in Orlando by U.S. Rep. Dan Webster degenerated into bedlam Tuesday, with members of the crowd shouting down the freshman Republican congressman and yelling at one another.. … Tuesday at the Orange County Agricultural Extension office in Orlando, boos and shouts of ‘liar’ were mixed with angry accusations that Ryan’s plan to change Medicare would leave those now younger than 55 without health insurance in their retirement. There also were calls to eliminate the tax cuts first put in place by then-President George W. Bush and to raise corporate taxes rather than cut entitlement programs.” LINK

Politico: Overflow Crowds For Ryan Town Halls. “Record crowds of supporters and opponents flooded town hall meetings throughout southeastern Wisconsin on Tuesday to hear Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) defend his plan to trim government spending — including controversial changes to the Medicare program. In the district’s Democratic stronghold of Kenosha, at least 200 people were left outside once the 300-seat auditorium filled to capacity. The people in the crowd largely opposed the Ryan plan, holding signs such as ‘RyanCare = Dying Bare,’ ‘Leave Medicare Alone’ or simply, ‘Save Medicare!’ … ‘The problem is, under your program, when you want to give me X amount of dollars, with the insurance companies, the way they operate … if I can’t afford insurance, then where am I going to be?’ asked one 62-year-old woman with a history of cancer who worried she wouldn’t qualify for private insurance coverage under Ryan’s plan.” LINK

Chicago Daily Herald: Dold Faces Tough Questions At Town Hall Meeting. “Fresh off voting for the so-called Paul Ryan budget plan on Friday, newly-elected Congressman Robert Dold returned to Buffalo Grove Saturday where constituents questioned him about several elements of the Republican budget. …But Dold couldn’t even get to the end of the presentation before audience members began peppering him with questions about the Ryan budget, named after House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin. It began with audience members telling Dold they don’t believe chopping 10 percentage points off the highest corporate tax rate will create jobs. A handful of people in the audience identified themselves as business owners and accountants who said their effective corporate income tax rate is already lower than the lowest rates proposed in the Ryan plan.” LINK

Allentown Morning Call: Barletta Town Hall Gets Heated Over Medicare. “Reminiscent of the August 2009 town halls when members of Congress faced angry constituents over health care reforms, a public forum in Carbon County with Rep. Lou Barletta Wednesday night provided a glimpse of the strong emotions stirred by a Republican plan to alter Medicare benefits.” LINK

Huffington Post: GOP Town Halls: Reps Forced To Screen Questions, Duck Out Of Meetings In Secret. “The wave of town hall protests targeting House Republicans, and aided by labor and progressive groups, is forcing lawmakers to put restrictions on the forum’s traditionally open structure. On Tuesday night, Rep. Allen West’s office (R-Fl.) reportedly screened questioners during his town hall event by requiring individuals to fill out index cards which were then vetted by his staff. This was, the Boward County Sun Sentinel noted, different from ‘his usual practice at previous town hall meetings, where West took questions from people who lined up at microphones.’ Separately, House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), who has chosen to publicly broadcast his town hall locations rather than avoid the protests, was forced to leave Tuesday night’s forum in a different car and from a different exit out of security concerns.” LINK

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: Right. Listen, they’re gonna pay their fair share in taxes and they should… We’re in a time when– when the federal government is short on revenues. We need to control spending but we need to have revenues to keep the government movin’. And they oughta be payin’ their fair share

JONATHAN KARL: Well, the President’s proposed doing away with eight– eight different subsidies. This would be about $4 billion a year. You– you think that’s worth doin’?

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: I think we gotta take a look at it.  [ABC News, 4/25/11]

Yet Senate Republican Leaders Have Opposed Repealing Oil and Gas Tax Breaks:

McConnell Called Repeal of Big Oil Company Tax Breaks “Mini-Van Tax.” McConnell said in a floor statement,  “At a time when increasing gas prices are already threatening our economic recovery a minivan tax that some on the other side have proposed won’t solve our nation’s fiscal crisis.”  [McConnell Floor Statement, 3/9/11]

·         McConnell Against Ending Subsidies For Oil Companies, Falsely Claims As A Tax Increase. In a statement McConnell says: “President Obama has proposed raising energy taxes of up to $90 billion over the next 10 years—most of which would be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher gas and electricity prices. The taxes could also slow down domestic oil production, enough to put up to 165,000 jobs in jeopardy over the next 10 years…Republicans have proposed two simple ideas that would provide real relief at the pump. First, we should seriously reform the rules and regulations holding America back from increased domestic energy production. And second, we should block any new regulations that would drive up the costs of energy production.” [Press Release, 4/22/11]

Cornyn In Favor Of Giving Billions In Subsidies To Oil Companies. Business Week reported that Cornyn, “Opposes the President’s efforts to repeal oil- and gas-industry tax breaks.” [Business Week, 4/07/11]

·         John Cornyn Claims Tax Hikes on Big Oil Will Result in Higher Prices Felt at Pump. Senator JOHN CORNYN (Republican, Texas): It may be fashionable to beat up on Big Oil and say, let’s tax the oil companies because they’re making too much money. But you know what, if we raise taxes on the oil companies, we all end up paying an increased price of gasoline at the pump. [NPR, 4/16/08]

House GOP’s ‘Escalating’ Threats On Debt Ceiling Ring Hollow Since Reckless Budget GOP Passed Just Last Week Calls For More and More Borrowing Into Future

HOUSE GOP IS ‘ESCALATING’ THREATS TO NOT RAISE DEBT CEILING …

Politico: ‘Republicans Escalate Demands on Debt Ceiling.’ “One day after being named to a presidential task force to negotiate deficit reduction, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor fired off a stark warning to Democrats that the GOP ‘will not grant their request for a debt limit increase’ without major spending cuts or budget process reforms.” [Politico, 4/20/11]

… BUT, IN AN INCONVENIENT TWIST SURE TO UPSET TEA PARTY, HOUSE GOPBUDGET APPROVED LAST WEEK ALREADY CALLS FOR DEBT LIMIT INCREASES

House GOP Budget Would Raise the Debt Limit By More Than 60%, to $23.1 Trillion.The federal debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion. Under the House Republican budget, the amount of public debt subject to the limit would be $23.1 trillion in Fiscal Year 2021, meaning the GOP plan forces an $8.8 trillion in additional debt – an increase of more than 60% – over ten years. [H. Con. Res. 34 (Page 5); Los Angeles Times, 4/15/11]

LA Times: ‘Do House Republicans Realize They Just Endorsed a Higher Debt Limit?’“As far as I could tell, no amendments were offered to reduce the levels of spending outlined in the budget to hold that level of debt at or below $14.3 trillion. So, I guess that means Republicans won’t object to raising the current debt ceiling within the next few weeks so that the federal government can honor the commitments it has already made?” [Los Angeles Times, 4/15/11]

If They Had Not Changed Their Own Rules, GOP Budget Vote Last Week Would Have Been a Vote to Raise the Debt Limit. “Under House Rule XXVII (commonly referred to as the Gephardt rule after its author, former Representative Richard Gephardt), a joint resolution specifying the amount of the debt limit contained in the budget resolution automatically is engrossed and deemed to have passed the House by the same vote as the conference report on the budget resolution, thereby avoiding a separate vote on the debt-limit legislation.” That means that, under the Gephardt rule, the House Republican budget passed last Friday would have been considered a vote to raise the debt limit. When Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in January 2011, they eliminated the so-called Gephardt rule. [CRS, 6/26/08; Washington Post, 1/5/11]

GOP BUDGET NOT ONLY ENDORSES IMMEDIATE $2T HIKE IN DEBT LIMIT, IT CALLS FOR NEARLY $9T IN INCREASES OVER NEXT DECADE

[H. Con. Res. 34 (Page 5)]

Republican Budget Protects Nearly $44 Billion in Tax Loopholes and Subsidies For Oil and Gas Companies While Forcing Seniors To Pay the Same Amount in Additional Costs for their Prescription Drugs. The Republican budget protects $44 billion in unnecessary and expensive tax breaks and subsidies for oil and gas companies, even as oil companies are reporting record profits. Meanwhile, The Republican proposal would “re-open” the prescription drug donut hole and cost the average senior who falls into the donut hole approximately $11,794 between 2012 and 2020. Over that time, Ryan’s budget will cost seniors an estimated $44 billion in prescription drug costs, including $2.2 billion next year alone.  [Reuters, 2/1/10; OMB, FY12 Budget Proposal; HHS, 11/4/10; DPCC Report, 4/14/11; Republican Budget Proposal, 4/15/11].

Republican Plans To Dismantle Medicare and Provide Tax Giveaways to Big Oil and Gas Companies Extremely Unpopular With Americans. According to a new ABC/Washington Post survey, 84 percent of Americans oppose the Republican plan to privatize Medicare and force seniors to pay twice as much for their health care. Meanwhile, a February 2011 NBC / Wall Street Journal poll found that 74% of Americans support eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries in order to reduce the deficit. [ABC/Washington Post Poll, 4/20/11; NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, February 2011]

Former Big Oil Executive: “Such Subsidies Are Not Necessary.” Large oil companies don’t need tax subsidies when oil prices are high, a former CEO of Shell Oil said in February. “In the face of sustained high oil prices it was not an issue—for large companies—of needing the subsidies to entice us into looking for and producing more oil,” John Hofmeister told National Journal Daily…“The fear of low oil prices drives some companies to say that subsidies should be sustained,” Hofmeister said. “And my point of view is that with high oil prices such subsidies are not necessary.” [National Journal, 2/11/11]

Study: “Oil Production Is Among the Most Heavily Subsidized Businesses.” “An examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process… According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.” [New York Times, 7/4/10]

Biggest Oil Companies’ Profits Continue to Skyrocket. Exxon Mobil reported a 53 percent increase in its fourth-quarter 2010 profit. Exxon Mobil’s profit in the quarter was $9.25 billion compared with $6.05 billion in the period a year ago. Chevron’s fourth-quarter earnings surged 72 percent. Chevron reported a profit of $5.3 billion, up from $3.07 billion a year earlier. Royal Dutch Shell PLC reported that fourth quarter profit more than tripled from a year earlier. Fourth quarter net profit was $6.79 billion, up from $1.96 billion in the same period a year earlier. [New York Times, 1/31/11; Wall Street Journal, 1/28/11; Associated Press, 2/3/11]

Biggest Oil Companies Made Nearly $1 TRILLION in Profits Over the Last 10 Years. The big five oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell—made a total profit of nearly $1 trillion over the past decade. [Center for American Progress, 1/31/11]

“The vote you’ll cast tomorrow presents a clear choice between millionaires and the middle class.  Whose side are you on?

“It will also answer for the country this question: Are Republicans serious about reducing the deficit, or are they going to continue pretending we can do it without asking millionaires, billionaires and corporations to pay their fair share?

“Our federal budget is like any family’s budget in that there are two columns: what we take in and what we spend. We can’t have a serious conversation about balancing the budget until Republicans stop pretending that the ledger has only one side.”

Schumer: Grand Bargain Is ‘Next To Impossible’ If GOP Leaders Dig In On Protecting Millionaire Tax Breaks, Other Giveaways

WASHINGTON, DC—Rank-and-file Republicans are sharply breaking from their party’s leadership to say that any serious approach to tackling the deficit must include raising revenues.

Prior to President Obama’s speech yesterday outlining an “all-of-the-above” approach to deficit reduction, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell both tried to rule out any look at the tax code in the upcoming deficit talks. But this ideological approach to the negotiations has been rejected by several top Republicans who say that any serious deficit reduction effort must include enhanced revenues.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center, said: “A grand bargain on long-term deficit reduction is next to impossible unless we look at raising revenues as well as cutting spending. Republican leaders in Congress will lose credibility on the deficit if they put on ideological straitjackets and dig in their heels on protecting tax breaks for millionaires. Many rank-and-file Republicans who are serious about balancing the budget have said that revenues must be part of the equation, and they are absolutely correct. To rule out revenues right away would mean scuttling any deficit talks before they even begin.”

GOP LAWMAKERS BREAK FROM LEADERSHIP, SAY REVENUES MUST BE ON TABLE

Coburn Supports Raising Taxes If Spending Cut Too. Coburn: “Even though I’ve said we don’t need increased taxes, I’ll take increased taxes if we cut spending. We have to look down the road and solve the problems for everybody, no matter what their label is.” [CSPAN Washington Journal, 11/17/10]

·         Fiscal Conservative Tom Coburn Supported Ending Tax Credits for Ethanol to Reduce Nation’s Debt.  Coburn wrote in a letter to Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, “Continuing to issue blanket defenses of all tax expenditures is a profoundly misguided embrace of progressive, activist government and a strategy for tax complexity, tax deferment, excessive spending and unsustainable deficits.”  [Bloomberg, 3/30/11]

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]

Freshman House Republican Reid Ribble Believes Oil Subsidies Should Be “Looked At” As Way to Reduce Debt. Republican Congressman Reid Ribble said on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal that subsidies to the oil and gas industry should be “looked at.”  When asked for clarification, Ribble’s spokesman said in an email, “America is $14 trillion in debt and as a member of the Budget Committee, Congressman Ribble believes we’ve got to review all our spending priorities.  The Congressman sticks by what he said on C-SPAN. He thinks that all energy subsidies should be thoroughly reviewed in this upcoming budget. He believes energy companies should stand on their own without subsidy. It’s time for these companies to sink or swim in the private sector without handouts from the federal taxpayer.” [CSPAN, 4/8/11; Huffington Post, 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]

New State-By-State Report Outlines Devastating Immediate Impact On Nation’s Seniors—Next Year Alone, Seniors Currently In Donut Hole Would Pay An Additional $2.2 Billion For Prescription Drugs

Senators: ‘Extreme GOP Budget Proposal Would Start Hurting Seniors From Day One’

Washington, D.C. – Today, Senate Democrats released a new report outlining how the House Republicans’ FY2012 budget proposal will begin harming seniors immediately if passed into law.  This contradicts GOP claims that the budget does not affect Medicare for anyone 55 or older.

If the budget—drafted by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI)—is enacted into law, it will cost the average senior who currently falls into the “donut hole” approximately $11,794 between 2012 and 2020, according to a report issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.  In all, Ryan’s budget will cost seniors an estimated $44 billion in prescription drug costs over that period, including $2.2 billion next year alone.  In 2010, approximately 3.7 million seniors fell into the “donut hole.”

“If Congressman Ryan’s budget plan were to be enacted into law, it would immediately hurt senior citizens currently enrolled in Medicare,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Center.  “The oft-repeated talking point that the Republican budget won’t impact current enrollees is simply not true.”

The Republican budget plan would repeal parts of the federal health care law, including measures to close the “donut hole.”  Health reform fixed a deficiency in the Medicare prescription drug program by addressing the gap in Medicare Part D that had forced beneficiaries to pay 100 percent of their drug costs after they exceeded an initial coverage limit and until they qualified for catastrophic coverage. That gap in coverage—which totaled $3,610 in 2010—has existed since the drug benefit’s creation in 2006.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama in March 2010, seniors who get stuck in the “donut hole” will now see the costs of their brand name drugs discounted by 50 percent, phasing out the “donut hole” completely over the next ten years.

The DPPC projections for this report used data from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Click here to download the full state-by-state report (PDF).

20 Million Near-Elderly Will Not Have Medicare When They Retire. Starting in 2022, Medicare will be eliminated for new beneficiaries and converted instead into a voucher program. There are more than 20 million near-elderly Americans who are now ages 50-54 who would not get Medicare when they retire but instead only get a coupon to purchase private health insurance. This approach would transfer control of Medicare to insurers and there would be no guaranteed benefits, essentially ending Medicare. Moreover, the voucher will fail to keep pace with increases in the cost of health care so its value will decline every year, meaning that future seniors won’t be able to get the benefits they need or even end up uninsured. [CBPP, 4/7/2011; Census 2010 data]

CBO: Voucher Proposal Will Double Health Care Costs for Seniors. The voucher will fail to keep pace with increases in the cost of health care. As a result, seniors will be forced to pay higher premiums in order to access the same benefits they would receive under the current system. According to the CBO, a typical senior will spend more than twice as much of his or her own income on health services under the Ryan proposal as compared to the current Medicare system. [CBO, 4/5/11]

Under the Republican Plan, Seniors Will Lose Guaranteed Benefits. Under current law, all seniors have guaranteed access to life-saving health benefits, including screenings for colon cancer, diabetes, and prostate cancer, as well as flu shots. If the Republican plan becomes law, seniors that were eligible for guaranteed health benefits last year could lose their benefits. [Kaiser State Health Facts, accessed on 3/39/11]

Republican Proposal Could Force Seniors to Pay $44 Billion More for Prescription Drugs. The Republican proposal would “reopen” the prescription drug donut hole and cost the average senior who falls into the donut hole approximately $11,794 between 2012 and 2020. Over that time, Ryan’s budget will cost seniors an estimated $44 billion in prescription drug costs, including $2.2 billion next year alone. In 2010, approximately 3.7 million seniors fell into the “Donut Hole.” [HHS, 11/4/10]

CBO: Ryan Plan Means “Most Elderly People Would Pay More For Their Health Care.” In their initial analysis of the Ryan Medicare plan, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office determined, “Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system… Under the proposal, the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the traditional program…That greater burden would require them to reduce their use of health care services, spend less on other goods and services, or save more in advance of retirement than they would under current law.” [CBO, 4/5/11]

“What do you do when you’re scared that the centerpiece of your entire agenda is about to be exposed as a Trojan horse for your real goal of ending Medicare and Social Security to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? You kick and scream and create a diversion, just like Republicans are doing now by criticizing a plan they haven’t even seen yet.

“Democrats are serious about reducing the deficit and protecting seniors’ hard-earned benefits, unlike Republicans who are rejecting the president’s plan without even reading it. Republicans’ shallow, knee-jerk reaction proves that their posturing on the deficit is just an attempt to distract from their bankrupt ideas.”

“The President’s responsible vision for reducing the deficit provides a clear contrast with Republicans’ reckless plan to end Medicare and Social Security. The President’s plan will reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion while protecting seniors on Medicare, and it recognizes that Social Security should be dealt with separately. The Republican plan, on the other hand, uses the shared goal of reducing our deficit as an excuse for slashing seniors’ hard-earned benefits in order to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

“There’s been a lot of talk about shared sacrifice when it comes to cutting spending and reducing the deficit. Republicans believe the sacrifice should fall mainly on seniors and the middle class, while millionaires and big corporations get more tax breaks. As the President made clear, Democrats have a different view. We believe that the responsible approach is to make sure the wealthiest Americans contribute their fair share as we try to bring our fiscal situation back into balance.

“I look forward to sitting down with my colleagues and the President to chart a course to deficit reduction that strengthens the middle class and protects seniors.”

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following statement today on the budget. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

“I’m always moved to hear the Pledge of Allegiance that marks the beginning of a new legislative day in the United States Senate.  On the 150^th anniversary of the start of the Civil War, the words ‘one nation, indivisible,’ mean more today than on most days.  Along with Chaplain Black’s inspired invocation, the Pledge motivates us and reminds us of the true purpose of our work.

“Together, they recall our responsibility to our country, to our countrymen and to our conscience.

“I’m particularly pleased to see the Senate open this morning.  As we all know, last week at this time – and even as recently as a few evenings ago – whether the government would stay open was a very real question.

“As I said here late on Friday night, I’m pleased we reached an agreement on a budget in time to keep the country running.  And I’m pleased that budget will make historic cuts – saving the country money so we can lower our deficit and do a better job of living within our means.

“All indications show that the American people are pleased, as well.  A clear majority of the country is glad we reached an agreement, and they approve of the agreement we made.

“At the beginning of this debate, and throughout the last few weeks, I reminded the Senate that in this negotiation – like in any negotiation – neither side would get everything it wanted.

“From the start, I also expressed my firm belief that what we cut will always be more important than how much we cut.  That is because our nation’s budget is a representation of our values, and of what we value.  It is one of the many ways we demonstrate – as a Congress and as a country – what matters most to us, what is important.

“This concept is not unique to Democrats.  As the Republican Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the House Budget Committee have both said, our budget is a moral document.

“But those following the budget debate have noticed something unmistakable: While both parties may agree, in principle, that a budget is more than simply a collection of numbers, our priorities couldn’t be more different.

“We value Americans’ rights to afford a healthy life.  That’s why we passed historic health reform last year.  But Republicans tried to use the budget to repeal those rights.  We stayed true to our values, and we didn’t let them.

“We value women’s health.  But Republicans tried to use the budget to make it harder for women to get contraception that reduces abortions.  Their budget also tried to make it harder for women to get cancer screenings, and tried to slash funding for cancer research.  We stayed true to our values, and we didn’t let them.

“We also value our seniors’ ability to support themselves.  But Republicans tried to use the budget to slash the Social Security Administration.  That would have meant delays for seniors and disabled Americans who count on the benefits they’ve earned over a lifetime of hard work.  They also tried to use the budget to re-open the doughnut hole, which would have sent seniors’ prescription drug bills skyrocketing.  We stayed true to our values, and we didn’t let them.

“We value our children’s education.  But Republicans tried to use the budget to kick boys and girls out of pre-kindergarten programs, and slash the Pell Grants that help so many students afford college.  We stayed true to our values, and we didn’t let them.

“We value our environment.  But Republicans tried to use the budget to give polluters a free pass to poison the air we breathe and the water we drink.  We stayed true to our values, and we didn’t let them.

“We value our economic security.  But Republicans tried to repeal the promise we made to taxpayers that they will never again be asked to bail out a big bank when that bank loses its risky bets.  They tried to use the budget to reverse the rules we put in place to hold Wall Street accountable.  We stayed true to our values, and we didn’t let them.

“Finally, we value our responsibility to create jobs.  But Republicans also tried to use the budget to reverse the momentum we’ve seen in recent months.  The policies they tried to jam through the budget would have cost us 700,000 jobs, slashed job-training programs and slammed the brakes on our economic growth.  We stayed true to our values, and we didn’t let them.

“There are many more examples in this vast budget – examples of programs Republicans wanted to destroy but that Democrats demanded we protect.  There are many examples where they wanted to cut recklessly and we insisted on cutting responsibly.

“Throughout this debate, we stayed true to our values.  The American people noticed, and they’re glad we did.  By clear majorities, our constituents are glad we stood up for health reform, for women’s health, for cleaner air, and on and on.

“This budget battle has once again illustrated for the American people the fundamental differences between the two parties.  In some cases, our priorities are poles apart.  That’s obvious to the American people – as well it should be.  They are the ones who will always decide which of their representatives’ morals most closely match their own.

“As we work toward finalizing this year’s budget, as we start the conversation about next year’s budget, and as we engage in the many other debates before us, Democrats will continue to insist on policies that reflect and respect our values.”

Schumer: When It Comes To Tackling Rising Medicare Costs, President Did It First—And Did It Better—In Healthcare Law

Senator Says President’s Speech on Deficit Reduction Will Draw Important Contrast with House GOP

Washington, DC—Today, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer said the Senate would never pass the House Republicans’ budget proposal that cuts Medicare and urged the plan’s architect, Congressman Paul Ryan, to go back to the drawing board and pursue a fairer proposal.

“The Ryan budget puts the middle class last instead of first. As a result, it will never pass the Senate,” Schumer said.

Schumer said Medicare is better reformed by pursuing broader changes to the health care delivery system like the healthcare law signed by President Obama last year did.

“If we are serious about reining in Medicare spending, there is a far better starting place than the Ryan budget. It is the healthcare law passed by Congress last year,” Schumer said. “Republicans are patting themselves on the back lately for leading on entitlement reform. But when it comes to reining in the runaway costs of Medicare, the truth is, the President did it first and he did it better.”

Ryan’s budget plan, which is expected to receive a vote in the House this week, would end traditional Medicare and replace it with a voucher system that would force seniors to find private insurance. The savings from the plan would fund tax code changes that would reduce rates on millionaires and billionaires to the lowest level since Herbert Hoover’s presidency.

A full copy of Schumer’s remarks, as prepared for delivery, appears below.

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer

Senate Floor Remarks

April 12, 2011

As Prepared for Delivery

Madam President, I rise to discuss the issue of our budget.

Later this week, the House will vote on its FY2012 budget resolution. Congressman Paul Ryan, the author of that blueprint, calls it the “Path to Prosperity.”

Madam President, it may be a path to austerity, but it is hardly a path to prosperity.

Nonetheless, with negotiations finished just days ago on last year’s budget, Congressman Ryan has succeeded in jumpstarting the debate about next year’s.

The President himself will join this conversation about how best to do long-term deficit reduction in a major address tomorrow at George Washington University.

This is a debate we must have, and the President’s entrance to it comes not a moment too soon. It will make for a powerful contrast with the House Republicans’ plan.

The contrast we will hear from our President tomorrow will likely not be in terms of commitment to deficit reduction. Paul Ryan’s goal in his budget is to trim the deficit by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. He does not succeed in meeting this target, according to CBO—in fact, budget experts say his proposal only achieves $155 billion in deficit reduction—but the number itself is not the issue. Without a doubt, we must be ambitious in setting a target for deficit reduction. We cannot be gun-shy about achieving fiscal discipline.

So no, the contrast will not be about how much we seek to reduce the deficit. It will be about how we go about doing so.

The Republicans would like the looming debate to be one about numbers, but it will instead be one about priorities. And, Madam President, the Ryan budget has all the wrong priorities.

The House Republican budget puts the entire burden of reducing the deficit on senior citizens, students and middle-class families. At the same time, it protects corporate subsidies for oil companies, lets waste at the Pentagon go untouched, and would give even more tax breaks to millionaires.

In short, the Ryan budget puts the middle class last instead of first. As a result, it will never pass the Senate.

In the days since he first rolled out his budget proposal, Congressman Ryan has been hailed for taking on the tough challenges. But a closer look at his proposal shows that it is not bold at all. In leaving Pentagon spending and revenues completely untouched, Ryan’s budget hews exactly to his party’s orthodoxy. It doesn’t gore a single Republican ox. It is a rigid, ideological document.

Consider what Congressman Ryan wants to do on Medicare. In the name of ideology, Paul Ryan’s budget proposes getting rid of Medicare as it exists today and replacing it with a private system that would cut benefits.

Madam President, we’ve seen this movie before. Five years ago, President Bush tried to sell the country on a plan to privatize Social Security. The public rejected it.

Well, if you didn’t like what President Bush tried to do to Social Security, just wait until you see what Paul Ryan and the House Republicans want to do to Medicare.

Their budget plan proposes putting the Medicare system into the hands of private insurance companies. That is a recipe for disaster. It would mean an end to Medicare as we know it.

Beginning in 2022, Americans turning 65 would no longer be enrolled in Medicare, but instead receive a voucher to go shopping for their own health insurance on the open market.

Insurance companies, however, would not be required to honor that voucher, which would average about $8,000. Many private insurance plans for seniors far exceed that price already today. But under the Ryan plan, seniors who cannot find an affordable plan at the value of their voucher will simply have to make up the difference themselves.

This problem would only worsen over time as health care costs rise. Ryan caps Medicare’s spending at the level of inflation even though historically, healthcare costs rise higher than that. As Ryan’s voucher covers a smaller and smaller fraction of actual healthcare costs, seniors would have to cover the gap out-of-pocket.

This is why Alice Rivlin, a Democrat and President Clinton’s former OMB Director who worked with Ryan on his approach for a time, has distanced herself from his final product. She told the Washington Post that she opposes the Ryan plan. She has said: “In the Ryan version, he has lowered the rate of growth and I don’t think that’s defensible. It pushed too much of the cost onto the beneficiaries.”

Other Medicare experts agree with Rivlin. Stephen Zuckerman, a health care economist at the non-partisan Urban Institute said, “The most serious flaw is that the focus of this approach is on limiting federal spending on Medicare, without being concerned about the potential of this change to shift costs to Medicare beneficiaries.”

A better way to rein in Medicare spending would be to trim waste and inefficiency out of the delivery system. But it turns out that Ryan’s plan not only does nothing to reduce overall health care costs, it increases them.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, in 2030, traditional Medicare insurance would cost just 60 percent of a private policy purchased with Ryan’s proposed voucher. In other words, the Ryan health care plan would cost two-thirds more than traditional Medicare.

Not only would the Ryan plan increase insurance costs, it would force seniors to shoulder a higher share of those costs.

CBO said, “Under the proposal, most elderly people who would be entitled to premium support payments would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system.”

How much more, Madam President? It is staggering when you look at the numbers. Under the current system, the average senior on Medicare in 2022 will contribute about 25 percent of the cost of their healthcare. CBO found that under the Ryan plan, the share paid by seniors would go up to 68 percent.

This is a crippling burden that would drive the average Medicare recipient into poverty. It is not only too much to ask of our seniors, it destroys the foundation of our healthcare system.

The bottom line is, the House Republican budget would cause the cost of health insurance to rise, and then would make seniors pay a greater share of that higher cost. It is a cut in benefits, plain and simple.

If we are serious about reining in Medicare spending, there is a far better starting place than the Ryan budget. It is the healthcare law passed by Congress last year.

Republicans are patting themselves on the back lately for leading on entitlement reform. But when it comes to reining in the runaway costs of Medicare, the truth is the President did it first and he did it better.

In the healthcare law, Madam President, we made a good start on reducing waste, inefficiency, and duplication in the system. We started down the path of making delivery system reforms. We set up a system for studying the effectiveness of different methods and treatments so that care could be delivered more efficiently. We made a down payment on shifting the larger healthcare system away from a fee-for-service model towards a system that pays providers for episodes of care.

The Ryan proposal adopts none of these cost-cutting approaches. In fact, his budget calls for the repeal of the healthcare law altogether. Left unsaid is that this would have a side effect of re-opening the donut hole, another hit to Medicare beneficiaries.

Now, if the Ryan budget’s only goal was to end Medicare, that would be ample enough cause to work tooth and nail to defeat it. But the Ryan budget doesn’t even put most of its savings from ending Medicare towards deficit reduction. Instead, it puts the savings towards further tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

That’s right, Madam President. Ryan’s budget not only seeks to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires. He wants to cut their taxes even lower than the Bush levels.

As unbelievable as it sounds, he wants to give millionaires and billionaires an extra tax break.

Ryan’s budget proposal would bring the top rate down from 35 percent to 25 percent. This would make for the lowest level since 1931 when Herbert Hoover was President.

This is the trade Congressman Ryan proposes we make: cut Medicare benefits for seniors so we can afford to give millionaires an extra tax break.

This is the exact opposite of what the public wants. They don’t think millionaires and billionaires should even be getting George Bush’s tax cut, let alone an extra one atop that.

In last month’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that asked Americans what proposals they most support to reduce the deficit, 81 percent of Americans said they would support a tax on millionaires. This was the highest-polling answer. One of the lowest-polling answers was—you guessed it—cutting Medicare benefits. So the Ryan budget has its priorities completely upside down.

Now, you may ask if Congressman Ryan puts all his savings from cutting Medicare into millionaire tax breaks, how does he propose to achieve any deficit reduction?

The answer is, by targeting the programs most important to middle class Americans. It turns out that the Republican plan to end Medicare is also a plan to end other important programs.

For example, the Republican plan to end Medicare is additionally a plan to cut tens of thousands of teachers. And the Republican plan to end Medicare is additionally a plan cut Head Start for kids. The Republican plan to end Medicare is additionally a plan to cut medical research on diseases like cancer. And the Republican plan to end Medicare is additionally a plan to cut clean energy projects that create jobs and help us become energy independent.

In all, the Ryan plan assumes a steady squeezing of government until by 2050, the total cost of everything save for Social Security and health care is shrunk from 12 percent of GDP to just 3 percent.

But he doesn’t spell out a single detail of how to achieve those cuts. He has a number, but no specifics. That is the definition of a meat axe approach as opposed to a smart, sharp scalpel.

But even though Ryan doesn’t spell out where the cuts would come from to meet his goal, it isn’t a total mystery. We can fill in the blanks. The just-completed debate on the FY2011 budget offers plenty of hints what the Republican approach to cutting spending is.

In the budget debate we just had, Republicans wanted to cut the very programs that create good-paying jobs and help the middle class. They targeted everything from cancer research to financial aid for college.

We fended off many of their worst cuts by successfully pushing to include $17 billion in cuts from the mandatory side. We also got them to agree to reduce Pentagon spending by nearly $3 billion compared to their original budget.

This was not the Republicans’ preferred way to reduce the deficit. Because of ideology, they disproportionately targeted the domestic discretionary part of the budget for cutting, even though it only represents only 12 percent of the total budget.

But our deficit problems weren’t caused by Head Start and cancer research, and we won’t fix them by going after Head Start and cancer research. In the budget debates to come, we need to broaden the playing field beyond domestic discretionary spending.

It should include, for instance, waste in the Department of Defense. The Pentagon makes up half of the discretionary side of the budget, but Republicans continue to treat it as off-limits. Ryan himself leaves it virtually untouched, save for a symbolic trim. To say there isn’t waste at the Pentagon like there is waste elsewhere in the budget is absurd.

The bottom line is, any budget that leaves defense and revenues off the table is ultimately not serious. We need an “all of the above” approach that puts all parts of the budget on the table. A dollar cut from mandatory spending or the Pentagon is just as good as a dollar cut from non-defense discretionary spending.

Deficit reduction is an important goal, but the sacrifice must be shared. The Ryan budget fails that test.

This Democratic Senate will not stand for any proposal that seeks to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and seniors.

I look forward to hearing the President’s remarks tomorrow. As for Congressman Ryan, I would encourage him to go back to the drawing board and come up with a fairer, more balanced plan.

Thank you and I yield the floor.

“We have agreed to an historic amount of cuts for the remainder of this fiscal year, as well as a short-term bridge that will give us time to avoid a shutdown while we get that agreement through both houses and to the President. We will cut $78.5 billion below the President’s 2011 budget proposal, and we have reached an agreement on the policy riders.  In the meantime, we will pass a short-term resolution to keep the government running through Thursday.  That short-term bridge will cut the first $2 billion of the total savings.”

Sen. John Ensign: “We Just Have To Look At What We Can Do, What Is Achievable.” According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Ensign said that while he opposes abortion, Republicans ‘have to face reality. The Democrats are in control of the Senate, in the White House. The Democrats will never allow to defund Planned Parenthood while they are in charge.’ ‘We just have to look at what we can do, what is achievable,’ Ensign said, ‘and right now I think one of the biggest moral issues that we face in this country is the debt.’” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 4/8/11]

Sen. Pat Toomey: “There Are Other Bigger Battles We Can Be Fighting.” According to The Hill, “Republicans should ‘move on’ from insisting on defunding Planned Parenthood in a 2011 spending bill, a Republican senator said Friday. With less than 24 hours to go until a shutdown, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) suggested that a rider to defund Planned Parenthood, a key sticking point in reaching an agreement, was expendable. ‘[We] just need to recognize,’ Toomey said on MSNBC. ‘We should aggressively go for everything we can get and move on’ … He said Republicans should be prepared to ‘move on, because there are other bigger battles we can be fighting.’” [The Hill, 4/8/11]

Sen. Johnny Isaakson: “If We Have Some Differences On Policy, Reserve Those On The Debate For The 2012 Budget Appropriations Act And Let’s Get Moving.” “It is time that we got the current agreement and I understand there is one on how much we cut done. If we have some differences on policy, reserve those on the debate for the 2012 budget appropriations act and let’s get moving everybody here — get moving.” [Congressional Record. 4/8/11]

Sen. Ron Johnson: “Get Past This Year’s Budget.” According to Roll Call’s David Drucker, “Tea Party fav Sen Ron Johnson (R-WI):’We need 2 get past this year’s budget & move’ 2 Rep Ryan’s fiscal ’12 budget plan.” [Roll Call, via Twitter, 4/8/11]

Sen. Mark Kirk: “Republicans Should Give On … The Extraneous Policy Riders So That Government Does Not Shut Down.” According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “With a shutdown looming, Illinois Republicans Sen. Mark Kirk and Rep. Mark Dold are on a conference call now–it started after 5 p.m. est–and each said Planned Parenthood should not be 100 percent defunded; Said Kirk, ‘Democrats should give on spending proposals because we need more discipline and Republicans should give on the the extraneous policy riders so that government does not shut down,’ a reference to the House GOP move to defund Planned Parenthood’s women health services. A shut down could still be averted, Kirk said. ‘There is precious little distance between the President and the Speaker over spending,’ Kirk said.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/8/11]

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following statement today regarding budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

“Republicans in the House have a very clear choice to make – and not much time to make it.

“They can keep their word on our agreement to significantly cut the budget and the deficit – or they can shut down America’s government over women’s access to cancer tests.

“If that sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is.

“The federal budget is complex.  This choice should be simple.  A lot of the cuts in our proposal were tough choices.  This choice should be easy.

“We use the word ‘riders’ around here.  Let’s remember what’s really riding on Republicans’ choice:

“If the government shuts down over women’s access to cancer screenings, our fragile economy will reverse its momentum.  In five weeks, our GDP could lose a whole percentage point.

“Our intelligence and diplomatic activities around the world would be damaged – and our image and credibility would be severely hurt.

“Families won’t be able to get home loans.  Small businesses won’t be able to get the loans they need.  Taxpayers won’t get their tax refunds.

“A federal government shutdown doesn’t mean they lock the doors to the Capitol building in Washington.  It has real consequences for everyday Americans all over the country.

“All this to stop women from getting the regular tests and preventative services that could save their lives?  What a terribly sad statement.

“If Speaker Boehner can’t sell that to his fellow Republicans in the next few hours, it will be crystal clear to the American people that Democrats were reasonable and Republicans were responsible for the shutdown.

“The issue here is funding for local health clinics that provide services like cancers tests that save women’s lives and save money down the road by catching diseases that are expensive to treat.

“The fact that Republicans have made this about women’s health – and not about money, or anything controversial – is a shame.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
“I am actively working to defeat it [omnibus]…This bill should not go forward.” [The Hill, 12/14/10]

·         2010: Democrats Passed Eleven FY2011 Appropriations Bills Out of Committee.

·         December 14: Democrats combined these appropriations bills into one bipartisan omnibus spending bill that significantly reduced spending by $20 billion, a level endorsed by a bi-partisan group of Senators.  Incoming Speaker John Boehner, however, launched a campaign to oppose the bill.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined Boehner to block the omnibus: “I am actively working to defeat it. I think there are many Senate members who have provisions in it for their states who are also actively working to defeat it … This bill should not go forward.” [The Hill, 12/14/10]

·         December 16: Republicans ramped up their opposition to the bill and instead offered a short-term extension.

·         December 21: Congress passed a short term continuing resolution funding the government at FY 2010 levels through March 4, 2011.

·         February 3: Republicans Offer A Long-Term Continuing Resolution With $32 Billion In Cuts.  Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers Called The Package “A Responsible, Judicious CR That Will Significantly Reduce Government Spending,” And Budget Committee Paul Ryan Said It Would “Restore Sanity To A Broken Budget Process”

·         February 10: Tea Party Republicans Reject $32 Billion In Cuts, Forced Leadership To Make Deeper Cuts They Knew And Openly Admitted Were Both Dangerous To The Economy And Unlikely To Pass The Senate

Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers: Cutting Any Deeper Than Original House Proposal Could Have “Substantial Consequences.” According to the New York Times, “Mr. Rogers and other Republicans warned that doubling the cuts could have substantial consequences for federal agencies, resulting in layoffs and furloughs of federal law enforcement officers and air traffic controllers, steep cuts in education and medical research programs and major changes at the Food and Drug Administration.”  [New York Times, 2/10/11]

GOP Rep Tom Latham:  Initial $32 Billion in Spending Cuts “Enactable” But Deeper Cuts Unlikely to Fly. According to the Washington Post, “Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa), a senior Appropriations Committee member and close friend of Boehner’s, said Rogers’ initial package was probably ‘enactable’ in a deal with the Senate, where a large number of Democrats face reelection in 2012 from states that voted Republican last fall. Deeper cuts are unlikely to fly, however, Latham said, raising the prospect that Congress will merely extend spending at current levels to keep federal agencies open – denying Republicans a victory on their most important campaign promise.”  [Washington Post, 2/11/11]

·         March 2: Congress Passes A Two-Week Extension Containing $4 Billion In Cuts; White House Enlisted Vice President Biden To Aid In Bipartisan Negotiations.

·         March 3: After A Meeting Between Congressional Leadership And Vice President Biden, Democrats Offered $6.5 Billion In Cuts, Which The Republicans Immediately Rejected.

·         March 9: As Leading Republicans Predicted, The Senate Rejected The Tea-Party-Fueled $61 Billion In Cuts, And Also Rejected Democrats’ $6.5 Billion Counter-Offer.

·         March 15: With The Help Of Democrats, House Republicans Passed A Three-Week Extension That Contained Another $6 Billion In Cuts.

·         March 28: Democrats Offered Another $20 Billion In Cuts.

·         March 30: After Another Meeting With Congressional Leaders, Vice President Biden Confirmed Both Parties Were “Working Off The Same Number” – $33 Billion.

·         March 31: At A Rally, Tea Party Republicans Demanded Deeper Cuts And Controversial Ideological Riders While Chanting “Shut It Down”.

·         April 1: Republicans Waste Valuable Time on a Political Stunt of “Deeming” HR.1 Passed, Delaying a Compromise Measure Even Longer.

·         April 3: Speaker Boehner Ups The Stakes And Demands Cuts That He Can Pass With 218 Republican Votes.

·         April 5: Boehner Changed the Goal Posts Again, Demanding $40 Billion Cuts Instead Of $33 Billion.

·         April 6: Boehner Insists on an Extreme Social Agenda Being Added to Spending bill.

Boehner Says ‘No Daylight’ Between Tea Party And Him. “Speaker of the House John Boehner said he is in lockstep with the Tea Party on budget negotiations despite claims from Democrats that there could be a deal if only he could buck the Tea Party. ‘Listen, there’s no daylight between the Tea Party and me,’ Boehner told me today during our exclusive interview. ‘None?’ I asked. ‘None. What they want is they want us to cut spending. They want us to deal with this crushing debt that’s going to crush the future for our kids and grandkids. There’s no daylight there,’ he said.” [ABC, 4/6/11]

“My wife and I have been married for more than 50 years.  We have one daughter and nine granddaughters.  I love these women.

“One day, one of them may need a cancer screening.  It’s not a pleasant thought, but that’s the reality of life.  Over their lives they’ll also need other tests like cholesterol and blood pressure screenings – tests that are less serious, but just as important.

“They should be able to get the tests that could save their lives.  So should every single woman in America.  I believe that – and frankly, that’s not so controversial of a belief.

“Some women, of course, have doctors.  Others, including many of the poorest among us, do not.  So where do they go to get blood pressure or cholesterol or cancer screenings?

“Thankfully, there is a little-known part of a little-known law that saves many lives.  It’s called Title X, and it’s part of a public health law.  And it means that women and girls can go to their local health department or a community clinic and get these tests.  More than five million women use centers funded by Title X every year.  Five million.

“Some watching us today – and we know the whole world is watching – may be asking why I’m talking about women’s health.  When the question before us is the budget of the biggest economy on the planet, some may ask why we’re talking about this smallest corner of it.

“With a government shutdown looming not weeks away, or days away, but just hours away – why are we talking about whether women can keep getting something as simple and as non-controversial as cancer screenings?

“The answer is that Republicans want to shut down our nation’s government because they want to make it harder for women to get the health services they need.

“And by the way, that does not include abortion.  It is illegal to use federal funds for abortion services.  So anyone who says this debate is over abortion isn’t being truthful.  It is about simple and important health services.

“Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there is nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings?  That is indefensible, and everyone should be outraged – women and men.  Republican leaders in the House have only a few hours left to look in the mirror, snap out of it and realize how positively shameful that would be.

“For months, this conversation has been about billions and trillions of dollars.  It has been about weighty issues and difficult decisions.  This debate used to be about saving money.

“No longer.  We have an agreement on the cuts and savings.  And that agreement includes a historic level of cuts.

“But now the Tea Party is trying to sneak through its extreme social agenda – issues that have nothing to do with funding the government.  They are willing to throw women under the bus, even if it means they’ll shut down the government.

“Their agenda is an extreme agenda.  I don’t agree with their ideas on social policy.  But in our democracy, those ideas, however radical, deserve a debate if they want one.

“But that debate does not belong in an urgent budget bill to keep the country running.  And it especially doesn’t belong here at this late hour.

“The consequences of letting our country’s funding expire would be devastating.  It would be devastating to our troops, to our small businesses and to Americans’ everyday lives – people who just want to get a home loan or get their tax refund or get their paycheck.  It would damage our image and credibility around the world.

“But Republicans are asking me to sacrifice my wife’s health, my daughter’s health and my nine granddaughters’ health.  They’re asking me to sacrifice the health of women in Nevada and across America.  I won’t do it.

“As a legislator, I’m frustrated.  And as an American, I’m appalled.  As a husband, a father and a grandfather, I’m personally offended.”

Senator Susan Collins Supported Title X, Against House GOP Cuts To Program. Collins spokesman Kevin Kelley said, “Sen. Collins is a longtime supporter of the Title X family planning program, and she believes the House’s decision to completely eliminate the funding is unwise, The program has successfully reduced the number of unplanned pregnancies, therefore helping to reduce health care costs. Planned Parenthood receives Title X funding, which is defunded in the Republican spending bill. Planned Parenthood defunding was the subject of a separate amendment to the spending bill sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.).” [Politico, 3/11/11]

Senator Olympia Snowe Called It A “Step Too Far” To Defund Planned Parenthood. Snowe said, “While confronting our serious economic challenges and fiscal realities will require difficult decisions to reach more sustainable levels of government spending, the outright elimination of funding for Planned Parenthood and Title X is a step too far and would have a significant impact on access to the preventive services and screenings that have benefited millions of women nationwide.” [The Hill, 3/27/11]

Senator Mark Kirk Has Always Supported Planned Parenthood. According to theThe Hill newspaper Senator Mark Kirk “has always supported Planned Parenthood and family planning efforts,” when looking at which Senators would not support the Pence Amendment. [The Hill, 3/27/11]

Seven House Republicans Voted Against Pence Amendment. Representatives Charlie Bass, N.H., Judy Biggert, Ill., Mary Bono-Mack, Calif., Charlie Dent, Pa., Robert Dold, Ill., Richard Hanna, N.Y., Rodney Frelinghuysen, N.J. voted against the Pence Amendment to H.R. 1 to defend Planned Parenthood. [Vote 93, 2/18/11]

·         Congressman Bass Said Title X Protects Health Of Woman, Against GOP Cuts. “Bass recently went against the majority of his party with a vote to preserve funding for Title 10 programs, which include Planned Parenthood. Bass was one of seven House Republicans to vote that way, but was on the losing side. ‘Title 10 does a lot of important functions to protect the health of young women in our society and I didn’t think it was appropriate to cut that fund to zero,’ Bass said.” [Keene Sentinel, 2/26/11]

·         Congressman Richard Hanna Called Cuts “Draconian,” Hopes Will be Restored. “You really have to hope that at the end of the day that this was part of the process, and that most of the draconian cuts will be restored as part of a compromise,” Hanna said. ‘I like National Public Radio. I don’t want to cut public television. I didn’t want to cut health care provided through Planned Parenthood.’” [The Post Standard, 2/20/2011]

·         Congressman Dold Called Defunding Planned Parenthood “Shortsighted.” “Dold went so far as to publicly voice his opposition to the Pence amendment on the House floor during last month’s debate, becoming the only one of the Republican dissidents to do so. He said blocking funding for Planned Parenthood would be ‘shortsighted and would negatively impact the lives of women who depend on these health care services.’” [Roll Call, 3/2/11]

·         Congresswoman Bono Mack Said Cutting Funding For Planned Parenthood Is A Big Mistake. Bono Mack said, “The Pence Amendment cuts off federal funding to Planned Parenthood for all services-not just abortions. I believe that is a big mistake and represents a threat to the health of tens of thousands of American women. Breast cancer screenings, pelvic exams, HPV tests and scores of other vitally important health care services-services that save lives-would be unfairly impacted.” [The Daily Best, 3/12/11]

“We’re now 38 hours away from the deadline.  We have fewer than two days to put politics aside, put the American people first and reach an agreement.

“Last night, Speaker Boehner and I met again with the President.  We met for more than an hour and a half.  The meeting was adequate.

“Then we worked through the night – my staff and the President’s people continue to work together.

“We are very close on the numbers.  Our differences are no longer over how much savings to get out of government spending.

“The only thing – the only thing – holding up agreement is that the Republicans are drawing the line on ideology.

“The Republicans are insisting on extraneous restrictions on women’s health in the name of abortion.  They want to roll back the Clean Air Act.

“These matters have no place on a budget bill.  This is a bill to keep the country running.  It is not a family planning bill or an environmental bill.

“The bottom line is this: I can see us sitting down at the negotiating table and coming away with an agreement on numbers.

“But no one can realistically think that we will walk out of a room and suddenly agree to roll back women’s access to health care or protections for the environment.  We will not solve in one night a disagreement this country has been having for four decades.  That’s not realistic.

“Right now, we have to be realistic.  We cannot be distracted by ideology.

“Speaking of distractions, the House is going to pass a short-term stopgap today.  As I said here last night, that is a non-starter in the Senate.

“It’s not just bad policy – it’s fantasy.  We all heard the President say that he won’t accept anything short of a full solution.

“The President is right.  We can’t keep funding the country with one stopgap after another.  The United States of America shouldn’t have to live paycheck to paycheck.”

“We have narrowed the issues, however, we have not yet reached an agreement. We will continue to work through the night to attempt to resolve our remaining differences.”

States Would Lose Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in Support For The Elderly, Families, and Those in Nursing Homes – Would Be Forced to Dramatically Raise Taxes or Cut Benefits

Protecting Tax Breaks for Oil Companies, Millionaires and Billionaires Should Not Be Prioritized Over Seniors and Middle Class Taxpayers

Washington, D.C. – The Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC) today released new state-by-state reports that outline the devastating impact of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget proposal.  The report shows that, on top of ending Medicare, the GOP budget would cut $1.4 trillion in benefits for seniors, families and those in nursing homes, while shifting huge burdens to state governments.  With state governments across the country already cash-strapped, the reduced federal support and increased burdens included in the GOP proposal would require them to drastically slash benefits, increase taxes, or both.  Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit by eliminating wasteful subsidies and combating fraud and abuse in health care programs while protecting Medicaid and Medicare for seniors and families.

“These reports bring home the real world, brutal impact of the GOP’s reckless budget proposal,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Center.  “The GOP budget pulls the rug out from under Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid, and shifts massive burdens to the states at a time when they have their own budget crisis to deal with, forcing them to dramatically raise taxes or cut benefits.”

The state-by-state reports can be found here: http://democrats.senate.gov/gop-medicaid-cuts/

“This debate used to be about saving money. That is no longer the case.

“The Tea Party is trying to push through its extreme social agenda – issues that have nothing to do with funding the government.

“We are very close on the cuts and how we make them.  The only things – I repeat, the only things – holding up an agreement are women’s health and clean air.

“And what’s worse – when we were on the verge of an agreement, Republicans changed their tune overnight.

“This is the question: Do they really want to shut down the government because they want to make it harder for a woman to get a cancer screening?

“Do they really want to shut down the government because they don’t want scientists to make sure we can all breathe clean air?

“This is an extreme agenda that has no place in this bill. This is a budget.

“This is a bill to keep the country running. It’s not a women’s health bill. It’s not an environmental bill.

“We will not solve in one night disagreements this country has been having for 40 years. That is not realistic. Right now, we have to be realistic.

“While the Tea Party cheers for a shutdown – and I mean that literally – we will keep trying to reach an agreement.

“We have been reasonable. We care about the people a shutdown would hurt. We won’t stop working to avoid a shutdown.

“But we can’t do it alone. We have one day left. This isn’t the time – and we don’t have the time – to fight over the Tea Party’s extreme social agenda.

“This is the time to come together to keep the country running.”

Washington, DC—Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today regarding budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

“As the deadline looms, our budget negotiations continue nonstop.  The Speaker and I met with the President yesterday morning, and we met with one another yesterday afternoon.

“Like in any ongoing negotiation, the status of those talks is constantly evolving.  But I’ll give the Senate a snapshot of where we stand at this moment in time.

“Our bottom line has been the same all along.  It is this: We want to avoid a shutdown.  We want to pass a budget that makes smart cuts – cuts that save money, but that don’t cost jobs.  This has been our bottom line throughout this process.

“So we’ve made tough choices.  We’ve made those choices because we know that at this late stage of the game, reality is more important than ideology.  We know that sacrifices are the cost of consensus, and we think they’re worth it.

“Our bottom line hasn’t changed because our objective hasn’t changed: We want to keep the country running and keep the momentum of an economic recovery that’s creating jobs.

“I wish I could say the same about those on the other side of the negotiating table.  The Republicans’ bottom line has changed at almost every turn.

“First, Republicans refused to negotiate until we tried it their way.  We gave the reckless House-passed proposal was a vote.  The Senate resoundingly rejected it.

“Then, once talks began, Republicans staked out their position: they asked for $73 billion in cuts.  When we said, ‘Let’s meet in the middle,’ they said, ‘No.’  Then we said, ‘In the interest of getting this done, we’ll agree to your number.’  And still they said, ‘No.’  Republicans refused to take yes for an answer.

“Every time we agree to meet in the middle, they move where the middle is.  They said no when we met them halfway.  Now they say, ‘It’s our way or the highway.’  That’s no way to move forward.

“People ask why this is so difficult.  They ask, ‘Can’t you just get it done?’  I understand and share their frustration.  But this is why it’s so tough.  It’s like trying to kick a field goal through moving goalposts.

“Democrats’ bottom line hasn’t changed.  Republicans’ bottom line hasn’t stayed still.

“Our bottom line hasn’t changed because our priorities haven’t changed.

“We all want to lower the deficit.  But Democrats will not sacrifice seniors’ retirement security, women’s health, our children’s education or our nation’s veterans.  The cuts we make have to be smart cuts, and those aren’t smart.  They’re radical.  We want an agreement that’s reasonable and responsible.

“I wish I could say the same about those on the other side of the negotiating table.  They forget that not one of these people led us into recession – and punishing seniors, women, children and veterans will not lead us to recovery.  Their budget would cost 700,000 jobs and slow economic growth.  It would take us backward, not forward.

“That’s as counterproductive as it comes.  The point of this entire exercise is to help the economy.  Democrats won’t stand for a budget that weakens it.

“Our bottom line – our strong desire to reach an agreement – hasn’t changed because our willingness to compromise hasn’t changed.

“We long ago accepted the reality that getting something done means not getting 100 percent of what we want.  We long ago accepted the fact that the only way to reach consensus between a Democratic Senate and a Republican House is to compromise.

“I wish I could say the same about those on the other side of the negotiating table.  The Republicans have demanded a budget that can pass with only Republican votes.  Instead of seeking a bipartisan budget, they are actively seeking the opposite.

“The Republican Leadership has the Tea Party screaming so loudly in its right ear that it can’t hear what the vast majority of the country demands.  The country demands we get this done.

“As I’ve said before, the biggest gap in these negotiations isn’t between Republicans and Democrats.  It’s between Republicans and Republicans.

“So the Speaker has a choice to make, and not much time to make it: He can do either what the Tea Party wants, or what the country needs.

“I’ll close with two pieces of advice we would we be wise to heed today – one from American history, and one from ancient history.

“Henry Clay served in both houses of Congress.  He actually held the same seat the Republican Leader holds – he was a Senator from Kentucky.  He also held the same gavel that Speaker Boehner now holds – at three different times, Henry Clay served as Speaker of the House.  In his esteemed career he earned the nickname ‘The Great Compromiser.’

“So Henry Clay knew what he was talking about when he said that ‘all legislation is founded upon the principle of mutual concession.’  This legislation – this budget – is no exception.

“But it’s important to remember that the most important word in that quote isn’t ‘concession.’  It’s ‘mutual.’  We all have a responsibility to be reasonable.

“Which brings me to the second piece of advice: To everything, there is a season.

“To paraphrase a passage we all know well – a passage much older than the old statesman Henry Clay: There’s a time to campaign, and a time to govern.  There’s a time to be partisans, and a time to be partners.

“We stand here with fewer than 72 hours on the clock.  It’s time to get to work.  It’s time to get the job done.  This is the season for action.”

Wall Street Journal: Ryan Plan Would Mean “Higher Out-Of-Pocket Costs And Greater Limits To Coverage.” “The House Republican plan for overhauling Medicare would fundamentally change how the federal government pays for health care, starting a decade from now, likely resulting in higher out-of-pocket costs and greater limits to coverage for many Americans. … House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s solution is to end the current Medicare program for people born in 1957 and after.”  LINK

Associated Press: CBO: GOP Budget Raises Health Costs For Retirees. “Most future retirees would pay more for health care under a new House Republican budget proposal, according to an analysis by nonpartisan experts for Congress that could be an obstacle to GOP ambitions to tame federal deficits.” LINK

Reuters: Ryan Plan Would “Shift Healthcare Costs To Elderly Recipients.” “The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of the Ryan budget, cautioned that some of the Medicare proposals would shift healthcare costs to elderly recipients. Similarly, Medicaid changes would shift some costs to the states, which already are cash-strapped.” LINK

USA Today: GOP “Taking A Huge Political Risk,” Privatized Medicare “Would Cost Beneficiaries More Or Offer Them Less.” “Republicans unveiled a budget-cutting plan Tuesday that would dramatically revamp the twin health care pillars of the Great Society, taking a huge political risk that could reverberate all the way to November 2012 and beyond.Medicare, the government-run health insurance program covering about 47 million seniors and people with disabilities, would be run by private insurers and would cost beneficiaries more, or offer them less. Medicaid, the federal-state program covering more than 50 million low-income Americans, would be turned over to the states and cut by $750 billion over 10 years, forcing lesser benefits or higher co-payments. Social Security eventually would be cut, too.” LINK

Washington Post: Ryan Plan Would “End Medicare” As We Know It. “House Republicans announced a far-reaching vision for a leaner federal government on Tuesday, presenting a 2012 budget blueprint that would privatize Medicare for future retirees, cut spending on Medicaid and other domestic programs, and offer sharply lower tax rates to corporations and the wealthy… Starting in 2022, Ryan also would end Medicare as an open-ended entitlement for new retirees and begin slowly raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67.” LINK

Politico: Prominent Expert Cited By Ryan As Validator Does Not Back His Plan. “Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) touted the help of former Clinton adviser Alice Rivlin — ‘a great, proud Democrat’— in promoting a key Medicare provision in his budget proposal Tuesday. The only problem? Rivlin said she told the Republican she doesn’t support the final version of the measure he wrote into his budget — a provision Ryan referred to generally as the ‘Ryan-Rivlin’ plan when rolling out his sweeping economic blueprint. ‘We talked fairly recently and I said, ‘You know, I can’t support the version that you have in the budget,’ Rivlin said in an interview with POLITICO. ‘I don’t actually support the form in which he put it in the budget.’” LINK

Los Angeles Times: Ryan Plan “Would Force Seniors To Pay More For Their Healthcare.” “The largest savings in their plan would come from slashing popular programs that cover about 100 million Americans. The GOP proposal would phase out direct payments to doctors and hospitals under Medicare, scale back the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled, and throw out government insurance subsidies that the new healthcare law is to make available to millions of Americans starting in 2014. That would force seniors to pay more for their healthcareand would likely make states cut back their Medicaid programs, the Congressional Budget Office concluded.” LINK

Roll Call: Ryan’s Plan “Would Still Add More That $8 Trillion To The National Debt.” “House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget blueprint released Tuesday morning cuts $6.2 trillion in spending and $1.8 trillion in taxes relative to President Barack Obama’s 10-year plan, setting up a major clash over Medicare, Medicaid and domestic spending.Still, while the plan envisions paying off the national debt sometime after 2050 principally by squeezing spending on health care and other programs, it would still add more than $8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade — reaching $23 trillion in 2021. Indeed, the plan does not come close to balancing the budget in any year over that span.” LINK

Dana Milbank, Washington Post: Ryan’s Proposal “Isn’t A Serious Budget,” “Fails At The Central Mission Of Ending The Deficit.” “The document released by the chairman of the House Budget Committee isn’t a serious budget proposal because it fails at the central mission of ending the deficit and taming the debt. Without question, Ryan makes some severe cuts: Taking hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, ending the Medicare entitlement,and slashing planned spending on transportation, energy, education, veterans benefits, agriculture payments, counterterrorism and more. Yet for all these cuts, the Republicans’ plan increases the federal debt by more than $8 trillion over the next 10 years, and it continues federal budget deficits until nearly 2040. Under the proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that Ryan and his Republican colleagues claim to support, Ryan’s budget wouldn’t be in compliance for at least the next quarter century.” LINK

Kaiser Health News: CBO: Seniors Would Pay Much More For Medicare Under Ryan Plan. “Seniors and the disabled would pay sharply more for their Medicare coverage under a new plan by House Republicans aimed at curbing the nation’s growing deficit, a Congressional Budget Office analysis shows. For example, by 2030, under the plan, typical 65 year olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the total cost of their coverage, which includes premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs, according to CBO.  That compares with the 25 percent they would pay under current law, CBO said. The GOP budget proposal also would raise the eligibility age for the politically popular program – and repeal big chunks of the health care overhaul law approved by Congress last year.” LINK

Talking Points Memo: Paul Ryan’s Absurdly Optimistic Budget Projections Draw Widespread Ridicule. “Even as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) proudly touted his ‘fact-based budget’ and decried Democrats’ ‘budget gimmicks’ yesterday, he prominently cited the think tank’s absurdly rosy numbers, drawing widespread mockery from economists, budget experts, and health care wonks. Even the developer of the model that Heritage used to crunch the numbers can’t figure out how Heritage reached its conclusions. ‘The Heritage numbers are insane,’ MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said in an interview with TPM. As Paul Krugman put it, Heritage’s take ‘depends an awful lot on unicorn sightings — a belief in the impossible.’” LINK

Politico: Ryan’s Plan A Predicament For GOP. “Either a sudden surge of studiousness is sweeping through battleground districts, or these Republicans can smell the danger. There’s plenty of reason to be cautious: An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last month showed fewer than a quarter of Americans supported cutting funds for Medicare and fewer than a third wanted to cut Medicaid — numbers that Republican pollster Bill McInturff called a ‘huge flashing yellow sign to Republicans.’” LINK

National Journal: GOP Hopefuls “Walking a Political Tightrope” Away from “Radical” Medicare Cuts. “Nowhere are the reforms more radical than on Medicare, and already the field of prospective Republican presidential candidates is walking a political tightrope in reaction to Ryan’s sweeping proposal to convert Medicare into a voucher-based system for people younger than 55. … a clear position on the Medicare reform proposal in 2011 could sink them and the party’s chances in 2012.” LINK

Washington, D.C. – A group of 16 moderate Democratic senators, led by Mark Udall of Colorado, today sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, urging him to prevent a shutdown of the federal government that would hurt our country’s still-fragile economy and distract from the need to work together to address greater, long-term fiscal challenges.  The senators agree that addressing the nation’s debt requires urgent action, and they added their voices to those who are extremely concerned that a minority in the Republican Party are pushing for a government shutdown solely to assert a political point.

In addition to Mark Udall, the letter was signed by senators Tom Carper (DE), Michael Bennet (CO), Kay Hagan (NC), Tim Johnson (SD), Mark Begich (AK), Jon Tester (MT), Mark Warner (VA), Ben Nelson (NE), Kent Conrad (ND), Jim Webb (VA), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Mary Landrieu (LA), Claire McCaskill (MO), Bob Casey (PA), and Chris Coons (DE).

Not only would a shutdown distract Congress from focusing on a comprehensive, bipartisan approach to debt reduction, economists have warned that it would stunt productivity, erode confidence in the U.S. economy and hamper job growth, the senators wrote.  At a time when the economy is still recovering, they said, the federal government and Congress “should be single-mindedly focused on supporting economic development and job growth.”  Senate Democrats have shown significant flexibility, agreeing to Republicans’ original proposal to keep the government running through the year while protecting jobs.

“Knowing that a bipartisan deal is within reach to cut tens of billions of dollars from current funding levels, it would be irresponsible to shut down the government and punish our constituents solely to assert a political point,” the senators continued.  “We stand ready to resolve this short-term funding debate in a common-sense way and work with you on tackling the even more daunting fiscal challenges our country must confront.  The American people expect no less.”

A copy of the letter follows:

Dear Speaker Boehner,

We recognize the difficult task you face in seeking a budget compromise for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011.  While we all agree that Congress must address our long-term structural deficits, we also share a responsibility to govern, support the economy and provide critical services for the American people.

Although we have had 13 straight months of private-sector job growth and added 1.8 million such jobs in that time, the U.S. economy is still fragile and too many Americans continue to struggle.  The federal government and Congress should be single-mindedly focused on supporting economic development and job growth.  But some members within your caucus continue to seek sustained confrontation and are interested in shutting down the government as a misguided sign that they are serious about debt reduction.

However, a government shutdown at this time will only serve as a counterproductive attack on our economic recovery.  Economists note that a suspension of services would have a measurably detrimental impact on our economic output, while business leaders warn about a shutdown’s impact on confidence in the U.S. economic recovery.  A setback of this nature would prevent the growth we need to tangibly address our long-term fiscal imbalances.  Knowing that a bipartisan deal is within reach to cut tens of billions of dollars from current funding levels, it would be irresponsible to shut down the government and punish our constituents solely to assert a political point.

We know you understand the importance of this issue and share our desire to avoid shocks to our fragile economy that would inhibit job growth and hurt our fellow citizens.  We stand ready to resolve this short-term funding debate in a common-sense way and work with you on tackling the even more daunting fiscal challenges our country must confront.  The American people expect no less.

“This budget proposal is more proof that Republicans have declared war on Medicare and Social Security, programs on which millions of seniors in Nevada and across the country depend. Americans rejected President George W. Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security, and they will reject this latest plan from Republicans to end Medicare as we know it. The Republican’s plan is a boon to insurance companies at seniors’ expense. While we must cut wasteful spending and excess, Nevadans cannot afford this irresponsible proposal that will force seniors to pay more for health care at the same time that it gives tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and protects government giveaways to big oil companies and corporations that ship American jobs overseas.”

REPUBLICAN PLAN TO SHUTDOWN MEDICARE WILL RAISE SENIORS’ PREMIUMS AND CUT BENEFITS FOR MORE THAN 20 MILLION AMERICANS

Democrats want to cut federal spending and require government to live within its means, and favor a responsible approach to reducing the deficit that will strengthen our economy.  The new Republican budget reflects upside-down priorities – it protects special interest subsidies and tax breaks for those at the top, and cuts deep into the heart of the programs that are essential to the health of our seniors.  The Republican budget ends Medicare as we know it– converting it into a voucher-type program. While providing a windfall for the health insurance industry, it would force seniors to pay much more for health care. If Republicans get their way, premiums for more than 20 million seniors will skyrocket and they will all lose their guaranteed health benefits. Democrats are committed to protecting Medicare benefits for all, and are focused on cutting waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare without hurting seniors.

20 Million Near-Elderly Will Not Have Medicare When They Retire. Starting in 2022, Medicare will be eliminated for new beneficiaries and converted instead into a voucher program.  There are more than 20 million near-elderly Americans who are now ages 50-54 who would not get Medicare when they retire but instead only get a coupon to purchase private health insurance.  This approach would transfer control of Medicare to insurers and there would be no guaranteed benefits, essentially ending Medicare.  Moreover, the voucher will fail to keep pace with increases in the cost of health care so its value will decline every year, meaning that future seniors won’t be able to get the benefits they need or even end up uninsured.  [CBPP 3/22/11; Census 2010 data]

CBO: Voucher Proposal Will Double Health Care Costs for Seniors. The voucher will fail to keep pace with increases in the cost of health care.  As a result, seniors will be forced to pay higher premiums in order to access the same benefits they would receive under the current system.  According to the CBO, a typical senior will spend more than twice as much of his or her own income on health services under the Ryan proposal as compared to the current Medicare system. [CBO, 4/5/11]

Under the Republican Plan, Seniors Will Lose Guaranteed Benefits. Under current law, all seniors have guaranteed access to life-saving health benefits, including screenings for colon cancer, diabetes, and prostate cancer, as well as flu shots.  If the Republican plan becomes law, seniors that were eligible for guaranteed health benefits last year could lose their benefits. [Kaiser State Health Facts, accessed on 3/31/11]

Republican Proposal Could Force Seniors to Pay $3,500 More for Prescription Drugs. The proposal would “reopen” the prescription drug donut hole, requiring that seniors pay full price for prescription drugs.  As a result, on average, seniors would pay $3,500 more for their medications over the next ten years.  Seniors and people with disabilities who have high prescription drug costs could pay an additional $12,300 over the next 10 years. [HHS, 11/4/10]

CBO: Ryan Plan Means “Most Elderly People Would Pay More For Their Health Care.” In their initial analysis of the Ryan Medicare plan, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office determined, “Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system… Under the proposal, the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the traditional program…That greater burden would require them to reduce their use of health care services, spend less on other goods and services, or save more in advance of retirement than they would under current law.” [CBO, 4/5/11]

“In order to protect our long-term economic growth, we must get serious about cutting federal spending and ensuring the government lives within its means. However, a plan that puts our seniors’ safety and health at risk is not a plan about long-term security, but about political ploys and instigating fear. If Republicans would join me and my colleagues at the table, I am confident that we could get a real budget plan that not only reduces our deficit, but also ensures that the economy is growing, businesses are thriving and our seniors are protected.”

“The Ryan Republican budget has three pillars: reduce Medicare benefits by more than half; reduce Medicaid benefits for seniors in nursing homes; and reduce taxes on the wealthiest Americans. America can resolve its budget crisis without punishing the elderly and poor while rewarding the very rich.”

“Independent experts agree the House Plan would make deep cuts to the Medicare benefits seniors count on. It would end Medicare as we know it and funnel Medicare dollars directly into private insurance companies’ pockets.  Under the House plan, seniors’ coverage would be cut drastically, benefits would no longer be guaranteed and seniors’ costs would skyrocket.  We can’t allow the House to balance the budget on the backs of seniors and we won’t – not on my watch.”

“Shutting down government is apparently not enough, now Republicans have taken aim at shutting down Medicare as we know it. The bottom line on the Republican plan is that it would dismantle Medicare for tens of millions of Americans. I’m also deeply concerned that the Republicans’ budget seeks to meet their ‘moral obligation’ to cut the deficit by cutting health care for children on Medicaid. We must do everything we can to responsibly reduce our nation’s debt and keep our economy on the path to prosperity, but we draw the line at penalizing seniors and children for an economic mess they did not create.”

“Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner sat down privately and had a productive discussion. They agreed to continue working on a budget solution.”

“Next year’s Republican budget is a thinly veiled attempt to dismantle Medicare for tens of millions of Americans.  We need to do everything possible to responsibly reduce our debt, but we should do that by holding government accountable and eliminating programs that aren’t working, not by putting all of the burden on middle class families and seniors.  Pulling the rug out from under seniors who have paid into Medicare and Social Security their entire lives is wrong, and extreme plans that dismantle benefits seniors have earned will not pass the Senate.”

“While Republicans ratchet up their rhetoric and once again threaten to shut down the government, Democrats remain focused on finding common ground and working out a bipartisan compromise that cuts government spending while protecting jobs. As Sen. Reid said, we are making progress as we work to cut more than $70 billion in government spending.  As we get closer to a final agreement, we are confident that in the end Republicans will reject cries from the Tea Party to shut down the government and work with us on a solution that makes smart cuts while protecting our economy’s recent gains.”

“The time we have left to work on a budget agreement is short.  The window in which we can avoid the terrible consequences of a shutdown is closing quickly.  It is no longer measured in months or weeks.  We are now just days away from the deadline.  And the time we have to get the long legislative process started in both houses is measured in mere hours.

“It’s clear that those sitting at the negotiating table have different priorities.  That’s true of any negotiation.  But we all should share the same goal: to keep the country running, and to keep the momentum of our economic recovery.  And we all want to cut the deficit.

“Last week we agreed upon a number on which to base our budget cuts – $73 billion below the President’s proposal.  But disagreements remain on where we should make those cuts.  We worked through the weekend to bridge the gap.  We’ve made some progress, but we’re not there yet.

“There is another way in which the sides remain separated.  Democrats have demonstrated throughout this process that we are willing to meet in the middle.

“But Republicans and the Tea Party continue to reject reality, and insist instead on ideology.  Let me give the Senate two examples.

“First, they refuse to recognize that H.R. 1 – that is, the budget the House passed – isn’t going to happen.  The Tea Party pushed it through the House, over the objections of some Republicans and all Democrats.  Then the Senate soundly defeated it, and we all know the President would never sign it into law.

“So the Republican Party and the Tea Party need to admit what Democrats have proven and what the country already knows: That neither party can pass a budget without the other party, and neither chamber can send it to the president without the other chamber.  Democrats stand ready to meet Republicans halfway, and the Senate stands ready to meet the House halfway.  We hope our partners on the other side are willing to be just as reasonable.

“Second, Tea Party Republicans refuse to recognize that their budget is a simply appalling proposal.  They stomp their feet and call ‘compromise’ a dirty word, and insist on a budget that will hurt America rather than help it.

“It slashes programs for the sake of slashing programs.  It chops zeroes off the budget for nothing more than bragging rights.  The authors and advocates of the Republican budget either completely ignore the practical impact of their dangerous cuts, or they know the damage they will do and simply don’t care.  Either way, it’s not right.

“Their budget won’t do a thing to lower unemployment.  In fact, it will cost the country 700,000 jobs through 2012.  That’s not my estimate – that’s the estimate of the head of Moody’s, an independent economist who has worked for both parties.

“It will also hurt seniors.  It slashes funding for the Social Security Administration, which means seniors and disabled Americans who count on the benefits they’ve earned over a lifetime of hard work will have to wait for them.  In many cases, those Social Security checks are seniors’ only source of income.  In some cases, they’re the only thing keeping them out of poverty.  And those checks have nothing at all to do with the deficit.  Nothing.

“The Republican budget will hurt women and their families.  It cuts nutritional programs for women, infants and children.  It makes cuts to Planned Parenthood that are based on ideology, not economics.  Planned Parenthood doesn’t contribute to the deficit – it contributes in great measure to the health and safety of women of every age, in every state.

“Their budget also will hurt our veterans.  There is a successful program in this country that helps homeless veterans afford housing.  Democrats think our nation’s veterans deserve a roof over their heads, and we think it’s a worthy program.  The Republican budget cuts it.

“It will also hurt students.  The Tea Party plan kicks hundreds of thousands of boys and girls out of Head Start, cuts college students’ Pell Grants and slashes job-training programs.  That’s no way to recover.

“And independent economists have analyzed the Tea Party’s plan and found that it will actually slow economic growth.  The point of this whole exercise is to help the economy.  Democrats will not stand for a budget weakens the economy.

“None of the people I’ve just mentioned led us to recession.  Punishing innocent bystanders like seniors, women, veterans and students will not lead us to recovery.

“This is what we mean when we say their budget is based on ideology, and not reality.  This is what we mean when we say the Republican and Tea Party budget cuts irresponsibly.  And when they refuse to relent on these dangerous cuts – many of which have nothing to do with the deficit – that’s what we mean when we say the other side simply isn’t being reasonable.

“Our national budget reflects our values and the tough choices we make.  Democrats have made many tough choices because we know that sacrifices are the cost of consensus – and we believe they’re worth it.  But we’ve never forgotten that what we cut is more important than how much we cut.

“In addition to the many choices about what to cut and what to keep, the Republican Leadership has another very big choice to make: It has to decide whether it will do what the Tea Party wants it to do, or do what the country needs it to do.

“I’m hopeful it will make the right choice and that we can come to an agreement.  But the bottom line is this: At the end of the day we’re all on the same side.  Time, however, is not on our side.”

“A compromise on the budget is right there for the taking, assuming the Speaker still wants one. We take it for granted that because of the intense political pressure being applied by the Tea Party, the Speaker needs to play an outside game as well as an inside game. As long as he continues to negotiate, it’s OK by us if he needs to strike a different pose publicly. Since last week, the two sides have made steady progress on a package of $33 billion in cuts. This is an historic level of spending cuts, it is the halfway mark between the two sides, and the Speaker has already agreed to this number privately. Differences may remain over where exactly the cuts should come from, but the only real question left is whether the political will exists to buck the Tea Party. At this point, we are so far down the road towards an agreement, and so little time remains before Friday’s deadline, that it would be a dramatic about-face for the Speaker to suddenly let things devolve into a shutdown, as many in the Tea Party are urging. As a result, we remain hopeful a deal will be reached.”

“Even as our economy turns around, many people in Nevada and across the country continue to struggle. That is why it is important that we keep our focus on jobs, and that my Republican colleagues not allow themselves to be pulled to the right by the tens of Tea Partiers who showed up to the Capitol yesterday. Unfortunately, today my colleagues in the House seem to be listening to this small but loud minority. Instead of working to create jobs, they are wasting time by voting yet again on a reckless spending bill that would destroy 700,000 jobs.

“Our fragile economy cannot afford a shutdown. Last time there was a shutdown, $3 billion in exports sat idle in our ports instead of being sold overseas. Fortunately, I am happy to say that negotiations towards a compromise are moving forward. We will be working through the weekend to forge a compromise, and I hope that cooler heads continue to prevail as we work to make smart cuts.”

Washington, DC—Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today regarding budget negotiations. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

“We’re continuing to work hard to avoid the terrible consequences that would come with a shutdown.

“As Vice President Biden announced last night, Democrats and Republicans have agreed upon a number on which to base our budget cuts – $73 billion below the President’s budget proposal.

“Now we have to figure out how to get there.

“But as I’ve said all along, this isn’t just about dollars and deficits.  It’s about principles and priorities.  What we cut is much more important than how much we cut.

“The media is very concerned with which party will win this fight politically.  I’m much more concerned with making sure the America people don’t lose out.

“Let me once again remind the Senate: children, students, teachers, nurses and seniors would be significantly hurt by the cuts in the Republican-passed H.R.1.  But not a single child, not a single student, not a single teacher, not a single nurse and not a single senior led us to recession.  And punishing innocent bystanders will not lead us to recovery.

“We’ll continue talking and continue working to find a middle ground.  I hope an agreement can be reached.  But it will not come on the backs of middle-class families and the jobs they need.  And it will not come if the other side continues to insist on unreasonable and unrealistic cuts.

“I appreciate Speaker Boehner’s participation in these talks.  I’m sure it’s not easy trying to negotiate with the Tea Party screaming in his right ear.

“We have a lot more work to do.  I hope that this latest development is the beginning of the end of this crisis.”

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Senator Mark Begich today released the following statement on tomorrow’s Tea Party rally against a bipartisan deal on a long-term Continuing Resolution:

“There is a clear divide between the House Republicans who are looking to negotiate a bipartisan budget deal, and those planning to join the Tea Party rally against a compromise that will ensure our long-term economic security. It’s hard to imagine Speaker Boehner will be able to count on the votes of any lawmaker who plans to attend the Tea Party rally. I hope the House Republican leadership can move beyond the extreme views of a few within their party and help us get a bipartisan compromise that protects American families, does not put our long-term economic recovery at risk and avoids a government shutdown.”

Washington, DC—Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today regarding budget negotiations, which had been derailed by Republican infighting. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

“As the country watches, we continue to work toward a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to keep the country running. Let me update the Senate on where we stand.

“I want to update everyone on how things look from the negotiating table. Much of the criticism in this process has come from people who aren’t even sitting at the negotiating table.

“But I am. And so is Speaker Boehner. I’m glad he’s returned to the conversation.

“It’s obvious that he has a difficult situation on his hands. I don’t envy him. He’s getting a lot of pressure from the Tea Party to dig in his heels, even if it hurts the country and shatters our fragile economic recovery.

“What’s worse, the country doesn’t much care for the Tea Party. There’s a new CNN poll out this morning that says as much. Half of the country views their views unfavorably. If the Tea Party isn’t the most unpopular it’s ever been, it’s awfully close.

“So let me reiterate my hope that the Republican leadership recognizes that they can’t continue to be pulled to the right by a radical, unrealistic, unreasonable and unpopular faction. If they want to move the country forward, they can’t let the Tea Party call the shots.

“Our proposal still stands. It’s the number the Republicans were for, before they were against it. We got to that number by relying on reality, not ideology.

“So I repeat: we know the answer lies in the middle. Neither party can pass a budget without the other party. We’ve already proven that. Neither chamber can send it to the president without the other chamber.

“I look forward to getting this done so we can avoid the many terrible consequences that would come with a shutdown. We don’t want that to happen – and if it’s up to Democrats, it won’t.”

GOP Rep Tom Latham:  Initial $32 Billion in Spending Cuts “Enactable” But Deeper Cuts Unlikely to Fly. “Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa), a senior Appropriations Committee member and close friend of Boehner’s, said Rogers’ initial package was probably ‘enactable’ in a deal with the Senate, where a large number of Democrats face reelection in 2012 from states that voted Republican last fall. Deeper cuts are unlikely to fly, however, Latham said, raising the prospect that Congress will merely extend spending at current levels to keep federal agencies open – denying Republicans a victory on their most important campaign promise.”  [Washington Post, 2/11/11]

Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers: Original GOP Proposal Was “Real” and Amounted to the Largest Cuts in History. In February when speaking about the House GOP’s original proposal to cut $32 billion in spending, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers embraced the cuts.  Rogers said, “make no mistake, these cuts are not low-hanging fruit. These cuts are real and will impact every district across the country — including my own.”  Rogers added, “Never before has Congress undertaken a task of this magnitude. The cuts in this [spending proposal] will represent the largest reduction in discretionary spending in the history of our nation.  [New York Times, 2/10/11; Christian Science Monitor, 2/10/11]

Rogers: $32 Billion in Cuts “Responsible, Judicious” way to “Significantly Reduce Spending.” “With this CR, we will respond to the millions of Americans who have called on this Congress to rein in spending and help our economy grow and our businesses create jobs. It is my intention – and that of my Committee – to craft a responsible, judicious CR that will significantly reduce government spending, begin to get our nation’s finances in order so that the economy can thrive, and provide essential resources for our national security.”  [Rogers Release, 2/3/11]

Ryan: $32 Billion Cuts Will “Restore Sanity to a Broken Budget Process.” In February, after releasing the package of spending cuts totaling $32 billion, Budget Chairman Paul Ryan issued a statement that “Washington’s spending spree is over. As House Republicans pledged – and voted to affirm on the House floor last week – the spending limits will restore sanity to a broken budget process and return spending for domestic government agencies to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels.”  [Ryan Statement, 2/3/11]

Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers: Cutting Any Deeper Than Original House Proposal Could Have “Substantial Consequences.” “Mr. Rogers and other Republicans warned that doubling the cuts could have substantial consequences for federal agencies, resulting in layoffs and furloughs of federal law enforcement officers and air traffic controllers, steep cuts in education and medical research programs and major changes at the Food and Drug Administration.”  [New York Times, 2/10/11]

“Sitting on Senator Reid’s desk right now is a serious proposal that cuts $70 billion in government spending while protecting America’s economic recovery. If Republicans are truly interested in forging a bipartisan agreement that avoids a government shutdown, they should come back to the negotiating table and look at what’s in the proposal.”

Schumer Prods Speaker: Path To Compromise Does Not Go Through Tea Party—Only Coalition of GOP Moderates and Democrats Can Avert Shutdown

WASHINGTON, DC—In remarks on the Senate floor Tuesday, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer urged House Speaker John Boehner to finally leave the Tea Party fringe of his party behind and forge a deal on a long-term budget.

Schumer said that after days of productive talks that included the White House, pressure from the far right caused House Republican leaders to abruptly pull out of bipartisan negotiations last week. The senator said the only hurdle to a deal at this point between House Republicans and the White House is the Tea Party conservatives’ refusal to compromise.

“A Tea Party rebellion may hurt the House Republican leadership politically, but a government shutdown will hurt all Americans much more. It is time for House Republican leaders to rip the band-aid off. Mr. Speaker, it’s time to forget the Tea Party and take the deal,” Schumer said.

A copy of Schumer’s floor remarks, as prepared for delivery, appears below.

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer

Senate Floor Remarks

March 29, 2011

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the current state of the bipartisan budget negotiations.

For weeks now, the offices of Senate Majority Leader, the House Speaker and the White House have been engaged in serious talks seeking a long-term budget agreement.

It has been a long, hard process, and there have been a lot of fits and starts in the negotiations.

But it is no exaggeration to say that as of last week, talks were on a smooth path towards a compromise. The Speaker’s office was negotiating in good faith. The parties significantly narrowed the $51 billion gap on how much spending should be cut. House Republican leaders had agreed to come down from H.R. 1, and meet us halfway. We could see light at the end of the tunnel.

But suddenly, at the end of last week, the House Republicans did a strange thing. They pulled back from the talks. They changed their minds about what level of spending cuts they could accept. We were right on the verge of a breakthrough, and they suddenly moved the goalposts.

We felt a little bit like we were left at the altar.

And not only did they abandon the talks, they started denying they were ever close to a deal in the first place. Majority Leader Cantor issued a statement Friday saying that reports that progress being made were “far-fetched.” It was like they decided that even the appearance of a looming compromise was a political liability. It was surreal.

It’s no surprise what happened. The headline of today’s story in the National Journal says it all: “With Revolt Brewing, GOP Backs Off Deal.”

The story reads: “Concerned about a revolt by the conservative, tea-party wing of the party, GOP leaders have pulled back from a tentative deal to cut roughly $30 billion in cuts from current spending levels. The influence that tea-party conservative now exercise over the process put the chances of a compromise seriously in doubt.”

The story continues, “… the GOP pulled back from that agreement last week after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthywarned House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that the deal would trigger a revolt from tea party conservatives.”

So, in other words, as soon as House Republican leaders took one step towards a compromise, the Tea Party rebelled, and so they took two steps back.

The National Journal story describes an offer that was put on the table by the White House that would have met the House Republicans halfway. This offer falls squarely in the ballpark of Congressman Ryan’s original budget proposal, with roughly $70 billion in spending cuts compared to the President’s budget request.

This is a significant move in the Republicans’ direction.

These are more cuts than many on our side might support. But it shows how seriously the White House is about wanting a compromise to avert a shutdown.

If they are planning to reject such an offer, then it’s clear they will never take ‘yes’ for an answer and are seeking a shutdown.

This level of spending cuts was good enough for House Republicans earlier this year when Hal Rogers released his original proposal. But the Tea Party hollered, and House Republicans were forced to double their proposed spending cuts to an extreme level of $61 billion.

When that happened, even Hal Rogers said that the House was moving beyond what was reasonable and into territory where they could never get a deal.

Tom Latham of Iowa agreed that in forcing H.R. 1 to go from $30 billion to $60 billion in cuts, the Tea Party was forcing Republicans to go beyond what was “enactable.”

Just as the Tea Party forced mainstream Republicans into extreme territory before, they are doing it again.

The Speaker has said all along that he wants to avoid a shutdown at all costs, and I believe him. He is a good man. The problem is, a large percentage of those in his party don’t feel the same way.

They think “compromise” is a dirty word. They think taking any steps to avert a shutdown would mean being the first to blink.

So Speaker Boehner is caught between a shutdown and a hard place. He has caught a tiger by the tail in the form of the Tea Party. There is even a Tea Party rally planned for later this week to pressure the Speaker not to budge off of H.R. 1.

To try to mask the divisions on their own side, the Republicans have resorted to lashing out in a kneejerk way at Democrats.

Their latest trick is to try to accuse Democrats of not having our own plan.  This is a diversion, and it rings hollow.  The only proposals that have been made that would actually avoid a government shutdown are the numerous compromises that Democrats have offered Republicans.

And I would like to remind my House Republican friends – as you know, the Senate needs 60 votes to pass a bill.  We can’t pass anything without Republican agreement.  Yet our Senate Republican colleagues are nowhere to be found.  Since the Senate rejected the Republican job-killing budget proposal that would cost Americans 700,000 jobs a month ago, Republicans have not moved an inch off their plan.

Speaker Boehner knows when it comes to averting a government shutdown on April 8, he knows his problem is with the Tea Party, not the Democrats.

At this point, the only hurdle left to a bipartisan deal is the Tea Party. But for the Tea Party, we could have an agreement that reduces spending by a historic amount. But for the Tea Party, we could have a deal that keeps the government open.

A Tea Party rebellion may hurt the House Republican leadership politically, but a government shutdown will hurt all Americans much more.

It is time for House Republican leaders to rip the band-aid off. Mr. Speaker, it’s time to forget the Tea Party and take the deal. There are only 10 days left before the current CR expires, and there is no new stopgap being prepared by the House Republicans. It seems like the only viable proposal is the one the Speaker walked away from.

So the Speaker faces a choice: return to the deal he was prepared to accept before the Tea Party rebelled last week, or risk a shutdown on April 8. I think we know what the right answer is.

Thank you and I yield the floor.