“Nationwide, sequester cuts will cost more than 750,000 jobs… But Congress has the power to prevent these self-inflicted wounds.”

“Unfortunately, Republicans would rather let devastating cuts go into effect than close a single wasteful tax loophole.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today about Sequestration. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery.

The Senate has a great deal to accomplish this work period, including the long-delayed confirmation of former Senator Chuck Hagel to lead the Defense Department.

This week the Senate will also consider two plans to avert devastating, across-the-board cuts to military spending as well as domestic initiatives that keep American families and businesses strong. To give our economy a foundation for growth, Congress must replace these cuts – the so-called sequester – with a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

Senate Democrats would temporarily replace this harsh austerity with a combination of smart spending reductions and measures that close corporate tax loopholes, end wasteful subsidies and ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. And it would avoid harmful cuts that will hurt American families, harm military readiness and hinder our economic recovery.

Families and businesses in every state in the nation – in red states and blue states – are at risk because of these haphazard cuts. In the presiding officer’s home state, Virginia, 170 teachers who work with disabled children could lose their jobs, thousands of kids will go without life-saving vaccines and 90,000 Pentagon employees will be furloughed.

In Nevada, 120 teachers could lose their jobs, local law enforcement agencies will lose essential funding to prevent and prosecute crime and thousands of Defense Department employees will be furloughed – losing wages that support their families and our state’s economy.

Residents of the Republican Leader’s home state would also suffer. Kentucky will lose federal funding that helps police catch and punish domestic abusers, buys meals for needy seniors and keeps at-risk children in Head Start programs. And more than 11,000 Kentuckians who work for the Defense Department will be furloughed.

Nationwide, sequester cuts will cost more than 750,000 jobs. More than 70,000 little boys and girls will be kicked off Head Start. Meat inspectors, air traffic controllers, FBI officers and border patrol agents will be furloughed. Small businesses – which create two-thirds of all new jobs in this country – will lose access to crucial federal loans. Thousands of researchers working to cure cancer, diabetes and scores of other life-threatening diseases will lose their jobs.

Congress has the power to prevent these self-inflicted wounds. We have the power to turn off the sequester, protect American families and businesses and ensure our national defense.

In the House and in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats voted to impose these cuts. And it will take Republicans and Democrats working together to avert them. Twenty-eight Republicans in the Senate and 174 Republicans in the House voted to impose these painful cuts. If those same Republicans would work with Democrats to find a balanced way to reduce the deficit, Congress could avert the forced austerity of the sequester today – right away.

Unfortunately, Republicans would rather let devastating cuts go into effect than close a single wasteful tax loophole. They would rather cut Medicare, education and medical research than ask a single millionaire to pay a single dollar more in taxes.

The overwhelming majority of Americans want us to compromise before their neighbors, friends and family members get pink slips or furlough notices. The overwhelming majority of Americans – including 56 percent of Republicans – support Democrats’ balanced approach. Once again, the only Republicans rejecting a reasonable, balanced compromise are Republicans in this building – Republicans in Congress.

“Allowing partisan delays to put women’s lives at risk is simply shameful.”

“Full reauthorization of the law is necessary to ensure authorities have all the resources they need to fight domestic violence.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery.

In the two decades since the Violence Against Women Act passed both houses of Congress on strong, bipartisan votes, incidents of domestic violence have fallen by 53 percent.

The law has helped millions of women and children escape their attackers and get the justice they deserve.

That’s why Congress twice reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act without a hint of controversy or a moment of delay.

But despite the overwhelming evidence that this legislation saves lives and protects women, House Republicans used every procedural trick in the book to block its reauthorization last Congress.

And despite strong, bipartisan support in the Senate, Republicans in the House refused to join the effort to renew our national commitment to ending domestic violence.

Allowing partisan delays to put women’s lives at risk is simply shameful.

If House Republicans believe domestic violence is no longer a problem in this country, they’re flat wrong.

Every day, three women in America die at the hands of their abusers.

And every day nine more women escape with their lives – but with the physical and emotional scars of abuse.

More than a third of women in this country have been victims of violence, sexual assault or stalking by a partner.

It is in our power to help them. And it is unthinkable that Republicans in the House would prevent us from taking action.

Victims of violence and the law enforcement officials who support them have already waited too long for Congress to act.

This week, the Senate will pass a strong, bipartisan reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

I thank Chairman Leahy, Senator Murray and the women of the Senate Democratic Caucus for their leadership on this issue.

I am pleased so many of my Senate Republicans colleagues have expressed support for swift action on the Violence Against Women Act during this new Congress.

The Senate will not allow women to be denied the protection they need and deserve.

We must ensure law enforcement has the means to stop these heinous crimes.

And we must guarantee communities have the resources to support victims – regardless of sexual orientation, immigration status or where they live – as they heal.

Every victim of domestic violence deserves the same vigorous protections under the law.

Because of the unique nature of the crime, combating domestic violence and protecting those affected also requires unique tools.

Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act would help law enforcement continue to develop effective strategies to prosecute cases involving violent crimes against women.

It would provide funding for shelters and transitional housing programs for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and to help victims get back on their feet.

It would make legal assistance available to victims of violence, and safeguard children and youth affected by dating violence and stalking.

Although the Violence Against Women Act expired in 2011, many of the programs established under the law have been funded by continuing resolutions.

But a full reauthorization of the law is necessary to ensure authorities have all the resources they need to fight domestic violence.

I hope the Senate’s bipartisan action this week will send a strong message to House Republican leaders that further partisan delay is unacceptable.

“I am pleased that Speaker Boehner and his House colleagues have decided to change course, and pass a bill that defuses yet another fight over the debt ceiling.

“This bill surrenders the hostage Republicans have taken in the past by decoupling the full faith and credit of the United States from cuts to Social Security and Medicare, or anything else.  In substance, this is a clean debt limit increase that will set the precedent for future debt ceiling extensions.  By passing this bill, Republicans are joining Democrats to say we will not hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage, and we will pay our bills.

“Over the last two years, the bipartisan Budget Control Act set spending levels in place of a Congressional Budget.  As Senator Murray announced today, this year the Senate will return to regular order, and move a budget resolution through the Budget Committee and to the Senate floor. House Republicans had to add a gimmick or two to get their bill past the Tea Party. But to spare the middle class another knock-down, drag-out fight, the Senate will proceed to and seek to pass the House bill. We will seek an agreement with Republicans to bring the bill to the floor in the coming days.

“I want to give credit where credit is due, and thank Speaker Boehner for his leadership here in defusing another fight over the debt ceiling. The middle class has been telling us they do not want another crisis, and this bill gives them the security they deserve.”

“Democrats will hold fast to the guiding principle that a strong middle class – and an opportunity for every American to enter that middle class – is the key to this nation’s success.”

“But not a single piece of important legislation can pass the Senate or become law without the votes of both Democrats and Republicans. So we will also be willing to compromise and to work with our colleagues across the aisle.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding compromise and Democrats’ legislative priorities for the 113th congress. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Today – with the inspiration of the second inauguration of President Barack Obama fresh in our minds – we renew our effort to fulfill the promise of prosperity for every American. The theme of yesterday’s inauguration was “faith in America’s future.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – whose birth and life we also celebrated Monday – once said, “Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.” I have faith that the members of the 113th Congress will bring this nation closer to realizing that promise of prosperity.

The last Congress was too often characterized by sharp political divides – divides that hampered efforts to foster success for all Americans. I am hopeful – cautiously optimistic – that the 113th Congress will be characterized not by our divisions, but by our renewed commitment to cooperation and compromise. I urge every woman and every man fortunate enough to serve in this Chamber to remember: It is possible to hold fast to your principles while making the compromises necessary to move our country forward.

Democrats will hold fast to the guiding principle that a strong middle class – and an opportunity for every American to enter that middle class – is the key to this nation’s success. Democrats will stand strong – strong for the standard of balance. And we will remain resolute – resolute in the pursuit of fairness for all Americans, regardless of where they were born or the color of their skin, regardless of the size of their bank accounts, regardless of their religion or their sexual orientation.

Those principles will direct our course as we introduce our first ten bills today – a tradition in the United States Senate – and as we mend our broken immigration system, strengthen our schools and rebuild our roads and bridges. Those principles will be foremost in our minds as we balance the right to bear arms with the right of every child to grow up safe from gun violence. Those principles will be our North Star as we work to end wasteful tax loopholes and balance thoughtful spending reductions with revenue from the wealthiest among us. And those principles will point the way as we work to ensure this country’s uniformed service members never struggle to find employment when their military duties end. Through every struggle and every triumph, those principles must be our guide.

But not a single piece of important legislation can pass the Senate or become law without the votes of both Democrats and Republicans. So we will also be willing to compromise and to work with our colleagues across the aisle.

Unfortunately, a number of bipartisan bills passed by the Senate during the last Congress were never acted upon by the House of Representatives. So this year the Senate will also revisit some of the legislative priorities of the 112th Congress. We will take up the Violence Against Women Act, the farm bill, historic reforms to save the United States Postal Service and legislation to make whole the victims of Hurricane Sandy. Each of these initiatives passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis after deliberation and debate during the 112th Congress, but was left to languish by the House of Representatives.

The Senate will continue to help our fellow Americans recover from Hurricane Sandy before another, similar disaster strikes. Hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses were destroyed in New York, New Jersey and New England, and tens of thousands of Americans were left homeless by this destructive storm. We have a responsibility to aid our countrymen as they rebuild and their lives and their communities – as we have after terrible floods, fires and storms in other parts of our nation. Once we complete that vital legislation, the Senate will take action to make this institution that we all love work more effectively. We will consider changes to the United States Senate rules.

Because this matter warrants additional debate, today we will follow the precedents set in 2005 and again in 2011. We will reserve the right of all Senators to propose changes to the Senate rules. And we will explicitly not acquiesce in the carrying over of all the rules from the last Congress. It is my intention that the Senate will recess today, rather than adjourn, to continue the same legislative day, and allow this important rules discussion to continue. I am hopeful the Republican leader and I will reach an agreement that allows the Senate to operate more effectively.

“It is reassuring to see Republicans beginning to back off their threat to hold our economy hostage. If the House can pass a clean debt ceiling increase to avoid default and allow the United States to meet its existing obligations, we will be happy to consider it. As President Obama has said, this issue is too important to middle class families’ economic security to use as a ploy for collecting a ransom. We have an obligation to pay the bills we have already incurred – bills for which many House Republicans voted.”

“In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension only as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation, we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without Congressional approval, if necessary,” the leaders write.

Senate leaders made clear their willingness to pursue balanced approach to cutting spending and reducing our deficit, but reiterated their insistence that any approach be a balanced between smart cuts and revenues from the wealthiest Americans.

###

The full text of the letter is below.

January 11, 2013

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As you know, Republican leaders are threatening to bring on an economic catastrophe unless Democrats make deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

This threat is outrageous and absurd. Defaulting on America’s legal obligations would undermine the American economy and spread global economic havoc. Just two years ago, Speaker Boehner himself admitted that failure to raise the debt limit “would be a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy.”

It is hard to imagine that the Speaker and Leader McConnell would really follow through on their threat to let our nation default on its debts. They are responsible leaders who know better. Sadly, some of their Republican colleagues do not. Therefore, we believe that you must make clear that you will never allow our nation’s economy and reputation to be held hostage. In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension only as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation, we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without Congressional approval, if necessary.

As you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending. It merely ensures that we meet our existing obligations. Those obligations were incurred by both Republicans and Democrats, and are the responsibility of all Americans.

Accordingly, we hope that you will continue to ignore claims that agreeing to an increase in the debt limit would somehow represent a concession by Republicans to Democrats. All Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, have a stake in ensuring that our country meets its legal obligations. Financial markets have long viewed securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States as the most trustworthy in the world. This lowers borrowing costs for homes, cars, and college for all Americans and strengthens our economy. If we violate that trust for the first time in history, we will never fully regain it, and every American will suffer.

For all these reasons, we support your view that an extension of the debt limit is not something for which Democrats should have to negotiate. At the same time, as a separate matter, we agree about the importance of developing a broad, bipartisan agreement on fiscal policy that strengthens our economy and reduces our long-term budget deficit.

As you have said, any such agreement must treat all Americans fairly and include not just responsible spending cuts but additional revenue from the wealthy and the elimination of wasteful tax breaks. It would be wrong to slash earned benefits for seniors and middle class families, while allowing corporations, millionaires, and billionaires to continue to exploit wasteful tax loopholes. We therefore hope that you will continue to insist that the entire budget be on the table, and that any agreement be fully balanced and fair.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Respectfully,

Senator Harry Reid
Senator Dick Durbin
Senator Chuck Schumer
Senator Parry Murray

A PDF of the letter can be found online here.

“House Republicans pushed middle class families closer to the cliff by wasting an entire week with their incompetent ‘Plan B’ stunt. It is time for House Republicans to put middle class families first by passing the Senate’s bill to protect 98 percent of Americans from a tax hike on January 1. The Senate bill could pass tomorrow if House Republicans would simply let it come to the floor.

“The Senate has already rejected House Republicans’ Tea Party bills, and no further legislation can move through the Senate until Republicans drop their knee-jerk obstruction. Right now, the Senate bill is the only bill that can become law, and House Republicans owe it to middle class families to let it pass with Democratic and Republican votes.”

“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.

Incoming Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn: “I believe we’re going to pass the $250,000 and below sooner or later, and we really don’t have much leverage there because those rates go up by operation of law Dec. 31.  I would focus on the areas where we do have more leverage.”  [Politico, 12/12/12]

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV): “But as government leaders are negotiating in advance of a year-end deadline to avert at least $500 billion in automatic tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts – the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ - Heller said he would ‘take a serious look at any proposal,’ including ones that might allow rates to increase on upper-income families while keeping them lower for others.” [Las Vegas Review Journal, 12/12/12]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): “Give in by voting present, let the Democrats pass an increase in the upper tax brackets, comes over to the Senate, Republicans vote no, and it becomes a Democrat tax increase but not a Republican/Democrat tax increase, which I think is a mistake for the Republicans.” [Fox News, 12/11/12]

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): “Murkowski, in an interview this morning from Washington, said she had been among Republicans who have been saying that raising the tax rate on some of the nation’s wealthiest individuals should be a part of the solution to the national debt problem if it is coupled with a reduction in spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. An increasing number of Republicans have, following Obama’s re-election and Republican losses in Congress, been expressing such a view. ‘I have been suggesting for a period of time now that I think it is worth a discussion, consideration, to look at the highest earners,’ Murkowski said. ‘For us as party to draw a line in the sand, to say ‘Don’t ever touch tax rates,’ I think that became a problem for us.’” [Fairbanks Daily News-Miner,12/12/12]

GROWING NUMBER OF GOP LAWMAKERS AGREE

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): “So, and a lot of people are putting forth a theory and I actually think it has merit where you go ahead and give the president the 2 percent increase that he is talking about, the rate increase on the top 2 percent.”  [Fox News Sunday, 12/9/12]

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE): “Sen. Mike Johanns edged Friday toward willingness to consider an increase in the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans as part of a fiscal cliff agreement if it also includes ‘a good-faith down payment’ on reducing entitlement spending. ‘You know, I think there is an opportunity there,’ Johanns told Bloomberg TV anchor Al Hunt when he asked whether Republicans could go along with a Democratic plan that would restore the top tax rate to 39.6 percent with a promise that it could be revisited next year.” [Lincoln Journal Star, 12/7/12]

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): “Personally, I know we have to raise revenue; I don’t really care which way we do it.  Actually, I would rather see the rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future.” [The Hill, 12/5/12]

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): “Representative (Tom) Cole’s (R-Okla.) proposal to proceed with an extension of tax relief for working families making $250,000 or less has merit because everyone agrees lower and middle-income families should not be subjected to higher taxes. I believe that very wealthy individuals — millionaires and billionaires — should pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes to help us reduce the soaring deficit.” [Portland Press Herald, 12/6/12]

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): “Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who is retiring, joined a handful of other Republicans on Tuesday suggesting that Congress should pass the middle-class tax cut extensions now, then leave the fight over taxes and spending until later. Americans, she said, ‘should not even be questioning that we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people.’ Congress could take that off the table‘while you’re grappling with tax cuts for the wealthy,’ she said.” [NY Times, 12/5/12]

Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX): “Separately, Representative Kay Granger of Texas is endorsing Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole’s call to extend all tax cuts for middle-class earners as ‘just the right thing to do.’” [Bloomberg, 12/5/12]

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC): “I would probably vote for it at that point.” [Huffington Post, 12/4/12]

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH): “Rate increase, if the package includes significant entitlement reform that gets you to $4 to $6 trillion (in deficit savings) over 10 years, I would vote for that.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH): “If it gets us past the fiscal cliff and the president is willing to consider meaningful savings in entitlements, it’s a legitimate solution.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): “I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now.” [Politico, 11/27/12]

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA): “I have to say that if you’re going to sign me up with a camp, I like what Tom Cole has to say.” [CNN, 11/29/12]

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID): “I wouldn’t have a problem with letting those tax rates go up.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL): “Tom Cole is talking about passing the ones that are out there so there could be more certainty, and I think that would be a positive step.” [NY Times, 11/29/12]

CONSERVATIVE OPINION MAKERS ALSO SEE WRITING ON WALL

Bill Kristol: “My view is, get the tax issue off the table. It’s the weakest one for Republicans right now.”  [Fox News Sunday, 12/9/12]

Anne Coulter:  Coulter: “OK fine, let’s do that, but in the end, at some point, if the Bush tax cuts are repealed and everyone’s taxes go up, I promise you Republicans will get blamed for it.  It doesn’t mean you cave on everything, but there are some things Republicans do that feed into what the media is telling America about Republicans.”  Hannity: “So are you saying that, for PR purposes, that they should give in to Obama on the tax rate?”  Coulter: “Not exactly, I–Well, yeah, I guess I am.”  [Huffington Post, 12/6/12]

NY Post Columnist John Podhoretz: “Republicans have a bad hand to play when it comes to the “fiscal cliff” coming up Jan. 1, when taxes will rise automatically on everyone and whopping defense cuts will be imposed automatically.  The truth is, every way you look at it, the GOP is trapped. Republican politicians will cave and give the president most of what he wants…The only real question is when. The answer is: Probably at the worst possible time, when they’ve done even more damage to the party’s‘brand.’”  [NY Post, 12/5/12]

Daily Caller Columnist Matt K. Lewis:  “Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see how Republicans have anything but bad options regarding the fiscal cliff. At least, not in the short term… This hasn’t stopped some conservative pundits from acting as if Republicans hold all the cards. But the notion that Republicans have leverage is silly. It’s the same kind of happy thinking that led some to boldly predict a Romney victory.”  [Daily Caller, 11/30/12]

Washington Examiner Editorial Writer Conn Carroll: “But as a backup plan, passing a tax cut for 98 percent of Americans, while avoiding any of the additional new stimulus spending that Obama is asking for, may be the best Republicans can hope for right now.” [Conn Carroll Column, Washington Examiner, 12/5/12]

NY Times Columnist David Brooks: “So Republicans have to realize that they are going to cave on tax rates.” [New York Times, 12/4/12]

National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The low-risk [option] is to pass an extension of the middle-class tax cuts, which presumably the Democrats would have to pass, and watch taxes for high earners rise. That way at least Republicans wouldn’t get blamed for middle-class tax increases. That second option isn’t great. But it’s better than some of the possible deals I’ve been reading and hearing about.” [National Review, 11/30/12]

Wall Street Journal Editorial: “This is where Mr. Norquist can give some ground. If taxes are going up anyway because the Bush rates expire, and Republicans can stop them from going up as much as they otherwise would, then pledge-takers deserve some credit for that.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/27/12]

 Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): “So, and a lot of people are putting forth a theory and I actually think it has merit where you go ahead and give the president the 2 percent increase that he is talking about, the rate increase on the top 2 percent.” [Fox News Sunday, 12/9/12]

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE): “Sen. Mike Johanns edged Friday toward willingness to consider an increase in the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans as part of a fiscal cliff agreement if it also includes ‘a good-faith down payment’ on reducing entitlement spending. ‘You know, I think there is an opportunity there,’ Johanns told Bloomberg TV anchor Al Hunt when he asked whether Republicans could go along with a Democratic plan that would restore the top tax rate to 39.6 percent with a promise that it could be revisited next year.” [Lincoln Journal Star, 12/7/12]

GROWING NUMBER OF GOP LAWMAKERS AGREE

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): “Personally, I know we have to raise revenue; I don’t really care which way we do it.  Actually, I would rather see the rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future.” [The Hill, 12/5/12]

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): “Representative (Tom) Cole’s (R-Okla.) proposal to proceed with an extension of tax relief for working families making $250,000 or less has merit because everyone agrees lower and middle-income families should not be subjected to higher taxes. I believe that very wealthy individuals — millionaires and billionaires — should pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes to help us reduce the soaring deficit.” [Portland Press Herald, 12/6/12]

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): “Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who is retiring, joined a handful of other Republicans on Tuesday suggesting that Congress should pass the middle-class tax cut extensions now, then leave the fight over taxes and spending until later. Americans, she said, ‘should not even be questioning that we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people.’ Congress could take that off the table ‘while you’re grappling with tax cuts for the wealthy,’ she said.” [NY Times, 12/5/12]

Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX): “Separately, Representative Kay Granger of Texas is endorsing Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole’s call to extend all tax cuts for middle-class earners as ‘just the right thing to do.’” [Bloomberg, 12/5/12]

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC): “I would probably vote for it at that point.” [Huffington Post, 12/4/12]

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH): “Rate increase, if the package includes significant entitlement reform that gets you to $4 to $6 trillion (in deficit savings) over 10 years, I would vote for that.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH): “If it gets us past the fiscal cliff and the president is willing to consider meaningful savings in entitlements, it’s a legitimate solution.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): “I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now.” [Politico, 11/27/12]

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA): “I have to say that if you’re going to sign me up with a camp, I like what Tom Cole has to say.” [CNN, 11/29/12]

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID): “I wouldn’t have a problem with letting those tax rates go up.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL): “Tom Cole is talking about passing the ones that are out there so there could be more certainty, and I think that would be a positive step.” [NY Times, 11/29/12]

CONSERVATIVE OPINION MAKERS ALSO SEE WRITING ON WALL

Bill Kristol: “My view is, get the tax issue off the table. It’s the weakest one for Republicans right now.”  [Fox News Sunday, 12/9/12]

Anne Coulter:  Coulter: “OK fine, let’s do that, but in the end, at some point, if the Bush tax cuts are repealed and everyone’s taxes go up, I promise you Republicans will get blamed for it.  It doesn’t mean you cave on everything, but there are some things Republicans do that feed into what the media is telling America about Republicans.” Hannity: “So are you saying that, for PR purposes, that they should give in to Obama on the tax rate?”  Coulter: “Not exactly, I–Well, yeah, I guess I am.”  [Huffington Post,12/6/12]

NY Post Columnist John Podhoretz: “Republicans have a bad hand to play when it comes to the “fiscal cliff” coming up Jan. 1, when taxes will rise automatically on everyone and whopping defense cuts will be imposed automatically.  The truth is, every way you look at it, the GOP is trapped. Republican politicians will cave and give the president most of what he wants…The only real question is when. The answer is: Probably at the worst possible time, when they’ve done even more damage to the party’s ‘brand.’”  [NY Post, 12/5/12]

Daily Caller Columnist Matt K. Lewis:  “Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see how Republicans have anything but bad options regarding the fiscal cliff. At least, not in the short term… This hasn’t stopped some conservative pundits from acting as if Republicans hold all the cards. But the notion that Republicans have leverage is silly. It’s the same kind of happy thinking that led some to boldly predict a Romney victory.”  [Daily Caller, 11/30/12]

Washington Examiner Editorial Writer Conn Carroll: “But as a backup plan, passing a tax cut for 98 percent of Americans, while avoiding any of the additional new stimulus spending that Obama is asking for, may be the best Republicans can hope for right now.” [Conn Carroll Column, Washington Examiner, 12/5/12]

NY Times Columnist David Brooks: “So Republicans have to realize that they are going to cave on tax rates.” [New York Times, 12/4/12]

National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The low-risk [option] is to pass an extension of the middle-class tax cuts, which presumably the Democrats would have to pass, and watch taxes for high earners rise. That way at least Republicans wouldn’t get blamed for middle-class tax increases. That second option isn’t great. But it’s better than some of the possible deals I’ve been reading and hearing about.” [National Review, 11/30/12]

Wall Street Journal Editorial: “This is where Mr. Norquist can give some ground. If taxes are going up anyway because the Bush rates expire, and Republicans can stop them from going up as much as they otherwise would, then pledge-takers deserve some credit for that.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/27/12]

“This is a blatant attempt by Michigan Republicans to assault the collective bargaining process and undermine the standard of living it has helped foster. This effort continues a dangerous trend set by Republican-led state legislatures across the nation, and it is another instance of the Tea Party needlessly sowing division and setting Republicans’ economic agenda.

“Elected officials, labor leaders and business leaders can and should work towards the common goals of job creation, improving our economy and strengthening middle-class families. But this partisan power grab is a setback to prospects for compromise.”

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.

COBURN: ‘I’D RATHER SEE RATES GO UP.’ “Personally, I know we have to raise revenue; I don’t really care which way we do it.  Actually, I would rather see the rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future.” [The Hill, 12/5/12]

GROWING NUMBER OF GOP LAWMAKERS AGREE

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): “Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who is retiring, joined a handful of other Republicans on Tuesday suggesting that Congress should pass the middle-class tax cut extensions now, then leave the fight over taxes and spending until later. Americans, she said, ‘should not even be questioning that we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle-income people.’ Congress could take that off the table ‘while you’re grappling with tax cuts for the wealthy,’ she said.” [NY Times, 12/5/12]

Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX): Separately, Representative Kay Granger of Texas is endorsing Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole’s call to extend all tax cuts for middle-class earners as “just the right thing to do.” [Bloomberg, 12/5/12]

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC): “I would probably vote for it at that point.” [Huffington Post, 12/4/12]

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH): “Rate increase, if the package includes significant entitlement reform that gets you to $4 to $6 trillion (in deficit savings) over 10 years, I would vote for that.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH): “If it gets us past the fiscal cliff and the president is willing to consider meaningful savings in entitlements, it’s a legitimate solution.” [The Associated Press, 11/30/12]

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): “I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now.” [Politico, 11/27/12]

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA): “I have to say that if you’re going to sign me up with a camp, I like what Tom Cole has to say.” [CNN, 11/29/12]

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID): “I wouldn’t have a problem with letting those tax rates go up.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL): “Tom Cole is talking about passing the ones that are out there so there could be more certainty, and I think that would be a positive step.” [NY Times, 11/29/12]

CONSERVATIVE OPINION MAKERS ALSO SEE WRITING ON WALL

NY Post Columnist John Podhoretz: “Republicans have a bad hand to play when it comes to the “fiscal cliff” coming up Jan. 1, when taxes will rise automatically on everyone and whopping defense cuts will be imposed automatically.  The truth is, every way you look at it, the GOP is trapped. Republican politicians will cave and give the president most of what he wants… The only real question is when. The answer is: Probably at the worst possible time, when they’ve done even more damage to the party’s ‘brand.’”  [NY Post, 12/5/12]

Daily Caller Columnist Matt K. Lewis:  “Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see how Republicans have anything but bad options regarding the fiscal cliff. At least, not in the short term… This hasn’t stopped some conservative pundits from acting as if Republicans hold all the cards. But the notion that Republicans have leverage is silly. It’s the same kind of happy thinking that led some to boldly predict a Romney victory.”  [Daily Caller,11/30/12]

Washington Examiner Editorial Writer Conn Carroll: “But as a backup plan, passing a tax cut for 98 percent of Americans, while avoiding any of the additional new stimulus spending that Obama is asking for, may be the best Republicans can hope for right now.” [Conn Carroll Column, Washington Examiner, 12/5/12]

NY Times Columnist David Brooks: “So Republicans have to realize that they are going to cave on tax rates.” [New York Times, 12/4/12]

National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The low-risk [option] is to pass an extension of the middle-class tax cuts, which presumably the Democrats would have to pass, and watch taxes for high earners rise. That way at least Republicans wouldn’t get blamed for middle-class tax increases. That second option isn’t great. But it’s better than some of the possible deals I’ve been reading and hearing about.” [National Review, 11/30/12]

Wall Street Journal Editorial: “This is where Mr. Norquist can give some ground. If taxes are going up anyway because the Bush rates expire, and Republicans can stop them from going up as much as they otherwise would, then pledge-takers deserve some credit for that.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/27/12]

“It is a sad day when we cannot pass a treaty that simply brings the world up to the American standard for protecting people with disabilities because the Republican party is in thrall to extremists and ideologues. The United States is seen as a leader around the world. Today, we had a chance to lead, and we failed because a small group of Republican senators fear the Tea Party more than they care about equality for people with disabilities.

“Today’s vote wasn’t about Republicans or Democrats. It was about standing up for our heroes – men and women who risked their lives on the battlefield for the United States of America. This treaty was about 57 million Americans who live with a disability. Republicans such as former President George H.W. Bush, Senator McCain and former Senator Bob Dole called on their Republican colleagues to support these Americans. I am saddened those Senators did not listen. Their arguments against the treaty had no basis in fact – the treaty does not change United States law. That is why I plan to bring this treaty up for a vote again in the next Congress. Our wounded veterans and millions more around the world deserve better.”

“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.

THREE NEW GOP LAWMAKERS ECHO REP. TOM COLE

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): “I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now.” [Politico, 11/27/12]

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA): “I have to say that if you’re going to sign me up with a camp, I like what Tom Cole has to say.” [CNN, 11/29/12]

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID): “I wouldn’t have a problem with letting those tax rates go up.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL): “Tom Cole is talking about passing the ones that are out there so there could be more certainty, and I think that would be a positive step.” [NY Times, 11/29/12]

HOUSE GOP LAWMAKERS: ‘SENATE BILL COULD PASS THE HOUSE’

Rep. Steve King (R-IA): “Conservatives might be able to figure how they can go home and rationalize a vote that included a revenue increase and or a tax rate increase.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Spokesman for Rep Tim Scott (R-SC): Such a measure “could pass the House.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

Anonymous GOP Lawmaker: “Another senior Republican lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters that a Democratic bill, which passed the Senate in July and would raise income taxes on families with net incomes above $250,000, could pass his chamber if it got to the floor.” [Reuters, 11/29/12]

It took four months, but Republicans are finally realizing the way back from the fiscal cliff has been right in front of them all along.

In July, the Senate passed legislation to give economic certainty to 98 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses – to every American making less than $250,000 a year.

For four months we’ve been one vote away from a solution to this looming crisis.

And for four months, House Republicans have refused to act.

Instead they have held the middle class hostage to protect the richest 2 percent of taxpayers – people who have enjoyed a decade of ballooning income and shrinking tax bills.

Now reasonable Republicans are coming around to what Democrats have said all along: let’s reassure millions of middle-class Americans their taxes won’t go up by $2,200 on January 1.

Prominent Republicans are calling on Speaker Boehner to end the suspense for millions of American families.

Republican Congressman Tom Cole of Oklahoma urged his caucus to pass the Senate’s legislation keeping taxes low for those making less than $250,000.

And conservative, Republican Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina admitted yesterday that if the Speaker brought our bill to a vote, it would surely to pass.

It’s time House Republican leadership listened to the will of the American people – and the advice of reasonable members of their own caucus.

The way out of this standoff is clear.

Yet we’re left wondering how long Republicans will force middle-class families to wait and worry.

Unfortunately, resolving this standoff won’t eliminate every conflict over our fiscal future.

If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, it will take a balanced approach.

Last year, we successfully worked across party lines to cut a trillion dollars’ worth of spending we just couldn’t afford.

Now, even our Republican colleagues acknowledge budget cuts alone won’t solve our fiscal challenges.

A majority of Americans – 60 percent – want to end needless tax breaks for the richest Americans. Democrats couldn’t agree more.

But we can argue over whether to give more unnecessary handouts to the wealthy tomorrow.

We can discuss balanced, responsible ways to reduce our deficit tomorrow.

Let’s take care of the middle class today.

Too often, it is a challenge finding common ground in Washington.

But as we negotiate a path back from the fiscal cliff, we should also recognize when Democrats and Republicans agree.

We agree taxes should not go up for anyone making less than $250,000 a year – 97 percent of small businesses and 98 percent of middle-class families.

With common ground in sight, we should be able to act today to avert the fiscal cliff for millions of families and business.

Even if we disagree on whether to end tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent of Americans, we should agree to hold the middle class harmless – and do it now.

A single vote in the House of Representatives would get the job done.

Unfortunately, there’s one obstacle standing between Congress and compromise: Grover Norquist.

For years, Norquist has bullied lawmakers willing to put their oath of office or their promise to serve constituents ahead of their pledge to the anti-tax zealot.

His brand of ideological extremism has been bad for Congress and even worse for the country.

So I was pleased to see a few Republicans in Congress distance themselves from Norquist this week.

Several Republican lawmakers have said revenue should be on the table during fiscal cliff negotiations.

Now it’s time for those Republicans to turn happy talk into action.

President Obama and Senate Democrats ran on a promise to end the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.

Americans raised their voices, cast their votes and supported our pledge.

Congress must act in accordance with the will of the American people.

An agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff must give economic certainty to middle-class families.

It must protect important tax deductions for families and businesses still struggling to recover from the Great Recession.

It must take a balanced approach to reduce spending.

But it must also ask the richest of the rich to pay a little extra to reduce the deficit.

Any balanced agreement will require difficult concessions from both sides.

Clinging to the kind of ideological purity Grover Norquist peddles – saying you’ll never bend or compromise – is easy.

Cooperating with those with whom you disagree is hard.

Doing what’s right for the country – despite the personal cost – is hard.

Legislating is hard.

As we approach the fiscal cliff, Democrats are ready to make tough choices.

I hope my Republican friends – especially those who claim they put no pledge before their pledge to serve their constituents – can say the same.

“For months Mitt Romney has been dishonest about his own taxes, but now he is being dishonest about your taxes. When he was asked to answer for his proposal to give huge breaks to millionaires and billionaires while raising taxes on middle-class Americans, Mitt Romney feigned ignorance and tried to disavow his own tax plan.

“With so much valid concern over the nation’s deficit, the American people deserve to know the truth about Mitt Romney’s tax plan. Democrats have been clear that we want to cut taxes for American families earning less than $250,000 while asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share as part of a balanced plan to reduce our deficit.

“But instead of being honest with Americans about taxes and the deficit, Mitt Romney is peddling snake oil. He seems to think he is entitled to hide the details of his tax plan from the American people, just like he continues to hide his tax returns. But the truth is that Mitt Romney’s math just doesn’t add up without raising taxes on the middle class.”

Over the last week, I’ve listened to my Republican colleagues come to the Senate floor to lament how little the Senate has accomplished during the 112th Congress.

I share that concern.

In fact, it’s a wonder we’ve gotten anything done at all, considering the lack of cooperation Democrats have gotten from our Republican colleagues.

I’ve said it before, but this bears repeating. In my time as Majority Leader, I have faced 382 Republican filibusters.

That’s 381 more filibusters than Lyndon Johnson faced during his six years as Majority Leader.

Time and again, my Republican colleagues have stalled or blocked perfectly good pieces of legislation to score points with the Tea Party – and they’ve hurt middle-class Americans in the process.

Even the most noncontroversial, consensus matters – items that would have passed by unanimous consent in the past – Republicans have obstructed or delayed.

Take the bipartisan sportsman’s bill, for example.

The Junior Senator from Montana, Senator Tester, has assembled a broad package of legislation to support the needs of sportsmen across the country.

This measure combines about 20 bills important to the sportsmen’s community – bills that would promote hunting, fishing and recreation.

They would foster habitat conservation through voluntary programs.

And more than 50 national sportsmen and conservation groups support Senator Tester’s bill.

We ought to pass this package in a matter of hours.

This should not be a fight.

Yet Republicans are forcing us to run out the clock on this bipartisan bill.

And, in the process, they’re holding up votes on several other important measures, including: Iran containment, confirmation of our ambassadors to Iraq and Pakistan and the continuing resolution to fund the government for six months.

Republicans say this Congress has been unproductive.

But if Republicans want to know why it’s been unproductive, they should take a look in the mirror.

Benjamin Franklin once said “Well done is better than well said.”

It’s time Republicans stopped talking about how much they want to get things done and started working with Democrats to actually get things done.

Senate Tea Party Leader: ‘We Might as Well Cut a Deal’

WaPo: ‘REPUBLICANS SAY THEY’LL RETREAT ON TAXES IF OBAMA WINS’

WaPo: “Senior Republicans say they will be forced to retreat on taxes if President Obama wins a second term in November, clearing the biggest obstacle to a deal with Democrats to defuse a year-end budget bomb that threatens to rock the U.S. economy.” [Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane, 9/21/12]

WaPo: “… Even some ardent conservatives say Republicans may have no choice but to throw in the towel on taxes if they want to persuade Democrats to spare the Pentagon budget.” [Montgomery and Kane, 9/21/12]

SENATE TEA PARTY LEADER: ‘WE MIGHT AS WELL CUT A DEAL’

WaPo: “We’re not going to save our defense unless we go along with the president’s wishes…,” said Sen Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a leader of the Tea Party movement. … “There are enough Republicans, I think, who are so afraid of defense cuts that they would probably give in.” [Montgomery and Kane, 9/21/12]

BLOOMBERG: “Last week, one of the Republican Party’s most ardent tax- cut advocates said if Obama is re-elected, there’s not much point in delaying a compromise on taxes.  … ‘We might as well cut a deal,’ [DeMint] said. ‘If Republicans want to maintain the defense, we’re going to have to give tax increases to Obama.’” [Heidi Przybyla, 9/20/12]

TOP SENATE CONSERVATIVE: ‘I’M ALL FOR’ DEAL THAT INCLUDES REVENUES

BLOOMBERG: “’I’m all for that, I wanted Bowles-Simpson,’ said Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican participating in the Senate group’s talks.” [Przybyla, 9/20/12]

“The least we can do for veterans, after they fought for this country abroad, is to ensure they never have to fight for a job when they come home to Nevada, or any other state. Yet, Republicans stalled and eventually blocked the Veterans Jobs Corps Act with one procedural excuse after another. My colleagues have played politics with all types of common sense measures, just because those measures are supported by President Obama. But blocking a veterans’ jobs bill is a new low, and truly disappointing to me and to tens of thousands of service members.

“Each year 200,000 brave members of our Armed Forces reenter the civilian workforce. This bill would have eased their transition to civilian life with job training programs and priority hiring for first responder jobs as police officers, fire fighters or rescue workers. Once, a proposal like this would have sailed through the Senate with bipartisan support. But today my Republican colleagues put election-year partisanship ahead of the men and women who risked their lives to protect our freedoms.”

AP – Republican objections to spending in veterans jobs bill blocks election-year legislation -The Senate blocked legislation Wednesday that would have established a $1 billion jobs program putting veterans back to work tending to the country’s federal lands and bolstering local police and fire departments. Republicans said the spending authorized in the bill violated limits that Congress agreed to last year. Democrats fell two votes shy of the 60-vote majority needed to waive the objection, forcing the legislation back to committee. LINK

Roll Call – Senate GOP Blocks Veterans Jobs Bill - Senate Republicans today defeated Democratic legislation designed to help veterans get jobs, complaining that the measure violates budget rules and is meant to score political points rather than help veterans. “Americans don’t trust us,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. “And why should Americans trust us when we keep using gimmicks and budget sleight of hand to hide more spending and drive the country further into debt.” LINK

National Journal – Senate Republicans Stop Vote On Vet Jobs Bill - Senate Republicans effectively killed a measure to find jobs for unemployed veterans on a procedural vote Wednesday, after several attempts by Democrats to keep the bill on the table failed.  Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., raised a point of order against the bill on Wednesday, citing alleged violations of Senate budget rules. Since three-fifths of the chamber did not vote to waive the rules, the legislation cannot move forward.LINK

Washington Post – Bill to create Veterans Job Corps fails to advance - Legislation to create a Veterans Job Corps suffered a major defeat Wednesday afternoon after Republicans successfully blocked the bill’s advance with a budgetary point of order. The Senate voted 58 to 43 largely on party lines in favor of waiving the procedural objection, short of the three-fifths majority needed. Republicans said the bill was in violation of the Budget Control Act, prohibiting new programs that would add to the deficit. LINK

The Guardian – Veterans’ bill voted down by GOP as Senate Democrats proclaim ‘new low’ -Republicans have voted down legislation that would have established a $1bn jobs programme to put unemployed veterans back to work as firefighters, police officers and in public work projects. They objected to the cost of the bill, which they said violates spending limits agreed to last year in Congress. Democrats and veterans groups say its cost are fully offset. The bill, which had bipartisan support in the Senate and would have given priority to post-9/11 veterans whose employment prospects are three points below the national average, fell two votes short of the majority of 60 needed to waive Republican objections. LINK

For months I believed Mitt Romney wanted to be President of all the United States of America.

This week we learned Mitt Romney only wants to be President of half the United States of America.

If Mitt Romney were President, he wouldn’t waste time worrying about the 47 percent of Americans who he believes are “victims” – who Romney says are unwilling to take “personal responsibility.”

He’ll only worry about how the other half lives.

That’s what Mitt Romney told a group of wealthy donors at a closed-door fundraiser. This is what he said:

“There are 47 percent who… are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

Mitt Romney said his job as President would not be “to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

So who are those Americans Mitt Romney disdains as “victims” and “those people?”

They’re not avoiding their tax bills using Cayman Island tax shelters or Swiss bank accounts, like Mitt Romney.

Millions of the 47 percent are seniors on Social Security, who don’t have Bain Capital retirement funds or inherited stock to fall back on.

Many of the 47 percent are students reaching to afford university tuition so they can become nurses or teachers, or attending community college to become electricians or welders.

Some of the 47 percent have disabilities whose challenges are already a full-time job, but are still actively seeking opportunities.
Millions more have been unemployed since the Great Recession – not because they’re freeloaders or can’t be bothered to get a job, but because some private equity fund / closed their factory and shipped their job to China.

Many of the 47 percent are active duty members of the military fighting for their country overseas.

Some of the 47 percent are veterans getting an education earned through dedicated service.

Many more of the 47 percent are mothers and fathers working minimum-wage jobs but still struggling.

Others percent are middle-class families raising children with a little help from the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit – a hand up Republicans once bragged about helping to enact.

The 47 percent are ordinary, hard-working Americans who deserve respect – especially from a man who wants to be their President.

And these Americans pay a slew of other taxes – including state income taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes and sales taxes.

But in Mitt Romney’s view, they still don’t pay enough.

So let’s ask, whose taxes would Mitt Romney raise?

Would Romney raise taxes on retirees who paid into Social Security all their lives, and are counting on it to get them through their golden years?

Would Romney raise taxes on mothers and fathers who work hard, but still struggle to put food in their children’s mouths?

Would Romney raise taxes on middle-class families stretching to afford diapers and daycare at the same time?

Would Romney raise taxes on Americans with disabilities striving to live full and productive lives?

Would Romney raise taxes on students stretching every dollar to afford tuition?

Would Romney raise taxes on men and women serving overseas in the Armed Forces, who make untold sacrifices / to preserve American freedom and democracy / not because they’re getting rich doing it / but out of a deep sense of duty?

Whose taxes would Mitt Romney raise?

We know he wouldn’t raise taxes for millionaires and billionaires, or companies that ship jobs overseas.

If you’re a math teacher or a maid or a single mother, it won’t be Mitt Romney’s job to worry about you.

But if you’re a multi-millionaire, Mitt Romney won’t rest until you get a quarter million dollar tax cut.

For all we know, Mitt Romney could be one of those who have paid no federal income taxes.

Thousands of families making more than $1 million pay nothing in federal income taxes each year.

Is Mitt Romney among them?

We’ll never know, since he refuses to release tax returns / from the years before he was running for president.

But from the one return we have seen, we know Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than middle class families / thanks to Swiss bank accounts / and Cayman Island tax shelters.

And we can only imagine what new secrets would be revealed if he showed the American people a dozen years of tax returns, like his father did.
Mitt Romney believes in two sets of rules – one for millionaires and another for the middle class.

If you have money to hide in Bermuda and Switzerland, can’t you afford to contribute a few pennies more to balance the budget or reduce the deficit? Mitt Romney says no.

But if you’re retired or poor, disabled or a student, or even a returning hero who fought for your country, Romney believes you can afford to pay more.

This rare look at the real Mitt Romney proves one thing: he’s completely out of touch with average Americans.

And if he won’t stand up and fight for every American as President, then he doesn’t deserve to serve any American as President.

HOUSE GOP STILL IN CHAOS …

BuzzFeed: On Farm Bill, “GOP Remains No Closer” To Resolving Internal Dispute.“Despite months of negotiations amongst House Republicans over the $1.2 trillion farm bill reauthorization – which includes federal food stamp funding – the GOP remains no closer to resolving an internal dispute between farm state lawmakers and fiscal hawks bent on cutting spending.” [BuzzFeed, 9/14/12]

Politico: House GOP’s handling of farm bill “spiral[ing] downward.” “…The House farm bill debate spirals downward and Republicans prepare to go home Friday without acting on the bipartisan five-year plan reported in July. [Politico, 9/17/12]

HOME-STATE PAPERS ARE PAYING ATTENTION …

Grand Folks (ND) Herald Editorial: Farm Bill Bottled up by House Republican Leaders.“The new Farm Bill remains bottled up by House leaders, even though the current one expires in two weeks. Contrast that with the Senate, where a comparable bill passed the full membership, also by a bipartisan supermajority. Why won’t Republican leaders even let the House vote? The answer is that they’re ideologues (or in thrall to an ideological caucus) and scorn even effective programs that seem to be arms of ‘big government.’” [Grand Forks Herald, 9/17/12]

Omaha World-Herald: Farm Bill Has “Sown Disagreement” Among Republicans.“Deadline pressure to pass the farm bill has sown disagreement among even the Midlands Republicans who typically work together on a bill vital to their districts.” [Omaha World-Herald, 9/15/12]

Waterville (ME) Morning Sentinel: “House Republican Leaders Have Yet To Allow A Floor Vote, Apparently Because Of Divisions Within Their Own Ranks.” “Competing versions of a farm bill — which encompasses everything from crop subsidies to disaster relief and food stamps — have passed the full Senate and the House Agriculture Committee. But House Republican leaders have yet to allow a floor vote, apparently because of divisions within their own ranks (even though the bill is widely believed to have enough votes to pass, albeit with Democratic help).” [Morning Sentinel, 9/17/12]

Rochester (NY) Democrat and Chronicle Editorial: Farm Bill Stalled in the House Thanks to Tea Party. “Take the Farm Bill, which expires at the end of this month. The Senate passed a five-year version of a new bill back in June. But the measure has stalled in the House, where the tea party branch of the Republican majority wants deeper cuts in food stamp spending.” [Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 9/15/12]

River Bend (IL) Telegraph Editorial: “The Full House Has Not Done Its Job” “The Senate has done its job and voted on the 557-page proposal and its 100 amendments. The House Agriculture Committee has done its job and sent the proposal to the full House. That’s where it has sat, gathering moss and venom because the full House has not done its job.” [Telegraph,9/18/12]

It’s Thursday, which means Republicans have once against forced the Senate to waste the better part of a week jumping through procedural hoops.

This week the Senate waited out yet another filibuster – the 380th filibuster in my six years as Majority Leader.

But this time Republicans aren’t just obstructing a measure that would create jobs.

They’re obstructing a measure that would create jobs for the men and women who have risked their lives over the last 11 years to protect our freedoms.

Each year 200,000 service members reenter the civilian workforce.

The Veterans Jobs Corps Act would invest in those returning veterans – easing the transition back to civilian life with job training programs and priority hiring for first responder positions.

If young veterans want to continue their service to country and community by becoming police officers, fire fighters or rescue workers, we should help them achieve that goal.

And this legislation would also create jobs for veterans restoring forests, parks, coasts and public lands.

The least we can do for those who have fought for this country abroad is to ensure they never have to fight for a job when they come home.

This is the kind of proposal that should sail through the Senate with bipartisan support.

Instead, it has met one Republican stall tactic after another.

Not only has this bill faced a string of procedural hurdles, Republicans have larded it up with unrelated, ideological amendments.

And while some of those amendments are certainly important, they don’t belong on any jobs measure, let alone a jobs measure that would assist returning veterans.

Unfortunately, I’m not surprised to see the GOP blocking a jobs bill.

After all, that’s been their tactic all year. In fact, it’s been their tactic for nearly four years.

The Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell, said so himself.

During the darkest days of the Great Recession, he said his number one goal was to defeat President Obama – not to create jobs or boost the economy.

And that’s still true today.

But I am dismayed to see them blocking a jobs bill aimed at protecting those who protect this nation.

This is a new low for Republicans.

At a time when 175,000 post-9/11 veterans are out of work, we can’t afford to waste time with election-year politics.

Less than three weeks before his death, John F. Kennedy wrote that, “As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.”

It is time for the Senate to show its gratitude to a new generation of veterans with deeds.

And so I hope my Republican colleagues will find it in themselves to put America’s veterans first and their political aspirations second.

Washington Post/ABC Poll: 60% Say Romney Would Do More to Favor the Wealthy.Asked “as president do you think Romney would do more to favor the (middle class) or more to favor the (wealthy),” 60% said that Romney would do more to favor the wealthywhile only 30% said Romney would do more to favor the middle class. [Washington Post/ABC Poll, 8/27/12]

• Pew Research Center Poll: 71% Believe Romney Policies Benefit the Wealthy Over Middle Class And Poor. “More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) say the GOP favors the rich over the middle class and poor, and 71% believe the policies of a President Mitt Romney would be good for wealthy people. Much smaller shares say the same about the Democratic Party (20%) and the policies of President Barack Obama in a second term (37%).” [Pew, 8/27/12]

Washington Post/ABC Poll: Americans Prefer Roads and Bridges to Cutting Taxes.Asked “what do you think is a better way for the government to try to create jobs – (by cutting taxes); or (by spending money on projects like roads, bridges and technology development),” 52% supported spending on projects like roads, bridges and technology development while only 33% supported cutting taxes. [Washington Post/ABC Poll, 8/27/12]

Washington Post/ABC Poll: 56% See Unfairness as A Bigger Problem Than Over-Regulation.  Asked “what do you think is the bigger problem in this country – (unfairness in the economic system that favors the wealthy), or (over-regulation of the free market that interferes with growth and prosperity,” 56% said unfairness is the bigger problem while only 34% said over-regulation is a bigger problem. [Washington Post/ABC Poll, 8/27/12]

“Seventy-seven years ago today, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed a promise to all Americans guaranteeing that their ability to retire with dignity would not be left to the mercy of the economic winds. Social Security continues to fulfill that promise by providing a secure retirement to seniors in Nevada and across the country.

“Unfortunately, this promise is under attack from Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan and Governor Mitt Romney, who have shown they want to privatize Social Security and put seniors at the mercy of the stock market. As we have seen on issue after issue, Republicans like Ryan and Romney would rather gut Social Security than join with Democrats in a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines smart spending cuts with asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.

“After working hard their entire lives, America’s seniors deserve to retire with dignity. Our nation’s seniors expect their elected officials to keep the promise that was made almost eight decades ago. They can count on Democrats to keep the promise of Social Security.”

“By picking Representative Paul Ryan, Governor Romney has doubled down on his commitment to gut Social Security and end Medicare as we know it. Romney’s choice demonstrates that catering to the Tea Party and the far-right is more important to him that standing up for the middle class.

“The months ahead will provide Americans with a clear choice between the Romney-Ryan plan to gut Social Security and Medicare, and Democrats’ balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines smart spending cuts with asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. Democrats in the Senate look forward to engaging in that debate.”

MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS: Senate Democrats Passed Legislation to Cut Taxes for 114 Million Middle Class Families. Senate Democrats led the passage of legislation to extend middle-class tax cuts for the 98% of Americans making less than $250,000, preventing a $1,600 tax hike on 114 million middle-class families. House Republicans are willing to add nearly $1 trillion to the deficit and hit 25 million families with a tax hike by ending credits for raising children and paying for college. [Vote 184, 7/25/12; National Economic Council, 7/12]

FARM BILL: Senate Democrats Passed Legislation to Strengthen the Rural Economy. In June, Senate Democrats passed the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act, which would invest in successful jobs initiatives, help increase export opportunities, make it easier for farmers to sell locally and access capital, support innovation in bio-manufacturing and bio-energy, and support farmers and small businesses owners who have suffered disasters, while saving tens of billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. American agriculture supports 16 million jobs. [Vote 164, 6/21/12; Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, 6/12]

POSTAL REFORM: Senate Democrats Passed Legislation to Modernize the United States Postal Service. In April, Senate Democrats passed legislation to modernize the postal service and give it the flexibility to maintain critical functions while adapting to changes in the way people use the mail system. The United States Postal Service is the country’s second largest civilian employer and sustains over 8 million jobs. The House has been idle in the face of the Post Office’s first ever default – on $5.5 billion of future retiree health benefits. [Vote 82, 4/25/12;Envelope Manufacturers Association, 3/11; Reuters, 8/2/12]

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT : Senate Democrats Passed Legislation to Reduce the Incidence of Violence Against Women.  In April, Senate Democrats passed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which enhanced emphasis on prevention and response to sexual assault and extended VAWA protections to all Americans.  House Republicans have been unwilling to act on the Senate’s bipartisan, inclusive bill. In the time since the Senate passed its bill, there have been over 1.2 million incidents of violence against women. [Vote 87, 4/26/12; CQ, 4/26/12]

CHINA CURRENCY: Senate Democrats Passed Legislation to Crack Down on China’s Cheating and Level the Field for American Workers. In October of 2011, Senate Democrats passed the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act, which improves currency oversight and includes tougher consequences for breaking the rules. Revaluing China’s currency could create over 1.6 million jobs. [Vote 159, 10/11/11; EPI, 6/17/11]

NBC News: “Senate Faces Potential Influx of Conservative Republicans” “The Senate is likely to assume an even more conservative tenor come January as a crop of insurgent-minded Republicans replace some of the GOP’s old guard in the upper chamber.” [NBC News, 8/2/12]

Washington Post: “Why Ted Cruz’s Win Isn’t All Good News for Senate Republicans.” “Cruz’s victory will almost certainly make [presumptive No. 2 Senate Republican John] Cornyn’s life — and the lives of the other members of the Senate Republican leadership more difficult.” [Washington Post,8/1/12]

NY Times: New Conservatives In Senate Could Increase “Conflicts Between Moderates And Far-Right Republicans Disinclined Toward Compromise.” ”The infusion of new conservative blood could alter the complexion of the Senate, increasing the sorts of conflicts between moderates and far-right Republicans disinclined toward compromise that have characterized the House for two years.” [NY Times, 8/2/12] 

NY Times: Conservatives to Give McConnell “Added Aggravations.” “As a result, the group could also present the sort of added aggravations for Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, that befell the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, as he sought to draft difficult deals with Democrats and the White House at a time of a complex fiscal mess.” [NY Times, 8/2/12]

GOP’s Rightward Shift Has Squeezed Moderates Out of the Party

NY Times: Chance of More Conservatives in Senate is a “Corollary Trend Of The Moderate Congressional Members Fleeing The Scene.” “The Tea Party’s sinewy stamina among Senate candidates is the corollary trend of the moderate Congressional members fleeing the scene, best represented by this week’s surprise retirement of Representative Steven C. LaTourette, Republican of Ohio, who announced his decision through a flame of recriminations about partisanship, and Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who left her party in a tough spot.” [NY Times, 8/2/12]

NY Times: “Most Moderate Republicans Who Served in The Senate Just a Few Years Ago Will No Longer Be in the Congress When it Meets Again 2013.” “The bigger story here, however, is that Mr. Lugar is the latest in a long line of relatively moderate Republican senators to meet an electoral demise. In fact, most moderate Republicans who served in the Senate just a few years ago will no longer be in the Congress when it meets again 2013.” [NY Times, 5/8/12]

Rep. LaTourette (R-OH): Republicans Who Want to Make Deals now Face Angry Taunts.“LaTourette said Republicans who want to make deals now face angry taunts: ‘You’re a coward; you’re a facilitator; you’re an appeaser; you’re a RINO” — a Republican In Name Only.’” [Politico, 8/1/12]

Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY): “I’m Frustrated By How Much We — I Mean the Republican Party — Are Willing to Give Deferential Treatment To Our Extremes” “I have to say that I’m frustrated by how much we — I mean the Republican Party — are willing to give deferential treatment to our extremes in this moment in history,” he told The Post-Standard editorial board.” [Syracuse Post-Standard, 7/30/12]

BuzzFeed: Republicans Feel Boehner “Has Forced Them To Go Along With Conservative Demands But Has Provided Them Little In Return.” “According to Republicans, moderate members of the House GOP conference feel that Boehner, who has struggled with an often raucous and openly defiant right wing, has forced them to go along with conservative demands but has provided them little in return.” [BuzzFeed, 7/30/12]

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

AP: Republicans Pull Farm Bill “Amid Continued Resistance from Many Conservatives…” “But GOP leaders pulled that measure from Wednesday’s floor schedule amid continued resistance from many conservatives and after Democrats announced opposition to the measure.” [AP, 8/1/12]

Politico: Boehner Has Blocked the Farm Bill “For Fear Of A Messy Fight Dividing His Party.” “The Senate approved its farm bill in June, but Boehner has so far blocked House action for fear of a messy fight dividing his party.” [Politico, 8/1/12]

The Hill: Boehner “Want[ed] to Avoid Intraparty Battle” On Farm Bill. “Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his lieutenants, wanting to avoid an intraparty battle on a $957 billion five-year bill approved by the House Agriculture Committee, scheduled a vote on a one-year farm program extension that includes drought relief provisions. [The Hill, 7/30/12]

New York Times: “Republican Leaders Have Found Themselves Caught In A Squeeze Between Their Party’s Most Ardent Conservatives And Drought-Ridden Farmers…”“The House speaker, John A. Boehner, and other Republican leaders have found themselves caught in a squeeze between their party’s most ardent conservatives and drought-ridden farmers, with just days left before a monthlong August recess.” [NY Times, 7/30/12]

Politico: Boehner Pulled Farm Bill Extension “Facing Certain Defeat…” “Facing certain defeat, Republicans pulled their one-year farm bill extension from the House docket late Tuesday in favor of a narrower $383 million disaster aid package to address the immediate needs of drought-stricken livestock producers.” [Politico, 8/1/12]

CALLS GROW INSIDE BOEHNER’S OWN PARTY TO VOTE ON FIVE YEAR FARM BILL…

Sen. Coats (R-IN) Urged the House “To Follow this Body in Passing the Farm Bill”: “First of all, while it is beyond our jurisdiction here, and perhaps it is a little bit out of line for me to talk about this, I am urging the Congress, specifically in this case the House of Representatives, to follow this body in passing the farm bill.” [Floor Remarks, 7/25/12]

Sen. Grassley (R-IA) Said “We Should Not Delay Any Longer. The Farm Bill is Too Important to All Americans to Leave it in Limbo…” “So I say mostly to the other body, because right now that is where the action is and where we hope it will take place, we should not delay any longer. The farm bill is too important to all Americans to leave it in limbo. We need to get a farm bill to the President.” [Floor Remarks, 7/25/12]

Sen. Hoeven (R-ND) Called on “Our House Colleagues to Act on the Farm Bill…” “But Senator Coats also made a very important point a few minutes ago; that is, we already have farmers and ranchers–our producers–in a situation where they face difficult times because of the drought. So I join him in calling on our House colleagues to act on the farm bill. I think it is very important we pass a farm bill, as we have in the Senate.” [Floor Remarks, 7/25/12]

38 House Republicans Urged House Leadership to Pass A Farm Bill Before August Recess. “The message from our constituents and rural America is clear: we need a farm bill now. We ask that you bring a farm bill up before the August District Work Period so that the House will have the opportunity to work its will. We ask that you make this legislation a priority of the House as it is critically important to rural and urban Americans alike.” [Letter to House Leadership, 7/19/12]

Rep. Rick Berg (R-ND) Said “Now Is The Time For The House To Act” on the Farm Bill.“North Dakota farmers and ranchers need the stability that this farm bill can bring, and it needs to be a long term authorization. Now is the time for the house to act.” [Floor Remarks,7/19/12]

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) Said “Congress Needs to Address these Issues Now…” “The legislation is not perfect, and I’ll keep working to improve it, but Congress needs to address these issues now before the current law expires to prevent unnecessary hardships on the folks in Montana hit by drought conditions.” [Press Release, 7/20/12]

I was pleased to hear Speaker Boehner say last week that he will bring the Senate-passed middle class tax cut to the House floor for a vote.

The nation is one vote away from avoiding the fiscal cliff for middle class families.

Every member of the House of Representatives should have the opportunity to show where they stand: with millionaires or with the middle class.

Members can support Democrats’ plan to cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans while reducing the deficit by almost $1 trillion.

Or they can support the Republican plan to hand out more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires while increasing taxes for 25 million families struggling to put kids through college and food on the table.

The two approaches demonstrate a glaring difference in priorities.

But there’s another difference between the two plans: Democrats’ proposal is the only one with a chance of actually becoming law.

President Obama has said he would sign it tomorrow. What he won’t do is sign into law any more wasteful giveaways to the wealthiest two percent.

And the Senate has already defeated the Republican proposal in a bipartisan vote, so it’s simply a waste of time for House Republicans to continue to pursue their middle-class tax hike.

House Republicans should stop holding the middle class hostage to extract more tax cuts for the richest of the rich. They should pass our middle class tax cut now.

American families can’t afford to wait until the last moment to find out what their bottom line will look like come January 1.

They’re sitting around the kitchen table today figuring out whether they can afford to buy their first house, send their kids to college or retire.

Republicans shouldn’t force 114 million families to guess whether they’ll have $1,600 less to spend or save next year.

They need certainty now. And one simple vote can give them that certainty.

Today the Senate also continues work to address a problem national security experts call the most urgent threat to our country: weaknesses in our defenses again cyber attack.

Cyber terrorism could cripple the computer networks that control our electrical grid, water supplies and sewers, nuclear plants, energy pipelines, transportation networks, communications equipment and financial systems.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said “a cyber attack could stop this society in its tracks.”

But cyber espionage doesn’t just threaten our national security – it threatens our economic security.

Hackers have already attacked most major corporations and the NASDAQ stock exchange.

Attacks like these cost our economy billions of dollars a year and thousands of jobs.

General James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, said Chinese cyber theft of American intellectual property is “the greatest pillaging of wealth in history.”

“That’s our future disappearing in front of us,” added General Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Administration.

In a report released last year, the Chamber of Commerce said government and the private sector should work together to develop incentives for businesses to voluntarily act to protect our nation’s critical infrastructure.

This legislation will do exactly that – establish a public-private partnership to make our nation safer and protect American jobs.

I hope that the Chamber will join the effort to pass this important legislation.

While I personally believe this bill could go further to address threats to critical infrastructure – the networks that operate our electric grid, our water supply and other life-sustaining systems – it is a tremendous first step.

I applaud Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Senator Feinstein and Senator Rockefeller for their work on this legislation.

The bill managers are compiling a list of relevant amendments for consideration. I hope we can cooperate to work through that list and pass this legislation by the end of the week.

We can’t afford to fail to address what experts call the greatest security challenge since the dawn of the nuclear age.

Today the Senate will vote on whether to end a filibuster of Judge Robert Bacharach, a nominee from Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

By any measure, Bacherach is the type of non-controversial nominee the Senate would routinely confirm with broad, bipartisan support.

He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote.

And he has the support of the two Republican Senators from his home state of Oklahoma.

Senator Coburn, the Junior Senator from Oklahoma, said Friday, Bacherach is “just a stellar candidate, and he ought to get through.”

Yet Republicans have signaled they may block his confirmation.

If they hold up this consensus candidate, it will be the first time an appeals court nominee with bipartisan committee support has ever been successfully filibustered on the floor.

If Senator Coburn and Senator Inhofe withdraw their support for this qualified nominee, blatant partisanship will be to blame.

But don’t take my word for it. Senator Coburn said Bacherach is “an awfully good candidate caught in election-year politics.”

“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]

“The Senate passed a plan that will cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans and protect middle-class families in Nevada and across the country from the fiscal cliff. The Senate plan is the only solution that stands a chance of being signed into law to provide middle-class families security. Our colleagues in the House should take up our plan and pass it immediately. There is absolutely nothing stopping House Republicans from passing the Senate’s plan, if they possessed the courage to do the right thing for middle class families.

“To date, Republicans have insisted on holding middle-class families hostage to additional tax giveaways for millionaires and billionaires. Democrats believe we should focus on the middle class, but we have months to debate the right approach to tax policy. In the meantime, the responsible approach is for Republicans to stand up to the Tea Party, meet Democrats on common ground and pass these tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans.”

“This is a smokescreen by the Republicans to disguise their plan’s true impact on the deficit. The truth is, if we decouple the tax cuts for those earning above $250k, that means they will be gone for good. Over ten years, that will reduce the deficit by $800 billion compared to what Republicans want to do.”

“In the past decade, American companies outsourced almost 2.5 million jobs. Right now, more than 130,000 workers in Nevada are at risk of seeing their jobs sent overseas. But today, Republicans blocked the Senate from debating a common-sense bill that would provide a new tax incentive to create more jobs here at home, and eliminate subsidies for companies that are shipping American jobs overseas.

“Republicans’ presidential candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, made a fortune by encouraging companies to ship American jobs overseas, so it’s little wonder that Senate Republicans are afraid to defend their support for outsourcing.

“Senator McConnell said that his ‘single most important’ goal is defeating President Obama, and in the past week he has made that abundantly clear. It is a shame that middle class families must suffer for Republicans to achieve their political aims.”

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.

Reuters – Senate Republicans block campaign disclosure bill - Senate Republicans blocked a bid by Democrats on Monday to require political fundraising groups to reveal their anonymous contributors who are fueling negative television advertisements ahead of the November election. By a 51-44 party line vote, supporters of the Disclose Act of 2012 fell short of the 60 votes needed to clear a Republican procedural hurdle. But Democrats promised to debate the bill late into the night and seek another vote on Tuesday, hoping to paint Republicans as thwarting transparency. [Reuters,7/16/12]

Bloomberg – Senate Republicans Block Campaign Donor Disclosure Bill - The U.S. Senate didn’t advance legislation that would require nonprofit groups to reveal who donates the millions of dollars they spend on campaign ads. Yesterday’s vote on the Democratic proposal was 51-44, with 60 required to advance it. The measure, opposed by Republicans, is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 that removed limits on independent spending by corporations and labor unions. Democrats said they would seek another vote today. Groups that kept their donors secret favored Republicans over Democrats in 2010 by $117 million to $13 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. Such groups included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobby, and Crossroads GPS, co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove. [Bloomberg, 7/17/12]

CBS News – Senate GOP block campaign spending disclosure bill - Senate Republicans blocked Democratic-backed legislation requiring organizations pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign ads to disclose their top donors and the amounts they spend. GOP opposition prevented Democrats from getting the 60 votes needed to bring what is known as the Disclose Act to the Senate floor. The vote was 51-44. Democrats revived the act during a presidential election campaign in which political action committees and nonprofit organizations, funded by deep-pocketed and largely anonymous contributors, are dominating the airwaves with largely negative political ads. [CBS News, 7/17/12]

NY Times (Editorial) - The Power of Anonymity - Two years ago, Congress came within a single Republican vote in the Senate of following the Supreme Court’s advice to require broad disclosure of campaign finance donors. The justices wanted voters to be able to decide for themselves “whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” The court advised such disclosure in its otherwise disastrous Citizens United decision in 2010, which loosed a new wave of unlimited spending on political campaigns. The decision’s anticorruption prescription has grown even more compelling as hundreds of millions of dollars in disguise have flooded the 2012 campaigns — a great deal of it washed through organizations that are set up for the particular purpose of hiding the names of the writers of enormous checks. [NY Times, 7/17/12]

WSJ – Senate Democrats Plan ‘Midnight Vigil’ on Campaign Finance Bill - The Disclosed Act—which stands for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections—would require groups to file a public report listing all donors that gave the group $10,000 or more.Democrats are frustrated that recent decisions by the Supreme Court, including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, removed restrictions on political spending and allowed donors to spend large sums supporting or opposing candidates without identifying themselves. More Republican than Democratic donors are availing themselves of this new freedom. Some contributors are openly identifying themselves, such as casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who has backed Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, and Leo Linbeck III, a Texas construction magnate whose super PAC is aimed at making primaries more competitive. Others have remained behind-the-scenes, and critics say that lets them unfairly affect elections from the shadows. [WSJ, 7/16/12]

Washington Post (Editorial) – Expose the fat cats - AMERICANS WHO are worried about the corrosive power of big money in politics ought to watch what is about to happen in the Senate. On Monday, a cloture vote is scheduled on legislation that would require the disclosure of donors anonymously pumping tens of millions of dollars into this year’s presidential and congressional campaigns. Not a single Republican in the chamber has expressed support for the bill, known as the Disclose Act, meaning it will probably die for this session. It should be interesting to hear how the Republican senators justify this monumental concealment of campaign cash. [Washington Post,7/16/12]

Daily Beast – GOP Kills DISCLOSE Act and Leaves Voters in the Dark- The DISCLOSE Act was summarily executed via filibuster in the Senate last night. But this is one symbolic vote that mattered, because it offered at least an attempt to address the flow of hidden money into our elections. But wait, you say—the promise of Citizens United was to balance unlimited money with unprecedented transparency. Well, brace yourself, but it hasn’t quite worked out that way. In fact, the trade of cash for transparency has been undercut by a variety of vehicles, especially the use of 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations grafted onto super PACs that allow for anonymous donations and big-ticket expenditures that we won’t see until the election is in the rearview mirror. [Daily Beast,7/17/12]

Huffington Post – DISCLOSE Campaign Spending Act Blocked By Senate Republicans - Senate Republicans blocked a bill Monday evening to increase transparency in campaign spending by independent groups. In a 51-44 vote, the DISCLOSE Act failed to obtain the 60 votes needed to clear a Republican filibuster. The bill would have required disclosure of anyone who donates to independent groups that spent more than $10,000 on campaign ads — or their functional equivalent — and other election spending. [Huffington Post, 7/17/12]

The Hill – Dems hold ‘midnight vigil’ to protest defeat of DISCLOSE bill - Senate Democrats launched a rare, all-night debate on Monday that was scheduled to last past midnight, to protest Senate Republicans’ opposition to legislation that would require companies, unions and other groups to report their campaign spending. Democrats warned that they would hold a “midnight vigil” if Republicans blocked the vote on their bill, and they began shortly before 7 p.m., just minutes after GOP did in fact unanimously oppose the bill. Democrats were hoping to end debate on the bill, which needed 60 votes, but the vote failed 51-44. Democrats immediately lined up more than a dozen speakers, and planned to debate the bill until 1 a.m., and then take up the issue again Tuesday morning. [The Hill, 7/16/12]

National Journal – Senate GOP Unanimously Votes to Block DISCLOSE Act - In a 51-44 vote Monday night, Senate Republicans unanimously voted to block the Democratically backed DISCLOSE Act, which would have required political organizations to disclose the names of donors who give $10,000 or more. Earlier Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that if Congress doesn’t do something to curb the torrents of money being spent on political campaigns by secret donors,  said today, then “17 angry old white men will wake up” on the morning after Election Day, “and realize they’ve just bought the country.” With that rip-snorting salvo at the wealthy donors who have been giving seven-figure contributions to shadowy political groups and Super PACs, the Senate Democrats opened debate on Monday on the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act – a measure that would require that political organizations disclose all donors who give them more than $10,000. [National Journal, 7/16/12]

Washington Times – Republicans block bill on transparency - Senate Democrats on Monday failed to move forward on legislation that calls for more strict disclosures for political spending, as Republicans easily blocked a mostly symbolic procedural vote on the measure less than a week after Democrats blasted House Republicans for holding a token vote to repeal health care. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who has characterized the so-called Disclose Act as a threat to the First Amendment, led a successful filibuster to defeat the measure during an evening vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, was expected to try again Tuesday. But with the Democratic leader eight votes shy of the 60 needed to advance the measure, the bill is all but dead. [Washington Times, 7/17/12]

BuzzFeed – Senate Dems Plan ‘Midnight Vigil’ For Campaign Finance Bill - Democrats are preparing to put on a two day campaign finance floor show in the Senate, scheduling a handful of votes and a “midnight vigil” for increased disclosure of who, exactly, is donating to the outside groups underwriting both Barack Obama’s and — to a larger degree — Mitt Romney’s campaigns for president. The bill has virtually no chance of passage – a fact of which its sponsors are keenly aware. But Democrats hope to use the legislation to point a finger at Republicans on the new flood of cash.Led by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Chuck Schumer, Democrats this evening will force a the first of two votes on the Disclose Act, legislation designed to force Super PACs to disclose large dollar donors. [BuzzFeed, 7/16/12]

Boston Globe – GOP blocks political-ad disclosure bill - Senate Republicans again foiled Democrats in their efforts to pass a bill expanding disclosures of donors to independent political groups. The latest effort Monday on the Democrats’ measure, dubbed the DISCLOSE Act, fell short of breaking a Republican filibuster. Needing 60 votes, Democrats garnered only 51. The bill would require big spenders, including unions, corporations, and nonprofits, to disclose donations exceeding $10,000 to independent groups. Democrats contend such rules are needed since the Supreme Court, in its 2010 Citizens United decision, declared that corporations and unions have a constitutional right to spend freely on elections. The decision led to the rise of super PACs and nonprofit groups, which have been major players in national politics, especially the race for president. [Boston Globe,7/16/12]

The Examiner – GOP Senators block Disclose Act political donation transparency - On Monday evening United States Senate Republicans blocked a vote to move forward the 2012 version of the Disclose Act, a bill designed to bring greater transparency of donations to political groups by people, corporations and unions of more than $10,000. After the vote Democrats spent time until well after midnight continuing their floor debate on the bill. After more floor debate Tuesday morning, Senate Democrats plan to hold another vote on the bill Tuesday at 3:00 pm. [The Examiner, 7/17/12]

The corrosive effect of money on American politics is not a product of the 21st century.

More than 100 years ago, moneyed special interests had already tested the integrity of this country’s political system.

In 1899, Copper billionaire William Clark was elected to the United States Senate by the Montana state legislature. The contest was considered so blatantly swayed by bribery, the Senate refused to seat him.

Clark famously responded: “I never bought a man who wasn’t for sale.”

Incensed Montana voters went on to pass the Corrupt Practices Act via referendum.

Less than a decade later, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt reigned in unlimited corporate giving to political candidates at the federal level as well.

This nation has a long history of curtailing the corrupting influence of money in politics.

But with its Citizens United decision, the United States Supreme Court erased a century of effort to protect the fairness and integrity of American elections.

That disastrous decision opened the door for big corporations, anonymous billionaires and foreign interests to secretly spend hundreds of millions of dollars influencing voters.

For anyone who dismisses this change as politics as usual, think again.

During this year’s election, outside spending by GOP shell groups is expected to top $1 billion – that’s billion with a “B.”

The names of these new front groups contain words like “freedom” and “prosperity.”

But make no mistake – there is nothing free about an election purchased by a handful of billionaires for their own self-interest.

Just one of these outside groups, backed by wealthy oil interests, has promised to spend $400 million on negative ads filled with half-truths and distortions of President Obama’s record.

By comparison, during the 2008 election, Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign spent $370 million – total.

So this year one group’s special interest money will dwarf the entire budget of the Republican nominee in the last presidential election.

Democrats – and the majority of Americans – believe these unlimited corporate and special-interest contributions should be outlawed.

But in a post-Citizens United world, the least we should do is require groups spending millions on political attack ads to disclose their largest donors.

We owe it to voters to let them judge for themselves the attacks – and the motivations behind them.

The DISCLOSE Act would require political organizations of all stripes – liberal and conservative alike – to disclose donations in excess of $10,000 if they will be used for campaign purposes.

Safeguarding fair and transparent elections used to be an area where Democrats and Republicans could find common ground.

As far back as 1997, the Republican Leader said, “Disclosure is the best disinfectant.”

In fact, 14 Republicans now serving in this body voted to support stronger disclosure laws in 2000.

Yet last night those 14 Republicans did an about-face. And every one of my Republican colleagues voted to block the DISCLOSE Act.

It is obvious Republicans’ priority is to protect a handful of anonymous billionaires – billionaires willing to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to change the outcome of a close presidential contest.

But today they’ll have an opportunity to reconsider that backwards priority and stand up for the average voter instead.

I hope they join Democrats as we work to ensure all Americans – not just the wealthy few – have an equal voice in the political process.

“Senate Republicans today showed that their top priority is protecting a handful of anonymous billionaires, giving them an outsized advantage over regular American voters to sway close elections.

“Democrats sought to require large political donors to disclose their identities so voters could judge their motivations for themselves. This wasn’t a new concept. In fact, many Republicans who blocked this bill today once supported it. But today those same Republicans chose to side with powerful, anonymous donors, who like their nominee Mitt Romney appear to believe they get to play by their own set of rules.

“Judging by Republicans’ vote today and Governor Romney’s refusal to release more tax returns, Republicans have clearly decided that secrecy is more important to them than being straight with the American people.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell in 1997: “Disclosure Is The Best Disinfectant”

Sen. McConnell: “Disclosure of Campaign Contributions and Spending Should be Expedited.” “Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate. These are the reforms which respect the Constitution and would enhance our democracy.” [NPR, 8/5/97]

Sen. Alexander Said He Supported “Full Disclosure.” Alexander said, “I support campaign finance reform, but to me that means individual contributions, free speech and full disclosure. In other words, any individual can give whatever they want as long as it is disclosed every day on the Internet.”  [Washington Post, 5/19/99]

Sen. Sessions Said “I Tend To Favor Disclosure.” Sessions said, “I don’t like it when a large source of money is out there funding ads and is unaccountable.  To the extent we can, I tend to favor disclosure.”  [The Hill, 4/22/10]

Sen. Cornyn Said “I Think The System Needs More Transparency, So People Can More Easily Reach Their Own Conclusions.” Cornyn said, “this is our system.  I think the system needs more transparency, so people can more easily reach their own conclusions.” [McClatchy, 4/23/10]

Sen. Collins’ Spokesman Said “She Believes That It Is Important That Any Future Campaign Finance Laws Include Strong Transparency Provisions So The American Public Knows Who Is Contributing.” “‘As a co-sponsor of the 2002 campaign reform law, Sen. Collins was disappointed that the Supreme Court struck down so many key provisions of this bipartisan legislation,’ Kelley said. ‘She believes that it is important that any future campaign finance laws include strong transparency provisions so the American public knows who is contributing to a candidate’s campaign, as well as who is funding communications in support of or in opposition to a political candidate or issue.’” [The Hill, 4/20/10]

Sen. Scott Brown Said “A genuine campaign finance reform effort would include increased transparency.” Brown said, “A genuine campaign finance reform effort would include increased transparency, accountability and would provide a level playing field to everyone.” [Letter to Public Citizen,7/14/10]

Sen. McCain Said “There’s Too Much Money Washing Around, Too Much Of It We Don’t Know Who’s Behind It.” McCain said, “I promise you, there will be huge scandals because there’s too much money washing around, too much of it we don’t know who’s behind it and too much corruption associated with that kind of money.  There will be major scandals.”  [The Hill, 3/27/12]

Sen. Coburn Said “If You Have Transparency, You Will Have Accountability.” Coburn said,“If legislators were required to disclose all contributions to their campaigns, the public knowledge would naturally restrain legislators from acting out of the current quid pro quo mindset. They would refrain from taking questionable donations for fear of being found out. If you have transparency, you will have accountability.” [Press Release, 10/12/07]

Sen. Chambliss Said The Disclosure Provisions of the DISCLOSE Act “Don’t Seem Like a Bad Idea to Me.”  “Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) also said he wants to see the details of the bill, but said the disclosure provisions ‘don’t seem like a bad idea to me.’” [The Hill, 4/22/10]

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The end of democracy… will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”

Campaign finance reforms protected against the kind of corruption Jefferson foresaw by limiting political spending by corporations.

Then the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United decision, rolling back a century of work to make elections transparent and credible.

The result of Citizens United has been a flood of corporate, special-interest campaign spending by shadowy front groups with questionable motives.

Not since the days of Teddy Roosevelt – a Republican who put a stop to unlimited corporate donations – has America seen this kind of out-of-control spending to influence elections.

Democrats – and a majority of Americans – believe the Supreme Court got it very wrong on Citizens United.

Anonymous spending by so-called non-profits – often backed by huge corporate donors or a few wealthy individuals – used to make up 1 percent of election spending. After the landmark decision, it rose to a whopping 44 percent of spending.

There’s no question the Citizens United decision opened the door for big corporations and foreign entities to secretly spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections, undermining the fairness and integrity of the process.

Let’s look at the state of Nevada. Through the first part of this year, more money has been spent per capita on TV ads in Nevada than in any other battleground state in the country.

Most of the ads have been funded by anonymous groups flush with cash from big oil, Wall Street, foreign gaming interests and other industries seeking greater influence in Washington.

Voters in Nevada and across the country deserve to know who paid for these ads.

We’ve proven that it’s possible to remove the veil of secrecy from outside money, and make the process more transparent.

We can require large political donors to disclose their identities, so voters can judge their motivations for themselves.

Requiring large donors to disclose their identities isn’t a new concept.

In fact, Senator McConnell and many of his Republican colleagues once supported it.

The legislation before the Senate today – the DISCLOSE Act – would require disclosure of donations in excess of $10,000 if they will be used for campaign purposes.

The bill treats all political entities equally – whether they are unions, corporations, business associations or SuperPACs.

And, contrary to Republican claims, this legislation wouldn’t require organizations to turn over membership rosters or lists of grassroots donors.

Rather, it would prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from using front groups to shield their donations from disclosure.

Yet my Republican colleagues – with rare exception – have lined up against this common-sense legislation.

Their newfound opposition to transparency makes one wonder who they’re trying to protect.

Perhaps Republicans want to shield the handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election?

These donors have something in common with their nominee. Like Mitt Romney, they believe they play by their own set of rules.

Mitt Romney has refused to release his tax returns.

From the one and only return we’ve seen, we know Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than many middle class families.

We know he has a Swiss bank account.

And we know he takes advantage of tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

But we can only guess what new secrets would be revealed if we could examine a dozen years of tax returns.

Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney set the standard for presidential elections. He released 12 years of tax returns, so Americans could evaluate his record for themselves.

Even nominees for cabinet posts are required to release three years of tax returns, and declare financial holdings worth more than $1,000.

Romney’s refusal to be open and honest would disqualify him from being a cabinet secretary.

And his penchant for secrecy makes Americans wonder, what is he hiding?

Thomas Jefferson famously argued that democracy depends on an informed electorate.

If that’s true, and I believe it is, it stands to reason that disclosure can only strengthen our democracy.

But don’t take my word for it. As my friend, Mitch McConnell said: “Disclosure is the best disinfectant.”

“The legislation Republicans blocked was a common-sense proposal that provided small businesses with two tax cuts designed to create jobs. Under our proposal, small businesses would have received a 10 percent tax cut on the amount by which they increase their payrolls this calendar year. And to help them expand, small businesses would have been allowed to write off 100 percent of the cost of any major equipment or software they purchase.

“Unfortunately, Republicans played their usual games of obstruction and opposition. There was simply no reason to oppose this bill on the merits, so Republicans manufactured reasons to kill it out of thin air. Republicans claimed they wanted amendment votes, but refused to take ‘yes’ for an answer when I offered them votes on those very amendments.

“Senator McConnell made it clear that his ‘single most important’ goal is defeating President Obama. It’s sad that the middle class has to suffer for Republicans to achieve their political aims.”

6:22 pm Wednesday
Reid Offers Vote on President’s Tax Cuts
Reid: “Democrats are ready to have those votes right away and we will do it with a simple majority…”
[Floor Remarks, 7/11/12]

6:24 pm Wednesday
McConnell: ‘Never Mind’
McConnell: “… I cannot agree to this request, and therefore I object.”
[Floor Remarks, 7/11/12]

This week Republicans continued to make the case that millionaires and billionaires can’t afford to pay even a penny more in taxes.

Meanwhile, a new report shows average tax rates are at their lowest level in decades.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported this week that in 2009 rates fell to their lowest level in more than 30 years.

Much of that decline is thanks to President Obama – who has consistently fought to lower taxes for middle-class families over the last three and a half years.

The average tax rate in this country fell to the lowest rate since 1979 – 17.4 percent.

Of course, that’s still a higher rate than Mitt Romney pays.

But most Americans don’t have the benefit of Swiss bank accounts or tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

As our economy continues to recover, it’s critical we keep tax rates low for the middle class.

They’re still struggling to pay the mortgage, send their kids to college and save for retirement.

That’s why President Obama and Democrats in Congress want to extend tax cuts for 98 percent of American families.

But there’s one group that’s not struggling – Mitt Romney and the rest of the top 2 percent of Americans.

They can afford to contribute a little bit more to get this country’s deficit under control.

Yet Republicans are prepared to block tax cuts for 98 percent of families unless Democrats agree to even more giveaways for the richest of the rich.

As Republicans continue to argue the wealthiest 2 percent can’t contribute even a little more, I urge them to talk to the three-quarters of Americans who disagree.

I urge them to talk to some of the almost 60 percent of Republicans who believe the wealthiest Americans should shoulder their fair share of the responsibility for getting the deficit under control.

And I urge them to talk to a few of the more than 135 million taxpayers who are waiting to see whether Republicans will continue holding their tax cuts hostage.

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding Senator Orrin Hatch’s amendment to the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, which would raise taxes on 25 million American families. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Right now the Senate is considering a small business tax cut – proposed by President Obama – that will create 1 million jobs.

This legislation would give tax credits to businesses that grow and hire.

Yet Republicans are looking for any excuse to vote down the proposal for two reasons:

• It has the support of President Obama and Democrats in Congress.
• And it would strengthen the economy, which would help the President.

We know Republicans won’t do anything that helps President Obama – even if it’s good for the economy – because their number one goal is to defeat the President. Mitch McConnell has said so.

So Republicans are hiding behind a procedural trick: filibustering with unrelated amendments.

If there is any doubt about Republicans’ motivation – to kill this legislation – just look at the amendment proposed today by Senator Hatch of Utah.

The first thing Senator Hatch’s amendment would do is eliminate all the tax cuts in the bill.

The amendment would literally eliminate every provision in the bill designed to create jobs.

Senator Hatch’s amendment eliminates the 10% credit for employers that hire additional workers or increase their payroll – a provision that would create half a million jobs.

And it strikes deductions for businesses that invest in machinery and equipment – which would create another half a million jobs.

But the Republican amendment doesn’t stop there.

It goes on to increase taxes for 25 million American families.

Senator Hatch’s amendment would extend tax breaks for the top two percent of Americans. But it fails to extend a number of tax cuts that help middle-class families get by in a tough economy.

Senator Hatch’s amendment will increase taxes by $1,100 for 11 million families trying to pay for college.

Senator Hatch’s amendment would make it harder for 6 million large families to put food on the table. It would increase taxes by $800 for families with at least three children.

And Senator Hatch’s amendment fails to extend the full Child Tax Credit for 12 million families, increasing their taxes by $500.

No one is fooled by this amendment.

We see it for what it is: more Republican obstruction that comes with the added bonus of sticking it to the middle-class.

If that wasn’t enough political theater for one day, my Republican colleagues also claim they’re anxious to vote on President Obama’s plan to cut taxes for 98 percent of American families.

Once again, no one is fooled.

Republicans know very well the Senate will vote on the President’s proposal to give middle-class families certainty they won’t face a tax increase.

We’ll vote on it this work period, as I have already said. They say they want to vote sooner.

So let’s lock in an agreement to vote on:

• The President’s plan to give 98 percent of Americans certainty their taxes won’t go up,
• And the Republican plan to raise taxes on 25 million families.

Democrats are ready to have these votes right away at a simple majority threshold.

Then we can get back to the task at hand – cutting taxes for millions of small businesses that want to expand and put Americans back to work.

Over the last few years, the wealthiest one percent of Americans has taken home the greatest share of the nation’s income since the roaring ‘20s.

But while the bank accounts of a few fortunate Americans have grown, their tax bills have not.

The wealthiest Americans now pay the lowest tax rates in half a century.

And while this generous tax code has been good for their bottom lines, it hasn’t been good for America’s bottom line.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts – handed out disproportionately to the rich by the previous administration – have fueled skyrocketing deficits and a growing national debt.

Democrats and Republicans alike agree we have to reduce the deficit and rein in the debt.

Unfortunately, the same Republicans who say we have to get our fiscal house in order also claim millionaires and billionaires can’t afford to contribute their fair share to that effort.

They say multi-millionaires like Mitt Romney need lower taxes than ever.

Well, let me tell you what – Mitt Romney doesn’t need another tax break. In fact, he’s got so much money he doesn’t even know where all of it is.

Some of it has run off to Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda. No wonder he doesn’t want America to see his tax returns.

So Mitt Romney is doing just fine. And so are the other millionaires and billionaires in this country.

It’s the middle class I’m worried about.

We all know times have been tough the last few years for ordinary Americans struggling just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

The last thing middle class families can afford now is a tax increase.

That’s why Democrats want to keep taxes low for 98 percent of Americans – everyone making less than $250,000 a year.

But while Democrats are focused on how we can help 98 percent of Americans, Republicans are focused on how they can help Mitt Romney and the rest of the top 2 percent.

And they’re willing to hold tax cuts for everyone else hostage just to protect tax breaks for that top 2 percent.

Democrats don’t agree the top 2 percent of wage earners can’t afford to pay the same tax rate they paid when Bill Clinton was president – back when the budget was balanced and our economy was creating tens of millions of new jobs.

Still, we’re willing to have that debate with our Republican colleagues. We’re willing to discuss it reasonably.

But we don’t believe middle class families should wait and wonder, watch and worry whether their taxes are about to go up while Congress has that conversation.

We shouldn’t wait until the last second to act.

This is what one major newspaper wrote yesterday about the need to act:

“The majority of Americans, and the broader economy, should not be held hostage again to another debate over the merits of tax cuts for the wealthy…. There will never be consensus for solving our nation’s budget problems without first ending the lavish tax breaks at the top.”

So I call on my Republican colleagues to help Democrats give 98 percent of American families the certainty and the security they need right away.

I call on them to help us pass a tax cut that will benefit the middle class without bankrupting our nation.

Because it’s time we faced facts: if we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we can’t keep handing out more tax breaks to the richest Americans.

We will have to make difficult decisions about where to cut and where to invest to keep our nation strong.

But whether to keep taxes low for middle class families shouldn’t be one of the difficult decisions.

I haven’t heard one person – Democrat, Republican or Independent – say we should raise taxes on middle class families.

This is an area where we can easily find common ground.

So, what’s stopping us from doing the right thing – right now? I hope it won’t be more Republican hostage-taking on behalf of the top 2 percent.

Norquist Defends His Title Of “Most Powerful Man In The Republican Party” From Jeb Bush, Who Said Of Norquist’s No Tax Pledge “I Don’t Believe You Outsource Your Principles And Convictions To People.”

Joe Scarbourough On The Matchup: “…I’m Pretty Confident Jeb Wins…”

 Eric Cantor: Congress goes from policy to politicking
“And on Tuesday, Cantor all but predicted 2012 substantively over. The Senate isn’t passing spending bills and is not talking about working to blunt the automatic defense cuts. The two sides remain too far apart on taxes and entitlements. The rest of the year, Cantor said, will likely be about sending ‘signal[s] that we’ve actually gotten with the reality here, that we have huge problems to deal with.’”

Cantor is following through…

Eric Cantor hits pause on farm bill action
“The House Agriculture Committee is abruptly pulling back from its planned farm bill markup next week, amid signs that Republican leaders want a pause to consider how to proceed given the progress made in the Senate on its five-year bill… [Chairman Frank Lucas] confirmed the change in plans, which came after discussions with Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).”

…

“Cantor’s involvement is an ominous sign …”

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.”

Sen. McConnell: Waiting for Romney on Immigration

“Senate Republican leaders said Tuesday to stay tuned regarding their reaction to President Barack Obama’s Friday announcement on immigration, underscoring the political conundrum Republicans are faced with on the sensitive issue.”

McConnell: Romney should take GOP lead on immigration policy

“Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that GOP lawmakers will wait for Mitt Romney to take the lead on immigration policy.”

 Mitch McConnell Dodges On Immigration

“Your move, Mitt Romney.  That’s the tack Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking in response to the Obama administration’s recent policy move to allow as many as 800,000 young illegal immigrants to avoid deportation.”

McConnell declines to take position on Obama’s immigration decision, until Romney does

“McConnell said he would wait — until presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney had taken a position first.”

Mitch McConnell Waiting on Mitt Romney on DREAM Act

 “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said today he’s waiting for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to announce a position on whether he supports deporting young illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children.”

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding Republican hypocrisy on immigration reform and the DREAM Act. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Republicans in Congress are fond of complaining that this country’s immigration system is broken. They’re less interested in working with Democrats to fix it.

No one disagrees that America’s immigration system needs repair.

But every time Democrats offer to work together on comprehensive immigration reform, Republicans find an excuse to fight sensible change.

And every time Democrats propose bipartisan legislation to provide a pathway to citizenship for children brought here illegally through no fault of their own, Republicans find an excuse to oppose our practical reforms.

There is no better illustration of Republicans’ hypocrisy than their phony outrage over the weekend.

On Friday, President Obama announced the Administration would suspend deportation of upstanding young people brought here illegally as children – provided they attend college or serve in the military.

More than 800,000 young people who have done well in school and stayed out of trouble will benefit from this policy – and hopefully go on to be productive members of society.

In the past, Republicans have expressed broad support for the principles of President Obama’s directive.

And Senator Marco Rubio, the Junior Senator from Florida, has even talked up a similar idea to the press for months, although he never actually produced a proposal.

Yet Republicans’ glowing expressions of support for the President’s decision were not forthcoming. Instead, Republicans have cried about the way the directive was issued.

• They prefer a long-term solution.
• They don’t like the timing.
• They should have been consulted, and an issue this important should have been left to Congress.

The complaints are varied, but they have one thing in common: none of them actually take issue with the substance of President Obama’s directive.

Leading Republican voices on immigration have yet to actually disagree with the decision.

They just don’t like the way President Obama made the decision – or that he will get the credit for bringing out of the shadows 800,000 trustworthy young men and women who know no other home but the United States.

But Republicans are right about one thing. President Obama’s directive is not a permanent solution – it’s a temporary fix.

So I remind my colleagues in both Houses of Congress – the next move is ours.

This reprieve for DREAMers shouldn’t be seen as a free pass for Congress.

Instead we should see it as a chance for Democrats and Republicans to work together on a lasting answer to the serious shortfalls of our broken immigration system.

And as we work, we’ll have the benefit of knowing the specter of deportation no longer hangs over the heads of hundreds of thousands of young people.

So now is hardly the time to walk away from the DREAM Act, which would have created a pathway to citizenship for young people brought to the country through no fault of their own.

And it’s certainly no time to abandon calls for comprehensive immigration reform that’s tough, fair and practical.

But that’s exactly what Republicans are doing – they’re taking their marbles and going home.

Since Friday, leading Republican voices on immigration reform have all but ceded the debate until after the election.

Republicans who once favored a permanent solution for America’s broken immigration system are now abandoning efforts to find common ground.

And the same Republicans who complained they weren’t involved enough in the President’s decision are now giving up any involvement in the broader immigration conversation.

It makes you wonder whether they were ever really committed to passing the DREAM Act or tackling comprehensive immigration reform.

After all, Senate Republicans have twice had their chance to vote for the DREAM Act. Both times they filibustered the measure.

So perhaps it should come as no surprise that my Republican colleagues are more interested in complaining about a system that’s broken, than in working with Democrats to fix it.

Astrid Silva is an average 24-year-old.

The Las Vegas resident is fascinated with Nevada history – from the mysteries of Area 51 to the days when the mob ran casinos.

Astrid is active in her community and in local politics.

And one day she would like to come to Washington, D.C., to see the Declaration of Independence.

Astrid recently completed her Associates degree at the College of Southern Nevada. And she dreams of completing her Bachelor’s degree at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

But there’s one thing standing in Astrid’s way: she’s not an American citizen.

Twenty years ago this week – when Astrid was just four years old – her parents brought her to the United States.

She doesn’t even remember Mexico, the country where she was born. She speaks perfect English. She was an honor student in high school.

And she’s never called anyplace but Nevada her home.

So of course I thought of this brave young woman when President Obama announced Friday that he would suspend deportation of young people, like Astrid, who were brought to this country illegally when they were only children.

Astrid has been looking over her shoulder – afraid of deportation – ever since she stepped out of the shadows to push Congress to pass the DREAM Act.

The DREAM Act would create a pathway to citizenship for upstanding young people who were brought to the country through no fault of their own, and want to attend college or serve this nation in the Armed Forces.

The DREAM Act isn’t amnesty. Rather, it rewards responsibility with opportunity.

Astrid’s handwritten letters convinced me years ago of the importance of this issue. Unfortunately, Republican opposition has stalled this legislation.

But thanks to President Obama, Astrid and 800,000 other young people who are American in all but paperwork no longer need to live in fear of deportation.

President Obama’s directive to suspend deportation of the DREAMers comes after a yearlong review.

It will be applied on a case-by-case basis.

It frees up law enforcement resources to focus on people who actually threaten public safety and national security.

And it removes the specter of deportation that has hovered over deserving young men and women.

I congratulate President Obama for this courageous decision – a decision that benefits both the DREAMers and our nation as a whole.

Like Astrid, these young people share our language. They share our culture. And they share our love for America – the only country they know.

They are talented, patriotic men and women who want to defend our nation in the military, get a college education, work hard and contribute to their communities and this country.

And when they pledge allegiance, it’s to the United States of America.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s directive is temporary. The onus is now on Congress to protect the DREAMers and fix our broken immigration system once and for all.

Comprehensive immigration reform should be tough, fair and practical. It should:

• Continue efforts to secure our borders;
• Hold unscrupulous employers accountable;
• Reform our nation’s legal immigration system;
• And require 11 million undocumented people to register with the government, pay taxes and fines, learn English and get in the back of the line.

Some Republicans have suggested a solution to the DREAMer’s terrible dilemma should have come from Congress, not the President.

But it’s Republican opposition that has prevented Congress from acting.

In fact, Senate Republicans blocked the DREAM Act twice.

And many Republicans who once said they favor a long-term fix for America’s broken immigration system are now abandoning efforts to find common ground.

The President has taken decisive action in offering this directive. But he can only do so much by himself.

For Astrid’s sake – and for the sake of every American – it is time Congress became part of the solution.

I hope my Republican colleagues will finally join Democrats to find a bipartisan way to mend this nation’s flawed immigration system – instead of just complaining that the system is broken.

Last week, in a moment of candor, House Republicans admitted they’ve given up on legislating until after the election.

Although there’s plenty more work to be done – especially building on 27 straight months of private-sector job growth – Republicans are lurching from one recess to another.

Last week’s unscripted moment was a window into today’s Republican Party – a party that cares more about winning elections than creating jobs.

Then this week we got another frank assessment of the Republican agenda from inside looking out.

Former Governor Jeb Bush admitted Monday that his father, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan would have had a hard time fitting in with today’s Republican Party.

He said today’s GOP is defined by “an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.”

Governor Bush is right. The Republican Party no longer has room for moderates – or anyone unwilling to march in lock step with the radical Tea Party.

That’s apparent every day on Capitol Hill.

It was obvious from the first weeks of this Congress that the House had been taken over by extremists with no desire work together for the sake of the economy and no concept of the meaning of compromise.

But over the last year and a half it has become clear that Republicans in the Senate are also in thrall to the Tea Party.

We see that extremism in this Chamber – where Republicans have blocked or stalled every job creation measure Democrats have brought to the Senate floor.

And we see it on the campaign trail – where Mitt Romney told a crowd he opposes hiring more teachers, firefighters and police officers.

Putting more teachers in the classroom used to be a goal Democrats and Republicans could agree on.

Sending more cops out on patrol used to be a goal Democrats and Republicans could agree on.

Hiring more brave men and women to fight fires and save lives used to be a goal Democrats and Republicans could agree on.

But today’s radical Republicans have another agenda: drag down the economy because it’s good for Republican politics.

Yesterday, Governor Bush said his father and President Reagan – neither of whom could win a Republican primary today – both “sacrificed political points for good public policy.” He’s right.

Ronald Reagan would not have put up with what’s going on in the Republican Party today. For him, country came first, not elections.

George H. W. Bush would not have put up with what’s going on in the Republican Party today. He was a pragmatist, not an ideologue. And while he was a conservative Republican, you could work with him.

But today’s Republicans aren’t interested in passing good policy.

And they aren’t interested in creating jobs.

They’re too obsessed with defeating President Obama.

That’s their number one goal. But don’t take my word for it. The Minority Leader said so himself.

This is what he said: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.”

America is battling its way back from the greatest recession since the Great Depression.

And although we have created 4.3 million private sector jobs, there’s more work to do.

But Republicans aren’t focused on jobs – they’ve been too busy checking the political scoreboard.

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding Republican obstructionism and Majority Leader Cantor’s admission that Republicans are done legislating this Congress. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Last Congress was one of the most productive – if not the most productive – in the history of the country.

But with a new Republican majority in the House, this Congress has been altogether different.

Consistently, this Congress has taken weeks or months to pass even simple, common-sense proposals – proposals that would previously have passed in minutes.

The Senate has wasted literally months considering bipartisan bills, only to have those bills smothered to death under piles of non-relevant, Republican amendments.

And Congressional Republicans have held even the most important jobs measures hostage to extract votes on unrelated, ideological amendments – despite the Minority Leader’s own call “to stop all the show votes.” Those were his words.

Democrats – and the American people – have endured this blatant obstruction all year.

And yesterday we read that we will have to endure it every day for the rest of the year – every day for the rest of this Congress.

House Republican Leaders admit they have given up on actually running the country.

Despite the work that remains to keep our economy on the right track and continue 27 months of private sector job growth, they say they’re done legislating for the year.

Listen to this report from the political publication Politico yesterday: “Serious legislating is all but done until after the election… The rest of the year, Cantor said, will likely be about sending ‘signals…’”

So, rather than work with Democrats to strengthen our economy or create jobs, Congressional Republicans will put on a show designed to demonstrate the extreme, ideological direction in which they would lead the country.

Majority Leader Cantor’s candor is frightening.

He said out loud what practically every Republican on Capitol Hill has been thinking all along: they care more about winning elections than creating jobs.

But you don’t usually hear them say so in public, where reporters are listening.

Instead, one short month ago, Speaker Boehner urged Congress to “roll up our sleeves and get to work.”

To a conservatives audience, the Speaker said “we can’t wait” until after the election to legislate.

Less than a week later, Leader McConnell urged us to “stop the show votes that are designed to fail. Let’s stop with the blame games. Let’s come together and do what the American people expect us to do.”

Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell’s statements are Orwellian – they do exactly the opposite of what they say.

Even Republican Senator Olympia Snowe – by all accounts a moderate, who is retiring amid frustration over increasing partisanship in Washington – wrote to me in April to urge quick Senate action on many of the challenging issues facing us.

Her letter cried out for help – not from Democrats, but from Republicans.

Leader Cantor’s remarks provide a window into the true Republican agenda.

It seems when Congressional Republicans forget the world is watching, they say what they really mean – they’re more interested in putting on a partisan sideshow than in solving the very real problems facing this nation.

In truth, this comes as no surprise. It’s just more of the same.

Republicans have launched a series of attacks on women’s access to health care and contraception, and filibustered legislation to ensure American women equal pay for equal work.

They’ve put women’s lives at risk by holding the Violence Against Women Act in limbo.

They opposed our efforts to restore fairness to the tax code and to ensure billionaires don’t pay lower tax rates than middle-class families.

They blocked a bill to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters and first responders.

And they stalled important jobs measures like the aviation jobs bill and the transportation jobs bill for months to pursue ideological battles.

For months Congressional Republicans have actively worked against any piece of legislation that might create jobs or spur economic growth.

Don’t take my word for it – just look at their record.

Democrats have known all along that Congressional Republicans’ number one goal isn’t to improve the economy or create jobs – it’s to defeat President Obama.

The Minority Leader, said so plainly, in another moment of candor.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.”

Senator McConnell said that in October, 2010 – at a time when this nation faced monumental challenges.

We were fighting our way back from the greatest recession since the Great Depression.

Yet Republicans’ top priority wasn’t to create jobs.

Their top priority wasn’t to help business grow and hire.

It wasn’t to train the next generation of skilled employees, hire more cops and firefighters or put construction crews back to work building roads and bridges.

It was to drag down the economy in the hopes of defeating President Obama.

And thanks to Leader Cantor’s words, today we know Republicans’ priorities haven’t changed one bit.

Bloomberg – Senate Republicans Block Plan to Reduce Gender Gap in Pay – Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked Democrats’ latest proposal intended to attract women voters this election year, a measure to bolster workers’ ability to win pay-discrimination lawsuits. The 52-47 vote today in Washington, with 60 required, didn’t advance the measure, which also would prohibit retaliation against workers who share wage information. All Republicans opposed the bill. “For millions of American women, no amount of talent or dedication will bring pay equality with male co-workers,” Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor today. “In the minds of many employers, they simply aren’t equal.” LINK

Reuters – Senate Republicans Block Equal Pay Measure - U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an election-year bid by Democrats for legislation they said would discourage employers from paying women less than they pay men for the same job. In a party-line vote, Democrats, who control the Senate, failed to muster the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation backed by President Barack Obama. The issue is part of an election-year effort by Obama and congressional Democrats to woo women voters ahead of November 6 elections. LINK

NY Times – Senate Republicans Again Block Pay Equity Bill – A bill that would pave the way for women to more easily litigate their way to pay equality failed  to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate on Tuesday, as Republicans united against the measure for  the second time in two years. As Lilly M. Ledbetter, the woman whose name was attached to prior legislation to ensure equal pay for women, watched from the gallery, the  Senate voted 52-to-47 to open debate on the legislation, eight votes short of the 60 required. “It’s a very sad day here in the United States Senate,” Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, said after the vote. LINK

TPM – Republicans Block Dems’ Equal Pay For Women Bill - The Senate went back to the future on Tuesday. Republicans filibustered Democratic-led legislation aimed at closing the pay gap between women and men. The measure would beef up protections for women who sue employers for gender-based wage discrimination or discuss pay with their co-workers — and the GOP blocked it just as it did in late 2010 when the Paycheck Fairness Act last came up. The cloture motion went down 52-47 — short of the 60 votes needed to proceed. LINK

Washington Times – Republicans Filibuster Equal-Pay Bill - Republicans on Tuesday filibustered Democrats’ latest election-year effort to stoke the war on women on Tuesday, dooming a bill that would have opened up far more avenues for women to sue businesses when they suspect pay discrimination. Democrats fell more than a half-dozen votes shy of the 60 needed to head off the filibuster, but said said they’ll force the GOP to vote on it again in the walk-up to this year’s election. “We’re not going to let this bill die,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Maryland Democrat, who challenged women push the fight. “Put on your lipstick, square your shoulders and let’s fight for this new American revolution where women are paid for equal pay for equal work.” LINK

“As their unanimous vote to deny women pay equality shows, Republicans want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the reality that American women experience in the workplace every day.

“All across America, women are being paid 77 cents for every dollar that men make for performing the same work. The disparity is even starker for African American and Hispanic women. African American women make 62 cents on the dollar and Hispanic women 54 cents on the dollar compared to white men working the same hours in the same jobs.

“The threat of retaliation looms over women who attempt to address the wage gap in their workplaces, or even talk about the issue with their colleagues. The legislation Republicans filibustered today would have built on the Lilly Ledbetter Act to protect women from retaliation from their employers, and ensure they can discuss wage issues freely with their colleagues.

“This is a common-sense measure with broad public support. Nine out of 10 Americans – including 81 percent of men and 77 percent of Republicans – support this legislation. But once again, the only Republicans who are left opposing a common-sense measure to improve our economy and help middle-class families are the ones here in Washington.”

Washington Times: With No Good Arguments To Make, ‘Republicans Have Been Mostly Silent’

FORMER GOP CHAIRMAN GETS TONGUE TIED, MOCKED OVER OPPOSITION TO PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT.

Mika Brzezinski, Co-Host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe: “Michael Steele, it’s about our wallets. I don’t understand. Help me understand why someone would vote against [the Paycheck Fairness Act], at this time especially.”

Michael Steele, former RNC Chairman: “Well… you know… again, you’re between a, a, a rock and a hard place politically. It’s one of those… those arguments that—you want to be on the right side of it, obviously. But the reality is… what is the politics? What is the, what is the get? … The reality of it is—right now—in this political cycle—as heated and as polarized as it is, a lot of folks will see this as nothing more than a way to back one party into the corner and there’s nothing that’s really going to change beyond the legislation…”

Mika Brzezinski: “Aw, come on. Come on! … There’s just nothin’. You got nothin’.”

WATCH THE VIDEO

OTHER KEY REPUBLICANS ‘HAVE BEEN MOSTLY SILENT’ ON BILL.

Washington Times: “Republicans … have been mostly silent.” [5/29/12]

SENATE GOP LEADER McCONNELL ‘NOT TALKING’ ABOUT EQUAL PAY MEASURE.

NBC News: “McConnell not talking Paycheck Fairness [today]” [6/5/12]

The Hill: “McConnell did not mention the paycheck act in his speech.” [6/5/12]

ROMNEY ‘MUM’ ON PROPOSAL, ‘DIDN’T RESPOND TO MESSAGES’ SEEKING HIS POSITION.

Huffington Post: ‘MITT ROMNEY MUM ON PAYCHECK FAIRNESS BILL’ [6/4/12]

Washington Times: “His campaign didn’t respond to five messages left over the past week seeking his stance on the Paycheck Fairness Act.” [5/29/12]

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the Paycheck Fairness Act. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Most Americans believe if they get an education, work hard and play by the rules, they’ll have a fair shot at success.

But for millions of American women, no amount of talent or dedication will bring pay equality with their male coworkers.

Women take home 77 cents for every dollar their male colleagues earn for doing exactly the same work.

That stunning fact holds true regardless of whether a woman has a college degree, regardless of how many hours she spends at the office or factory each week and regardless of what job she holds.

If she is an African American or Hispanic woman, the disparity is even starker.

African American women make 62 cents on the dollar and Hispanic women 54 cents on the dollar compared to white men working the same hours in the same jobs.

And while landmark pieces of legislation like the Equal Pay Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act have narrowed the pay gap, they haven’t closed that gap.

So Congress must do more. The Paycheck Fairness Act before the Senate would:

• Give workers stronger tools to combat wage discrimination,
• Bar retaliation against workers for discussing salary information,
• And help secure adequate compensation for victims of gender-based pay discrimination

Over their lifetimes, Nevada women will earn about $475,000 less than their male counterparts.

But this isn’t just a women’s issue – it’s a family issue.

Every year, millions of American families are cheated out of money they could spend on groceries, gas and rent.

And every year, wage discrimination puts almost 400,000 Nevada children at risk.

For many families in Nevada and across the country, a woman’s income is the only income. For many more families, a woman is the primary breadwinner.

Yet Republicans have vowed to block legislation that would even the playing field and help women provide for their families – even though Americans overwhelmingly support it.

Nine out of 10 Americans – including 81 percent of men and 77 percent of Republicans – support pay equity legislation.

Once again, the only Republicans who are against our common-sense measure are the ones here in Washington.

Even Mitt Romney has refused to publicly oppose this legislation.

He should show some leadership, and tell his fellow Republicans that opposing fair pay for all Americans is shameful.

Instead, no one knows where he stands.

But we know where Democrats stand.

We stand firmly on the side of equality for every working woman.

Democrats stand with middle-class women working to keep their families afloat during difficult economic times.

We stand with young women pursuing a college education, hoping to get a good-paying job when they graduate.

We stand with little girls whose mothers have taught them there’s no limit to their dreams.

This evening, America will see where Republican Senators stand, as well.

It’s unfortunate they’ll once again favor obstructionism over equality.

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the Paycheck Fairness Act. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

When Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, women working full time, year round took home 59 cents for every dollar paid to their male coworkers.

And while passage of that landmark legislation helped narrow the pay gap, today American women still take home only 77 cents on the dollar compared to their male colleagues.

It’s simply not fair that any woman working the same hours in the same job should make less money.

Often this inequity stretches over decades. And many women don’t even know they are victims.

It took one Las Vegas woman 15 years to find out she made $20,000 per year less than her male colleagues, although she worked just as hard.

She was paid about 66 cents on the dollar compared to her male coworkers, despite being a top sales associate with a Las Vegas payroll company.

And over the decade and a half she worked there, her employers cheated her out of literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay – simply because she was a woman.

Her story has a happy ending. She got a lawyer. She settled out of court. And she went on to found her own successful business.

But many victims of years or even decades of gender-based pay discrimination aren’t so fortunate.

The average woman who works full time, year-round in Nevada makes $7,300 less than a man doing the same job.

Although the wage gap has narrowed in the half century since Congress declared women entitled to equal pay for equal work, gender discrimination remains a serious problem in the workplace.

That’s why Democrats overcame Republican obstructionism last Congress to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This law makes it possible for victims of gender discrimination to successfully challenge unequal pay – even if the discrimination has been going on for years.

But despite that achievement, there is still a great deal of work to be done to ensure American women earn comparable pay for a day’s work.

So it’s crucial we pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, a commonsense bill that would:

• Give workers stronger tools to combat wage discrimination
• Bar retaliation against workers for discussing salary information
• And help ensure more adequate compensation for victims of gender-based pay discrimination.

Today women make up nearly half of the workforce, and an increasing number of women are the primary wage earners for their families.

So this problem affects women, children and families across the country.

With the economy struggling and families stretching every dollar, closing the pay gap is more important than ever.

No woman working to support herself or her family should be paid less than her male counterparts.

Yet Republicans are filibustering the Paycheck Fairness Act – legislation that would help even the playing field for women in the workforce.

If it seems unbelievable that Republicans would block such a common-sense measure, consider their track record this Congress.

Republicans blocked legislation to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters and first responders.

They stalled important jobs measures like the aviation jobs bill and the transportation jobs bill for months to pursue ideological battles.

They opposed legislation to restore basic fairness to our tax code.

They’ve twice derailed attempts to stop interest rates on student loan from doubling, putting an affordable education at risk for 7 million students.

They’ve put women’s lives at risk by holding the Violence Against Women Act in limbo over a hyper-technical issue.

And they’ve launched a series of attacks on women’s access to health care and contraception.

They’ve amassed an impressive record of obstruction – and of being on the wrong side of almost every issue.

Unfortunately, it seems Paycheck Fairness may have two strikes against it – it would good for women and good for the economy, so Republicans are determined to oppose it.

It appears Republicans will wind up on the wrong side of this issue as well – sending the message to little girls across the country that their work is less valuable because they happened to be born female.

I was pleased yesterday to reach an agreement with the Republican Leader to move forward with passage of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act.

This legislation will ease shortages of life-saving medicines by establishing effective lines of communication between drug makers and the FDA.

And it will ensure the FDA has the resources to approve new drugs and medical devices quickly and efficiently.

We will consider a reasonable number of relevant amendments from both sides. And I am optimistic that this crucial legislation will be passed on a strong, bipartisan vote.

This week has been a productive one. Democrats weren’t forced to break even one Republican filibuster.

I hope this trend continues, and we see a return to the time when reasonable lawmakers from each party could work together to advance important legislation.

I am also hopeful this week the Senate will be able to find a path ahead to temporarily renew the flood insurance program.

I am committed to bringing a long-term solution with limited amendment votes to the floor next work period. The 6 million Americans affected by this program deserve the certainty long-term legislation will provide.

The collaborative work on this measure and on the FDA bill renew my hope that Congress will also reach a bipartisan agreement to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling for 7 million young men and women.

We will vote this afternoon on two proposals to freeze students’ interest rates at their current levels.

The Republican proposal is paid for by stripping Americans of life-saving preventive healthcare.

The Democratic proposal is paid for by closing a loophole that allows wealthy Americans to dodge their taxes.

It’s easy to see these two proposals were not created equal.

I hope a few reasonable Republicans will join Democrats in voting for a student loan bill that doesn’t put Americans’ health at risk. But it seems possible Republicans will block our reasonable proposal for a second time.

If that’s the case, American students should know Democrats will not relent until Congress has taken action against the skyrocketing price of higher education.

I hope to resolve that issue and many others next work period, when the Senate once again faces a hefty list of must-do tasks.

In addition to a farm bill, flood insurance legislation, small business tax relief and a cyber security measure, the Senate will vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Last Congress, we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It was the single greatest legislative step to ensure women have every chance to be full, equal participants in the workforce since the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

But while the wage gap has narrowed in the five decades since Congress declared women entitled to equal pay for equal work, gender discrimination remains a serious problem in the workplace.

Although women make up nearly half of today’s workforce, they still earn only 77 cents on the dollar compared to their male colleagues.

And with an increasing number of women heading American households, this is a problem that affects children and families across the country.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a logical extension of protections under the Equal Pay Act. It will help close the pay gap by empowering women to negotiate for equal pay and creating strong incentives for employers to obey the laws already in place.

Republicans deny they’re waging a war on women, yet they’ve launched a series of attacks on women’s access to health care and contraception this year.

Now they have an opportunity to back up their excuses with action.

I hope they take that opportunity, and join Democrats as we send a clear message that America values the incredible contributions women make every day.

This week the Senate must complete work on legislation to enact crucial reforms that will prevent drug shortages and bring life-saving medicines to market more quickly.

Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi – a Democrat and a Republican – worked very hard to bring this legislation to the floor.

I am cautiously optimistic that spirit of bipartisan collaboration continues – because Democrats can’t pass this legislation without the cooperation of our Republican colleagues.

I certainly hope they will allow us to advance this bill this evening without the additional delay of another filibuster.

I would like Senators from both parties to be free to offer relevant amendments to improve a worthy bill.

But before we can get to work on this legislation in earnest, my Republican colleagues must stop their filibuster.

Americans living with cancer and other life-threatening illnesses are watching closely to see whether the Senate is capable of quick action to ease shortages of crucial medicines – or whether we will once more be paralyzed by Republican obstruction.

Student Loans

Americans have seen that obstruction time and again this Congress.

They are frustrated with the slow pace of Senate action to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, on Iran sanctions and on legislation to stop interest rates from doubling on federal student loans.

Earlier this month, Republicans blocked one attempt to keep higher education affordable for 7 million students.

But Democrats haven’t given up. I only hope our Republican colleagues will come to their senses and allow us to prevent this crisis before it’s too late.

Iran Sanctions

Republican obstruction and infighting have also stalled critical new sanctions against Iran.

For two months, Democrats have worked to resolve Republican objections to this bipartisan measure, which passed out of the Banking Committee unanimously.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Sanctions are a key tool to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, threatening Israel and jeopardizing U.S. national security.

We cannot afford any more delays to putting stronger sanctions in place.

I am hopeful my Republican colleagues will realize how important it is to advance these measures and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Violence Against Women

Republicans have also needlessly blocked progress on reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. This helps law enforcement effectively combat and prosecute domestic crimes against women.

Although both Chambers have passed a version of this legislation, House Republicans have refused to go to conference with the Senate.

Their excuse – a hyper-technical budget issue called a blue slip – isn’t much of a fig leaf to hide their blatant obstruction.

The truth is Republicans are looking for any excuse to stall or kill this worthy legislation. And American women aren’t fooled.

If Republicans really want to give police the tools they need to prosecute domestic abusers, they will drop the facade.

If Republicans really care about protecting women and families, they will abandon their hyper-technical objections and join us in conference. The differences between the House and Senate-passed bills could be worked out easily.

American women and families are counting on our action.

Inaction

But this Congress Republicans have been more interested in inaction than in getting things done.

They’re more interested in blocking worthy legislation for partisan gain than in working together.

Their infighting and partisan games have stopped reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, Iran sanctions and the student loan fix in their tracks.

The FDA bill – which will prevent drug shortages and making life-saving medicines available more quickly – must not become another victim of their partisanship.

I hope Republicans seize this opportunity to be cooperative rather than combative.

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.

… but …

“Higher taxes, however, are still off the table, a Boehner aide said.”

Flashback: Last Time Boehner Forced A Standoff Over The Debt Limit

There was a time when legislation that would reduce the deficit and support hundreds of thousands of jobs would fly through the Senate with bipartisan support.

Not so today.

Instead a worthy measure that would support almost 300,000 American jobs – the Export-Import Bank – may stall in the Senate this evening.

The holdup: more Republican obstruction.

Tonight the Senate will vote on whether to end a filibuster of reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.

The Bank helps American companies grow and sell their products overseas.

Last year, Export-Import Bank financing helped 3,600 private companies add almost 300,000 jobs in more than 2,000 American communities.

The last time the Senate considered Export-Import Bank legislation, it was offered by a Republican Senator and passed by unanimous consent.

So it’s unfortunate that I had to file cloture on this bill.

We shouldn’t have to argue over bipartisan proposals like this one. And I remain hopeful we can still find a way to work together on it.

The Export-Import Bank has the support of two groups that rarely see eye to eye – labor unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The National Association of Manufacturers, the largest manufacturing association in the United States representing manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states, has urged the Senate to pass it.

It has Republican co-sponsors.

And it passed the House – without amendment – on a 330-93 vote last week.

This is exactly the kind of smart investment Congress must make to keep the economy on the road to recovery.

And it’s the kind of consensus proposal that shouldn’t require Democrats to break a filibuster.

When Senate Democrats brought reauthorization of the Bank to the floor in March, we assumed it would pass on a strong, bipartisan vote.

Yet Senate Republicans voted nearly unanimously against it in March – despite their public confessions of support for it. And they are threatening to do the same today.

They are once again forcing us to run out the clock on this measure, which expires at the end of the month.

Frankly, the behavior of my Republican colleagues over the last week has been baffling.

They say they support Democratic efforts to keep interest rates on federal loans from doubling for 7 million college students.

And then they vote down the proposal.

They say they support the Export-Import Bank.

But they’ve voted the measure down once, and they’re threatening to do it again.

With Republicans willing to use every obstructionist tactic in the book, even on bills they support, it’s a wonder the Senate gets anything done at all.

Further delay could allow the Bank’s lending authority to lapse, putting jobs at risk.

But there is still time for my colleagues on the other side to reverse course. There is still time to work together to pass this measure.

I understand my Republican colleagues want to offer amendments to this bill – including several that would gut the Export-Import Bank, or eliminate it altogether.

Even if those amendments weren’t egregious, changing this legislation now will only waste more time.

The process of reauthorizing the Export-Import bank has taken months already. There is no reason to waste a moment more.

American exporters are counting on us to get something done this week.

So I hope my Republican colleagues will consider the consequences of another filibuster, and join Democrats to reauthorize the Export-Import bank without delay.

On a strong, bipartisan vote yesterday, the House passed a piece of common-sense, job-creation legislation – the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.

For years the Export-Import Bank has helped American companies grow and sell their products overseas.

And for years, the Bank has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support – often passing unanimously or by voice vote.

This is a perfect example of the kind of smart investments Congress should be making to spur job growth.

I hope the Senate will be able to quickly approve the House-passed measure today by unanimous consent.

I am optimistic the 330 to 93 vote in the House yesterday will be enough to convince Senate Republicans they shouldn’t hold up this legislation any longer.

The process of reauthorizing the Export-Import bank has already taken too long. I hope I don’t have to file cloture on this matter, but I will if I must.

Let me remind you, the Senate considered reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank in March – nearly two months ago.

Senate Republicans had an opportunity to support this measure then. Instead, all but three Republicans opposed it, and the measure failed.
American exporters have already waited in limbo for two months to see whether Republicans would come around to backing this business-friendly, job-creating policy.

Businesses shouldn’t have to wait any longer.

We can’t afford more of the partisan obstruction we saw in March.

To get to the President’s desk this Congress, every piece of legislation needs Democratic and Republican votes.

That’s just reality. And it means we absolutely must work together if we want to get anything done.

One man who has always been willing to extend a hand to colleagues across the aisle is the Senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Richard Lugar.

His first priority has always been getting things done for the American people – whether that means keeping the world safe from nuclear war or looking out for Hoosiers back home.

Senator Lugar has been a great advocate for the people of Indiana as well as a dedicated student of international affairs.

He’s never missed a meeting with a foreign head of state as long as I have served with him in the Senate.

Senator Lugar has always put the American people first and political party second.

I was elected to the Senate to serve each and every Nevadan – not only the Democrats, although I am proud to be one.

Senator Lugar was elected to serve every Hoosier – regardless of political affiliation – and he has done so well and wisely in the Senate for more than three decades.

Throughout the history of this country – even in the most trying of times, times of great social and political unrest – our elected representatives have worked together despite their differences to do what is right for all Americans.

So I worry when I see dedicated patriots like Senator Lugar drummed out by Tea Party zealots for being too willing to cooperate.

I worry when I hear a candidate for U.S. Senate campaigning against bipartisanship and compromise between our two parties.

And I worry when a candidate for U.S. Senate says so clear that he will put political party and partisanship before country and compromise.

That’s nothing to be proud of. That kind of attitude is why long-time political observers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein described today’s GOP as “ideologically extreme” and “scornful of compromise.”

And it’s why my friend, Senator Lugar, said this in his concession speech last night:

“Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas.”

We should all remember – regardless of our party – that compromise has been the hallmark of this country for more than 200 years.

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.

“Today, Republicans voted to hit students with an additional $1,000 in debt in order to protect wealthy tax dodgers. Republicans have paid lip service to the need to protect our students from this crushing debt burden, but their obstruction speaks louder than their words.

“We have different approaches on how to pay for this bill, but Democrats’ main goal is to move this bill forward. If Republicans want to have a vote on an amendment with their alternative way to pay for the proposal, they are more than welcome to have that vote if doing so would move this bill closer to the President’s desk.

“Unfortunately, it appears that Republicans appear more interested in obstruction than progress. For the sake of the seven million students who are at risk of seeing their payments skyrocket, I hope Republicans’ actions will start to align more closely with their words.”

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding a Republican filibuster of legislation to keep student loan interest rates low, and on the Republican proposal to cut preventive health care. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Over the last two weeks, Senate Republicans have repeatedly claimed they support efforts to keep interest rates low for federal student loans.

There is only one way to prove it: end the needless filibuster of Democrats’ plan to stop rates from doubling this summer.

Democrats have proposed legislation to freeze student loan interest rates at current levels for a year without adding a penny to the deficit.

Our plan creates no new taxes. It would simply stop wealthy Americans from avoiding the taxes they already owe.

And our legislation would prevent 7 million students from paying $1,000 more over the life of each loan.

Yet Republicans appear poised to filibuster this worthy measure.

They’re sending a clear message they would rather protect wealthy tax dodgers than help promising students achieve their dreams of higher education.

Republicans will try to explain away their “no” votes by claiming they oppose the way the legislation is paid for.

They propose radical cuts to a preventive health care fund instead – a proposal they know Democrats oppose.

The prevention fund is already helping states fight chronic illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes.

Chronic diseases like these are responsible for 7 out of 10 deaths in American.

And they make up three-quarters of the nation’s health care spending.

For example, treating 26 million Americans with diabetes – including a rapidly growing number of children – costs hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

And diabetes increases the risk of developing other costly, life-threatening chronic diseases, such as heart disease, stroke and kidney failure.

The prevention fund also pays for successful tobacco cessation programs that avert billions in healthcare costs to treat emphysema, heart disease and cancer.

And it finances immunizations for preventable, childhood illnesses such as measles and whooping cough.

Last year, measles cases reached a 15-year high.

After being nearly wiped out in the 1950’s, whooping cough has also resurged.

During a recent outbreak of whooping cough in California, the disease reached its highest rates in more than half a century.

These diseases are completely preventable with the kind of proper immunizations the prevention fund supports.

Yet Republicans want to ax investments in preventive care that save the country money and save lives.

We have already made cuts – difficult cuts – to this program. We cannot afford to make more drastic cuts, which would put Americans’ health at risk.

But while we do not support Republicans’ plan to cut programs that combat diabetes, heart disease and cancer, we are happy to give them a vote on their alternative pay-for.

If Republicans stop filibustering our legislation, which would keep student loan interest rates low, we will vote on their proposal to pay for it.

The stakes of this debate are too high to let partisanship get in the way.

The average student graduates with $25,000 in debt.

Too many young people are putting off buying a house, starting a family or opening a business because they are saddled with crushing student loan debt.

Democrats are determined to protect millions of students from increasing interest rates.

If Republicans truly share our goal, they will vote to advance this legislation today.

“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sided with the White House on Thursday when he voted to advance next year’s budget bills based on last August’s debt-ceiling deal.  His vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee puts the GOP leader on the opposite side of the issue from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his conference.  The committee met to divide up the $1.047 trillion allocated to discretionary spending under the debt deal — $19 billion more than allowed under the House-passed budget that Boehner supported.  House and Senate appropriators had warned that by that by tampering with August’s Budget Control Act and insisting on deeper cuts next year, House conservatives were risking a government shutdown confrontation with the White House.”

…

“He was joined by most of the Republicans on the committee and all Democrats in advancing the spending levels to be used to construct the 12 annual appropriations bills.”

“Today Senate Republicans again put millionaires ahead of the middle class. Currently, most hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than many of their middle-class employees – but while the incomes for the wealthy have ballooned in recent years, middle-class wages haven’t kept pace with the price of a college education or a secure retirement. The measure that Republicans blocked today would have restored fairness to our tax code and reduced the deficit without asking middle class families or seniors to sacrifice any more than they already have.

“Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues would rather end Medicare as we know it than build a stronger middle class or ask millionaires to contribute an extra penny. Democrats will not stop fighting to restore fairness to our tax code, and I hope that in the future, my Republican colleagues will think of the teacher and the mechanic before the wealthiest Americans.”

Points Out That A Stand-Alone Reauthorization Would Fail In The House Due To Tea Party Opposition

Looks Forward To Working With Republicans To Finding A Vehicle For Reauthorization That Would Guarantee Passage

Washington, DC – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid replied in a letter to Republican excuses for voting against the re-authorization of the Export-Import Bank. Despite claiming to support the Bank’s reauthorization, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell led a filibuster last week to prevent the Bank from being reauthorized, and is now calling for the reauthorization to be advanced as a stand-alone that would fail to pass the House of Representatives due to Tea party opposition.

Senator Reid states that while he opposes advancing a stand-alone reauthorization that has no chance of passing the House, he looks forward to working with Republicans to find a vehicle that will ensure reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. The letter was delivered to Republicans earlier today, and was written in response to a letter that Republicans wrote to Senator Reid this week.

“I am surprised by your claim of support for the Bank, given that just last week you led a coordinated and successful effort to defeat its reauthorization,” Senator Reid writes. “If you had not opposed reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, led a Republican filibuster and insisted on a 60-vote threshold, it would have already passed the Senate with bipartisan support,” he points out.

In response to Republican requests to bring up the Bank reauthorization as a stand-alone measure, Senator Reid points out that such a move would be guaranteed to fail in the House of Representatives, where Tea Party Republicans staunchly oppose the Bank.

“Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that Members of the House who are ideologically opposed to the Export-Import Bank’s very existence intend to oppose its reauthorization and severely curtail its operations, making the prospect of a stand-alone reauthorization of the Bank passing the House remote,” Reid writes.

“The Bank’s reauthorization did not need to be a fight,” Reid writes. “I look forward to working with you to find another vehicle that would ensure passage of the Export-Import Bank through the House. It is obvious that you regret your vote, and I sincerely wish that when the opportunity had presented itself, you had voted according to the dictates of your conscience.”

The full text of the letter is below and attached as a PDF.

###

March 30, 2012

Dear Colleague:

Thank you for your letter regarding reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.  The Export-Import Bank is an essential tool for providing American companies with a level playing field in a global economy, creating jobs, and revitalizing America’s manufacturing sector.  I am surprised by your claim of support for the Bank, given that just last week you led a coordinated and successful effort to defeat its reauthorization.

I was also surprised to learn that you believe Senate action on the reauthorization would be brief.  If you had not opposed reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, led a Republican filibuster and insisted on a 60-vote threshold, it would have already passed the Senate with bipartisan support on a vote of 55-44 on Senate amendment 1836.  Moreover, as you undoubtedly know, Republicans have been responsible for an unprecedented number of filibusters, causing delay and postponement to become common place in the Senate.

The Bank’s reauthorization did not need to be a fight.  The provisions in the reauthorization had been approved by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee, and the amendment was cosponsored by Senators Shelby and Graham.  Although it defies belief, even the Republican cosponsors of the reauthorization voted against it.

Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that Members of the House who are ideologically opposed to the Export-Import Bank’s very existence intend to oppose its reauthorization and severely curtail its operations, making the prospect of a stand-alone reauthorization of the Bank passing the House remote.  The Bank creates jobs, provides capital to small businesses, and enjoys bipartisan support, and it was an ideal fit for the bipartisan JOBS Act, which was designed to provide small businesses with greater access to capital.  Attaching the Bank’s reauthorization to the JOBS Act, which had strong bipartisan support in the House, would have provided a vehicle for reauthorization that would have garnered the support necessary to overcome House Republicans’ opposition.

Even if Senate Republicans are in fact ready to reverse their position and support the Bank, as your letter suggests, I foresee no possibility of the reauthorization receiving the necessary support from your colleagues in the House.  I look forward to working with you to find another vehicle that would ensure passage of the Export-Import Bank through the House.

I am sorry to learn that you regret your vote, and I sincerely wish that when the opportunity presented itself, you had voted according to the dictates of your conscience.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID

Majority Leader
United States Senate-Nevada

CC:      The Honorable Lindsey Graham

The Honorable Kelly Ayotte

The Honorable Daniel Coats

The Honorable Mike Johanns

The Honorable Saxby Chambliss

The Honorable Rob Portman

The Honorable Jeff Sessions

The Honorable John Boozman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

The Honorable John Hoeven

The Honorable Johnny Isakson

The Honorable Roy Blunt

The Honorable Richard Shelby

The Honorable Lamar Alexander

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski

The Honorable Mark Kirk

The Honorable Pat Roberts

The Honorable Dean Heller

The Honorable Richard Burr

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison

The Honorable Roger Wicker

The Honorable Scott Brown

The Honorable Richard Lugar

The Honorable James Inhofe

The Honorable Susan Collins

The Honorable John McCain

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

Will Boehner Continue To Block Consideration of Bill That Got 74 Votes In Senate?

“An increasing Number of House Republicans are beginning to say the House should take up the Senate bill…”

Just Today, GOP Rep. King Spokesman Said He Would Vote For Senate Transportation Bill If It Came to House Floor.  Politico Pro transportation reporter Burgess Everett tweeted, “Spokesman for Peter King (R) tells me he would vote for the Senate transportation bill IF it got to the House floor (unlikely, I know).”  [Politico Tweet, 3/28/12]

“the latest embarrassment for Boehner on an issue that he said … would be the centerpiece of House Republicans’ job creation agenda…”

Earlier this Week, GOP Reps. Dold, Bass, and Biggert Called on Boehner to Bring up the Senate Transportation Bill. In a Letter to Speaker Boehner, GOP Congressmen Bass, Biggert and Dold, wrote, “With no indication that an alternate longer-term bill will be brought to the House floor by March 31, 2012, we urge the House to reconcile any potential blue slip procedural issues and take up the House-version of S. 1813, the Mobility, Access and Progress for the 21^st century. Transportation is a priority for all Americans. Our constituents deserve to see Congress act swiftly and in a bipartisan way on this important issue.” [Letter to Speaker Boehner, 3/26/12]

“Situation is looking earily similar to previous struggles, when Congress tried to pass … the payroll tax holiday”

22 Senate Republicans Voted For Senate Bill, But Boehner Still Refuses to Bring It Up In House. On March 14, twenty-two Senate Republicans voted for final passage of the Senate’s two year highway reauthorization bill.  The Senators crossing the aisle were: Alexander (R-TN), Blunt (R-MO), Boozman (R-AR), Brown (R-MA), Chambliss (R-GA), Cochran (R-MS), Collins (R-ME), Grassley (R-IA), Heller (R-NV), Hoeven (R-ND), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Moran (R-KS), Murkowski (R-AK), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Snowe (R-ME), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), and Wicker (R-MS).  [Vote 48, 3/14/12]

HEALTH EQUITY AND ACCESS REFORM TODAY ACT (1993)

In 1993, Senate Republicans offered the “Health Equity and Access Today Act” as an alternative to President Clinton’s healthcare proposal. The centerpiece of this proposal was a provision mandating individuals to purchase private health insurance. It had 19 Republican cosponsors, including three Republican senators still in office today.

WYDEN-BENNETT BILL (2007-2009)

The bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill—introduced in 2007 and then again in 2009—contained an individual mandate. At least 10 Republicans sponsored one of the two versions of the proposal, including four still serving today.

ROMNEYCARE IN MASSACHUSETTS (2006)

In 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a universal health care in Massachusetts that included an individual mandate. Sen. Jim DeMint, who endorsed Gov. Romney for President in 2007, said of the Massachusetts law: “I think that’s something we should do for the whole country.”

Tens of thousands of bridges and millions of miles of roadways across the country are in a state of disrepair.

But, rather than putting Americans to work fixing those roads and bridges – and repairing crumbling train tracks, highways and sidewalks across the nation – House Republican leaders are pandering to the Tea Party.

As if putting the Tea Party ahead of efforts to repair our nation’s crumbling infrastructure wasn’t bad enough, House Republicans are risking 2.8 million jobs in the process.

I was disappointed to hear last week that House Republican leaders will pursue a three-month extension of the Highway Bill. They should be voting on the two-year transportation bill passed on an overwhelming, bipartisan vote by the Senate.

Their short-term Band-Aid bill is no solution. Communities and contractors need certainty – especially going into the summer construction season – that their projects won’t grind to a halt in three months because the House once again refuses to act.

The American people will know who to blame if chaos in the House Republican caucus costs us almost 3 million jobs. One week remains until thousands of projects around the country lock their gates and lay off their workers.

It is time for House Republican leaders to do the responsible thing: take up the Senate-passed transportation bill, which is strongly supported by Senate Republicans.

The American people are watching, and time is wasting.

While House Republicans are squandering precious time and risking American jobs, the Senate will move forward with a bill to repeal billions in subsidies to big oil companies.

Last year, Big Oil raked in $137 billion in profits – more than ever before – but still received billions in taxpayers-funded giveaways.

Even with domestic oil production at its highest level in almost a decade, prices at the pump are rising.

Oil companies are making money hand over fist. When the price of a gallon of gas goes up by a single penny, quarterly profits for the five major oil companies go up by $200 million.

Yet this country continues to give taxpayer dollars to some of the most profitable corporations in the world – corporations that don’t need our help. It’s time to end this careless corporate welfare.

The only real way to bring down prices at the pump is to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. That will take additional responsible, domestic oil exploration anhgd smart investments in clean energy technology.

The Senate will vote this evening to advance the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act.

This legislation ends more than $2 billion a year in tax breaks for Big Oil. And it invests the savings in the clean energy industry, where it will grow our economy and create jobs.

Repealing wasteful subsidies won’t cause oil and gas prices to rise. But reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil will cause prices to fall.

I hope my Republican colleagues will join Senate Democrats and repeal subsidies for Big Oil. It is time we worked together to move this nation toward its clean energy future.

But if Republicans continue to stand up for oil companies making record profits, one thing will be obvious: Republicans care less about bringing down gas prices than about helping big oil companies that don’t need the help.

Congress should pass this legislation quickly, before another taxpayer dollar is spent on wasteful handouts to Big Oil.

The Senate must also move quickly to reform our postal system. And in the coming weeks the Senate must reauthorize of the Violence Against Women Act, pass additional job creation measures and take up a crucial cybersecurity bill.

The Pentagon says passing cybersecurity legislation is the single most important action Congress can take to improve national security. That’s why I will bring a bill to the floor very soon.

Bipartisan efforts to craft comprehensive cybersecurity legislation have been ongoing for several years, but the time to act is now.

It is time for Republican colleagues who have been involved in this effort from the start to sit down at the negotiating table and help us settle on a final approach. The next few weeks will set the path ahead.

Both parties agree this legislation is a priority. And Senators interested in getting involved should act now, before time runs out.

As always, I hope Democrats and Republicans will be able to work together to forge a path forward.

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.

For years the Export-Import Bank has helped American companies grow and sell their products overseas. And for years, the Ex-Im Bank has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support.

When it was last authorized in 2006, the Ex-Im bank passed the House by voice vote and the Senate by unanimous consent.

So when Senate Democrats brought a reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank to the floor last week, we hoped the legislation would receive bipartisan, bicameral support – as it did in 2006.

After all, the measure will support about 300,000 jobs and help American exporters continue to compete in a global economy.

It passed the Banking Committee unanimously.

It has three Republican co-sponsors.

It’s backed by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Round Table and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

And it will actually reduce the deficit by about $1 billion.

The Ex-Im Bank is one of those proposals we shouldn’t have to argue over.

But true to form, Republicans in the House are once again spoiling for a fight where there shouldn’t be one.

Yesterday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called our bill to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank a “partisan amendment.”

And he claimed this non-controversial, common-sense measure is derailing efforts to pass an IPO bill that would expand innovators’ access to capital. That’s just not true.

Leader Cantor should check in with his Senate colleagues.

Many of them understand American exporters need access to federal financing to stay on a level playing field with global competitors.

Just yesterday, the Senior Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, said without the Ex-Im Bank “our ability to grow in South Carolina is non-existent.”

In 2011, South Carolina exporters sold more than $130 million worth of goods abroad thanks to Ex-Im Bank financing.

And South Carolina isn’t the only state relying on the Bank to keep businesses thriving.

Nevada companies exported $33 million worth of their products last year thanks to financing from the Export-Import Bank.

In 2011, in the Presiding Officer’s home state of Delaware, the Ex-Im Bank made it possible for private firms to sell more than $39 million worth of goods overseas.

Last year, the Ex-Im Bank supported almost 300,000 jobs across 49 states.

China already provides more investment capital to its exporters than the United States, Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom combined, as Senator Graham said yesterday during a conference call in support of this legislation.

We cannot allow that gulf to widen.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says, “Failure to reauthorize Ex-Im would amount to America’s unilateral disarmament in the face of other nations’ aggressive trade finance programs.”

American companies have no choice but to go head-to-head with these Chinese exporters.

But in this Chamber we do have a choice: we can compete, or we can cooperate.

We can engage in yet another unnecessary, unproductive battle. Or we can work together to help American businesses grow and hire. The choice shouldn’t be difficult.

The Senate will vote on this reasonable proposal today.

Almost 300,000 Americans had jobs last year because of the Export-Import Bank. I hope those workers come first as Republican colleagues cast their votes this afternoon.

“It’s time for you to put an end to the attacks on women’s health care and to work with the Senate to get back to the American people’s top priority: creating jobs and boosting our economy.”

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, all 12 Democratic women Senators sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner calling on him to rescind his pledge to push forward with efforts to restrict women’s access to contraception after the Blunt amendment was defeated in the Senate. The Senator’s letter comes in the wake of Speaker Boehner’s public pledge to continue efforts to limit birth control access in the House, where a similar version of the Blunt amendment has over 200 co-sponsors. Speaker Boehner’s promise to continue fighting also comes despite a national outcry from women, the overwhelming majority of whom have used contraception at some point in their lifetime.

“We are asking that you abandon the promise you have made to bring legislation to the House floor similar to the Blunt amendment, which was defeated in the Senate last week, and which would turn the clock back on women’s access to health care,” the Senators wrote. “At a time when 99% of sexually active women in the U.S. have used birth control, its role in the lives of women and their families is hard to understate…. That is why the recent Republican attacks on birth control access have been so eye-opening for American women. For most American women, the battle over contraception was settled a half century ago.”

The letter was sent by U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kay Hagan (D-NC), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

The full text of the Senator’s letter follows (PDF here):

Speaker Boehner,

We write to express our concerns over your recent statements pledging to continue efforts to put employers between American women and their access to birth control. Specifically, we are asking that you abandon the promise you have made to bring legislation to the House floor similar to the Blunt amendment, which was defeated in the Senate last week, and which would turn the clock back on women’s access to health care. Furthermore, we ask that you listen to the overwhelming outcry from American women who support access to contraception and drop all politically-charged efforts to deny them coverage.

Today, at a time when 99% of sexually active women in the U.S. have used birth control, its role in the lives of women and their families is hard to understate. Access to birth control is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality, can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, and is linked to overall good health outcomes. Nationwide, 1.5 million women use contraceptives only as treatment for serious medical conditions. And most importantly, access to birth control helps reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, a goal we all share.

That is why the recent Republican attacks on birth control access have been so eye-opening for American women. For most American women, the battle over contraception was settled a half century ago. Yet, over the course of the past month alone, women have watched as panels on birth control have been convened without women, a young woman that dared to speak out in defense of birth control was subjected to vile name-calling, and extreme legislation, like the Blunt amendment, has been pushed to deny access.

Women have had enough. As we have heard from countless women in our home states and here on Capitol Hill, they are tired of being targets for a political strategy that endangers their health care and they want it to stop. We hope that you can answer their calls, and ours. It’s time for you to put an end to the attacks on women’s health care and to work with the Senate to get back to the American people’s top priority: creating jobs and boosting our economy.

As you may know, today is International Women’s Day, a day celebrated each year to mark the political, social, and economic progress women have made. We ask that on this day you join with us in working to ensure that we build on the progress of the past, not reverse it.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kay Hagan (D-NC), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

“Senate Republicans have been using amendments to delay this bipartisan highway bill until Speaker Boehner could figure out a path for dealing with it in the House. Now that the Speaker has publicly signaled he is willing to buck his conservative bloc and give the Senate bill a vote, momentum is on our side. Senate Republicans have no reason to drag this out any longer.”

“The closeness of this vote show how high the stakes are on this issue. Republicans want to force women to surrender their health decisions to their bosses, and even let employers deny women access to contraception. Some of the wiser Republicans already regret forcing this issue to the floor and voted it for with clenched teeth. If Republicans keep this up, they are going to drive away independents just like they are driving the moderates out of their caucus.”

“Today’s vote showed us a great deal about where Republicans’ priorities lie. Instead of working with Democrats to create jobs, Republicans are trying to deny women access to health care services like contraception. Democrats are trying to move forward with a bill that would create or save nearly two million American jobs. But at the urging of the Tea Party, Republicans are obstructing this jobs bill with unrelated amendments like the one we defeated today.

“Republicans’ proposal to let any employer deny women access to contraceptives would not create a single job. Under Republicans’ proposal, over 170,000 women could lose access to contraception coverage and other health services in Nevada alone.

“The American public wants us to work on bipartisan ways to create jobs – not re-fight the culture wars. I truly hope my Republican colleagues will get the message, and work with us on middle-of-the-road solutions to create jobs and grow our economy.”

Snowe: ‘Much Broader Than I Could Support’ … Murkowksi: ‘Don’t Know Where We Are Going With This Issue’

Sen. Olympia Snowe: “With Respect To The Blunt Amendment, It’s Much Broader Than I Could Support.” [MSNBC, 2/29/12]

Sen. Murkowski: “I Don’t Know Where We Are Going With This Issue.” “But other Republicans said that the party had other priorities and that they wanted more information about how the new requirement would work. ‘I don’t know where we are going with this issue,’ said Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska. Ms. Murkowski said she did not want a vote on the issue this week. ‘We’ve got way too much else to be doing,’ Ms. Murkowski said, adding that her constituents were more concerned about energy policy.” [New York Times, 2/29/12]

Joe Scarborough Warns Republicans: In Debate Over Contraception, “Republicans Will Get Routed in Swing Areas.” Scarborough: “My warning last week was to the Obama administration this week it is to the Republicans… They need to be very careful about how they push forward on this issue, because if it stops being about freedom of religion and starts being about contraception then Republicans will get routed in swing areas.”  [MSNBC, 2/14/12]

Illinois GOP Party Chair: Contraceptive Debate “Hurts Us With Independents.”  Illinois Republican Party chair Pat Brady said of the contraceptive debate, “it hurts us with independents.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 2/28/12]

Top Senate GOP Aide: “There Could Be Consequences” For Taking Aim At Women’s Health. “But there’s worry even within his own party that his proposal goes too far and could unleash a voter backlash in a year the GOP hopes to wrest control of the White House and Senate from Democrats. ‘There is a concern his amendment was written too broadly,’ said a top Senate GOP aide. ‘There is fear that it will shift attention from religious freedom to women’s health. If that happens, there could be consequences.’” [Politico, 2/29/12]

Former Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani: “It Makes The Party Look Like it Isn’t a Modern Party.” “‘It makes the party look like it isn’t a modern party,’ Rudy Giuliani told CNN’s Erin Burnett, fretting about the candidates’ Cotton Mather attitude about women and gays. ‘It doesn’t understand the modern world that we live in.’” [NY Times, 2/25/12]

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson: Party Should “Move On” To More Pressing Issues. “Emerson said the party could be better served to accept the ruling and focus on more pressing issues. ‘I think getting the president to compromise on [the ruling] was a significant victory, and people should embrace it and move on,’ she said.” [USA Today, 2/17/12]

Republican Adviser Juleanna Glover: Women Will Think All Republicans Oppose Birth Control. “Republican adviser and hostess Juleanna Glover said on her Facebook page that women will think all Republicans oppose birth control ‘and none but the 1 percent of Catholic women who never used birth control will vote for (the) GOP nominee.’” [AP, 2/23/12]

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard Said “He Was Worried The Debate Over Such Issues Might Alienate Uncommitted Voters.”  “Some Republican governors voiced concern that social issues like contraception and gay marriage had at times eclipsed discussion of the economy in the primary race.  ‘I do agree those social issues are not as significant as some of the economic and fiscal issues that really threaten our way of life,’ South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard said, saying he was worried the debate over such issues might alienate uncommitted voters.” [AP, 2/25/12]

Blunt Amendment Is So Far Reaching It Would Allow Any Corporation or Health Plan to Deny Women and Their Families Access to These Services For Virtually Any Reason

Amendment Set to Receive Senate Vote As Early As This Week

Washington, DC – Today the Democratic Policy and Communications Center released state-by-state data on the potential impact of Senator Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) so called “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” on women’s access to preventive care.  Data recently compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) shows that an estimated 20.4 million women are now taking advantage of preventive health care services provided under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the Blunt legislation could put their access to these services at risk.  These services will include contraception, mammograms, pre-natal screenings, cervical cancer screenings, flu shots and much more.  The legislation has been introduced as an amendment to the surface transportation bill and will likely get a vote in the Senate as early as this week.

A state by state breakdown of the data can be found below and here.

Under the Affordable Care Act many insurance plans are now required to provide free coverage for certain recommended preventive health services.  The Blunt Amendment is so extreme that it would allow any corporation or health plan to deny access to these services, for any reason.  It provides employers with extraordinarily wide and unprecedented latitude over what should be covered.  A corporation could decide, for example, that cancer screenings are driving up their insurance costs and remove them from their health plan.  An employer could also deny prenatal care for expecting mothers.

Data comes from the Department of Health and Human Services – http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/PreventiveServices/ib.shtml

Republicans Ignoring Polls Showing Broad Support For Administration Compromise – Including Among Catholic Women

New Push Is Just The Latest In Litany Of Republican Efforts To Curtail Women’s Access To Health Services

DECLARING “THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COMPROMISE,” REPUBLICANS VOW TO PURSUE EXTREME MEASURES TO RESTRICT WOMEN’S ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES.

Sen. McConnell Pledges Senate Vote On Blunt Proposal To Give Employers Unprecedented Power To Deny Women Access To Critical Health Services. SCHIEFFER: “Well I guess what I’m asking you though is are you willing as far as Senator Blunt now wants to go and just write in legislation that would ban any group that had just a, quote, moral objection, not just a religious group but just any group that had a moral objection to that? Would you be willing to push that in the senate?” MCCONNELL: “Yeah. You know, if we end up having to try to overcome the president’s opposition by legislation, of course, I’d be happy to support it and intend to support it. It would be difficult as long as the president is rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else’s religion is. I assume he would veto it. But yeah, we’ll be voting on that in the Senate. And you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible.” [Face the Nation, 2/13/12]

Speaker Boehner Vows Push To Restrict Women’s Access To Contraception.  “House Republicans say religious leaders are not convinced the White House contraception compromise ‘doesn’t constitute an attack on religious freedom, which has been a fundamental American right for more than 200 years,’ a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner said Friday. He urged the president to work with the Catholic bishops, and in the meantime the House would work on legislation ‘that respects all Americans’ constitutional rights.’” [Politico Pro, 2/10/12]

Sen. Coats: “There Is No Room For Compromise.” “Today’s announcement changes nothing. Whether religious employers are forced to pay directly for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs or to act as facilitators, their religious liberty remains compromised. But what the president fails to understand is that when it comes to freedom of religion – a core American principle – there is no room for compromise.” [Press Release, 2/10/12]

Sen. Hatch: Anything Short Of Full GOP Position “Is No Compromise.” “This is about religious freedom, and anything short of a full exemption is no compromise” [Press Release, 2/10/12]

Sen. Blunt: Administration Compromise Is An “Accounting Gimmick.” “Just because you can come up with an accounting gimmick and pretend like religious institutions do not have to pay for the mandate, does not mean that you’ve satisfied the fundamental constitutional freedoms that all Americans are guaranteed. I’ll continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we reverse this unconstitutional mandate in its entirety.” [Press Release, 2/10/12]

Sen. Johanns: Repeal Entire Mandate. “Though he may call this a compromise, asking people of faith to turn their backs on their deeply held beliefs is anything but. The one thing you cannot compromise is your conscience, and the only way to avoid this dilemma is to repeal the mandate and protect fundamental rights granted by the Constitution.” [Press Release, 2/10/12]

Sen. Rubio: Solution Is Full Repeal Of Health Reform. “It’s good that the president reaffirmed that the federal government cannot force faith-based institutions to provide services that they teach are wrong. Unfortunately, as more of these rules are written, our constitutional rights will continue to be threatened by the administration’s policy goals. This issue exemplifies the problem with putting the federal government in charge of health care, and shows why we must fully repeal Obamacare.” [Sunshine State News, 2/10/12]

REPUBLICANS BACK RADICAL PROPOSAL TO ALLOW EMPLOYERS TO DENY COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION AND OTHER CRITICAL HEALTH SERVICES TO WOMEN

Senator Blunt’s Proposal Lets Any Employer Deny Anyone Access to Health Care.  As part of their ongoing effort to politicize women’s health, Senator Blunt’s extreme measure would essentially allow any employer or health plan to decide not to provide any essential health benefit or preventive service to any American.

• Under Blunt Proposal, Any Employer Could Invoke Vague “Moral Conviction” To Deny Health Services To Employees.  The Blunt measure would allow employers and insurance companies to deny coverage of any health service – not limited to birth control – based on “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” This definition is so broad, for example, that CEO’s with a “moral objection” to Type 2 Diabetes or HIV screening could deny coverage of these services to all employees. [NWLC, 2/10/12]
• Employers Could Discriminate Against Individuals Under Blunt Proposal. The Blunt proposal would allow health plans to discriminate against individuals based on sex, race, color, national origin, age, and disability. As a result, if a CEO of an insurance company had a “moral objection” to out-of-wedlock births, the company could deny single, pregnant women access to routine sonograms. [NWLC, 2/10/12]
• Blunt Proposal Creates An Unprecedented Right of Action for “Threatened” Violations. Any individual would have the right to file a lawsuit in Federal court for actual or “threatened violations.” As a result, state officials might be less likely to enforce any law which could be perceived as a threat, thereby resulting in further restricted access to critical services. [NWLC, 2/10/12]

POLLS SHOW AMERICANS – INCLUDING CATHOLICS – BROADLY SUPPORTS BIRTH CONTROL BENEFIT

Poll: Fifty Six Percent of Voters Support Birth Control Benefit.  According to a poll conducted by PPP, 56 percent of voters support the birth control benefit, while only 37 percent are opposed, with women supporting the measure by a margin of 63 -29 percent.  Among independents 55 percent support it while only 36 percent oppose it.  [PPP, 2/10/11]

Poll: Fifty Three Percent of Catholics Support Birth Control Benefit.  According to a poll conducted by PPP, 53 percent of Catholics support  the birth control benefit while only 44 percent are opposed.  [PPP, 2/10/11]

THIS IS JUST THE LATEST IN LITANY OF REPUBLICAN EFFORTS TO CURTAIL WOMEN’S ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

Republicans Threatened to Shut Down the Government to Defund Planned Parenthood.  In April 2011, during the debate over funding the government, Republicans threatened to shut down the federal government in order to gut women’s access to healthcare. [ABC News, 4/8/11]

235 House Republicans Voted To Eliminate All Funding For Title X, Jeopardizing Critical Preventive Health Services for Women.  HR.1, the House Republican’s spending bill eliminated $327 million from Title X, whose providers served close to 5 million women with preventive services including screenings for breast and cervical cancer. [Wall Street Journal, 2/9/11; H.R. 1; Vote 147, 2/19/11]

Republican Budget Raised Prescription Drug Prices on 2 Million Women. The House Republican budget re-opened the Medicare Part D prescription drug “donut hole.”  As a result, senior women would have had to pay an additional $599 on average under the Republican proposal. [HHS, 2/2/12]

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL):  ‘I Have Doubts About The Wisdom’ Of Payroll Tax Cut. [MSNBC, 2/13/12]

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ): ‘We Shouldn’t Be Having a Payroll Tax Cut.’ [The Hill, 2/13/12]

THE LIST OF REPUBLICANS WHO PUBLICLY OPPOSE ANY EXTENSION OF THE PAYROLL TAX CUT CONTINUES TO GROW

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Bad Policy,’ ‘A Gimmick.‘ [Politico, 2/7/12]

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Bad Policy.‘ [Politico, 2/7/12]

Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘A Terrible Idea.’  [Reuters, 1/13/12]

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Not Worth Our While.’ [Politico, 1/6/12]

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): Extending the Tax Cut ‘A Very Slippery Slope.‘ [Politico, 2/7/12]

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE): Payroll Tax Cut ‘A Hard Sell.‘ [Politico, 2/7/12]

]]> http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/02/13/republican-opposition-to-payroll-tax-cut-threatening-year-long-extension/feed/ 0 http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/02/09/with-no-agenda-republicans-resort-to-tea-party-pandering/ http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/02/09/with-no-agenda-republicans-resort-to-tea-party-pandering/#comments Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:30:08 +0000 aaron http://democrats.senate.gov/?p=107104 McConnell Says President Obama Leads A Gang of “Liberal Thugs,” While DeMint Decries Compromise

Instead of Working To Create Jobs, Republicans Huff and Puff About “Tyranny,” “A Day That Will Live In Infamy,” “Trampling On Our Constitution”

When Senator Coburn Says You’re Blowing Issues “Out Of Proportion,” You Know You’ve Gone Too Far

REPUBLICANS SPLINTERED, INFIGHTING OVER AGENDA

Politico: In Behind The Scenes Battle, “Divide Within The Party Is Sharp.”  “With no nominee yet to spell out the party’s agenda, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is locked in a behind-the-scenes debate with other Republicans over their strategy for winning back power.”  [Politico, 2/2/12]

WITH NO AGENDA TO SPEAK OF, REPUBLICANS PANDER TO THE TEA PARTY WITH OVERHEATED RHETORIC

McConnell: President Obama Leads A Gang Of “Liberal Thugs.” “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to launch a fierce attack on the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, calling out ‘liberal thugs’ for intimidating their opponents in the name of political expediency.” [Politico, 2/9/11]

DeMint: Democrats Should Give Up Hope of Compromise. “President Obama and his party should give up any hope of working with conservatives in Congress, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint warned Thursday, at the opening of a conservative conference in Washington. ‘Compromise works well in this world when you have shared goals,’ DeMint told the activists gathered for the four-day Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). ‘When you have a shared goals, you can sit down together. We don’t have shared goals with the Democrats.’ Likening the 2012 elections to the Super Bowl, the senator said, ‘I can guarantee you Coach Coughlin did not tell his Giants to go out on the field and work with those other guys. They weren’t cooperating with Tom Brady… The two teams had different goals. The Patriots were there to beat the other guys.’” [CBS News, 2/9/12]

Johnson: “Obama Is Not Someone We Can Compromise With.” At CPAC Senator Ron Johnson said, “Obama is not someone we can compromise with, Obama is someone we must defeat.” [ABC News, 2/9/12]

Lee: Cordray Appointment “May Well Be A Day That Will Live On In Infamy” Lee said, “Jan. 4, 2012 may well be a day that will live on in infamy as a day the Congress ceded one of its rightful powers to the executive.” [Mike Lee, 2/1/12]

Alexander: Cordray Appointment Disregarded Every American “Who Chooses Liberty Over Tyranny, President Over King” Alexander said, “The President’s recess appointments not only show disregard for the Constitution , they show disregard for every individual American who chooses liberty over tyranny, President over King.” [Floor Remarks, 2/2/12]

Wicker: Cordray Appointment “Trampling on Our Constitution” Wicker said, “I say this with all sincerity to the President and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: There is a time for spin and there is a time to make political points, but politics and theater ought to stop short of trampling on our Constitution .” [Floor Remarks, 1/26/12]

BUT DON’T TAKE IT FROM US: COBURN THINKS REPUBLICANS’ RHETORIC BLOWS ISSUES “OUT OF PROPORTION”

Coburn: Conservatives Are Blowing Contraceptives Controversy “Out of Proportion” “Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said conservatives claiming the Obama administration is waging a war on religious liberty because of its policy mandating healthcare coverage for contraception are blowing the matter ‘out of proportion.’” [The Hill, 2/9/12]

“Republicans support a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits …”  [Boehner-Cantor Joint Statement, 2/6/12]

CNN: “On the latest fight over payroll tax cut, Cantor pushes back on reports House GOP is again divided. ‘We are united.’” [Tweet by CNN’s Kate Bolduan, 2/7/12]

… BUT THEIR PARTY STILL HASN’T GOTTEN THE MESSAGE

POLITICO: ‘Payroll tax cut splinters GOP’

REUTERS: ‘Support has always been soft among Republicans for the payroll tax cut’

THE NEW YORK TIMES: ‘Republicans in Congress seem to have forgotten the embarrassment they suffered late last year for trying to block a payroll tax cut for millions of wage-earners’

SEN. BOB CORKER (R-TN): Extending the Tax Cut ‘A Very Slippery Slope.’ [Politico, 2/7/12]

SEN. MIKE JOHANNS (R-NE): Payroll Tax Cut ‘A Hard Sell.’ [Politico, 2/7/12]

REP. PAUL BROUN (R-GA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Bad Policy,’ ‘A Gimmick.’ [Politico, 2/7/12]

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R-UT): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Bad Policy.’ [Politico, 2/7/12]

REP. JEFF LANDRY (R-LA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘A Terrible Idea.’  [Reuters, 1/13/12]

REP. JACK KINGSTON (R-GA): Payroll Tax Cut ‘Not Worth Our While.’ [Politico, 1/6/12]

I am pleased that today the Senate will pass the Aviation Jobs conference report.

This measure is the first long-term reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration in almost five years.

The FAA has worked under 23 short-term extensions since 2007. In fact, the FAA shut down for two weeks last year.

The four-year compromise we’ll pass this evening didn’t give everyone everything they wanted. But it will finally give the FAA the stability it needs to properly maintain a world-class air travel system.

The Aviation Jobs Bill will also create thousands of jobs, protect airline workers and improve safety for travelers. This legislation will create and protect more than 300,000 badly needed jobs.

And it will give the FAA the ability to finally upgrade this country’s air-traffic control system.

Today America relies on World War II-era technology to track aircraft and guide them in for safe landings. An upgrade to modern, satellite technology is long overdue.

The Aviation Jobs Bill will finally make that critical investment possible. It will invest more than $24 billion in airports and runways across the nation, and on modern air traffic control equipment.

I am glad that Democrats and Republicans were finally able to reach this compromise.

I wish the spirit of compromise would also extend to ongoing conference committee negotiations on a year-long payroll tax cut.

I was dismayed to read this morning that rank-and-file Republicans in both chambers are on the fence over whether we should extend this break for working families at all.

More than 160 million American workers will benefit, with the average family saving $1,000 this year.

But Republicans are questioning whether Americans really need that extra cash. And they are once again playing politics and putting our economy at risk as time to reach a compromise runs out.

Democrats have offered to meet them halfway, but Republicans won’t take yes for an answer.

In exchange for extending this middle-class tax break, Republicans are insisting we pass unrelated, ideological legislation that will make our water less safe to drink.

And they’re refusing to close tax loopholes, such as giveaways to oil companies making record profits. Instead they insist on more handouts to millionaires and billionaires before they’ll do anything to benefit the middle class.

The American people have spoken, and they’ve spoken clearly: working families need this $1,000 to put food on the table and gas in the car.

And they won’t tolerate Republicans holding their money hostage to extort political payback, as they did before.

I thought Republicans got the message in December, when they took a beating for opposing this tax cut. I hope they won’t pick this losing fight a second time.

But if they do chose to fight Democrats as we try to put money back in the pockets of 160 million working Americans, the outcome will eventually be the same.

Democrats will not give in when it comes to protecting middle-class families.

That’s why we will prepare a fallback plan in case Republicans refuse to cooperate.

Our legislation will prevent a tax hike on middle-class families, extend unemployment benefits, protect seniors on Medicare from losing their doctors and extend expire tax provisions.

And it will be free of unrelated, ideological legislation designed to please the radical right. Stopping a $1,000 tax increase on virtually every American family is too important to be bogged down with sweeteners for the Tea Party.

Senate Democrats will be prepared to act with or without Republican cooperation.

Republicans must make a choice. They can force a $1,000 tax increase on American families to strengthen the Tea Party. Or they can compromise to strengthen the middle class. The choice is theirs.

Over the past year, Republican efforts to force seniors to pay more than double what they would pay under traditional Medicare – by converting Medicare into a voucher-type program – were repeatedly rejected by the American people and rejected by Congressional Democrats.  Recently, however, vocal opposition to the extreme Republican ideology comes from a long-time advocate of the Republican-backed health policy proposals.

Henry Aaron, considered one of the “fathers” of the premium support model, and health economist Austin Frakt, argued that Republican attempts to embrace his concept, “lack safeguards for beneficiaries. They threaten to shift costs to the elderly and disabled and force them to shop for coverage in a confusing insurance market.”

In their essay in last week’s New England Journal of Medicine, Aaron and Frakt unequivocally rejected the Republican proposals as dangerous policy.  In contrast to Aaron’s original premium support concept developed in 1995,  the two authors ask two fundamental questions of the Republican proposals: “Is premium support along the lines now being proposed a good idea? Is now the time to be making fundamental changes in Medicare? We believe that the answer to both questions is no.” They continue, “Whatever virtues such a [premium support] plan may have had in 1995, circumstances have changed.”

Instead, Aaron and Frakt argue that “traditional Medicare is better structured than private plans to meet that [growth] target without harming enrollees.” They conclude that implementation of the Affordable Care Act is the most important step to strengthen Medicare and control future growth in expenditures.  We agree.

Republicans Would Do Well to Listen to American People and Work With Democrats to Get Things Done

GOP Poll “House Republican Poll Ratings Have Plunged Over The Past Year”:  

“Long, drawn-out skirmishes over the debt ceiling, the supercommittee and the payroll tax holiday have led to a 64 percent unfavorable rating for Republicans, with their favorable numbers sitting at 29 percent, according to an internal poll conducted by GOP pollster David Winston in the final days of December 2011.”

ABC/Washington Post Poll: Disapproval Of GOP In Congress At All Time High:

Asked if they approve or disapprove of Republicans in Congress, 75% of Americans disapproved of the GOP. Only 21% approved. Disapproval is up from 63% in April of last year.

NBC/WSJ Poll: Only 12% Of Americans Think Republicans Have Brought The Right Kind Of Change To The Country:

Asked “Do you think the Republicans in Congress have mostly brought the right kind of change to the country, mostly brought the wrong kind of change, or have not really brought much change either way,” only 12% of respondents said Republicans had brought the right kind of change. 31% of Americans said republicans have brought the wrong kind of change and 54% said Republicans have not brought much change.    

NBC/WSJ Poll: Americans Prefer a Democratic Controlled Congress:

Asked their preference of this year’s congressional elections, 47% of respondents preferred a Democratic-controlled Congress while 41% prefer a Republican controlled Congress. This is a complete reversal from August of 2011, when 47% preferred a Republican-controlled Congress and 41% preferred a Democrat-controlled Congress.                     

NY Times/CBS News Poll: Only 27% Say Republicans Are Willing to Work With the President:

“The public is not assigning blame equally between President Obama and Republicans in Congress for the partisan gridlock over key legislation. In the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, 60 percent say Mr. Obama is attempting to work with Congressional Republicans to try to accomplish something; 27 percent say Republicans in Congress are making the same effort to work things out with the president.”

Top Senate Republicans Worried Potential Boycott of Cordray Hearing Will ‘Reflect Badly On Them’

GOP DIVIDED OVER PLANS BY LEE, WICKER TO CONTINUE BATTLING CORDRAY NOMINATION

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “The caucus is still divided on what to do …” [Bloomberg, 1/7/11]

ROLL CALL: Senate GOP Not United on Nominations

POLITICO: Obama recess appointments: GOP stuck on response

FOXNEWS: With GOP Divided on Recess Appointments, Some Strike Out on Their Own

GOP SENATORS: CONTINUED FIGHT ‘NOT ASTUTE THING TO DO’ … ‘WOULD RATHER PURSUE POSITIVE AGENDA’

SEN. BOB CORKER (R-TN): “I would be surprised if you see mass reprisals. I just don’t think that’s what’s going to happen. I don’t think anybody is going to consider that to be a very astute or intelligent thing to do.” [Politico, 1/26/11]

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): “I don’t think that’d be a particularly effective strategy. I would much rather pursue a positive agenda.” [Politico, 1/26/11]

SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R-ID): “I don’t think to gum up the process out of spite would be helpful. We need to be about the business of building solutions.” [Politico, 1/26/11]

REPUBLICANS DEFECTING FROM PLANS TO BOYCOTT BANKING HEARING

GOP SENATORS WORRIED BOYCOTT ‘WOULD REFLECT BADLY ON THEM.’ According to National Journal, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee “were unable to get all GOP committee members to sign onto a full-scale boycott. A Senate staffer who declined to be named said that after Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., declined to skip the hearing, several other committee members decided to attend, fearing Corker’s presence would reflect badly on them.” [National Journal, 1/26/11]

Last year’s Republican budget suggested converting Medicare into a voucher-type program, forcing seniors to pay $6,359 more for health care – more than double what they would pay under traditional Medicare – and  slashing benefits for more than 20 million Americans. In addition, their budget would have “reopened” the prescription drug donut hole, forcing seniors to pay an estimated $44 billion in additional drugs costs. Although the public clearly rejected their proposed reforms, Republicans have dug in on their pursuit of policies  which protect special interest subsidies and tax breaks for those at the top, while jeopardizing programs critical to America’s seniors.

This time, House Speaker John Boehner and Chairman Ryan announced plans to “end Medicare as we know it” with a new wrinkle.   Health economists indicate that this new premium support model, “likely would shift substantial costs to beneficiaries rather than protect them from such cost increases, could lead to the demise of traditional Medicare over time rather than preserve it, and likely would produce few savings.” The plan has already been rejected by Congressional Democrats and the White House.

Meanwhile, Republicans are working to pave the way for this and other radical proposals to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits for seniors. This week, the House Budget Committee will consider a Ribble-Ryan bill (H.R. 3577) that purports to “streamline the budget process.”  According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this legislation could make it easier to require deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security through the budget.

Instead of pushing extreme policies that will end Medicare, Republicans should work with Democrats to cut waste, reduce fraud, and improve efficiency in the delivery of health care using America’s innovative technology.