Senate rejects Obama-backed deficit task force

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The Senate has rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the deficit this year.

The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs that would have been voted on after the midterm elections. But the plan garnered just 53 votes in the 100-member Senate, not enough because 60 votes were required. Anti-tax Republicans joined with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare to reject the idea.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100126/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_budget

:thumbsup:

This is classic kick the can down the road - we don't want to touch it.
This does not make the problem go away - instead, it allows politics to get in the way of progress.
I know - you are concerned about entitlements, and I get that. But to refuse to address a very serious problem is not going to make it go away.

It is indicative that the senate(?) refuses, utterly refuses to do the job that they were voted in to do. One side is so ready and waiting to one-ups-manship and make political points at the cost of actually doing something.

You do know that politicians ARE supposed to do something right? It is not just about getting blood points from your opponent. Oh well, I live in fantasy......

Nowhere does it say that social security will be gutted. In fact, he was very clear that entitlements such as social security, medicare are mandatory and will not be touched.
But yeah - keep that gridlock going. We all know doing nothing is far more fruitful that actually addressing the problem.
1 percent. 1 percent of the whole budget and you are flaming out hysterical about social security. Republicans would be so pleased.

Their concerns are not relevant, yet "our" president caters to their views in preference to ours. Perhaps he nurturing them.

The first is that from a Keynesian point of view, curbing deficit spending should have a far lower priority than economic stimulus in the kind of economic climate we currently have. Allowing the GOP to slip into their faux deficit-hawk mode (which they slip into whenever Dems assume power) is incredibly bad framing. It makes it very easy to shut down any kind of useful social spending or economic stimulus, just by shouting "deficit neutrality!"

My second comment is that this was never going to be about a good-faith effort to curb spending. If it were a good-faith effort, there would have been none of this talk about "except military or defense spending." This was going to be a social spending hatchet job.

So, for those two reasons, I think it's good news.

Glad it's dead. RIP, Mofo.

Vote
State
Representative

Nay HI Akaka, Daniel
Nay MT Baucus, Max
Yea IN Bayh, Evan
Yea AK Begich, Mark
Yea CO Bennet, Michael
Yea NM Bingaman, Jeff
Yea CA Boxer, Barbara
Nay OH Brown, Sherrod
Nay IL Burris, Roland
Nay WV Byrd, Robert
Nay WA Cantwell, Maria
Nay MD Cardin, Benjamin
Yea DE Carper, Thomas
Nay PA Casey, Robert
Yea ND Conrad, Kent
Nay CT Dodd, Christopher
Yea ND Dorgan, Byron
Yea IL Durbin, Richard
Yea WI Feingold, Russell
Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne
Yea MN Franken, Al
Yea NY Gillibrand, Kirsten
Yea NC Hagan, Kay
Nay IA Harkin, Thomas
Nay HI Inouye, Daniel
Yea SD Johnson, Tim
Yea DE Kaufman, Edward
Yea MA Kerry, John
Nay MA Kirk, Paul
Yea MN Klobuchar, Amy
Yea WI Kohl, Herbert
Yea LA Landrieu, Mary
Nay NJ Lautenberg, Frank
Yea VT Leahy, Patrick
Yea MI Levin, Carl
Yea AR Lincoln, Blanche
Yea MO McCaskill, Claire
Yea NJ Menendez, Robert
Nay OR Merkley, Jeff
Nay MD Mikulski, Barbara
Nay WA Murray, Patty
Yea NE Nelson, Ben
Yea FL Nelson, Bill
Yea AR Pryor, Mark
Nay RI Reed, John
Yea NV Reid, Harry
Nay WV Rockefeller, John
Yea NY Schumer, Charles
Yea NH Shaheen, Jeanne
Nay PA Specter, Arlen
Nay MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann
Yea MT Tester, Jon
Yea CO Udall, Mark
Nay NM Udall, Tom
Yea VA Warner, Mark
Yea VA Webb, Jim
Nay RI Whitehouse, Sheldon
Yea OR Wyden, Ron
Yea CT Lieberman, Joseph
Nay VT Sanders, Bernard
Yea TN Alexander, Lamar
Nay WY Barrasso, John
Nay UT Bennett, Robert
Yea MO Bond, Christopher
Nay KS Brownback, Samuel
Nay KY Bunning, Jim
Nay NC Burr, Richard
Yea GA Chambliss, Saxby
Nay OK Coburn, Thomas
Nay MS Cochran, Thad
Yea ME Collins, Susan
Yea TN Corker, Bob
Yea TX Cornyn, John
Nay ID Crapo, Michael
Nay SC DeMint, Jim
Nay NV Ensign, John
Yea WY Enzi, Michael
Yea SC Graham, Lindsey
Nay IA Grassley, Charles
Yea NH Gregg, Judd
Nay UT Hatch, Orrin
Nay TX Hutchison, Kay
Nay OK Inhofe, James
Yea GA Isakson, John
Yea NE Johanns, Mike
Nay AZ Kyl, Jon
Yea FL LeMieux, George
Yea IN Lugar, Richard
Nay AZ McCain, John
Nay KY McConnell, Mitch
Not Voting AK Murkowski, Lisa
Nay ID Risch, James
Nay KS Roberts, Pat
Nay AL Sessions, Jefferson
Nay AL Shelby, Richard
Nay ME Snowe, Olympia
Nay SD Thune, John
Yea LA Vitter, David
Yea OH Voinovich, George
Yea MS Wicker, Roger



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2010-5

so he does what he is told but Burris is leaving and has no election to worry about so he is free to vote his conscience. Could be an explanation.

I seriously doubt this. What surprised me was that Feingold/Levin/Leahy all voted for this and they are the strongest Senators on Constitutional issues. It is also harder to find someone more populist or liberal than Leahy in the Democratic party. What this may suggest is that many of these people see the need for dealing with an unsustainable debt load and are saying that Congress is broken at the moment.

We're in an unusual situation where Republicans oppose EVERYTHING proposed by Obama, even when he advances their ideology, which he usually does. Obama sees himself as a great uniter, and Republicans aren't about to let him take on that mantle. Fortunately we have a few good Democrats who will vote against Obama's right-wing proposals, simply because it's bad legislation.

So we end up with Republicans shooting down right-wing crap they would typically propose themselves (but for all the wrong reasons), and they're joined by a few Democrats who shoot down the same crap (for all the right reasons). It is weird. Likewise, the MA voters put the brakes on a corporate-giveaway health-care bill by electing a Republican! It's insane. Everything is upside down.

If Republicans would actually sit down and work with Obama, they would get pretty much everything they have always wanted, and the people of this country (except for the mega-wealthy) would be totally screwed.

My two worthless repub senators voted yes, but many other equally worthless ones voted no. Go figure.

.......in the country whenever a vote AFFECTING a citizen directly is done in the House and Senate.

Return to 90% income tax on top earners
End the wars
Immediate begin Single Payer
End Corporate Welfare
Increase Tarriffs to 1950's type levels.


Along with those would be replacing Medicare Part D (part of putting single payer in place), enforce the anti-trust legislation and restore financial reforms from the 30's, and other things like that.

It is a shame that we have to go back to repealed policies in order to go forward, but that is what happens after all the backward/mis-steps that we have taken in the latter half of the 20th Century.

i was talking about reality...not fantasy

btw 90% is completely unfair- you can't punish people for being successful and you ignore the fact that many people work their asses off to make it to those positions of high earning

By limiting choices to what you perceive as "reality...not fantasy", you have moved to a Hobson's Choice among things which are already proven to have failed, or are simply immaterial.

That is the position of powerlessness.

One MUST work for what will truly work and truly be good.

I understand that "the enemy of the good is the perfect". However, it is also true that "nothing fails like failing try" simply because it is said to be not possible. You MUST work toward what you believe in, not what others say is "possible". That is the logic of the middleman, the speculator (judging what to make money on), the bookie, and the political analyst. Not what we need or want.

and BTW, 94% was perfectly "fair" during the depression and WWII. As people make more money, it costs society proportionally more to support them (property protection, support for those on the bottom when the median moves artificially upward, societal ills cause by inequality, etc.). It is a fact, demonstrable throughout the 20th Century, that the higher the top marginal rates, the better the economy. It is that simple. See, e.g., http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/07/21/the-great-tax-con-job/.

and deceitful at worst. He seems to blurr the connection between causation and correlation (correlation does not equal causation- the golden rule in statistics). Plus this little line is completely un-true "Bush I cut taxes, and the nation fell into a severe recession while debt soared and wages for working people fell". Bush I actually raised taxes (one of the reasons he lost re-election; remember "read my lips, no new taxes"). Ohh and lets not forget about this other bit of info "Things stabilized somewhat when Clinton slightly raised taxes on the very rich". Somewhat true- but we did have the dot-com bubble under clinton and towards the end of bush I the economy was showing signs of turning around (there was still high unemployment though- but thats a lagging indicator).

plus i'll add that there was wasnt that much substance backing up his assertions. He basically makes a statement and goes onto the next one. W

Causation and correlation is not blurred here. It is correlation born out by statistics. Causation requires more. The article does a partial job of that. However, there is much more on the web, with a little research.

Still, you say "deceitful". I assume you are referring to the Bush I and Clinton situation. I do not think that anything Mr. Hartman says is inaccurate nor "deceitful". However, I believe that Bush I is immaterial as we are talking about marginal top tax rate changes, not overall taxes. Reagan raised taxes on the lower and middle incomes more than anyone else in U.S. history (FICA/Medicaid doubling), yet again that is immaterial to the discussion. Yes, I do recall read my lips. Bush I and Clinton did increase marginal top rates slightly, but much, as you point out.

In the end, the idea that lower marginal top tax rates cause a bubble in terms of speculation which then creates a crash, and that very high marginal tax rates (> 70%) are correlated with relative stability and Excellent growth is quite real.

Now, what what one can easily then say (and I agree with) is that the tired old saw that lower taxes stimulates the economy does NOT correlate with the statistics, unless one looks at bubbles as "stimulus", which is not a good one. Thus, lower high marginal tax rates are at best a useless policy (unless you happen to be in that bracket), and quite likely a destructive one (bubbles).

I happen to agree with Mr. Hartman's further conclusion that these tax rates are in fact the "reason" for stability and prosperity. You may disagree, but lower taxes are certainly a problem.

I guess you agree, though, with the assertion that upper income earners are proportionately more expensive than others.

And I agree with Salib. The people making the most money take more from society than anyone else. Taxing them more is not penalizing them. It's making them pay their fair share.

"Punish people for being successful," my baked yams.

And people who make more don't necessarily work any harder than the working poor. To the contrary, they rarely work as hard. Trust me, I know. My parents both worked in sweatshops so I could grow up and work at a desk in an air conditioned office with a view of Boston harbor and get cab vouchers to get home when I was done for the day. I cannot even imagine having a life as hard as my parents had.


BTW, what do you see as the difference between your positions and the way that you language things and the positions and language of Republicans?

That is the only way to make things better.

Increase tax revenues not by increasing rates but by increasing incomes so that the proportion of money taken in taxes rises.

The catch is to do that without causing inflation. It means that we have to, as a nation, figure out a way to cut our energy costs so that taxable labor costs are a greater part of the value of a product.

Another way -- switch part of our tax source from income tax to value added tax (national sales tax) so that the federal government collects revenue on products made in China and other places and not mostly just on products made here via income taxes. Also, income from services provide overseas should be taxed at the same rate as income from services provided here.

At this time, in fact, we are subsidizing outsourcing of jobs and importing of products by not charging the same taxes on the outsourced services and imported goods as we are on the domestic services and goods. It's the income tax difference that helps make outsourced services and imported products cheaper. Because the employer has to compensate the employees enough to cover taxes and still provide a living wage.

They can stick this bipartisan dino crap right up their ass

Where the hell are the REAL Democrats ?

These people are clueless tax rates are lower under Obama than Reagan.

Most in our government are nothing but pocket puppets for the corporate lobbyists. They're just afraid they will only have one plane, instead of two. VOTE THEM ALL OUT OF THERE BEFORE THEY TOTALLY DESTROY US. Tax cuts for the wealthiest during wartime???? A war waged by choice but not paid for??? Give me a break. Get rid of these assholes. They have all the perks, but don't even want to throw the majority of Americans a bone. Get rid of them asap.

This passed 97 to zero. It would take 60 Senators to agree to make changes to Social Security.

Needless to say that we have better information here than the AP used.

process because of the Byrd Rule. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/644.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

So, as a practical matter, any change to Social Security would require 60 votes, unless pretty much every Senator were on board with it.

So, Baucus sponsored a relatively meaningless provision, appearing, but only appearing, to give additional protection to Social Security, aka the third rail of American politics. Give Baucus the Profile in Courage award. And it got bi-partisan support. Give the Republicans the same.

protected social security

:rofl:

Arcane rules from a corrupt, undemocratic and elitist institution have essentially rendered America ungovernable. If something as "bipartisan" as this can't get through- there's nowhere to go but down.

for military spending. Oh, excuse me: "defense spending."

I have been trying to decide if I think we should go to 50+1 votes on everything, or whether the Demlicans and Republicrats should face obstacles. No decision yet.

hence, they're capable of responding in a timely manner to feedback, and have the present ability to solve problems though broad or targeted actions.

America on the other hand- can't even agree on a simple commission to study a problem that's ostensibly at the heart of the opposition's present (though disingenuous) narrative!

special "bipartisan" task force needed to tackle the budget deficit? So politicians can hide behind it? No irony in creating a special government panel to deal with the budget deficit?

Besides, what have all the bipartisan attempts gotten Democrats so far?

For example, would we have been treated to the spectacle of watching Republicans become bigger populist heroes by pretending to care about cutting programs like Social Security and food stamps, while the mean ole Democrats fought to cut them?

Through the looking glass.

not to palm them off on unelected officials!!

"...Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare..."

....if a forced vote on a stooge-commission package was such a good idea, why wasn't universal healthcare handled this way?

It's his right.