Published: December 21, 2005 WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - Some are calling it Fristmastime on Capitol Hill.
Five days before the holiday, the Senate remains at work, poised for decisive votes Wednesday on major legislation. The results will determine whether the Congressional session ends on a triumphal note for Republicans, or whether Democrats will celebrate blocking Republican priorities like Arctic oil drilling and spending cuts.
Mr. Clinton does not always spurn compromise. But he has not given it a good name, either. Last week he even seemed to be trying to cut a deal with himself on the subject of taxes, first sounding contrite that he had raised taxes "too much" in 1993 and then pronouncing himself proud of that year's budget. But he has been attacking many of the Republicans' spending cuts as "extremist," so he risks being accused of surrender if he reaches an agreement with them on next year's budget.
Feats of Clay From 1995
House Democrats will oppose almost any deal that involves spending cuts; they don't believe in them. But Mr. Clinton also fears attacks from the press, which cannot believe that Mr. Clinton can give ground to help the country, but only because he is wishy-washy.
President Reagan joined a new budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill today by strongly endorsing a Republican proposal to change the basic spending priorities established by House committees over the last month. ''The American people have waited patiently for a full-scale attack on runaway spending,''
2003 The House budget chairman, Representative Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa, told reporters he had drafted a plan for his committee that would include all $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years that Mr. Bush sought, the $400 billion he wants to allow some prescription drug coverage under Medicare and a spending increase in the next fiscal year for Medicaid, the mushrooming federal-state health program for the poor.
Mr. Nussle said his plan, unlike the president's budget, would lead to a balanced budget in seven years. He would accomplish that, he said, with deep spending cuts that could involve all programs except Social Security, unemployment insurance, domestic security and the military.
Under his plan, he said, government spending would rise 3 percent in the fiscal year 2004, which begins on Oct. 1. But Mr. Nussle said total spending for all the programs except the military and domestic security that require annual Congressional appropriations would be reduced in actual dollars.
The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan staff that advises Congress on fiscal and economics issues, reported last week that under the budget Mr. Bush sent to Congress last month, the budget would not be in balance in any of the next 10 years and that over that period, the cumulative deficit would be $1.8 trillion. NOT YEARLY!
Democrats plan to offer an alternative that would allow a much more generous drug measure than the Republican plan. But the Democrats are sure to be outvoted.
Congressional leaders who want the bailout to pass with solid bipartisan support had already begun to anxiously court votes, mindful of the difficulty they could face in a high-stakes election year.
Public opinion polls show the bailout plan to be deeply unpopular. Conservative Republicans have denounced the plan as an affront to free market capitalism, while some liberal Democrats criticize it as a giveaway to Wall Street.
Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the chief negotiator for House Republicans, who have been among the most reluctant to support the plan, expressed some satisfaction but did not commit his members’ support.
I can describe similar circumstances on the Republican side of the aisle. The most recent and egregious example is Senator Shelby (R), who put a blanket hold on 70 presidential nominees in an attempt to force $35B of spending.
I will say again, the left wing of the Democratic Party has opposed very reasonable spending cuts on a piecemeal basis. They have supported fiscal responsibility in comprehensive legislation, such as the 1993 budget bill.
What did GOP do with spending while they had a monopoly on power? Spending went up, up, up.
Ditch the undemocratic Senate rules. I don't think there is a lot of support in the body for killing hold rules & the Filibuster, since each Senator has cynically employed them at some point or another and wants to retain that right. But - they have got to go. The Senate is unmanageable and we have big fish to fry.
6 comments:
Published: December 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - Some are calling it Fristmastime on Capitol Hill.
Five days before the holiday, the Senate remains at work, poised for decisive votes Wednesday on major legislation. The results will determine whether the Congressional session ends on a triumphal note for Republicans, or whether Democrats will celebrate blocking Republican priorities like Arctic oil drilling and spending cuts.
Mr. Clinton does not always spurn compromise. But he has not given it a good name, either. Last week he even seemed to be trying to cut a deal with himself on the subject of taxes, first sounding contrite that he had raised taxes "too much" in 1993 and then pronouncing himself proud of that year's budget. But he has been attacking many of the Republicans' spending cuts as "extremist," so he risks being accused of surrender if he reaches an agreement with them on next year's budget.
Feats of Clay From 1995
House Democrats will oppose almost any deal that involves spending cuts; they don't believe in them. But Mr. Clinton also fears attacks from the press, which cannot believe that Mr. Clinton can give ground to help the country, but only because he is wishy-washy.
President Reagan joined a new budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill today by strongly endorsing a Republican proposal to change the basic spending priorities established by House committees over the last month. ''The American people have waited patiently for a full-scale attack on runaway spending,''
2003
The House budget chairman, Representative Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa, told reporters he had drafted a plan for his committee that would include all $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years that Mr. Bush sought, the $400 billion he wants to allow some prescription drug coverage under Medicare and a spending increase in the next fiscal year for Medicaid, the mushrooming federal-state health program for the poor.
Mr. Nussle said his plan, unlike the president's budget, would lead to a balanced budget in seven years. He would accomplish that, he said, with deep spending cuts that could involve all programs except Social Security, unemployment insurance, domestic security and the military.
Under his plan, he said, government spending would rise 3 percent in the fiscal year 2004, which begins on Oct. 1. But Mr. Nussle said total spending for all the programs except the military and domestic security that require annual Congressional appropriations would be reduced in actual dollars.
The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan staff that advises Congress on fiscal and economics issues, reported last week that under the budget Mr. Bush sent to Congress last month, the budget would not be in balance in any of the next 10 years and that over that period, the cumulative deficit would be $1.8 trillion. NOT YEARLY!
Democrats plan to offer an alternative that would allow a much more generous drug measure than the Republican plan. But the Democrats are sure to be outvoted.
Sept 2008
Congressional leaders who want the bailout to pass with solid bipartisan support had already begun to anxiously court votes, mindful of the difficulty they could face in a high-stakes election year.
Public opinion polls show the bailout plan to be deeply unpopular. Conservative Republicans have denounced the plan as an affront to free market capitalism, while some liberal Democrats criticize it as a giveaway to Wall Street.
Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the chief negotiator for House Republicans, who have been among the most reluctant to support the plan, expressed some satisfaction but did not commit his members’ support.
I can describe similar circumstances on the Republican side of the aisle. The most recent and egregious example is Senator Shelby (R), who put a blanket hold on 70 presidential nominees in an attempt to force $35B of spending.
I will say again, the left wing of the Democratic Party has opposed very reasonable spending cuts on a piecemeal basis. They have supported fiscal responsibility in comprehensive legislation, such as the 1993 budget bill.
What did GOP do with spending while they had a monopoly on power? Spending went up, up, up.
Ditch the undemocratic Senate rules. I don't think there is a lot of support in the body for killing hold rules & the Filibuster, since each Senator has cynically employed them at some point or another and wants to retain that right. But - they have got to go. The Senate is unmanageable and we have big fish to fry.
Post a Comment