DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum GOP Sen. Bunning blocks unemployment benefits

That's funny, but sadly an inaccurate analogy of today's republican party. Welcome to conservatism, maybe?

Lawmaker's Impasse Ends, Senate OKs Jobless Aid

WASHINGTON (March 2) -- The Senate on Tuesday passed a $10 billion measure to maintain unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and provide stopgap funding for highway programs after a holdout Republican dropped stalling tactics that had generated a Washington firestorm.

Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning had been holding up action for days but conceded after pressure intensified with Monday's cutoff of road funding and extended unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the jobless.

Bunning wanted to force Democrats to find ways to finance the bill so that it wouldn't add to the deficit, but his move sparked a political tempest that subjected Republicans to withering media coverage and cost the party politically. Bunning's support among Republicans was dwindling, while Democrats used to being on the defensive over health care and the deficit seemed to relish the battle.

The bill passed by a 78-19 vote. It passed the House last week and President Barack Obama is likely sign the bill into law quickly so that 2,000 furloughed Transportation Department workers can go back to work on Wednesday.

Doctors faced the prospect of a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments, and federal flood insurance programs had lapsed with Monday's expiration of an earlier stopgap bill that passed late last year.

Tuesday's action will provide a monthlong extension of the expired programs to give Congress time to pass a yearlong - and far more costly - fix that's also pending.

Without the legislation, about 200,000 jobless people would have lost federal benefits this week alone, according to the liberal-leaning National Employment Law Project. Jobless people normally get 26 weeks of unemployment benefits and 20 more weeks in states with higher unemployment rates. The legislation extends several additional layers of benefits added since 2008 because of the stubborn recession.

Earlier on Tuesday, Bunning objected to a request by Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a fellow Republican, to pass a 30-day extension of jobless benefits and other expired measures.

When asked Tuesday if Bunning was hurting the Republican Party, Collins said, "He's hurting the American people."

Other Republicans were more diplomatic in their assessments of Bunning, who has a stubborn and often irascible personality. Bunning is reluctantly retiring at the end of the current term and enjoys a tense relationship with homestate colleague and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who privately urged Bunning to step aside.

Bunning had blocked the stopgap legislation since Thursday, insisting that Democrats find offsetting revenues or spending cuts to finance the bill. Instead, he settled for a vote to close a tax loophole enjoyed by paper companies that get a credit from burning "black liquor," a pulp-making byproduct, as if it were an alternative fuel. The amendment failed.

Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, said that Bunning was accepting an offer that he had rejected for days.

"As a result ... unemployment benefits were cut off for thousands of people across America, assistance for health care was cut off across America, thousands of federal employees were furloughed," Durbin said.

Democrats had promised to force Bunning to repeatedly lodge objections to bringing the bill to a vote. Otherwise it could take almost a week to slog through the procedural steps required to take up the measure and defeat Bunning's filibuster.

"Today we have a clear-cut example to show the American people just what's wrong with Washington, D.C.," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said. "That is because today one single Republican senator is standing in the way of the unemployment benefits of 400,000 Americans."

Democrats promised to retroactively restore unemployment benefits and health care subsidies for the unemployed under the COBRA program. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood ordered furloughed employees back to work Wednesday.

The impasse had led to political gains for Democrats attacking Bunning and his fellow Republicans. Major cable news networks carried Tuesday morning's proceedings live and returned to the topic frequently.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has called up a $100-billion-plus measure to provide a longer-term extension of unemployment benefits that would last through the end of the year, along with a full-year extension of higher Medicare payments to doctors, help for states with their Medicaid budgets and a continuing a variety of expired tax breaks for individuals and businesses. web page

People just don't care.

There are probably just as many, or maybe even more, people today who pay nothing (or almost nothing) in federal tax ...... or who actually get money from out of thin aiir, than there are actual tapayers.

When you pay nothing in .... who cares about the cost of things? If you have no investment, it is simply numbers in a newspaper article. Ior computer screen)

Who's Hurt Most? Bunning's Filibuster Affects More Than 400,000

March 2, 2010

102
Share

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Read More
Hilda Solis, Jim Bunning, Labor, Obstructionism, Unemployment
Share
4 diggs Send to a friend!
To email: Your Name: Your email:

The Department of Labor calculates that 400,000 people will lose unemployment benefits if the Senate isn't able to break Sen. Jim Bunning's blockade of a measure that would extend the benefits.

The Labor tally says Bunning has "blocked the process each time" and Secretary Hilda Solis complained that "[t]he consequences of partisan obstructionism could not be clearer."

"If the extension is not approved immediately, millions of Americans could lose the safety net programs they deserve and desperately need," she said.

The White House sent the state-by-state totals to regional reporters last night. Bunning's Kentucky is at the low end, with 4,300 people affected. Florida has one of the higher totals of 49,000, as a result of Congress not extending jobless benefits.

Here's the Labor Department's tally of the projected number of people losing their unemployment insurance by state for the week ending March 13:

Alabama 3,600 -- Alaska 0 -- Arizona 8,300 -- Arkansas 5,200...California 0 -- Colorado 9,000 -- Connecticut 0...District of Columbia 600 -- Delaware 2,100...Florida 49,600...Georgia 41,000...Hawaii 1,600...Idaho 0 -- Illinois 28,200 -- Indiana 16,100 -- Iowa 4,600...Kansas 0 - -Kentucky 4,300...Louisiana 4,300...Maine 2,200 -- Maryland 4,700 -- Massachusetts 0 -- Michigan 0 -- Minnesota 0 -- Mississippi 2,700 -- Missouri 8,700 -- Montana 0...Nebraska 1,300 -- Nevada 0 -- New Hampshire 0 -- New Jersey 0 -- New Mexico 0 -- New York 54,300 -- North Carolina 0 -- North Dakota 500...Ohio 16,200 -- Oklahoma 4,600 -- Oregon 0...Pennsylvania 0 -- Puerto Rico 0...Rhode Island 0...South Carolina 14,400 -- South Dakota 300...Tennessee 7,500 -- Texas 27,400...Utah 2,700...Vermont 0 -- Virgin Islands 100 -- Virginia 10,700...Washington 0 -- Wisconsin 0 -- West Virginia 2,600 -- Wyoming 900

From the release:

If Emergency Unemployment Compensation and full federal funding for the Extended Benefit program are not extended, 400,000 Americans will lose unemployment benefits during the first weeks in March. By May, nearly 3 million people could be left without these benefits. Furthermore, if the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act subsidy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is not extended, thousands of families will lose access to affordable health care.
If the extension is not approved, an estimated 500,000 workers who lose their jobs will be ineligible for subsidies to cover the cost of health care over this month. Over the rest of 2010, an estimated 5 million workers will be ineligible for the Recovery Act COBRA subsidy that covers 65 percent of the cost of coverage. Without this assistance, many of these families will be forced to join the ranks of the uninsured.

...

Without an extension, the number of Americans who lose unemployment insurance benefits will increase to 1.5 million within a month. Within two months, nearly 3 million Americans will have lost their benefits. Even if Congress acts down the road to retroactively reinstate UI benefits, a gap in the program forces administrative burdens onto states, which may cause significant delays in getting checks to unemployed individuals.


web page

These are "some" of the average Americans who were hurt by GOPs/Bunnings stunt, holding up unemployment benefits for those who have not found jobs as our country tries to recover from America's worst recession since the Great Depression.

Looking at the states that are hurting the worst, why does the GOP and Bunning continue these irrational acts such holding up benefits that help those Americans affected the most during these toughest economic times?

I was prepared to give a solution to the problem, but Bunning caved in after the GOP convinced him that he was hurting the GOP party.

Democrats are guilty in this too. All they had to do was find a way to fund the bill. They didn't. So they held up the passage of the bill.

Quote:

---

Simple DC. Some are raised with and have compassion for our nations children and hard working families. Some have to live through it to understand it.

When economic times are such as they are, I understand it. I always have. I didn't have to go through it to understand it. How many years have I been around?

Others must face it to get it. It's just human nature. Different people learn and understand in different ways. I didn't need to go through it to understand it. Some do...

Some put political points ahead of compassion. Not my problem. I think those who feel that way will have a problem from being that way eventually one way or the other though.

---

Pit, yours and macs constant insistance that if I just go through enough hardship or if I was "raised right", then I will automatically end up at the point where you two ever-so sanctimonious souls have ended up is really about the single most arrogant thing I've seen on this board in a long time. As if the only logical outcome to experiencing hardship or being "raised right" is to reach the conclusion that for the world to be fair, the federal government must take from those who have and give to those who don't.. otherwise you are a cold callous person who, and you and mac have said this about two dozen times.... you are a person who wasn't "raised right"... or at least wasn't raised as right as you two.

and most people SAY they want them to do that.. come up with the money first, then go get what you need.. this notion has almost universal appeal... until somebody is about to suffer. Then we need to appropriate the money to help them, doesn't matter where the money comes from, doesn't matter if anything else needs to be cut.. just, damn it Jim, get them the money they need because we are the federal government, and we are here to save you.... and anybody who doesn't agree with that is either totally lacking in compassion or... they just weren't raised right.

On a broader scope - the notion that the fed. gov't. can and should take care of everyone is what will end up costing this country. In a huge way.

Inflation
skyrocketing taxes for those few left with jobs.
printing of money to pay the interest on our debt, which in turn causes more inflation.
which in turn increases unemployment and people that can't afford their homes, etc.

Look at Greece, England, France............

Mibad ... it's only 43% of Americans who pay no federal tax, or get back noney they didn;t even pay in .....

That bastion of conservatism .... CBS News

The Income Tax System is Broken
43 Percent Of Americans Pay No Federal Income Tax, A Sign That Something's Wrong, Writes Declan McCullagh

(CBS) On April 15, don't be surprised if the line at your local post office is a bit shorter than usual. That's because your neighbors may not be paying any income taxes this year.

An astonishing 43.4 percent of Americans now pay zero or negative federal income taxes. The number of single or jointly-filing "taxpayers" - the word must be applied sparingly - who pay no taxes or receive government handouts has reached 65.6 million, out of a total of 151 million.

Those numbers come from an analysis published yesterday by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. Neither is a low-tax or conservative advocacy group; the Urban Institute was created under the Johnson administration during the Great Society era, and it receives most of its funding from the federal government.

"You've got a larger and larger share of people paying less and less for the services provided by the federal government," says Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "The concern is that the majority can say, 'Let's have more benefits, spend more,' if they're not paying for it. It's 'free.' That's not a good thing to have."

By historic standards, today's situation is an aberration. Between 1950 and 1990, the number of owe-no-money federal tax returns averaged 21 percent, dipping to 18 percent in 1986, according to Tax Foundation data. In the 1990s, the owe-no-money percentage hovered around 25 percent of taxpayers.

But then politicians began another round of tinkering with the tax code, adding reams of new pages to an already incomprehensible set of rules that even the guy overseeing the IRS can't seem to figure out.

Democrats wanted to lower taxes on the least affluent, while Republicans wanted to lower taxes on everyone. The result was bipartisan enthusiasm for tax credits aimed at everything from children (1997) and college students (1997) to hybrid cars (2005) and homebuyers (2009). Many of these credits dole out cash to people even if they report no income, making them mere government handouts.

"There's no difference at all in terms of the effects on the federal deficit," says Williams of the Tax Policy Center. "It's perfectly equivalent. It's just easier to say, 'I cut your taxes' as opposed to 'I created a new federal program to send money to people.'"

I'm talking here about federal income taxes, not other taxes like Social Security, Medicare, state income taxes, sales taxes, or car registration taxes, some of which are extracted through payroll deductions. The owe-no-money crowd tends to get hit by at least some of those.

"There's no difference at all in terms of the effects on the federal deficit," says Williams of the Tax Policy Center. "It's perfectly equivalent. It's just easier to say, 'I cut your taxes' as opposed to 'I created a new federal program to send money to people.'"

I'm talking here about federal income taxes, not other taxes like Social Security, Medicare, state income taxes, sales taxes, or car registration taxes, some of which are extracted through payroll deductions. The owe-no-money crowd tends to get hit by at least some of those.

The perils of today's situation should be obvious. The United States is close to a tipping point - where most people can skip the post office run on April 15 to mail a check because they're expecting one from the government instead.

"It is somewhat odd that you have a decreasing number of folks paying into the federal income tax system, a decreasing number of folks who have a stake in what the government pays for," says Matt Moon of the non-partisan Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C.

It then becomes tempting to vote for politicians promising more and more handouts, paid for by money forcibly extracted from an ever-shrinking number of their neighbors. In addition to being immoral, it's poor public policy: people who pay no taxes but nevertheless get benefits are less likely to be careful overseers of their elected representatives.

"At some point people become less and less invested in making sure their government is accountable and frugal," says Peter Sepp, vice president for policy and communications at the National Taxpayers Union, a lower-tax advocacy group. "If you pay very little for getting all kinds of government benefits, you might view those programs as a bargain, even though they may waste tens of billions of dollars a year."

As a candidate, President Obama promised still more tax credits, including ones aimed at child care, "clean cars," and savings accounts. As the Wall Street Journal explained at the time: "You can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer - a federal check - from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this 'welfare,' or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a 'Demogrant.'"

A recession, the stimulus, and innumerable bailouts have placed Mr. Obama's plans on hold. But the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at midnight on December 31, 2010 will renew interest in a tax law rewrite.

That will be an opportunity to gut the current system and replace it with something simpler and fairer. After all, if government is important enough to force most of us to work until April 13 to pay its bills, why shouldn't everyone share the pain?

That is a lovely piece of journalism... hope springs eternal.

You would think it would be written that if you didn't pay in, you are not entitled to a refund.

All the more reason to scrap the income tax laws and start over. Anything that takes thousands of pages to explain(and is hardly understood by those that wrote it) is way overcomplicated.

Quote:

---

You would think it would be written that if you didn't pay in, you are not entitled to a refund.

---

don't know about that so much, but I do know that if you aren't completely paid up on federal taxes when you decide to retire, you won't receive SS Benefits or pay.. They will withhold it until you are paid up,,, including penalties and interest.

I disagree...making it more complicated would just open up more loopholes...

or did you mean to type "less" complicated???

Its just so terrible the guy wants to make sure its paid for.........

Edited now.

Yes, I meant less complicated. Last thing we need is a more complicated tax system.

Quote:

---

And the numbers reported - 43.4% pay no federal income tax -

---

So i got about 38% back from what i payed in and the 62% they kept went to 1 1/2 people who payed in nothing...I think i should at least be able to claim 1 1/2 more dependents then.

nordawg

Ok the gov gets the 1/2 but i should still get to claim 1 more

nordawg

Arch i agree what your saying...And i agree if you don't pay anything in you shouldn't get anything back....and no if you paid in 1000 there is no way you should get anymore than 1000 back....heck i wish i had all the money back i paid in over the yrs.

and by the way my post above was sarcasm...

nordawg

Well to be fair...it may not be all people who make little or no mney. It could easily include people that have found so many loopholes and tax breaks that they in fact don't pay...despite making a comfortable or even highly comfortable wage...

ACRON,....sounds like, ENRON,....

what happens when they make not working so nice that people decide that they would have a higher standard of living by not working and taking advantahe of housing, utilities, food, medical, free money ... and the like rather than busting butt for 50-60 hours per week?

What happens when those "middle class" workers are disincentived to the point where having all of your time free to do whatever you want becomes more profitable than actually working and pursuing the American Dream?

That day is fast approaching.

Then what happens when we have no taxpayers left to tax?

My Y-Town brethren,....

Aren't we already there ?

Well, Pete, I believe he is and a bunch of the Senate as well. I can see the high road ethically of paygo, but this guy never embraced it during Bushy's times. Making the other guy wrong doesn't make you right. This is the height of hypocrisy against the common folks who are in real danger of losing homes and much more. Not by their choice, but victims of unregulated activity in the financials. This Wellpoint noise is wrong as well, and why the Senate minority lines up against Americans infuriates me. Let us freeze government hiring, outlaw earmarks, put some controls on an industry that will bankrupt us. I am not against you, but I am VERY much for the folks in need barely hanging on. He got blasted for this stunt on two sides of the aisle, I believe. Sorry excuse for elected official IMO.

j/c Anybody find a link to Bunning having Alzheimer's yet?

Quote:

---

Maybe if we ask a fourth time we'll get the link, huh? Or, are people allowed to just post "I heard........." and get away with it?

---

Let's be a little fair about this Arch.. There are about 7 articles that I found that indicate that bunning may have some form of Alzheimers,,, Not one of them from what any of us would confuse with a reliable news source.

I suspect that knowing how much Mac surfs the web, he found a few of them and simply assumed that where there is smoke, there is fire..

Not saying that's right, just saying that I think that's what happened and why you aren't getting any real links..

To be fair Arch didn't post the statement, you did. If you can't post a link that shows he has been diagnosed with it, then that is nothing more that a rumor. You know how the mods feel about rumors.



Why I took a stand
‘If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.’
By Jim Bunning

I have been serving the citizens of Kentucky for nearly 24 years in Washington. During that time I have been a member of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. I have taken thousands of votes in relation to spending the taxpayers' money. I will be the first one to admit that I have cast some bad votes during my tenure, and I wish I could have some of them back. For too long, both Republicans and Democrats have treated the taxpayers' money as a slush fund that does not ever end. At some point, the madness has to stop.


Over a month ago, Democrats passed and President Obama signed into law the "Pay-Go" legislation. It calls on Congress to pay for bills by not adding to our debt. It sounds like a common sense tool that would rein in government spending. Unfortunately, Pay-Go is a paper tiger. It has no teeth. I did not vote for the Democrats' Pay-Go legislation because I knew it was just a political dog-and-pony show to get some good press after some political setbacks. Since the Pay-Go rule was enacted, the national debt has gone up $244,992,297,448.11 (as of Wednesday, that is).

Why now?

Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked to pass a 30-day extensions bill for unemployment insurance and other federal programs. Earlier in February, those extensions were included in a broader bipartisan bill that was paid for but did not meet Sen. Reid's approval, and he nixed the deal. When I saw the Democrats in Congress were going to vote on the extensions bill without paying for it and not following their own Pay-Go rules, I said enough is enough.

Many people asked me, "Why now?" My answer is, "Why not now?" Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for? If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.

America is under a mountain of debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a hearing last month that the United States' debt is unsustainable. We are on the verge of a tipping point where America's debt will bring down our economy, and more people will join the unemployment lines. That is why I used my right as a United States Senator and objected.

Only in Washington

After four legislative days of impasse, I reached a supposed deal with Majority Leader Reid to have an up-or-down vote on a pay-for amendment that would fully fund the legislation and not add to the debt. Only minutes before the vote, Democrats used a parliamentary maneuver to set aside my amendment and not vote on the actual substance of it. Only in Washington could this happen. The Democrats did not want to vote on my amendment because they knew they were in the wrong and ignored their own rules. Hypocrisy again rules the day in Washington.

I have 40 grandchildren, and I want them to grow up in a country where they have all of the same opportunities I had as a child. I fear that they will not have those opportunities if Washington continues on its course of spending without paying for it. We are at over $12 trillion in debt. I know many Americans sit around their kitchen table and make the tough decisions. It is time for the politicians in Washington to do the same.
USA today

Sounds like lucid reasoning to me.

Quote:

---

Daman...so you did more than your "famous 1 minute search" that you said turned up just one article and found 7 more articles...Google search is much better.

---

And not 1 from anything even remotely resembling a reliable source. Hell, I could post a blog saying that you have dementia and it would have as much credibility as your "sources" listed on a google search.

Quote:

---

If you are blue collar/middle class and vote for GOP representation, you need to know where you stand with the GOP party....then ask yourself why you would vote for anyone who does not give a damn about you, your family and their needs.

---

So by "caring", you mean taking over 1/3 of my pay away from me in taxes? When all of the other "hidden" taxes we pay are taken into account, that number probably climbs to over 50%. (gas taxes, auto registration, drivers licence fees, sales taxes, property taxes, taxes on beer and liquer, airline ticket taxes, capital gains taxes, utility taxes, phone and cell phone taxes, and on .. and on ... and on ... and on ....)

Now tell me who doesn't give a damn about me, my family, and this country? Why is taxing working people to the point of absolute idiocy somehow a good thing for this country? How is removing almost 1/2 of earned income from the economy so that various stages of government can spend it instead somehow a more productive avenue? How the hell is this showing working people that soeone "gives a damn about them"?

I know .... we have to prop up the less productive .. or the completely unproductive ...... we have to "help" those who will do nothing to assume responsibilty for their own lives .....

Frankly this attitude makes me sick.


Mac .. you stated on various occasios that you wera a conservative ..... and that you left the Republican Parthy because they moved away from conservative ideals ......

What, exactly, were those ideals, and how do the Democrats do a better job of bringing those ideals to reality?


I'm really curious to hear this answer .......

If the government keeps handing out free money,what incentive is there for people to ever go back to work? You seem to think money grows on trees mac. What happens when we run out of tax payers when everyone stops working because the government will just give people free money?