budget, budget, who has the budget?

[emptystep]

Now into the amendments section of the hearing. Swartz proposes the first amendment. In the closing statement Hollen goes to the graph Ryan put up for his time. What the green and the blue lines show are the PP versus the President's budget projection for Medicare. The lines fall pretty close to each other. The red line shows what happens if the President's plan fails to achieve the goals. However the red line also represents what happens if the Ryan budget fails. The difference is that under the President's plan the government is have to absorb the increase in costs. Under the Ryan plan the seniors are going to absorb the costs. Swartz mentioned that given the validity of the figures give so far the question of this portion of PP is also dubious.

The amendment was not adopted. Vote along party lines. Surprised? I hope not.

To better understand the PP Medicare mechanism I included this from the referenced pdf file.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=PN83lC5jpHyPSI7bbMX1kg&bvm=bv.41642243,d.dmQ

Chairman Ryan and I drafted a skeletal version of Medicare Premium Support for consideration by the Simpson-Bowles Commission. The Ryan-Rivlin version would phase in much slower than Domenici-Rivlin, because it would affect only newly eligible Medicare beneficiaries beginning in 2021. This version would not offer premium support to those already in Medicare (although it would presumably retain Medicare Advantage) and would not retain FFS Medicare as an option for new enrollees . Hence, the transition would take much longer than the Domenici-Rivlin version.

While the proposed premium support model resembles the current structure of Medicare Advantage, there are important differences. Competition among plans would be enhanced by creating a federal Medicare Exchange, which would increase the competitiveness of the market, leading to lower premiums. While Medicare currently informs beneficiaries of available Medicare Advantage plan choices and plan performance through a web site and other means, one-on-one marketing by Medicare’s private plans is a dominant model for enrollment. A more formal exchange could make it easier for beneficiaries to compare and select among the plans available to them in head-to-head comparisons, reduce sales and marketing costs of the plans, and create better value for enrollees. Improvements will also emerge as states develop exchanges for individuals and small employers under the Affordable Care Act. The proposed Medicare Exchange would also provide incentives for plans to develop products that will save beneficiaries money. Today, if a Medicare Advantage plan has very low costs, it cannot pay a rebate to enrollees; instead, it must increase benefits. Under the proposed Medicare Exchange plans could offer beneficiaries relief from rising Medicare premiums, creating additional market incentives for efficiency.

 

[emptystep]

Castor's amendment to keep the preventative benefits from the Affordable Care Act. The PP would immediately affect millions of seniors.

Tom Price seems to be the spokesperson arguing against the adoption of the amendments offer so far.

The amendment was not adopted. Vote along party lines. Surprised? I hope not. (Yes, I did cut-n-paste that.)

It would be polite if the Chairman would turn off his mike when arguments in favor of the amendment are being given.

Since the, at the time, $500B was taken from Medicare argument as come up a couple times as a reason the President's budget is not as good as the PP I included the information below.
Medicare and the $716 billion bogeyman : Columbia Journalism Review
By Trudy Lieberman, 11:17 AM - August 22, 2012

This tack offers new twists on an old argument, which reporters need to understand. This past May, I noted that the GOP successfully had used a similar argument about Medicare cuts—at the time the number for the “cut” was $500 billion—to win Congressional seats in the 2010 elections, and they used it again this primary season. With Ryan’s ascendency to the GOP ticket, and egged on by GOP strategy gurus, the claim is back, this time morphing into a $716 billion “cut.” So it has worked as a strategy. But is it accurate?

For starters it bears repeating that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes called Obamacare, is not an “unproven government take-over of healthcare.” The health law was patterned closely on the reform model that Romney championed and fought for in Massachusetts when he was governor. That law, although far from perfect, seems to be working reasonably well there. And under Obamacare, the government takes over nothing. Private insurers will continue to provide the insurance; private doctors will continue to provide the care.

And as for the $716 billion dollar cut, the facts are and continue to be: The health reform law did take $500 billion out of the future spending projections in the Medicare budget to help fund subsidies for the uninsured, and to help shore up Medicare’s finances further into the future. Most of these cuts centered on reduced reimbursements to providers—mostly to hospitals, which agreed to smaller payments over 10 years in return for more patients with insurance, which the ACA promised to deliver. In other words, they didn’t squawk about it.

About $136 billion were cuts to payments made to sellers of Medicare Advantage plans, which provide benefits to seniors who opt for them instead of traditional Medicare. The rationale: Policy experts and the government’s Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) found that there was no justification for paying Medicare Advantage insurers fourteen percent more on average than it costs the government to provide the same coverage under the traditional Medicare program. In other words, the government was wasting money. Insurers didn’t make a big fuss either; at the time, they worried more about a “public option” becoming law.

And this should also be clear: None of these cuts/savings affect any basic benefits, meaning that hospital care, doctor visits, lab tests, and outpatient services will be covered as they are now. When the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans are fully phased in, by the end of the decade, some plans may not be able to offer extra benefits—like vision care or chiropractic visits—which have attracted seniors in recent years, but it’s still too early to predict what will happen. Will seniors be hurt by that part of the cuts? Actuaries who design these policies tell me that’s unlikely in many parts of the country, where there are well over 100 plans to choose from.

 

[emptystep]

Oops, forgot to mention that while Austin Symthe was answering questions about the PP not a single Republican had any questions. The Democrats wanted to clarify a few issues in the budget plan. How is it that a member of the committee is suppose to understand a bill went getting it only 24 hours before the hearing and then getting a single opportunity to ask questions? When Symthe's reply was, "I will have to get back to on that." when is that going to be exactly?

 

[emptystep]

Blumenauer presents amendment to provide at least enough money to cover commitment already given from the Transportation Department.

Lankford was the primary speaker against the amendment. Basically the argument was we didn't want to try include the numbers so we didn't. McClintock argued that the federal highway system should go back to a pay-as-you-go model. Flores argues that taxing big business to pay for roads is not good policy.

The amendment was not adopted. Vote along party lines. Surprised? Yes, actually I find it hard to believe that not a single Republican in the room, 20 voted, would not want to put sufficient money to cover at least what is committed to in the Transportation Department.

 

[emptystep]

Captor's amendment, Veterans Job Corp to employ 20,000 veterans over 5 years to restore our national parks, our state parks, and other public lands and touch up federal facilities. 770,000 veterans are out of work. Economists estimate that for every dollar we invest in public infrastructure, the economy produces another $1.44 worth of economic activity. Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan age 18 to 24 have an unemployment rate of over 29%. Paid for by closing loopholes for corporations exporting jobs abroad.

Opposing the bill:
Stutzman: we do enough/it is someone else's problem

(It is really something to watch politicians patronize our veterans.)

To his credit Mr. Ribble (R) voted 'pass'. Changed vote to aye.

Party line vote except Mr. Ripple. Amendment not passed.

 

[emptystep]

Apparently the PP purposes dropping the top tax rate from 35% to 25%. I don't know if anything that happened at the beginning of this year changed any of this.

Hollen's amendment: A report was done a previous Republican proposal that changed the top rate to 27% which was a revenue loss of 4.2T. If that were to happen in order to be budget neutral the following changes must be made. Eliminate all itemized deductions. On top of that eliminate all the personal exemptions. Get rid of all the tax credits except for the EITC. The PP proposes to drop the rate to 25% which would be a loss of tax revenue of $5.2T. Second attached image shows what happens to each bracket's tax amount given the tax neutral proposal. The third image was explained in a series of slides which I am not including but it shows what percent revenue is affected by changing the tax rate of the Long-Term Capital Gains tax.

Opposition to the amendment:
Mulvaney: "It's very rare, for those of you out in the audience, to see a politician make a statement that is hard to walk back from. Ordinarily when we make pledges, we do it in language that makes it easier for us to say we didn't mean what we said." [Well, I know if everyone feels like you do Mr. Representative but it's good to know you do.] Continues, we don't trust/like Obama so what we do is OK and doesn't really need to be explained to anyone else.
McClintock: Argues that the PP either closes or promotes the closing of loopholes the wealthy take advantage of and that will balance out the tax rate drop from 35% to 25% on top earners. I have not seen or heard any such parts of the PP that do that.
Ryan: We are trying to create a more balanced tax system by starting by dropping the top income earns tax rate.

Amendment not adopted. Vote along party line except Blumenauer who crossed party lines and vote against adopting the amendment. If I remember correctly he also voted against the Sandy Relief bill. I am not sure what his reasons are.

 

[emptystep]

This should have been the first of the three images of the previous post.

 

[emptystep]

Yarmuth's amendment: Repel Bush tax cuts and implementing the Buffet rule.
Ryan from Ohio (D): Sited many bills signed by Ronald Reagan to improve the state of the nation.
Blumenauer: Explained his vote against the last amendment because he thinks that just saying one is never going to tax a certain group is just "goofy".
Yarmuth tell a story about his brother who is a very successful entrepreneur in the BBQ industry who has always voted Republican because he wanted to pay less tax. In 2008 Yarmuth's brother, who probably also named Yarmuth, called up and said he was voting for Senator Obama. When asked why he said, "If no one can afford to eat BBQ is doesn't matter what my tax rate is."

Campbell (R) is the most rational Republican I have heard this whole time. At this time I think if there is one Republican on the Budget committee that would be able to debate it would be Campbell.
Mulvaney is probably not one that would be useful in a room where rational debate is being held.

Amendment not accepted. Vote along party lines except Shuler (D). It must be hard being a Democrat from the 11th district of North Carolina. Guess it didn't do him much good as he did not get reelected anyway.

 

[emptystep]

Pascrell's amendment: Reverse incentives for tax benefits for jobs going offshore to jobs coming back into America
Ryan from Ohio: implementing a comprehensive plan to building the manufacturing jobs in America

Opposition to amendment:
Black: Increase complication of tax code, chooses winners and losers, fundamental reform is the answer to dealing with taxes and the industry, exporting jobs promotes job growth grow in America
Lankford: need to flatten tax code
Stutzman: rather than worrying about what is happening in the rest of the world, need energy program and need a simplified tax code, too many different types of forms the IRS has
Ribble: rather than making incentives to bring jobs back let's create policies that make them want to stay here, simplify tax code, some companies have to outsource jobs

Amendment not adopted. Vote along party lines.

 

[emptystep]

Schultz's amendment: THAT SENIOR CITIZENS WILL NOT LOSE VITAL MEDICAID ASSISTANCE TO COVER THE COST OF THEIR NURSING HOME CARE or their home and community based services. Also insures that low income seniors who are eligible for Medicaid get help paying their premiums and their out of pocket costs. PP jeopardizes health security for 5 million seniors, 10 million individuals with disabilities, and 28 million children. "By cutting $810 from Medicaid funding and converting the program into block grants this rations by straining state budgets and leading many states to end the care they provide."
Hollen: "In a budget that has lots of harmful things in it the Medicaid provisions in it are among the worst and the most harmful." CBO projects that by the tenth year over $800B is cut out of Medicaid, that is one third the Medicaid budget. CBO said cuts would be 75%. "To put it in a document and call it 'repairing the social safety net is, I have to say, positively Orwellian."

Opposition to amendment:
Huelskamp: Spending more money in the same system is clearly not the answer. Governor of his states and other states have quested to be accountable. PP will put the people closer to the Medicaid beneficiaries responsible for the program, the Governors that state government.
Rokita: Medicaid is not a fully functioning system that provides people with access to healthcare. Medicaid is full of waste and fraud. Block funding the Medicaid grants to the states is the right thing to do. The people will hold the governors and the state accountable. When you block grant Medicaid you let the states decide who is poor, who needs services.
Young: Give states the ability to tailor the program. States would welcome the opportunity to tackle waste and fraud.
Price: States are required by law to waste money. In George there are 1.8M Medicaid recipients. By and large two thirds of those individuals are healthy moms and kids. They have to have a 'soup-to-nuts' healthcare plan as opposed to paying for every incident of care they receive out of the pocketbooks of the state and we would save money and have money left over to pay for those most in need of care. Right now however that is illegal, it is against federal law to do that.
Huelskamp: Numerous times the states have asked for waivers, numerous times they have be denied, numerous times they have not been denied. (Apparently Huelskamp had a little itch before Schultz made her closing statements.)

Closing statement:
Schultz: Page 42 of the PP states that Medicaid will be cut by $810B over ten years. CBO analysis requested by chairman page 9 states would pick up some cost.

Amendment not adopted. Straight down the party line.

 

[Politico]

Keep looking step. Obama hasn't been able to find a budget for four years now. Why would anyone here know where it is?

 

[Big Black Dog]

budget, budget, who has the budget?

You can bet your ass it isn't a Democratic in the Senate. They haven't passed a budget in almost 4 years because apparently the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

 

[emptystep]

Bass's amendment: Transportation create 2 million jobs Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act as passed by the Senate into the House Budget resolution. Facilitate efficient movement of commuters, resident, and airport passengers.
Blumenauer: Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer were able to get three quarter of the Senators come together to support the MAP21A.

Opposition to amendment:
Guinta: Cost of bill is not accounted for. Short term bill of two years. No long term reform.
Garrett: Transportation Department has not been funding itself over the last few years. States should handle more of the work currently done by the Transportation Department.
Lankford: When the House bill does come out it has reforms and efficiencies. House bill gives power back to the states.

Amendment was not adopted. Party line vote.

 

[emptystep]

Keep looking step. Obama hasn't been able to find a budget for four years now. Why would anyone here know where it is?

The Budget | The White House

 

[emptystep]

budget, budget, who has the budget?

You can bet your ass it isn't a Democratic in the Senate. They haven't passed a budget in almost 4 years because apparently the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

Why would they need a budget when the Path for Prosperity is all the budget anyone ever needs? Maybe they are waiting for the House Republicans to come to their senses and throw Ryan out of the Budget Committee altogether.

 

[emptystep]

ok

You should create a thread on "Introduce yourself" and say hello to everyone. We will all be glad to meet you. It changes soon after that.

 

[Freemason9]

budget, budget, who has the budget?

You can bet your ass it isn't a Democratic in the Senate. They haven't passed a budget in almost 4 years because apparently the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

We don't need a budget. The federal government doesn't work that way, and never has. They create money. How? BY ISSUING DEBT.

Let's assume that American producers (labor force) adds to the nation's wealth an additional $700 billion in value from one year to the next. Now--if the money supply didn't increase by a like amount, $700 billion--the economy would see some fairly substantial deflationary pressure. To maintain stability, the nation should increase its money supply by--you guessed it--$700 billion. How does that happen? BY ISSUING DEBT.

Dammit, you folks really need to learn about the federal reserve system.

 

[emptystep]

Honda's amendment: $17B of discretionary cuts in 2013. Those cuts might fall upon the education department. The amendment seeks to protect the Education Department from these cuts.
Doggett: Classroom size is increasing. Students aren't getting a good education due to lack of funding.

Amendment opposition:
Amash: Decisions and funding should be at the state and local level. Can't not support the extra spending. Since 1965 Per pupil spending has nearly tripled. K-12 budget was $129B in 2009. Education system is not working. Education Department is fragmented and ineffective. Moreover a number of programs are duplicative or restrictive. College is becoming too expensive. Pell grant program has gotten to expensive. Let's return control of education back to the state and local level.
Rokita: More spending does not equal better education. Trust the people to education the children. Department of Education does not work. "Why in the world do the children of tomorrow have to pay for the education of today."

Closing by Honda: Federal money gets sent to the local control level, the LEA, Local Education Authority. Federal portion of local education budget is 8% to 9%.

Amendment is not adopted. Party line vote. (I typed this up when the roll call began, I didn't have to go back and change it.)

Some of the stuff I heard in opposition to this amendment is shit I couldn't make up if I tried. Even got a sig out of it.

 

[emptystep]

budget, budget, who has the budget?

You can bet your ass it isn't a Democratic in the Senate. They haven't passed a budget in almost 4 years because apparently the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

Yeah, screwing up the title is the worst. I was trying for a parody of an episode I saw on Clifford, the Big Red Dog, hey I just realized the irony of this .

In the show it is a rainy day and the three dogs are stuck in Clifford's dog house. T-bone and Clifford are playing a game. T-bone in a playful voice says, "Bone, bone, who has the bone." Clifford says in a flat tone, "You do." They do this over and over again until Cleo yells at them.

Yeah, the irony of screwing up a title while trying to play off an educational kid's show is really something. The other irony is that I just posted the latest of my amendments offered to the PP and it was about, wait for it, ....education. Stranger things have happened I guess.

 

[emptystep]

Doggett's amendment: Makes permanent the American Opportunity Tax Credit. If a family has a student that incurs $2,500 in tuition or text book expenses can take that as a direct credit off their taxes. Not just about helping the students but making a more competitive work force.
Honda: Will affect over 9 million families. Many of these families are the first one in their family or their clan to go to higher education.

Opposition to the amendment:
Rokita: Under the Constitution or from a pragmatic point of view education does not have to be a federal government's responsibility. Credit applies to families up to $180,000 and they can priority education themselves. We don't need to subsidize education. Would make permanent an education bubble. The reason the cost of education is going up is because the federal government is pumping money into these programs.
Amash: We can improve education by getting the federal government out of it. Tax code is getting too complicated. "Let's make sure our tax code is as clean and as simple as possible. That way the people who need it the most, need the benefits the most, get the benefits of the tax code. Not just coming to DC to beg for more."

Closing:
Doggett: Didn't hear any criticism of the tax credit other than President Obama is associated with it. Names several Presidents and their efforts to strengthen education and America. Hopes they are still are in favor of the Lincoln's Land Grant College Program.

Amendment not adopted. Party line vote.

You Can Get $10,000 Per Child In College Tax Credits, Thanks To The Fiscal Cliff Deal - Forbes