LANSING -- The Michigan Senate Republicans joined their U.S. Senate colleagues in giving Michigan’s thousands of unemployed workers looking for work in the Bush recession the middle finger when they refused to even allow a vote on a resolution urging U.S. Senate Republicans to lift their filibuster on a bill that will allow a six-month extension of unemployment benefits and Medicaid funding.
“Today, we are about to break for a couple of weeks for the 4th of July holiday, but because of the Republican Senators and the United States Senate's failure to act on the unemployment extension and the FMAP extension, we are facing some critical issues here in the state of Michigan,“ said Senate Minority Leader Mike Prusi, D-Ishpeming. “If we do not get that extension passed in Washington, D.C., by next week, 97,000 families in Michigan will lose their unemployment benefits.”
The Senate Republicans referred Senate Resolution 172 to the Committee on Government Operations where bills go to die. Democrats moved to discharge the committee from further consideration, but Republicans moved to postpone the motion temporarily.
Republicans have used the lame excuse that the bill will increase the federal budget deficit, but the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the deficit was because of the Bush tax cuts for the rich that Congress did not pay for and the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost of allowing the unemployed an extension is just a tiny fraction of this year’s budget deficit.
“I think that is rather disingenuous when this same crowd of Republicans in six of the eight years of the Bush Administration turned a $236 billion surplus into a $1.4 trillion deficit,” Prusi said. “Now all of the sudden, they want to cut the deficit; they want to cut taxes; they want to cut regulations; they want to cut red tape; and the first thing they go after is cutting millions of Americans out of unemployment benefits and cutting millions of Americans off the Medicaid rolls.”
The Senate was on various recesses on and off on Thursday, waiting for bills to come over from the House because the Legislature breaks for most of the summer. Senate Republicans then moved that further consideration of the resolution be postponed for the day, meaning the summer, but Democrats asked for a vote on that postponement.
As predicted, every single Republican voted to stiff Michigan’s unemployed.
“Those are your constituents and my constituents that week by week will fall off the unemployment rolls; lose the support that keeps their families whole, puts food on their table, pays their rent, and allows them to live a modicum of a decent life here in the state of Michigan,” Prusi said. “They are playing pure partisan politics with the lives of our constituents, and I find it reprehensible that we will not even stand up.”
Republicans quickly moved to adjourn, despite objections from Democrats, and Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing - one of the Senate Republican’s most vocal critics - and Sen. Deb Cherry, D-Burton, were on the board to speak.
I hope Republicans have to go back to parades and picnics and look Michigan’s unemployed constituents in the eye and tell them tax cuts for the rich are more important for their very economic survival.
6 comments:
You must think that nobody else pays attention to what goes on.
The fact is that the Republicans offered compromises to get the unemployment benefits passed, but the Socialist Democrats refused to compromise.
The compromises? Well, one was to have the stimulus money used to pay for the unemployment benefits. Harry Reid refused.
Another was to have half of the benefits paid for from the tarp funds, but again, the socialist Democrats refused. One of them failed by just one vote. The socialist Democrats just prefer to add to the deficit by $33 Billion. They were offered ways to get the bill passed by paying for the bill, but they were repeatedly refused by the socialist Democrats.
Funny thing is that I think it was the socialist Democrats that insisted on "paygo". I must be wrong about that because they don't pay for anything that they spend.
First of all, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear.
I wouldn’t take that compromise either. I know Republicans want to kill the recovery from the Bush recession as much as possible so they can win in November, but to make working people suffer to do it is disgusting.
Again anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear. Like the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said, the deficit was because of the Bush tax cuts for the rich that Congress did not pay for and the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost of allowing the unemployed an extension is just a tiny fraction of this year’s budget deficit. You had no problem taking a surplus and turning it into a deficit when it benefited the rich, but now you have a problem with adding to the deficit money that will actually improve the economy and help people keep their homes, keep the lights on and food on the table.
Again anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear. A party that took a surplus and turned it into a deficit and created the worst recession since the Great Depression has no right to lecture anyone else about spending.
Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your fairy tale that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”
Tax cuts don't need to be paid for. This is easily understood by looking at the revenue generated by the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. The quarterly tax revenue to the feds following those tax cuts set records for revenue.
The problem is, and you're correct about this, without the hyperbole you use, is that Congress, who controls the purse strings, continued to spend and outspend their income. The second problem from that is that President Bush didn't veto that spending and send it back and tell them to get it right.
On December 31 of this year, those tax cuts go away. This will be a tax increase. The largest in history. On Obama's watch. They will be the following increases:
- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Who pays the 10% rate? Those at second lowest income level. The only way to go lower is for the 47% of the people that don't pay taxes but instead, collect from the earned income tax credit. In other words, they don't make enough to pay taxes, but they still get a return. Those making $15,000 or $20,000 per year will get an increase when these tax cuts go away. Their rate will then be 15% again. I'm curious, if it used to be 15% for the lowest of earners that do pay taxes, and it was lowered to 10% for those same people, are you claiming that they are the rich? After all, they got a tax cut.
The 25% bracket are people making $29,999 and up. their income tax is going to 28%. When their tax rate was cut from 28% to 25% did that mean they were rich and got an unfair tax cut?
You've got the socialist Democrat talking points down pat, but you have no idea of what you speak.
And that's not even talking about capital gains increases going from 15% to 20%.
This recession is going to get worse following this year when those tax increases are put in place.
The good news is that the Republicans will take control of the House so there is a chance that they will decide to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. I wonder if Obama will decide you don't need a tax cut and increase your taxes by vetoing the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Actually, I don't wonder. I know he'll veto it and anyone that pays taxes now will get screwed. In other words, the socialist Democrat in the White House is telling you to bend over and spread your cheeks because he's about to give you the ride of your life....from behind.
Perhaps you should look up the monstrous tax increases coming. I only gave the income tax rates and the capital gains. You should see the rest of the taxes that are going to soar. But then, you don't research, you spew talking points.
"Tax cuts don’t need to be paid for?" Bullshit. I guess you can’t balance your checkbook. When revenue is cut, spending must be cut. There is a good reason the gap between the rich and the poor is ballooning. The tax cuts to the rich didn’t generate anything but their personal wealth.
I was wondering where that "largest tax increase in history” talking point came from. Only in a rightwing world is that a tax increase. Under President Obama's watch, the middle class got a tax cut that went directly into the economy.
First of all, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear. If I had some Democratic talking points I would use them because they re true, but I don’t. Funny, you’re quoting these figures that you got from the RNC, and you’re accusing me of using taking points. In addition, you are such a liar why would anyone believe anything you say? Like your fairy tale that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”
We are recovering from the recession, but the Republicans are doing everything they can to kill it. That’s what this post is about. There are no tax increases.
Like I have said before, anonymous coward, the party in the White House usually loses seats in the mid-term. We will lose seats in the mind-term but the people/Democrats will keep control of the House and Senate. Control by the people who created the worst recession since the Great Depression would be bad news for the country. The middle class got a tax cut under Obama. The budget-busting Bush tax cuts are dead.
Once again, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear.
Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your fairy tale that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”
Nope. Didn't get that from the RNC. As much as you'd like to think that, you never get it right.
Obama's tax cuts were $13.00 per paycheck ($26.00 per month) for a targeted few. But the tax increases that he's imposed have more than made up for that.
Tax cuts don't cost money. They generate economic activity using the private sector. Ideally, there would be tax cuts and spending cuts. Bush and the Republicans failed at this. They gave the tax cuts, but they increased spending and it cost them the election in 2006.
But, the socialist Democrats have now made the Republicans more palatable with their spending. They've increased spending even more than the Republicans did from 2001 through 2006. Since 2007, the socialist Democrats have exceeded what the Republicans did.
We are going into a double dip recession and maybe even worse. On December 31, my taxes will be one level. On January 1, they will increase to a new level. Even if I didn't move up a tax bracket, my taxes would still increase on January 1. This is a tax increase. That's what happens when you pay more taxes, they call it an increase. This will be the largest tax increase in history. It will kill jobs. The jobs that are still left afterwards, will be killed by the Cap and Tax bill if it goes through.
The health care takeover by the government is costing already and now they are saying that those with pre-existing conditions will not be covered after 2014. The only difference between then and now is that we have a choice of companies with our health care. By 2014, there will be no choice. It will be Obama(lack of)care.
Your precious government health care is now announcing that the things the Republicans warned about are happening. Costs are going up before it's even started and they are going higher. That too is an "increase".
You can play word games all you like, but less money in my pocket and more money in the pocket of the corrupt government is a tax increase.
Sure you did, anonymous coward. You’re not smart enough to make it up on your own. There has been no Obama tax increase. You need to double that lie you just tried to pass off. Granted, it’s small, but a tax cut nevertheless.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6201911-503544.html
Tax cuts do cost money. Again, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear. Wow, I guess you’re following the GOBP strategy of if you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big one. “Democrats have now made the Republicans more palatable with their spending?“ That is pure bullshit. The difference is the spending is being used to lift the economy out of the Bush ditch.
Like the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said, “if not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. Like most fiscal analysts, we believe that the Administration and Congress will need to take considerably larger steps.”
Again, anonymous coward, there is no such as a “health care takeover by the government.“ The only people saying “ those with pre-existing conditions will not be covered after 2014” are Faux “news” and you, and we know both are big liars. And you don’t get your talking points from the RNC. More of your lies, anonymous coward.
I’m not “playing word games,” nor am I lying like you are, anonymous coward. The government isn’t corrupt.
Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your fairy tale that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”
Post a Comment