Friday, February 4, 2011

Congressman’s Committee Staff Release Report on Oil Company Profits and Tax Subsidies

FEB 3, 2011

WASHINGTON (February 3, 2011) – Nearly $1 trillion – that’s the total profit earned by the top five multi-national oil companies over the first decade of the new millennium. $36.5 billion – that’s the total in tax subsidies the American public will provide to the oil industry over the next decade. $53 billion – that’s the value that oil companies could receive from not paying royalties on some Gulf of Mexico production over the next 25 years. And 1916 – the oldest tax subsidy the oil companies still utilize.

On the same day that the final major oil firm reported their fourth quarter and year-end earnings reports, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the Ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, released a report prepared by the Committee’s Democratic staff that analyzed the high profits earned by the largest companies in the oil industry, and their continuing dependency on tax subsidies despite those profits. Today’s report comes at a time when crude prices have risen above $100 per barrel in global markets reportedly due to concerns over political unrest in the Middle East.

“American consumers and small businesses are all told that they will have to tighten their belts, and do their share to bring down our deficit and grow our economy,” said Rep. Markey, who is the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee. “Yet even when their top five companies make nearly $1 trillion in profits over the last 10 years, they still defend with a straight face the billions in tax breaks and regulatory subsidies they stand to rake in over the next decade.

“Oil companies simply don’t need 100 year-old subsidies to sell $100 per barrel oil,” continued Markey.

The full report is available here.

The top five oil companies reported total year-end profits of $77 billion, despite a yearly loss for BP due to their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. All told, the five companies -- BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell -- made $952 billion in profits over the last 10 years, a decade when oil spikes and higher gas prices ate up more of every American’s paycheck. Over the last year, gas prices have outpaced the global economic recovery, now rising to an average of $3.10 per gallon nationally, 44 cents higher than during the same period last year.

The Markey staff report highlights that most oil industry tax subsidies have been on the books for decades, a relic of times when oil industry reserves were plentiful, but untapped. Two of the main tax breaks have been on the books since 1916 and 1926. The 1916 tax break was put on the books just three years after the 16th amendment established the power of the government to levy direct income taxes. Ending just these two subsidies would raise $18 billion over the next decade for the American people.

Since extracting oil even in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico can be done for as little as $10 per barrel, and oil is trading near $100 a barrel, revoking the tax subsidies enjoyed by the oil industry will not affect prices in a global market or prices at the pump for consumers, the report says.

The Congressional report notes that the windfalls for the top oil companies haven’t resulted in more research and development into alternatives or other consumer-protecting measures, but instead have been recycled back to shareholders and stock buybacks that benefit executives at the companies. Net profits directed towards dividends and stock repurchases for the big 5 oil companies have gone from 58 percent in 2005 to 89 percent in 2009.

“The oil companies are using tax subsidies put in place shortly after the turn of the 19th century to increase their profits as they move through the 21st century. These subsidies are not needed to ensure continued domestic production. They only get passed along to oil company shareholders and executives,” said Rep. Markey. “This outdated legacy of special tax breaks for oil companies is a drag on an American energy system that is rapidly reorienting to the 21st century. It is badly out of step with an American public that is looking to their government to develop serious solutions to rising fiscal deficits.”

President Obama called for revoking these tax subsidies in his state of the union address last week. And the report notes that the previous U.S. president, George W. Bush, said in 2005, “With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need taxpayers'-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas.”

Downloads

GOP LEADERS GET AMNESIA OVER SHUTDOWN TALK....

February 3, 2011

How can you tell the prospect of a government shutdown is getting increasingly serious? The most obvious hint is the Republican effort to avoid blame.

Today, several Senate Democrats, including the entire leadership team, held a press conference to urge their Republican colleagues to do the right thing, and not shut down the government. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took the lead, but he and the other Dems were joined by economist Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody's Analytics and a former advisor to John McCain's presidential campaign.

Their collective message was straightforward: be responsible, let cooler heads prevail, and don't shut down the government.

For their part, Republicans said a shut down can be avoided just so long as Dems give the GOP what it wants in the form of budget cuts.

"As Republicans focus on constructive ways for the two parties to work together on cutting spending and debt, Sen. Schumer seems strangely preoccupied with the notion of a government shutdown," a spokesperson for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) said. "It is our hope that he soon realizes the only person talking about a shutdown is Sen. Schumer."

It's hard to overstate how very wrong this is. Schumer isn't the one who brought this up. Indeed, it was Mitch McConnell who, just a few days ago, appeared on national television and refused to take a government shutdown off the table.

More importantly, to argue that Dems and Schumer are "the only" ones "talking about a shutdown" is just laughably dishonest. The list of Republican lawmakers who've been threatening, almostwelcoming, a government shutdown is fairly long, and keeps growing. It's not as if Democrats just came up with this fear out of thin air.

One GOP senator described the possibility of a shutdown as "absolutely necessary." Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Republicans should be prepared to be "brave" in the face of a shutdown. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), insisted, "Listen, if it takes a shutdown of government to stop the runaway spending, we owe that to our children and our grandchildren."

Two months before the midterms, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) attended disgraced GOP lobbyist Ralph Reed's shindig, brought up shutting down the government, and was cheered. He replied, "That's what I wanted to hear! A good clap for that!"

And don't even get me started on the Republican activists and media figures who've spent a yearcelebrating the idea of a shutdown.

"The only person talking about a shutdown is Sen. Schumer"? I know some of these guys are paid to say nonsensical things like this, but people who take reality seriously should know better than to believe it.

—Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Senate Democrats Urge GOP To Drop Threats Of Government Shutdown

SenateDemocrats | February 03, 2011 |

Senate Democrats today urged Republicans to join in a responsible approach to deficit reduction, and drop threats to force a government shutdown that would have disastrous consequences for the economy.

Democrats Say House-Proposed Spending Limits "Unworkable"

Brian Beutler | February 3, 2011, 2:00PM

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) with Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Charles Schumer (D-NY)

On Thursday, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced new limits on spending to fund the government through the end of September. The proposal itself falls a bit short of the GOP pledge to slash spending by $100 billion, on a prorated basis, this fiscal year. But already Senate Democrats are warning Republicans that they'd better willing to negotiate toward the center, or they'll risk a government shutdown.

Indeed, top Democrats addressed reporters about the GOP proposal Thursday afternoon. They criticized the GOP's approach, and its leadership, for not taking a government shutdown off the table. They even brought Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) old economic adviser -- and Moody's chief economist -- Mark Zandi to the podium to buttress their case: a government shutdown would harm the economy, spending should not be cut dramatically right now, and the standoff should be resolved quickly.

"The chairman of the [House] Budget Committee today -- today -- sent us something more draconian than we originally anticipated," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said. He called Ryan's plan "unworkable."

"The Republicans control the House, the Democrats control the Senate and the White House -- that's two-thirds of the decision-making parts of the government here," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). "So it can't be that 80 new Republicans who come in say "we should dictate everything that happens, otherwise we're gonna shut the government down, otherwise we're going to default. And I think the leadership -- the leadership of the House and Senate Republicans -- has been notably silent. Which I think encourages them to continue saying these things. Even saying these things rattles the debt market some."

In reality, the figures aren't actually as draconian as many Republicans wanted, or thought they would be. According to Ryan, "the spending limits will restore sanity to a broken budget process and return spending for domestic government agencies to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." He claims they constitute a $74 billion cut -- but that's from the levels President Obama requested, not from the levels the government is operating under right now. Relative to current funding, Ryan's plan represents a slimmer $32 billion cut (about $40 billion if you count non-defense spending only) -- much less than conservatives on the Republican Study Committee want to see.

His numbers are binding, for now, on the House. So the question is whether Republicans are willing to meet the Democrats mid-way on overall spending -- and on particular spending cuts -- or whether they view their top-line, and their spending priorities, as non-negotiable.

Chairman Rogers Outlines Subcommittee Spending Cuts for Fiscal Year 2011

February 3rd, 2011 - -

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Following the release by the Budget Committee of the

overall spending limit for the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution, House

Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers today announced spending cut levels

for each of the twelve Appropriations subcommittees. These cuts will save

American taxpayers $74 billion compared to the President’s fiscal year 2011

request and will help fulfill the commitment laid out in the Republican “Pledge

to America” to cut spending to the pre-stimulus, pre-bailout funding levels of 2008.

The statement by Chairman Rogers follows:

“The Budget Committee today outlined a responsible and prudent level of

funding for the federal government for the rest of fiscal year 2011. This top-line

level will provide for significant spending reductions in the upcoming Continuing

Resolution (CR), while allowing us to meet our commitment outlined in the

Pledge to America to reduce non-security discretionary spending to the

pre-stimulus and pre-bailout non-security funding levels of 2008.

“The Appropriations Committee will not only craft legislation that will meet

the budget committee’s non-security discretionary total of $58 billion, but go even

further to find savings in virtually every area of the federal government, reducing

spending from the President's fiscal year 2011 request by a total of $74 billion.

“To accomplish this goal, I am instructing each of the twelve Appropriations

subcommittees to produce specific, substantive and comprehensive spending

cuts. We are going go line by line to weed out and eliminate unnecessary, wasteful,

or excess spending – and produce legislation that will represent the largest series

of spending reductions in the history of Congress. These cuts will not be easy, they

will be broad and deep, they will affect every Congressional district, but they are

necessary and long overdue.

“With this CR, we will respond to the millions of Americans who have called on this

Congress to rein in spending and help our economy grow and our businesses

create jobs. It is my intention –and that of my Committee – to craft a responsible,

judicious CR that will significantly reduce government spending, begin to get our

nation’s finances in order so that the economy can thrive, and provide essential

resources for our national security.”

To view the spending limits and cuts announced by Chairman Rogers for

each Appropriations Subcommittee for the CR, please click the following link:

http://republicans.appropriations.house.gov/_files/2311SubcommitteeAllocationsfor
FY11ContinuingResolution302bs.doc

Chairman Rogers Outlines Subcommittee Spending Cuts for Fiscal Year 2011

By Lori Montgomery

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 3, 2011; 10:21 PM

House Republicans pledged Thursday to slice more than $32 billion from agency budgets over the next few months, firing the opening shot in a battle over government spending that is likely to dominate debate heading into the 2012 presidential campaign.

The figure, announced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), represents an unprecedented rollback that would force some domestic agencies to immediately slash spending by as much as 20 percent, independent budget analysts said.
Democrats immediately vowed to fight the proposal, calling it a short-sighted plan that would kill many critical government services and slow the burgeoning economic recovery. But a group of conservative Republicans is demanding even deeper cuts and vowing to offer a plan to slash $100 billion from agency budgets when House leaders bring a spending bill to the floor Feb. 14.
"Washington's spending spree is over," Ryan said in a statement. "As House Republicans pledged - and voted to affirm on the House floor last week - the spending limits will restore sanity to a broken budget process and return spending for domestic government agencies to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels."
The GOP proposal marks the first step in what promises to be an unusually complicated and contentious budget season, with much at stake for both parties. President Obama has vowed to fight for new investments aimed at combating a 9.4 percent unemployment rate, and Republicans are looking to make good on their campaign promise to rein in explosive growth in spending since he took office two years ago.
Republicans control the House; Democrats control the Senate. And with the government operating under a temporary funding resolution that expires March 4, both parties risk triggering a shutdown unless they can agree on a spending bill to pay for operations through the rest of the fiscal year, which ends in September.
New rules adopted by the House last month give Ryan unilateral authority to set spending limits in that bill. On Thursday, Ryan said he would cap total appropriations at $1.055 trillion - $74 billion less than the budget request Obama submitted to Congress last year and $32 billion less than the level at which lawmakers agreed to maintain spending.

Under the GOP plan, agencies related to national security - including the Pentagon and the departments of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs - would get a slight bump in funding, receiving an extra $8 billion compared with current levels.
Domestic agencies, however, would absorb a deep hit, in excess of $40 billion, Ryan said. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), who is in charge of drafting the spending measure, said Thursday that the cuts would fall most heavily on transportation and housing programs; agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration; commerce, justice and science programs; and financial services. Labor, health and education programs would face much smaller reductions, as would state and foreign operations.
Aides said Rogers plans to unveil specific cuts late next week. "It is my intention - and that of my Committee - to craft a responsible, judicious [budget] that will significantly reduce government spending, begin to get our nation's finances in order so that the economy can thrive, and provide essential resources for our national security," he said in a statement.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) quickly dismissed the GOP plan as "unworkable" and warned that lawmakers could be headed toward a government shutdown. "Cooler heads should prevail," Reid said.
As the parties spar over immediate spending cuts, they are also at work on a longer-term budget for the fiscal year that begins in October. Obama plans to unveil his budget request Feb. 14.
On Thursday, White House budget director Jacob J. Lew traveled to Capitol Hill to brief Senate Democrats on the president's proposal and to hear from lawmakers who want the president to support a multi-year blueprint for deficit-reduction, such as the one developed by a bipartisan fiscal commission Obama appointed last year.
"There are different points of view about how to do it," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one of the leading advocates of deficit reduction. But, he said, there's broad agreement among Democrats that "now is the time to start."
In his recent State of the Union address, Obama declined to endorse any of the fiscal commission's proposals, such as raising the retirement age for Social Security recipients or reducing cherished tax breaks such as the deduction for mortgage interest claimed by many homeowners. Such policy changes would be politically painful, and administration officials say the president is not inclined to endorse a specific deficit-reduction plan until Republicans have made their intentions clear.
But some Democrats fear the effort will languish without presidential leadership.
After the lunchtime meeting, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the chamber, said Lew "heard some sentiments expressed in there that the White House needs to hear, and I think that he's going to have a tough challenge putting together a credible effort to reduce spending and reduce the deficit."
Staff writers Paul Kane and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.

For the GOP, there's no putting the `repeal' genie back in the bottle

You would think they would move on but it is like they are stuck in reverse and until they get what they think their base wants it is still BACK to the Future for the Republicans

Posted at 1:44 PM ET, 02/ 3/2011

By Greg Sargent

Yesterday I noted here that Mitch McConnell has taken to claiming that a majority of Americans support full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, even though this assertion simply isn't supported by the polling evidence.

Today, Jonathan Chait points us to Orrin Hatch also making this false claim, and notes that this has become an almost robotic talking point for Republicans. Chait asks whether Repubicans are falling into the trap of getting on the wrong side of public opinion without realizing what they're doing:

I understand the propaganda benefits of claiming the high ground of public opinion. I do wonder, though, if Republicans are actually falling into the trap of believing their own bullshit. The party blundered into the government shutdown fiasco under Clinton in large part because its propaganda apparatus asserted that the people agreed with them so loudly and repeatedly that Republicans came to believe it.

I don't know how repeal will end up playing for Republicans in the end. But one thing is clear: There is no way to put `repeal' genie that Repubicans unleashed by whipping their base up into a frenzy during the Long Hot Health Care Summer of 2009 back into the bottle.

Consider this article by the Post's Amy Goldstein, which quotes a range of Tea Partyers talking about the repeal of "Obamacare" in fervent and even messianic tones. They are prepared to invest years in realizing this goal. It's clear that for an untold number of base GOP voters, major questions about political and national identity are now bound up in repeal. An entire industry has been created around this new Holy Grail. There is now a big stake for a whole range of actors, some less reputable than others, in keeping millions of Americans emotionally invested in the idea that total repeal is not only achievable, but absolutely necessary to preserving their liberty and the future of the republic.

In the wake of yesterday's failed repeal vote, McConnell and other Repubicans insisted that they will press on with other tactics. It's unclear whether Republicans think such efforts have a real chance at success, or whether they are merely trash-talking to keep the base happy, and are privately hoping a Supreme Court decision bails them out. Dems hope that the GOP's repeal obsession will prove damaging to the party over time, as they are forced to push for doing away with specific provisions that the public likes. But it also seems possible that for Republicans, banging the repeal drum could be an easy way to please the base while independents and moderates who are more ambivalent about the law tune out all the back and forth over repeal as meaningless Beltway white noise.

We don't know how this will shake out. But the point is that for Republicans, there is simply no going back at this point. Whether or not they want this crusade, they are stuck with it, come what may.

Democrats Warn Issa: Your FOIA Request Will Swamp Agencies

FEBRUARY 2, 2011, 5:25 PM ET

By Louise Radnofsky

Congressional Democrats warned House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) that his probe of how federal agencies are handling Freedom of Information Act requests could overburden the bureaucracies.

Mr. Issa wrote to 180 agencies last week asking for logs of FOIA requests filed in the past five years, as well as all communications between the requestor and the agency for requests which weren’t fully answered within 45 days. He wants the answers by Feb. 15.

The Oversight Committee appears to be extending its investigation into potential abuses of FOIA at the Department of Homeland Security to include the whole federal government. The Associated Press reported last July that Homeland Security had senior political advisers review FOIA requests submitted by journalists and advocacy groups about touchy subjects.

Mr. Issa told the agencies that he was asking about compliance with FOIA requests because he believed that journalists and watchdogs needed them to hold the government accountable, and that he was “very interested in ensuring that all federal agencies respond in a timely, substantive, and non-discriminatory manner.”

FOIA offices maintain logs of requests, typically identifying the sender, the nature of the request and dates the request was submitted and when a response was given. Some logs are routinely posted online and all of them can themselves be requested through FOIA.

But three Democrats on the oversight committee said in a letter to Mr. Issa sent Wednesday that the request for communications went too far, since there were more than 133,000 backlogged requests in the 2008 fiscal year, and over 77,000 in 2009. Getting all the communications between the agencies and requestors for those backlogs could get really hard, the Democrats said.

“It is difficult to estimate how many pages of documents would be responsive to your requests, but it is safe to say it would be in the hundreds of thousands, if not more,” said the letter, which was signed by Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, and Reps. Peter Welch of Vermont and Gerry Connolly of Virginia.

“Without a defined focus, your inquiry will place a significant burden on FOIA offices and divert limited staff from processing requests from the public,” they wrote.

Republicans have received the letter and are reviewing it, a spokesman said. The spokesman added that the committee might be willing to let agencies take more time to answer some of Mr. Issa’s questions.

The letter also expressed concern about agencies handing over names of people making FOIA requests. Republicans believe that they need this to be able to determine whether particular requests could have been delayed for political reasons.

The Democrats are asking Mr. Issa to hold back on the communications part of his request for now, and meet with the agencies in charge of FOIA compliance and the FOIA officers

Protect a Woman's Right to Choose

The new Republican House has gone too far. The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” disregards women's rights, restricts the ability of women to access health care, and even goes so far as to redefine rape solely to deny services to survivors.

When a bill like this comes along—something that threatens the rights and freedoms of women—we have to act fast and we have to be strong. Use the form below to stand with Kirsten to demand that Congress protect the rights of women.

House Democrats Focus on Job Creation, American Competitiveness

By
Albright, Aaron
on February 2, 2011 3:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held a hearing today on creating jobs now in America. The hearing emphasized urgent actions that the 112th Congress should take to create jobs and engage the private sector in rebuilding America through the improvement of schools, hospitals, highways, ports and other transportation facilities needed for manufacturing and trade.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi echoed the call President Obama made in the State of the Union address to invest in our nation’s future:

“Just one week ago, President Obama came before Congress for the State of the Union and said, ‘[A key step] to winning the future is rebuilding America. To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information -- from high-speed rail to high-speed Internet.’”

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), co-chair of the committee, noted that other countries are making significant investments right now, laying the groundwork for economic success once the global economy turns around:

“Thus far, Congress has showed little urgency to address the jobs situation. That must change. With tight budgets, we will have to identify those investments that offer the best bang for the buck to get people back to work and provide long-term benefits to our economy. Major economies around the world are making these investments today to better position themselves to compete once the economy recovers. We must not fall behind.”

Witnesses for the hearing included:

• Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley
• Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter
• Dr. William R. Buechner, Vice President for Economics and Research, American Road and Transport Builders Association
• Mr. Andy Herrmann, President-elect, American Society of Civil Engineers
• Ms. Susan Monteverde, Vice President for Government Relations, American Association of Port Authorities
• Mr. Damon A. Silvers, Director of Policy and Special Counsel for the AFL-CIO

Watch a recording of today’s hearing.

Rep. Miller's prepared remarks (pdf).

House Democratic efforts to create jobs.

Senate Rejects Repeal of Health Care Law

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

Published: February 2, 2011

A version of this article appeared in print on February 3, 2011, on page A20 of the New York edition.

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats on Wednesday defeated a bid by Republicans to repeal last year’s sweeping health care overhaul, as they successfully mounted a party-line defense of President Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.

Enlarge This Image

Drew Angerer/The New York Times

Senators Charles E. Schumer and Sherrod Brown, both Democrats, spoke with reporters on Wednesday in Washington.

Multimedia

SENATE VOTE 9

Fails to Repeal Health Care Law

Interactive Feature

The Growing Legal and Political Opposition

Officials Consider Requiring Insurers to Offer Free Contraceptives (February 3, 2011)
States Diverge on How to Deal With Health Care Ruling(February 2, 2011)

Enlarge This Image

Drew Angerer/The New York Times

Senators Mitch McConnell, from left, John Cornyn and John Barrasso, all Republicans, at a news conference on Wednesday.

Challenges to the law will continue, however, on Capitol Hill and in the courts, with the United States Supreme Court ultimately expected to decide if the law is constitutional.

The vote was 47 to 51, with all Republicans voting unanimously for repeal but falling 13 votes short of the 60 needed to advance their proposal.

Lawmakers in both parties joined forces, however, to repeal a tax provision in the law that would impose a huge information-reporting requirement on small businesses. That vote was 81 to 17, with 34 Democrats and all 47 Republicans in favor.

Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, were absent.

Republicans said after the votes that they would persist in their efforts to overturn the law. Rejecting assertions that the repeal vote was a “futile act,” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, declared, “These are the first steps in a long road that will culminate in 2012.”

Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and a potential presidential candidate in 2012, noted that Republicans had just 40 votes when they opposed the health care bill last year, but that they had 47 as a result of winning seats in November.

“Elections do have consequences,” Mr. Thune said.

The vote to eliminate the tax provision offered a brief moment of consensus on a day otherwise characterized by angry partisan disagreement. In the latest reprise of last year’s fierce debate over the health care law, senators crossed rhetorical swords for hours of floor debate.

Republicans denounced the overhaul as impeding job creation and giving the government too big a role in the health care system. Democrats highlighted the law’s benefits, especially for the uninsured, and noted that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had projected that the law would reduce future deficits.

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, who is an ophthalmologist, cited the law’s requirement that nearly all Americans obtain insurance as evidence that it was unconstitutional and overly intrusive.

“If you can regulate inactivity, basically the non-act of not buying insurance, then there is no aspect to our life that would left free from government regulation and intrusion,” Mr. Paul said. He added, “From my perspective as a physician, I saw that we already had too much government involvement in health care.”

But Democrats hit back hard.

“The Republicans’ obsession with repealing the new health reform law is not based on budgetary considerations,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “It is based strictly on ideology. They oppose the law’s crackdown on abuses by health insurance companies and they oppose any serious effort by the federal government to secure health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans who currently have none.”

And Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat, lambasted Republicans for seeking repeal of the law without proposing an alternative.

“If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: ‘You know, you’re right. We have to reduce costs. We have a better way,’ and they offered a bill on the floor, well maybe we’d take a look at it,” Mr. Schumer said. “But they’re silent.” He added: “Easy to sit there and say, ‘repeal.’ What would you put in its place?”

The repeal measure, which was adopted overwhelmingly by the Republican-controlled House last month, was put forward by the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, as an amendment to an aviation industry bill that is now on the Senate floor.

The willingness of the majority Senate Democrats to allow a vote on the amendment reflected a deal among leaders of both parties to limit the parliamentary warfare and ease the procedural stalemates that have bogged down the Senate in recent years.

The openness to a vote also reflected confidence among Democrats that they would be able to defeat the amendment.

And they did, challenging the amendment on the grounds that it violated the budget resolution by increasing the deficit. To overcome that challenge, and win approval, Mr. McConnell needed the votes of 60 senators.

On the repeal of the tax provision, a similar challenge on budget grounds was easily surmounted. Republicans had criticized the provision, which would require businesses to file a 1099 tax form identifying anyone to whom they paid $600 or more for goods or merchandise in a year. Businesses would also be required to send copies of the form to their vendors, suppliers and contractors. The House is expected to support its repeal.

Because the tax provision was expected to result in increased tax revenue, Democrats had to come up with another way to generate the same money. The plan that was approved, sponsored by Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, rescinds $44 billion in unspent money appropriated by Congress. But it exempts the Pentagon, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration from those cuts.

Politics - what I see and what I do not understand

Pages

Friday, February 4, 2011

Markey Report:

Big Five Oil Companies Approach $1 Trillion in Profits for the Decade, Yet Still Rely on