John Boehner Tonight’s Debt Limit Vote Shows the House Is Listening to the American People

John Boehner

Speaker Boehner leads an event with House Republicans today unveiling A Plan for America’s Job Creators. The plan builds on the Pledge to Americaand is designed to foster innovation and investment, tackle our debt, and help business owners create jobs without raising taxes on working families and small businesses. May 26, 2011.
WASHINGTON, DC (May 31) House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement after the House of Representatives rejected a plan by President Obama that would threaten American jobs by raising the debt limit without making significant spending cuts and budget reforms:

“Tonight’s vote shows the House is listening to the American people. The Obama Administration and congressional Democrats have repeatedly asked for a debt limit hike without any spending cuts and budget reforms, and the American people simply will not tolerate it. Raising the debt limit without major spending cuts and meaningful reforms would hurt our economy and destroy more jobs, adding to our debt crisis. Today the House stood with the American people and said very clearly that this course of action is unacceptable.

Republicans have passed a budget and outlined a pro-growth job creation plan that pays down our debt over time. We need to create a better environment for private-sector job growth by stopping Washington from spending money it doesn’t have, not by raising taxes and adding more debt onto the backs of our kids and grandkids.”

NOTE: According to Resurgent Republic, a recent survey showed “President Obama’s request to raise the federal debt limit without any preconditions related to limiting spending” is “opposed by 9 in 10 voters.” Stanford economist John B. Taylor says “linking the debt limit to spending reductions” is “essential to a credible return to sound fiscal policy and an end to the ongoing debt explosion.”

# # # # #

TEXT CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact: H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117

IMAGE CREDIT: This official Speaker of the House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the Speaker of the House or any Member of Congress.

Read more...

ROLL CALL VOTE 379 H.R.1954 -- To implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 379 (Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

H R 1954 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 31-May-2011 7:11 PM QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass BILL TITLE: To implement the President’s request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt.


YeasNaysPRESNV
Republican
236
3
Democratic978276
Independent



TOTALS9731879


---- YEAS 97 ---

Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Heinrich
Himes
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kildee
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Speier
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Tsongas
Velázquez
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

---- NAYS 318 ---

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Towns
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

---- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 7 ---

Ackerman
Chu
Doggett
Hinchey
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Meeks

---- NOT VOTING 9 ---

Braley (IA)
Duncan (SC)
Giffords
Lucas
Myrick
Sanchez, Loretta
Schwartz
Tierney
Walz (MN)


TEXT CREDIT: house.gov/

Read more...

Dave Camp:Floor Statement: H.R. 1954 - To Implement the Increase in the Debt Limit Required by the President’s Budget TEXT VIDEO


TEXT TRANSCRIPT: Camp Floor Statement: H.R. 1954 - To Implement the Increase in the Debt Limit Required by the President’s Budget Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Last December, the President’s own Fiscal Commission offered a plan to reign in our budget deficits and debt. While I did not support the final package – especially the tax increases it proposed – it did contain several meaningful suggestions for ways to get federal spending under control.

Chairman Dave Camp's Opening Statement on H.R. 1954 Opposing a Clean Increase to the Debt CeilingYet last February, when the President submitted his budget for 2012, he ignored their advice and provided no plan to reign in deficits and debt.

Last month, Standard and Poor’s downgraded the outlook for the U.S. credit rating because Washington appeared to have no plan to reign in our budget deficits and debt.

In recent weeks many Congressional Democrats were proving them right when over 100 of them called for an unconditional increase in the U.S. debt limit. They signed a letter calling on their colleagues to establish “the Democratic position in favor of a clean extension of the debt ceiling” – something Secretary Geithner has also repeatedly called for.

It is time to come clean with the American people about our deficits and debt. At over $14 trillion, our debt is as large as the entire U.S. economy and is putting the American Dream at risk for future generations. It has become an anchor on economic growth – costing us 1 million jobs at a time when the unemployment rate has not been this high for this long since the Great Depression.

Erskine Bowles, who chaired President Obama’s Fiscal Commission and served as Chief of Staff to President Clinton, has said that the era of debt denial is over. While it doesn’t appear that all of his Democrat colleagues have gotten the message, with today’s vote this House will declare to the American people and to the credit rating agencies that business as usual in Washington is over. Not only is the era of debt denial over, but so is Washington’s out of control spending.

Today, we are making clear that Republicans will not accept an increase in our nation’s debt limit without substantial spending cuts and real budgetary reforms.

This vote, a vote based on legislation I have introduced, will and must fail. Now, most Members aren’t happy when they bring a bill to the floor and it fails, but I consider defeating an unconditional increase to be a success, because it sends a clear and critical message that the Congress has finally recognized we must immediately begin to reign in America’s affection for deficit spending.

Research by international experts clearly demonstrates that spending reforms, not tax increases, are the most effective path to fiscal consolidation. That means that together, we must look for responsible ways to tackle our runaway spending. And though it is difficult, and not always popular, it requires us to deal with entitlement reforms that are the largest driver of America’s deficits – including health care spending programs like Medicare.

We all know that failing to act and address our debt head-on would be very similar to actually defaulting on our debt. In both cases, we would experience a significant downgrade in our credit rating, which increases interest rates making payments for things like a car and home loans more expensive. It would also increase the cost of imports, meaning higher gas prices. And, it would make an already shaky economy even worse – leading to less job creation.

The greatest threat to the U.S. economy and to international financial markets would be guaranteed simply increasing the debt limit, without cutting a penny of spending. This vote makes clear that deficit reduction will be part of any bill to increase the debt limit, and is a necessary part of this process.

A “no” vote today is a vote to put us on the path toward exactly what the markets – and the American people are demanding – an America that is a strong, reliable and secure financial investment for the future. I urge all my colleagues to vote “No” on this unconditional increase.

###

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: DaveCampYT

TEXT CREDIT: House Committee on Ways & Means Chairman Camp statement. Main Office: Ways and Means Committee Office 1102 Longworth House Office Building Washington D.C. 20515 P: 202-225-3625 F: 202-225-2610

Press Office: Ways and Means Press Office 1101 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 P: 202-226-4774 F: 202-225-2610.

Read more...

H.R.1954 -- To implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt TEXT FULL PDF

H.R.1954 -- To implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt.

Floor Situation: On Tuesday, May 31, 2011, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 1954, a bill to implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt, under a suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds Majority vote. H.R. 1954 was introduced by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) on May 24, 2011, and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, which took no official action.

H.R.1954 -- To implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt FULL TEXT in PDF FORMAT

Bill Summary & Status 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) H.R.1954

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY 24, 2011 Mr. CAMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

A BILL To implement the President’s request to increase the
statutory limit on the public debt.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. FINDING.
4 The Congress finds that the President’s budget pro
5 posal, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
6 Year 2012, necessitates an increase in the statutory debt
7 limit of $2,406,000,000,000.

2

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC
2 DEBT.
3 Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United
4 States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limita
5 tion contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu
6 thereof ‘‘$16,700,000,000,000’’.

•HR 1954 IH

Background from Chairman Dave Camp:

Camp: No Debt Limit Increase Without Spending Cuts. Introduction of “Clean” Debt Limit Legislation Sets Up Test Vote in House to Prove Reforms Must be Part of Any Deal to Raise the Debt Limit.

Dave Camp Ways and Means Chairman

Dave Camp Ways and Means Chairman
Tuesday, May 24, 2011 Washington, D.C. - Today, Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) introduced the necessary legislation that allows the U.S. House of Representatives to reject a so-called clean increase in the nation's debt limit. The legislation, which Chairman Camp strongly opposes and is expected to be voted on as early as next week, would increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion - the amount necessary under the President's budget to get through the end of 2012.

Chairman Camp, whose committee has jurisdiction over the debt limit, issued the following statement:

“Let me be clear: I do not support and will not vote for a debt limit increase that does not contain significant spending cuts and budgetary reforms. Our current path is unsustainable and unacceptable. We must force Washington to live within its means, and any deal on the debt limit should include real reforms including entitlement programs like Medicare.

“The President's budget calls for a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit through the end of next year. The legislation I filed today will allow the House to reject a clean increase in the debt limit proving to the American people, the financial markets and the Administration that we are serious about tackling our debt and deficit problems.

“Increasing the debt limit without showing that we can achieve real spending restraint would likely lead to very similar results as default: a lower credit rating, higher borrowing costs and more expensive imports. Such irresponsibility would most certainly increase the cost of oil and gas, making the pain at the pump that much worse. All of that is bad for the economy, bad for job creation and bad for American families.

“The ‘borrow now and pay later’ attitude that has prevailed for too long in Washington is threatening the American Dream. We simply aren't going to continue on that same reckless path any longer.”

Floor Situation TEXT CREDIT: GOP.gov - The Website of the Republican Majority in Congress

Chairman Camp statement TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: House Committee on Ways & Means Contact: Jim Billimoria, Michelle Dimarob, or Sarah Swinehart (202) 226-4774 Main Office: Ways and Means Committee Office 1102 Longworth House Office Building Washington D.C. 20515 P: 202-225-3625 F: 202-225-2610

Press Office: Ways and Means Press Office 1101 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 P: 202-226-4774 F: 202-225-2610

Read more...

Michele Bachmann on 2012 Race Good Morning America 05/31/11 VIDEO

Michele Bachmann on 2012 Race: Palin Showdown? Tea party star talks to George Stephanopoulos about the 2012 primary race. 5/31/2011.

VIDEO and TEXT CREDIT: Good Morning America

Read more...

Accidentally accurate

Oops!

Cartoonist Lisa Benson takes aim at the Democrats' opposition to the the Republican budget plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan. You know: the notion that we will save Medicare (and the nation!) by destroying it. Of course, if you're really gullible—or perhaps really dim—you might believe that converting Medicare to a voucher plan is a good idea. And good luck chasing after private insurance with those shrinking vouchers.

The only thing really missing from Benson's cartoon is an appropriate label: Step One! Tossing the GOP budget proposal over the cliff is merely a good start.

Step One!

Read more...

Back away from the penis!

San Francisco on the cutting edge

The voters of the City and County of San Francisco have placed a proposed circumcision ban on the November general election ballot. It would make it illegal to remove the foreskins of minors without a showing of medical necessity. It would not, however, have any impact on adult males who wish to have their penises clipped. The rationale is simple: Baby boys cannot give informed consent.

The reaction to the ballot initiative is unsurprisingly shrill. Here's the opening paragraph of an opinion piece by Rabbi Gil Leeds, which was published on May 20, 2011, in the San Francisco Chronicle:
Freedom of religion, enshrined over two centuries ago by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is now subject to a vote with the certification in San Francisco of the referendum on circumcision for the November ballot. The vote will empower a secular majority to impose its will, and ban one of the oldest religious traditions known to humanity. When religious belief and practice become subject to vote by the majority of a city council, government agency or referendum, it endangers all of our rights and freedoms.
The proposed legislation contains no religious exemptions, so the traditional Jewish bris ceremony could no longer be practiced in San Francisco if the circumcision ban were enacted. That is why Leeds frames it as an attack on religious freedom. This got me to thinking.

What does religious tradition protect? How far can it go? Leeds correctly points out that male circumcision is a very old religious practice, so it definitely fits under the mantle of tradition, at least for Jews. It's also long been considered normative for American males, quite apart from religious practice. As a culture, we're inured to it and most people take it in stride as expected and unexceptional. While a few circumcised men have complained about having been robbed of their foreskins, most clipped males appear to be content with their condition. It hasn't been a major controversy.

On the other hand, female circumcision is widely condemned as genital mutilation and is against the law in the United States and the target of an international campaign to suppress it. In fact, “circumcision” is rather a misnomer for the procedure(s) applied to young girls in those cultures that practice it. The term comprises a broad range of actions, from reduction or amputation of the clitoris to wholesale excision of the labia. The most extreme form involves infibulation, stitching up the vaginal passage to make it smaller and to ensure the virginity of the victim; the procedure may be reversed when she is properly married off.

Female “circumcision” is an ancient practice that is done in secret in places like the United Kingdom and the United States, nations in which it is legally banned. Members of immigrant families may go to great lengths to ensure that their daughters are genitally cut so that future suitors may be assured of their respectability. The UK and US make no allowance for the ancient tradition, deeming it a violation of basic human rights and labeling it as “female genital mutilation.”

The sponsors of the anti-circumcision measure in San Francisco took a page from the international campaign to protect girls when they titled their proposal as the “San Francisco Male Genital Mutilation” initiative. The city attorney toned that down to the “Male Circumcision” measure, but Leeds the mohel is unmollified:
The proposal's backers are trying to deceive the voters by labeling it a “ban on genital mutilation.” Honesty would have demanded they called it a ban on circumcision. By using such a toxic term as mutilation, they hope to garner support from an unsuspecting public.
My question is this: How is cutting off part of a little boy's penis not a “genital mutilation”? Because our society is inured to it? Because some people practice it as a religious rite? Because it's not as grotesque as the female version? Because there are some supposed health benefits?

What if a religious sect insisted it was their right to practice infibulation on their infant daughters? Would we be violating their freedom of religion if we refused to allow it? (We have clearly already decided that question, haven't we?)

Circumcised males can take comfort in being in the majority and having undergone a procedure that has long been considered unremarkable and of which they haven't the slightest recollection. They understandably react negatively at being told that they were “mutilated” at birth. It's a charged term. At the same time, the uncircumcised minority cringe at the thought of having their foreskins lopped off and marvel that their clipped brethren can be so complacent about having lost theirs. It's what you're used to, I suppose.

The religious aspect doesn't faze people for whom religion is just a superstitious practice that gets more respect than it deserves. Rabbi Leeds hung his argument on the right of people to clip their sons' penises in honor of a supposed covenant with Yahweh. After his article appeared in the Chronicle, San Francisco's archbishop weighed in with an angry letter in support of the rabbi:
I would like to add my “Amen” to the op-ed piece by Rabbi Gil Leeds, “Circumcision ignores our basic religious freedom” (May 20).

The proposed ban on circumcision represents an unconscionable violation of the sanctuaries of faith and family by the government of San Francisco. Although the issue does not concern Christians directly, as a religious leader I can only view with alarm the prospect that this misguided initiative would make it illegal for Jews and Muslims who practice their religion to live in San Francisco—for that is what the passage of such a law would mean.

Apart from the religious aspect, the citizens of San Francisco should be outraged at the prospect of city government dictating to parents in such a sensitive matter regarding the health and hygiene of their children.

George Niederauer, Archbishop of San Francisco
I don't know that you're helping, George. Protecting the health and hygiene of one's children these days would seem to include keeping them away from Catholic churches. May I suggest that you—ahem!—keep your hands off their penises?

Read more...

John Fleming Time to Reform Entitlements is NOW Time to Reform Entitlements is NOW VIDEO


Congressman John Fleming, M.D. released the following statement responding to a Medicare Board of Trustees Report showing that the Medicare Trust Fund will run out money in 2024 - five years earlier than what was forecasted last year making it even more imperative to reform this entitlement so that it can be solvent moving forward. With healthcare costs surging and our debt spiraling out of control, reforming medicare is an essential step to getting us back on sound financial footing.

John Fleming"This report underscores the need to reform entitlements NOW. But rather fixing this imminent catastrophe, Democrats and President Obama would rather play the "mediscare" game and push health care rationing," said Congressman Fleming. "I support real reforms to medicare that make it sustainable for the future while not changing benefits for participants over 55 years of age."

Congressman Fleming added, "As a practicing physician for over 30 years, I know firsthand the need for these reforms which is why I stood with Republicans to vote for and pass real medicare reforms that bring us back to financial sanity and put the patient first."

Dr. John Fleming is Chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs and is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He is a physician and small business owner and represents the 4th Congressional District of Louisiana.

VIDEO: arep04

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: Congressman John Fleming: Washington DC Office 416 Cannon HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: (202) 225-2777 Fax: (202) 225-8039 Office Hours: 9am-6pm (M-F)

Contact: Michael Tadeo 202.225.2777

Read more...

Tim Pawlenty on ABC News This Week 05/29/11 VIDEO


Tim Pawlenty on ABC News This Week 05/29/11 VIDEOTim Pawlenty on ABC News This Week 05/29/11 VIDEO

"We need a President that will lead. Please watch my interview this morning on ABC News."

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: GovernorTimPawlenty

TEXT CREDIT: @timpawlenty:

Read more...

Eric Cantor Face the Nation VIDEO



Harry Smith spoke with House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on making the certain budget cuts necessary to provide aid to the tornado stricken Joplin, Mo., his support for Medicare reform, a recent jobs bill proposal, and the 2012 GOP presidential candidates

© 2011, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS CBS TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION."

TEXT IMAGE and VIDEO CREDIT: "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION."

Read more...

Mitch McConnell Meet The Press "Doing nothing is not an option" TEXT VIDEO


MR. GREGORY: Good morning. The president returned last night from his six-day European trip and leaves the White House again this morning to travel to tornado-ravaged Joplin, Missouri, where he will visit with survivors and family members of that terrible storm. It hit a week ago and has left devastation all throughout the area; more than 120 people dead, more than 100 still missing. Here in Washington, meantime, no break this Memorial Day weekend from the intense debate over the budget, overhauling Medicare, and the upcoming vote on increasing the debt ceiling. All of this, of course, as the fast approaching 2012 presidential election year makes the climate in Congress even more contentious. Here this morning to tackle those issues and more, two key Senate leaders from each side of the

aisle: the Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky; and from the other side of the aisle, the senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer. We will begin here in the studio with the leader of the Republicans in the Senate. Senator McConnell, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

Mitch McConnell Meet the Press

SEN. McCONNELL: Good morning.

MR. GREGORY: I want to show you the scene from upstate New York, that special House selection. Kathy Hochul prevailed. And this is the scene which she won. The chant was " Medicare, Medicare." This was a key issue based on how the Republicans are trying to overhaul Medicare. And the question is this, has this become the new third rail of American politics, touch it and you get burned?

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, look, you know, we have had a regularly scheduled election in our country every two years since 1788 right on time. We're about a year and a half ahead of the next one. And at critical points throughout our history when we've really had to step up to the plate and tackle big issues, we've done it in spite of the fact that in America there's always an election coming up. Where are we? Well, we know that the co-chairman of the president's deficit reduction commission, Erskine Bowles, said that this is the most predictable crisis heading our way, that's our debt and deficit, the most predictable crisis in American history. We know the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked what was the biggest national security threat to the United States, said the debt and deficit was our biggest threat. It's time to act, David, regardless of the election a year and a half from now. And, you know, the president, to his credit, is at the table through the discussions with the vice president and members of the House and Senate over the issue that is confronting our country. Look, Standard Poors recently sent us a warning signal they're about to downgrade the credit rating of the United States. We have a $14 trillion deficit -- debt the size of our economy, which makes us look like Greece; and, by the way, $50 trillion- plus in unfunded liabilities and popular entitlement programs.

MR. GREGORY: The problem is huge, and the entitlement program...

SEN. McCONNELL: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: ...is really the heart of it. But I ask the same question, which is, is Medicare the third rail? Look, you said, reportedly, to the speaker of the House John Boehner, "I wouldn't push this Ryan proposal because poetical it's going to hurt the party."

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, I don't know where that quote came from. But the point is, what are we going to do about the problem? We, we know that -- what -- let's -- oh, you want to talk about Medicare? The president says Medicare needs to be on the table, the vice president says Medicare needs to be on the table. Steny Hoyer, the number two Democrat in the House, says Medicare needs to be on the table. It is on the table in the discussions related to the debt ceiling. So...

MR. GREGORY: But not in its current form. If it passes...

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, look, we're...

MR. GREGORY: ...as part of the debt ceiling vote...

SEN. McCONNELL: The Democrats...

MR. GREGORY: ...it's got to be different, does it not, than the Ryan plan?

SEN. McCONNELL: As you pointed out from my comments in the lead-in, the Democrats have no plan at all. We had, we had four votes in the Senate this week...

MR. GREGORY: Fair enough. But, leader, my question is if there's going to be a deal on the debt ceiling on Medicare reform...

SEN. McCONNELL: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: ...would you concede it's got to look a lot different than the Ryan plan?

SEN. McCONNELL: No! I -- it's on the table. We're going to discuss what ought to be done. Everybody agrees something ought to be done, except the Democrats in the Senate, who have no plan at all.

MR. GREGORY: But you're not even...

SEN. McCONNELL: We had four...

MR. GREGORY: ...you haven't even said publicly whether you're for the Ryan plan. So you're not behind that version of Medicare reform.

SEN. McCONNELL: I voted for the -- I, I voted for the Ryan budget this week.

MR. GREGORY: You didn't whip up your colleagues, though. You didn't try to get additional support.

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, we, we had, we had competing versions in the Senate. Senator Toomey, a Republican senator in the Senate, had a plan. Senator Paul had a plan. The only people who didn't vote for any plan at all -- we -- by the way, we had a vote on the president's budget, didn't get a single solitary vote. Not a single Democratic senator voted for the president's budget.

MR. GREGORY: Fair -- but do you support Ryan's reforms?

SEN. McCONNELL: And the guy, the guy that you're going to have on after me thinks that all we're doing right now is positioning for the 2012 election. What about the country? What about the next generation, not the next election?

MR. GREGORY: I'm just trying to understand where you are particularly on how to change Medicare so...

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, let me tell you.

MR. GREGORY: You're not -- you don't believe that the Ryan plan is the basis of where you're going get agreement.

SEN. McCONNELL: I, I voted for the Ryan budget this week.

MR. GREGORY: But do you believe it's really the big -- because it failed.

SEN. McCONNELL: What I'm not going to do...

MR. GREGORY: It's not going anywhere.

SEN. McCONNELL: ...is negotiate the deal with you, David, with all due respect. The president of the United States, the only person in America who can sign a bill into law, is at the table through the vice president, and we are discussing a package that will begin to deal with deficit and debt in connection...

MR. GREGORY: But, leader, I'm not asking you to negotiate. I'm just asking you to help in the interest of what I assume you want, which is building some kind of political consensus around reform. Having a discussion publicly on television like this and saying, what are the contours of that that could actually get some Democratic support?

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, this is not the place to do that. The place to do it is in the discussions with the one individual out of 307 million Americans who can sign a bill into law. And those discussions are under way, and I can assure you, David, that to get my vote to raise the debt ceiling, for whatever that's worth, my one vote, Medicare will be a part of it. The details of that are yet to be negotiated with the guy who can sign something into law.

MR. GREGORY: But do you have to keep the basis of the Medicare program in place? Is that your view? Because that's not what Ryan is proposing. And then you could do other things.

SEN. McCONNELL: And no matter how many times you ask me to, to kind of craft what the Medicare fix should be like, I'm not going to give that answer to you today because that's a subject to be negotiated with the president of the United States.

MR. GREGORY: But do you understand that the currents here in the Republican Party-- when Newt Gingrich was on this program and called Ryan's plan right-wing social engineering, conservatives flocked to his aid and said, "No, no, the Ryan plan is a litmus test for conservatives in America." What you're saying is not that. You voted for it, but you didn't rally your colleagues behind it and it failed. So there seems to be a split in the party about what it is should constitute actual reform.

SEN. McCONNELL: Actually, there's very little split in the party at all. We all know Medicare's going to change. It's got to change. David, the trustees of Medicare and Social Security, who are appointed by the president of the United States, that includes some members of his own Cabinet, just said a couple of weeks ago that Medicare's going broke. The one thing we know we can't do is nothing. And our Democratic friends in the Senate have no plan at all. The president, to his credit, is at the table discussing with us the way in which you save Medicare. Medicare is going down. Doing nothing is not a plan. And we're going to negotiate the contours of the plan in these negotiations. I'm personally very comfortable with the way Paul Ryan would structure it in the out years. But we have a Democratic president. We're going to have to negotiate with him on the terms of changing Medicare so we can save Medicare.

MR. GREGORY: Are you confident that the debt ceiling will ultimately be raised?

SEN. McCONNELL: I'm confident that unless we do something really significant about debt and deficit, it's not going to be raised. It's not going to get my vote unless we deal with the problem raised by the request of the president to raise the debt ceiling. In other words...

MR. GREGORY: Does Medicare-- is it...

SEN. McCONNELL: This is, this is an opportunity.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

SEN. McCONNELL: You know, rather than play scare tactics about what if and, you know, what if you do this or what if you do that, the point is use this opportunity to come together on a bipartisan basis like Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did in 1983 to save Social Security for another generation. They came together, made an important adjustment -- and, by the way, the -- you know, all this talk about next year's election, after participating in raising the age limit for Social Security, Reagan the next year carried 49 out of 50 states. Anything we agree to do together, David, will not be an issue in next year's election. But this is about the future of the country.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

SEN. McCONNELL: Not about the election a year and a half from now.


MR. GREGORY: Let's ask about taxes. This is an area where Democrats and Republicans do not see eye to eye.

SEN. McCONNELL: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: And Republicans have been adamant that there aren't going to be any tax hikes as part of a global deal, a broad deal to bring the, the, the deficit down and to bring the, the budget into balance. Former President Clinton spoke this week about this issue, and suggested that that Republican hard-line seems to defy the, the course of history. This is what he said.

FMR. PRES. BILL CLINTON: The, the idea that the lower the tax rates are, the better everything'll be has been debunked now for 30 years both in positive terms when I was president, and in negative terms by quadrupling the debt once and then doubling it again. So, I mean, how many times do we have to see this movie before we know how it ends?

MR. GREGORY: Response?

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, you know, in that same appearance he also said that Medicare should be a part of the discussion and the Democrats should face up to it, as the president and vice president have.

MR. GREGORY: Yes, he did. But I'm asking you to respond to this piece.

SEN. McCONNELL: Yeah, look, you know, we just have a fundamental difference of opinion. If there's any issue which clearly divides Republicans and Democrats, it's taxes. We think we have this problem because we spend too much, not because we tax too little. And you've heard us have this debate over the years, we're going to have it again next year in the course of the election because the president wants the rates to go up again next year. We've got a two-year extension of current tax rates right now. I think we can stipulate this is an issue upon which there is deep-seated difference of opinion.

MR. GREGORY: But -- so here's, here's the issue that I, that I keep coming back to, which is aren't you Republican leaders guilty of the same thing that you accuse the president of on health care, which is not doing enough to build actual political consensus around these issues? If you're not going to give anything up on taxes but you want to bring the deficit down, you say, no, these are iron-clad principles. I mean, that's where the -- you said the president was on health care. How do we, how do we tackle real problems?

SEN. McCONNELL: But that's not where they are on, on the issue we were talking about earlier in the program. You've got the president, the vice president, President Clinton, Steny Hoyer all saying that Medicare has to change. So they're -- that's not something we don't agree on. We're going to, we're going to discuss...

MR. GREGORY: That's a long way from changing the Medicare program the way Paul Ryan wants to.

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, we're going to discuss how to do it. But what we're saying on taxes is it isn't necessary. I mean, we don't have this problem because we tax too little.

MR. GREGORY: Can I ask you two quick ones? Elizabeth Warren, who is supposed to head up this consumer bureau...

SEN. McCONNELL: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: ...the president's appointment to do that, would you back her, or would you join Republicans who -- to block her nomination?

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, we're pretty unenthusiastic about the possibility of Elizabeth Warren. We're pretty unenthusiastic, frankly, about this new agency, and we've sent a letter to the president saying that some changes need to made -- be made in the CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Board, because as it's currently constituted, it answers to no one and, I think, could be a serious threat to our financial system.

MR. GREGORY: And what about politics? You have said that the big goal of the Republicans is to make this president a one-term president.

SEN. McCONNELL: Of course.

MR. GREGORY: Yet 22 percent of those polled indicate they've got no preference for any Republican running. Is not having a clear nominee a good thing, a bad thing or a normal thing?

SEN. McCONNELL: You know what I'm reminded of in -- how the Jimmy Carter White House was thinking in '79 and '80, they were pulling for Ronald Reagan. They thought he was too extreme and too old. And surely if he was the nominee, they'd be just fine. Somebody's going to get on a winning streak here on our side. And when you start winning, people start paying attention. This is going to be an extremely competitive contest for the president next year.

MR. GREGORY: And what impact will Sarah Palin have if she becomes a nominee?

SEN. McCONNELL: She'll go out there and compete like all the rest of them. It's going to be fun to watch.

MR. GREGORY: Maybe I'll just go back to asking you about Medicare. Senator, thank you very much.

TEXT IMAGE and VIDEO CREDIT: Meet The Press

Read more...

Fathers Day Cartoon

Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon
Fathers Day Cartoon

Cartoon characters always brings smile in our faces.

so why don't we bring the million dollar smile in our father face.

in my opinion that's possible only through the fathers day cartoon.

what do you think about the fathers day cartoon?

is it able to success to make our father laugh in the special occasion fathers day?

Read more...

Fathers Day Funny

fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
fathers day funny
Fathers Day Funny

when these is the fun, there is the beauty.

so lets make our fathers day funny.

do u have any idea to make the fathers day funny?

please share it over here.

Read more...

Fathers Day Pictures

Fathers Day Pictures
Fathers Day Pictures
Fathers Day Pictures
Fathers Day Pictures
Fathers Day Pictures
Fathers Day Pictures
Fathers Day Pictures
Fathers Day Pictures
Fathers Day Pictures
Fathers Day Pictures
Fathers Day Pictures

fathers are one in the billion

therefore don't forget the Fathers Day 2011

for your reminder i have some fathers day pictures posted over here.

Read more...

Dad

Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad
Dad

father's day is coming in June 19, 2011.

therefore this post is dedicated to my world's No. 1 father.

Read more...

Sexy Nude Celebrity Hot Female Celebrity