iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Budget Debate: Obama To Lay Out Spending Plan

Barack Obama

First Posted: 04/11/11 09:29 AM ET Updated: 06/11/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama and Congress are shifting from short-term budget concerns to debates over the nation's long-term economic future, and everything - from Medicare and Medicaid cuts to tax hikes for the wealthy - is on the table.

In addition to calling for higher taxes for those earning more than $250,000 per year, the Wall Street Journal reports that the president has his sights on "changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy."

Much will be revealed at midweek, when the House and Senate are expected to vote on a budget for the remainder of this fiscal year and Obama unveils his plan to reduce the deficit, in part by scaling back the government's chief health programs for seniors and the poor. The House, too, may vote on Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's spending plan for next year as Democrats readied arguments that it proposed "Draconian" cuts to Americans who need help the most.

Meanwhile, congressional officials were putting to paper a deal struck Friday night that would fund the government through September and cut $38.5 billion in spending. They were operating under a one-week extension of the budget, which passed the House and Senate in the last hour before the government was to begin shutting down.

The House's 348-70 vote to extend funding a few days provided no guarantees for the measure being written Monday that would fund the government through the next six months, but leadership aides said they expected it to pass as early as Wednesday.

Whatever its fate, official Washington raced ahead to frame the upcoming fight over raising the nation's debt limit and the election-year budget as a pair of interconnected battles that would make Friday's nail-biter seem minor. Click here to continue reading

live blog

Oldest Newest

From the ABC World News interview:

George Stephanopoulos: I know you just told Erskine Bowles and Senator Simpson, you want to get these talks moving right away. But boy, it doesn’t sound like it’s going to be easy. Paul Ryan. Spent a lot of time with him yesterday. The Congressman has really come out with a tough response to your speech. Let me-- I want to quote it exactly. He said, "The President was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate. Instead of building bridges, the President is poisoning wells." Are you poisoning wells?

President Obama: Oh, absolutely not. Look if you look at my speech yesterday it was not so much a critique of what the House Republicans have proposed as it was a description of what they’ve proposed.

Share this:

Video courtesy of ABC World News:

Share this:

HuffPost's Laura Bassett reports:

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution to bar all federal funding to Planned Parenthood on Thursday, but the Senate rejected the proposal a few hours later by a vote of 58 to 42. Five Republican senators -- Massachussetts' Scott Brown, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, Illinois' Mark Kirk, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both from Maine -- voted against the resolution, which was a “technical correction†to the budget bill that passed last week without the Planned Parenthood rider. Ten House Democrats voted in favor of the resolution, which passed the House by a vote of 241 to 185. “It’s clear that Republicans do not support family planning. It’s hard to understand, but it’s clear that they don’t, and have used debate on this bill to spread misinformation about the critical work that Planned Parenthood does on behalf of America’s women every day,†Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) said on the House floor. “Today’s legislation, which has no chance of passing the Senate and becoming law, thank God, is just part of the Republican agenda that is the most comprehensive and radical assault on women’s health and reproductive freedom in our lifetime, and that’s saying something.†Watch full video of Pelosi’s speech here:

Share this:

Reuters reports that without bill approval, funding for agencies may have expired:

The Congress on Thursday approved $38 billion in spending cuts this year as part of a bill to fund the federal government through September 30, sending the legislation to President Barack Obama to sign into law.

After months of wrangling between Democrats and Republicans, the Senate voted 81 to 19 in favor of the budget bill for the rest of this fiscal year. Passage came shortly after the House of Representatives voted 260-167 for the measure.

Without approval of this bill, U.S. government funding for most agencies would have expired at midnight on Friday.

More here.

Share this:

The Washington Post offers a graph of how the House voted on the 2011 budget (260-167 in favor). View the graph here.

Share this:

The Hill reports that the Senate has passed the spending bill in an 81 to 19 bipartisan vote:

H.R. 1473 will cut $39.9 billion from the remaining six-months of the 2011 budget if it is signed by President Obama as expected.

"It represents bipartisan agreement reached between leaders in the House, the White House and the Senate with the details being worked out by members of appropriations,†said Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) in calling on his colleagues to support the bill Thursday afternoon. “It includes cuts bigger than what I was comfortable with, but it is dramatically superior to what passed through the House months ago and equally superior to not passing a budget."

More here.

Share this:

The Hill reports that the Senate has defeated resolutions to block funding for Planned Parenthood and healthcare:

The Senate on Thursday defeated two resolutions to amend the fiscal year 2011 spending bill that would have blocked funding for Planned Parenthood, and all funds to implement last year's healthcare reform law.

The House passed both resolutions just hours before.

Votes on the defunding measures in both the House and the Senate were a condition Republicans insisted upon as part of last week's agreement with the White House and Democrats on funding for the rest of FY 2011.

The Senate defeated the Planned Parenthood amendment by a 42 to 58 vote. The House passed that resolution 240-185.

The Senate defeated the bill to defund the healthcare law, 47 to 53. The House passed that resolution 245-189.

Both measures were required to meet a 60-vote threshold.

More here.

Share this:

ThinkProgress posts on Twitter:

@ thinkprogress : Senate rejects defunding Planned Parenthood 42-58. 5 Republicans voted no.

Share this:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi speaks out against GOP efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. The caption under the video reads:

Today, House Republicans passed H.Con.Res. 36, a concurrent resolution that would "correct the enrollment" of the Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1473), by adding a section at the end of the bill to defund Planned Parenthood. Cutting off federal funding for Planned Parenthood would have a devastating impact on women's health care across the country.

Planned Parenthood health centers currently provide preventive services to millions of women in need of health care, including the provision of contraception, cancer screenings, breast exams, and HIV testing.

WATCH:

Share this:

HuffPost's Jason Linkins reports:

Lindsey Graham has styled himself as the Senate's great dealmaker -- the guy who will shepherd your measure through the partisan thicket and make sure it passes. All you have to do is do everything precisely the way Graham imagines it needs to be done, and you'll be fine. But the moment you hit one of his cryptic procedural tripwires -- ones you often didn’t know were laid in the first place -- Graham goes into full-on snit-fit mode, and vows to use whatever means at his disposal to shut the whole process down.

He's doing it again over the budget deal that was wrought April 8, because it cut an allocation that was to be used to fund an Army Corps of Engineers project that would have deepened the Port of Charleston.

Read more here.

Share this:

President Obama offered the following statement on Thursday, provided by the White House Press Office:

“Today, I was pleased to take another step to relieve unnecessary burdens on small businesses by signing H.R. 4 into law. Small business owners are the engine of our economy and because Democrats and Republicans worked together, we can ensure they spend their time and resources creating jobs and growing their business, not filling out more paperwork. I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to improve the tax credit policy in this legislation and I am eager to work with anyone with ideas about how we can make health care better or more affordable.â€

Share this:

The White House has provided the following press release:

On Thursday, April 14, 2011, the President signed into law:

H.R. 4, the “Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011,†which repeals the expansion in the Affordable Care Act of requirements for businesses to report information to the Internal Revenue Service on payments for goods of $600 or more annually to other businesses and increases the amount of overpayment subject to repayment of premium assistance tax credits for health insurance coverage purchases through the Exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.

Share this:

CNN radio reporter Lisa Desjardins writes on Twitter:

@ LisaDCNN : SENATE VOTES 47-53 against defunding the health care bill.

Share this:

ThinkProgress reports that Sen. Grassley has flip-flopped on his debt ceiling position:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), in keeping with other GOP lawmakers, recently stated that the GOP should not vote to increase the debt limit unless Democrats and President Obama make major concessions on federal spending cuts. That position, however, is exactly opposite the one he took in 2006, when he urged his Senate colleagues to unanimously vote to increase the debt limit, saying it should not be used “to control government debt and deficits.â€

More here.

Share this:
@ senatus : Budget votes, beginning w/ correcting resolutions, now underway in the Senate.

Share this:

The Associated Press reports:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama has signed the first rollback of last year's health care law, a bipartisan repeal of a burdensome tax-reporting requirement that's widely unpopular with businesses.

The bill Obama signed Thursday repeals a provision that would have forced millions of businesses to file tax forms for every vendor selling them more than $600 in goods each year, starting in 2012. The filing requirement is unrelated to health care. However, it would have been used to pay for part of the new health law by ensuring that vendors pay taxes.

Republicans hope it is the first of many such bills, resulting in the entire health care law being scrapped. Democrats say the bill is part of an inevitable tinkering that will be needed to improve the health measure.

More here.

Share this:

HuffPost's Elise Foley reports:

Nearly half of the House Republicans who opposed a budget deal on Thursday were freshmen, many of whom were voted into office in November by a surge in support for Tea Party candidates.

The “no†votes from GOP freshman only made up about 30 percent of the overall class, most of which supported the bill. Still, a number of freshmen said they were disappointed by the deal struck last week by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the White House.

The final deal cut about $38 billion from current spending levels -- much of it through budget gimmicks -- and blocked funding to certain programs. But the scope and level of the cuts were far lower than in the original House funding bill, which would have cut about $61 billion from the 2011 budget and slashed funding for Obama’s health care law, Planned Parenthood, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

For some freshmen Republicans, already skeptical of the deal, the final nail in the coffin was a report on Wednesday that claimed the bill cut only $352 million from the deficit this year -- a far cry from the $38 billion promised.

“It certainly didn’t help,†Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) said of the article.

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) told HuffPost he was disappointed with “a lot of things†about the funding deal, from the closed-door negotiations to the final total cut.

“The numbers continued to dissipate. We came here and people said $100 billion, then it goes down to 61, then it goes down to this, and it goes down to that,†West said before the vote. “We’re letting the American people down.â€

Huizenga, West and 26 other freshmen joined with longer-serving conservative Republicans such as Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio), Steve King (Iowa), Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Mike Pence (Ind.) to vote against the bill.

Other freshmen GOP members said they were unhappy with the final deal, but would still support it. Pennsylvanian Rep. Lou Barletta said he was displeased with cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, but had to swallow concerns to support the bill.

“It’s not perfect, but it’s certainly far from what they would like to do around here, and that’s spend more,†he said referring his Democratic rivals.

Share this:

The Associated Press writes:

WASHINGTON — Tough re-election campaigns looming, a handful of moderate Senate Democrats on Thursday choose between voting to cut off funds for President Barack Obama's health care law or showing their continued their support for the increasingly unpopular law.

The deal on the spending bill struck by Obama, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., requires a separate vote on cutting off money for the year-old health care overhaul. The effort is expected to fall short in the Senate, but it will put lawmakers on record – a prospect Republicans looking ahead to 2012 relish.

Moderate Democrats such as Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska stood with Obama and Democratic leaders in endorsing the health care law. Abandoning it now would draw charges of flip-flopping while voting to keep the cash flowing could engender voters' wrath.

"People are going to have to make a tough choice, but they're going to be held accountable either way," said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the committee that helps Republicans get elected to the Senate.

Referring to the original votes on the law, Cornyn said, "It's a dilemma of their own making."

McCaskill, Tester and Nelson have drawn GOP rivals in states that either trend heavily Republican (Montana and Nebraska) or stand as electoral battlegrounds (Missouri). Freshman Sen. Joe Manchin has no announced foes in West Virginia and remains popular, but his state voters strongly backed Republican presidential nominee John McCain over Obama by 13 percentage points in 2008.

More here.

Share this:

HuffPost's Amanda Terkel reports:

With many pro-choice advocates upset that the budget deal included restrictions on access to abortion in D.C., 33 Democratic House members voted against the legislation today. One of those lawmakers was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who tweeted, "I voted no on the CR today-we can do better by women, students, #DC and investing in our future."

Thirteen Democratic women voted for the bill.

Share this:

HuffPost Blogger Rep. Carolyn Maloney writes:

The Republicans seem to have a bit of a problem these days with truth in advertising. Because, for all their nice soundbites and talking points about reducing the deficit and creating jobs, the Republican Roadmap to Prosperity is most notable for two things. If followed, it would increase the deficit and kill American jobs.

The GOP's widely advertised, surefire method of deficit reduction is not unlike those late night TV infomercials that claim "you can shed those ugly pounds fast without dieting or exercise!" Ask any real doctor and they will tell you that without a responsible program of exercise and diet, the only surefire path to weight loss would be disease. And in fact, a grim variety of social illness is pretty much what the Republicans are pitching. They are trying to sell you a plan to put all the burden of getting our financial house in order on the middle class, the poor, the disadvantaged, the infirm and the elderly.

More here.

Share this:

CNN reports on elements of the budget deal agreed upon in the House today:

Under the deal, $38.5 billion would be from the budget for the remainder the fiscal year, which ends September 30. Among other things, the package slashes funding from a wide range of domestic programs and services, including high-speed rail, emergency first responders, and the National Endowment for the Arts.

As part of the agreement, Congress is also scheduled to vote Thursday on measures to de-fund Planned Parenthood and Obama's health care overhaul. While the bills are expected to pass the House, they have virtually no chance of clearing the Democratic-controlled Senate.

One point of concern for conservatives was a report released Wednesday by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office showing that of the $38.5 billion in savings, only $352 million will actually be realized this fiscal year. Boehner insisted Thursday that all of the cuts will take effect eventually, but conceded that the analysis "has caused some confusion" among House members.

"There are some who claim that the spending cuts in this bill ... are gimmicks," he said on the House floor. "I just think it is total nonsense. A cut is a cut."

More here.

Share this:

HuffPost's Jason Linkins writes:

Wednesday, Politico offered President Obama some advice on how to approach his afternoon deficit speech in a piece titled "7 things Obama needs to do." And for some reason, MediaMatters' Simon Maloy actually read the damn thing, and was surprised to learn that the piece actually offered all sorts of conflicting advice -- almost as if Politico should maybe stay out of this whole "advice to presidents" game.

How conflicting was it? In the second paragraph, they advise the president to "signal to Republicans that he's open to compromise." In paragraph 5, they caution "no matter what Obama says Wednesday, he won't go far enough to satisfy most Republicans." Which would tend to make the whole "signalling an openness to compromise" part a pretty useless endeavor.

More here.

Share this:

Politico reports that Republicans had to reach out to Democrats in order to pass Thursday's vote in the House:

Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) stepped forward to support the package together with old Democratic allies on the House Appropriations Committee. Across the aisle, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) — who bore the brunt of the dissent as fellow leaders stood silently by — bluntly told his colleagues: “This is the best we could get out of divided government.â€

With 59 Republicans defecting, Boehner and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) knew that help was needed, but the dynamics were such that Democrats held back to milk the crisis facing the GOP. Ultimately 81 Democrats — many of whom had planned to do so all week — joined in support, but the majority only cast their votes in the final minute.

More here.

Share this:

ABC News Correspondent Jonathan Karl writes on Twitter:

@ jonkarl : Initial count: 60 Republican freshman voted YES on the spending deal. Only 27 voted no.

Share this:

HuffPost's Jon Ward writes on Twitter:

@ jonward11 : RT @sethdmichaels: RT @2chambers The deal has passed, 260 to 167. With six not voting. 59 Rs voted no, 81 Dems voted yes.

Share this:
@ NancyPelosi : I voted no on the CR today-we can do better by women, students, #DC and investing in our future.

Share this:

The Washington Post writes about the budget deal recently approved by the House:

Eliminating any threat of a government shutdown until the fall, the House on Thursday approved a funding plan that reduces federal agency budgets by more than $38 billion for the second half of the year.

On a 260-167 vote, a bipartisan coalition supported the plan, as conservatives revolted over what they considered budgeting gimmicks and liberals opposed the plan as too draconian in its impact on programs that benefit lower-income individuals.

The Senate will take up the measure Thursday evening and is expected to pass it on a large bipartisan vote, sending it to the White House for President Obama’s signature in time to meet the Friday midnight deadline for when the current funding resolution expires.

More here.

Share this:

The House has passed the budget bill: 260-167.

Share this:

HuffPost's Sam Stein writes on Twitter:

@ samsteinhp : this thing passed.

Share this:

HuffPost's Jon Ward writes on Twitter:

@ jonward11 : CR now has 218 votes and will pass barring some unforeseen change in votes. shutdown averted.

Share this:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama and Congress are shifting from short-term budget concerns to debates over the nation's long-term economic future, and everything - from Medicare and Medicaid ...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama and Congress are shifting from short-term budget concerns to debates over the nation's long-term economic future, and everything - from Medicare and Medicaid ...
Filed by Mark Hanrahan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,210
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (136 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:09 PM on 04/13/2011
If steep cuts to Corporate Welfare and the blank check for the Pentagon/MIC aren't on the table
or part of the equation the Budget should be rejected out of hand.We are headed down the same
path that doomed the USSR and the Roman Empire
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:09 PM on 04/12/2011
"Certainly, continuing to promise low taxes for 98% of the country will help his newly launched 2012 re-election campaign."

He promised that the last time, and promised to end cuts for millionaires. How'd that work out for ya?
An added expense of $350 billion for two years? and now we're fighting over $38 billion? Get some perspective. He can't campaign on that without voters laughing at him.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USAFree1
02:26 PM on 04/12/2011
This country does NOT have a deficit problem; we have a revenue problem. If you're gonna raise revenue: end these wars, cut defense by half, raise taxes and collect them from the wealthy and corporations, establish tariffs (again), punish companies that take American jobs to other countries.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:10 PM on 04/12/2011
Defense spending has increased by 80% since 2001 so we need to cut at least 80%.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
10:38 AM on 04/12/2011
It is difficult to remember ANY Speaker of the House so bent on NOT cooperating with the president. None. Of either party. Boehner's attitude makes it seem as if he is the competing president of the US. Can't see that playing well with most Americans in the future.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joe Friday
11:08 AM on 04/12/2011
MC ... Maybe every voter who voted against what's his name, supports this speaker? They sure disliked the last speaker!
photo
Axekick
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolve
11:14 PM on 04/12/2011
I think Boehner is scared to death of the "tea party' and that they will focus their sights on him if he doesn't appease them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joe Friday
09:21 AM on 04/13/2011
Axman ..... It's Liberals that fear "Tea People"! Even Barry is caving today with his tax & cut scheme! That's going to be DOA in Tealand!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheDuke75
Of the People, For the People and By the People
10:11 AM on 04/12/2011
It's amazing how on Sept. 29th, 2008, Boehner stood on the House floor as Minority Leader and was almost screaming about how we needed the Tarp Program. How the economy needed the stimulus to create jobs. Yet today, the Republicans have yet to create a single job through thier policies.For most of the last 35 or 40 years, this country has been run on Republican policy, form Reagan, both Bushes and control of Congress, yet thier policies have yet to work. No trickle down economics, only created wealth for the already wealthy. Jobs were created under Clinton by raising taxes and then he went along with the Republicans on NAFTA. He also admitted it was a mistake. Today, Boehner cries about (not literally) about the stimulis spending and Tarp, programs he once supported and cried about (literally) that we needed, done under who, Bush 43. What's changed today, except that the economy is worse and the Republicans are more obstructionist.
07:48 AM on 04/12/2011
Democrats and Republican voter know we need to have real cuts in order to have any chance of balancing a budget. We can no longer continue not confronting serious issue that are hands off.

Raise the age on Social Security. Yes people are living longer and anyone over 55 will not be effected. Confronting this now will make a big difference.

If you live in New York City and are making $250,000 a year with a family you will still be having a tough time depending on how many children you have. Raise it to anyone making over $500,000 a year and when Republicans cry those POOR people making over $500,000 year will have to pay more taxes they will be chased out of office by there own voters.

No more subsidies for Oil companies which are in the billions.

Medicare must be reviewed and made to be more efficient and some here have very good ideas on how to do that starting with Pharm. companies.

We have one of the highest corporate taxes in the world and many big American corporations are having there head office overseas and we are not receiving any of the taxes from them. We must make a one time deal to bring the money back perhaps 15% tax and them lower all cooperate taxes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
dc2nm
I don't want a micro-bio.
11:04 AM on 04/12/2011
I agree with everything except raising the age on SS. Many demographics, including the poor and minorities, are not living longer. Their life expectancy has actually dropped.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
dc2nm
I don't want a micro-bio.
11:12 AM on 04/12/2011
Also disagree with your last comment. These multinational corporations will just continue to hop from nation to nation to take advantage of whatever incentives are offered. They have no sense of responsibility to any society and will continue to take more than they give. Provide the breaks only to small businesses...they actually care about their communities and provide jobs here in the country.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:05 PM on 04/13/2011
Tax corporations on revenue generated here regardless of where they are headquartered
if they don't like it then prohibit them from conducting any business here. No corporate
responsibility should result a ban any further business with the citizens or more importantly
with the government. Let them exist in their tax haven and the revenue it provides them.
AgingLady
laughter is best medicine
01:30 AM on 04/12/2011
Please cut subsidies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaliTLC
The GOP is a MORIBUND Party
09:26 PM on 04/12/2011
YES!!
photo
Heartlight3
Every act is an act of self-definition.
11:26 PM on 04/11/2011
Why is it that most other civilized countries can provide health care for all their citizens for less money than it costs us for health care? When they make that calculation, are they talking about total health care costs or just the amount that it costs the government? Or do they take into consideration the that our citizens are paying big bucks in premiums in addition to what the government pays? Especially in light of the numbers stated in dutchman's post, it seems we might learn something from some of these other countries. Oh, yeah, I forgot, we are the best, we have nothing to learn from others' experience. We have to figure everything out for ourselves.
ScaredAcademic
The GOP: Peddling Hate Since '68
04:45 AM on 04/12/2011
The last part is right on. We pay more for a few reasons. First, we have profits built in that raise costs (and almost no controls). Second, one of the most powerful lobbies in the country is the AMA and they squelch attempts to expand the supply of doctors because it would lower salaries. With state licensing requirements and all of that, doctors have a government sanctioned monopoly but no government regulation of monopoly rents. Third, we pay something like 3/4 of global pharmaceutical R&D costs because other countries simply refuse to and use their single-payer bargaining power to drive down prices. The American (George W. Bush) way was to ban the government from bargaining when Medicare brought the prescription drug benefit into action to lock this transfer from taxpayers to Big Pharma in and make sure the AARP protects it.
photo
johngary66
Accused of heresy and decided to go with that.
04:50 PM on 04/12/2011
You want a reason why we have to pay more for health care? Here's a big one. In 2006 United Health Group gave it's CEO at the time, Dr. William McGuire, backdated stock options valued at what the Wall Street Journal at that time estimated to be $1.7 Billion. Other company executive also received backdated stock options estimated at the time to be valued at over $2.5 Billion. Fortunately the Bush SEC couldn't turn their backs at backdated stock of that magnitude so McGuire was fined and required to return over $600 million to the other stock holders. He also lost his job. Don't feel to bad for McGuire,his salary averaged over the previous five years was $125 million per. Blood money all of it. How many people who paid their premiums religiously do you think had to be denied coverage to generate enough profit for just a few executives to be given outrageous compensation? Social Security and Medicare have had an administration cost over many years of about 2%. Somebody please tell me why we need the Health Insurance Companies at all? Never mind the BS. We don't! And yet Obama, who received almost a million dollars for his campaign that we know about from Insurance companies. just handed them a huge bonanza by trying to force all of us to buy from these greedy blood suckers. His idea of health care reform was full employment for insurance executives. Screw the rest of us.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hangdogit
Progressive with some Libertarian (abolish DEA).
11:20 PM on 04/11/2011
Of course, tax increases should be "on the table" -- and never should have been off it -- never raising taxes again ever is pure fiscal lunacy. They may be 1/2 of the solution to the debt problem that we have -- simply the other side of every balance sheet ever created.

Even Reagan's budget guy agrees and (like all his ideas or not) he knows about budget numbers:

http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?10766-David-stockman-and-tax-increases
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TOPCAT711
What a Long Strange Trip It's Been
11:08 PM on 04/11/2011
Yo....Prez....could we phase out a war or two ?
11:08 PM on 04/11/2011
I realize some cuts have to be made, but it can't just be those programs that serve the under- privileged. Folks i'm sorry, but taxes are going to have to be raised(notably on the rich and corporations) We can ignore it all we want, ( the 800 pound gorilla) but it has to come sooner or later.
11:02 PM on 04/11/2011
Raise taxes on the rich. They are not paying their fair share.
ScaredAcademic
The GOP: Peddling Hate Since '68
06:36 PM on 04/12/2011
Who owned the equity stakes that were preserved by TARP and all that? Those people should be paying way more in taxes.

As it happens, that's easy to do. Raise sufficient taxes on the wealthy to at least pay for the stimulus through debt retirement including the interest. After all, without TARP, the Treasury should own Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and a host of others.
10:55 PM on 04/11/2011
Last year the IRS audited about 1% of individual returns and collected $56 Billion from tax evaders.

8% of returns over $1 Million were audited, and a higher percentage is planned this year.

Auditing a return costs the IRS only about 53 cents per $100 collected!!!!!!!

What other investment can you think of that promises a return of over 18,000% per year! (eighteen thousand percent! A savings account is about 1%)

This is one area where we definitely need bigger government. I would like to see a box to check on the 1040 form for a voluntary contribution to fund MORE TAX AUDITORS. Before we raise taxes on anyone who is currently complying with the law, why not increase the audit rate from the pathetic 1% to 10%, 20%, 50% and keep going until it BREAKS EVEN.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/irs-audits-jump-by-11-per_n_797707.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/27/irs-audits-richest-americans_n_840627.html
11:05 PM on 04/11/2011
missed an 'l' on that first link- sorry

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/irs-audits-jump-by-11-per_n_797707.html