World News Today
Kasich Soros puppet master
VETERANS HEALTH CARE
SOCIAL SECURITY MEDICARE
SOCIAL SECURITY MEDICARE
Medicare Bill
Women Veterans Health  care
veterans
GUN CONTROL AUSTRALIA UK
PAUL RYAN Budget
UN AGENDA 21 EXPOSED
VOUCHERS EXPOSED
Secret Treaty ruin America
New World Order exposed
 loss of sovereignty
THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE (TPP)
Republicans target disability
Human Trafficking
Breaking News Koch Bro
 “Affordable” “Care”
UN GUN BAN
Treason by Holder
Eric Holder Unfit to be in JD
OBAMA CARE SUPREME COURT
AMERICA
BLACK CRIME AGAINST WHITES no teported
Ferguson Race Riots
NEWS
Columbia Students
Ebola GOV.
Hillary Clinton's Greatest Scandal
Obama
REPUBLICAN
DEMOCRAT
BLACK CRIME AGAINST WHITES
UK Drugs
China
Bernie Sanders Storms CNN
SUPER PAC DONATION
Gas Tax
Veteran benefits under attack
75 REPUBLICANS VOTED
The List: The 20 GOP Turncoats Who Voted For Loretta Lynch
RICK PERRY BILDERBERG GROUP
About
About
About
About
e-mail me

Senate GOP budget to break with Paul Ryan’s blueprints

By Alexander Bolton - 03/15/15 06:00 AM EDT Senate Republicans will not include detailed plans to overhaul entitlement programs when they unveil their first budget in nearly a decade this week, according to GOP sources.

Paul Ryan Clarifies: I Hate All Poor People, Not Just Black People





The decision would break from Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) House budgets from recent years, which Democrats used to pound Republican candidates in the 2012 and 2014 elections.

Democrats repeatedly accused Republicans of wanting to “end Medicare as we know it. In breaking with Ryan, Senate Republicans want to avoid giving their opponents the same ammunition — especially with a slim majority and in danger of losing their majority in 2016. The GOP budget would balance in 10 years, according to GOP lawmakers familiar with the document, but it will only propose savings to be achieved in Medicare and Medicaid, without spelling out specific reforms as Ryan and House Republicans did in recent budgets.

The Senate GOP blueprint will not propose reforming Social Security, the political third rail that Ryan also avoided as former chairman of the House Budget Committee.

“From the standpoint of a budget, the less words of the English language you use, the better off you are,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a senior member of the Budget panel.

When it comes to saving money in Medicare and Medicaid, Grassley said it’s preferable to “just have figures in there” instead of spelling out specific reforms, as Ryan did.

One GOP senator said Ryan exceeded his authority as budget chairman when he sketched out a detailed vision for overhauling entitlement programs.

“He spent a lot of time working on it but he had no power to write Medicare reform,” said the lawmaker, who argued the power to reform entitlement programs lies with the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means panel.

Ryan became chairman of Ways and Means at the beginning of this year.

“We don’t have the power to write the details of Medicare, Medicaid, certainly not Social Security,” the GOP senator said. “You can direct the committee to do it and direct how much money they can spend but the details on how to reform it will not be done in the Budget Committee.”

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) is expected to release his budget plan on Tuesday and his panel will consider it on Wednesday and Thursday.

A senior Senate GOP aide said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants to return to “regular order” and would prefer the Finance Committee and other panels of jurisdiction to sort out the messy details of entailment reform instead of the Budget Committee.

Ryan’s plan curbed Medicare costs by giving future beneficiaries below the age of 55 a subsidy that could be used toward private insurance premiums, instead of having the government pay doctors and hospitals directly. His plan raised the eligibility age for Medicare by two months per year starting in 2022.

Ryan also proposed replacing Medicaid with a block grant program whereby states would received a fixed sum indexed to inflation and population growth to pay for the healthcare needs of lower-income residents.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank, estimated last year that Ryan’s proposals would cut Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program by 26 percent by 2024.

Many Republicans praised Ryan’s vision at the time he unveiled his budget. Forty GOP senators voted for it when Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) forced them to vote on it in the last Congress.

But they are not eager to take another tough vote on entitlement reforms, at least this month, when the Senate GOP budget is scheduled for floor consideration.

The Finance Committee will be given a target savings number that it can use as the basis for an entitlement reform package that may come to the floor later this year, likely under special procedural rules known as reconciliation that would allow it to pass with a simple majority vote.

Some Republicans privately criticized Ryan after he became House Budget Chairman in 2011 for pushing bold entitlement reforms from his perch.

“Ryan was criticized for putting out as much detail as he did,” said one GOP member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Another senior Senate GOP aide said Ryan still acknowledged the jurisdiction of other committees.

“Keep in mind, the House budget had this in their report: ‘The committees of jurisdiction will make the final determinations on specific Medicare reforms,’” the aide said.

Former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said he supported Ryan’s approach but acknowledged it was a departure from precedent.

“Paul Ryan was laying out a very positive approach for how he thinks things should be,” said Gregg, a columnist for The Hill. “Historically the budget should be about the top-line number. It’s inappropriate for the Budget Committee to expect the Finance Committee to do anything other than follow the top-line number.”

He said Ryan’s approach was useful for giving his party a goal for entitlement reform but that he was not required by his relatively narrow duties as budget chairman to do so.

Shai Akabas, associate director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said Paul staked out bold new ground as head of the budget panel.

“The budgets that lay out new policies are sort of going beyond what the required components of the budget are. In the past, parties have not done large reform platforms through the Budget Act,” he said.

It’s unclear whether new House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) will follow in Ryan’s footsteps either. But with a 30-seat majority, House Republicans can be more aggresive than the Senate GOP. “Chairman Price, members of the committee, and the House Republican Conference are working together to build the FY 2016 budget,” said his spokesman, William Allison.

TAGS:Paul Ryan, Mike Enzi, Mitch McConnell, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Budget
FRI AUG 12, 2011 AT 07:20 AM PDT Right-Wing Lies & Status Updates byJon StaffordFollow

Salary of US President.........................$400,000 Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 FOR LIFE Salary of House/Senate ......................$174,00​0 FOR LIFE Salary of Speaker of the House ............$223,500 FOR LIFE Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ...... $193,400 FOR LIFE Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN $38,000 I think we found where the cuts should be made! If you agree...REPOST.....keep it going...... Those right-wing trolls sure are industrious little buggers, aren't they? But, like most of their tropes, this one is full of lies, exaggerations, and red herrings.

First of all, it's just factually incorrect. The only "salary" on that list paid FOR LIFE is that of retired US presidents. Members of Congress do not get paid a salary once they leave office. They do get a pension, based on how many years they have served, but like most pensions it is less than they made in office. Sometimes a lot less, if they weren't there very long.

But the whole thing is ridiculous. The idea that cutting these salaries would have any appreciable affect on the nation's finances is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid. Even if you cut all of them in half, you'd save, what, about $50 million? Sounds like a lot, right? And it is a lot, at least to most people. (It sure is to me!) But in the context of the federal government it is miniscule -- 0.002% of the budget for fiscal year 2012. Try trimming 0.002% off your household budget and see how far it gets you.
You can't compare the salaries of people at the highest echelons of government, in the mightiest nation on Earth (at least for now), with what the average attendee at a Tea Party rally makes. Well, unless the Koch brothers happen to show up. The fact is that these are highly educated, highly accomplished people with an earning potential far beyond what they make as elected officials. They certainly wouldn't be cashiers at Wal-Mart. $400K might be a lot to most people (again, it sure is to me), but compared to what the CEO of even a middling sized corporation makes it's a pittance. There are lots of things wrong with our system, not least of which the influence of private money on public policy. Not to mention the revolving door of former elected officials making millions working for lobbying firms. But no one gets rich from their government salary. Most people take a pay cut when they go into public life. If the people posting these status updates think it's so great, they are free to run for office themselves.

Finally, there is the comparison with the sainted American Soldier. Unpopular truth: Not all soldiers are heroes. In fact, most of them are not. Which is not to say they are not good people. But they are folks doing a job. That the job they do happens to involve the risk of getting killed is unfortunate, but that fact was not hidden from them when they signed up. I'm not saying it's not an incredibly tough job, because it is. I wouldn't want to do it. But that's why I don't. And that's the point. We don't have a draft any more. Maybe we should, but we don't. Every single soldier in the military is there because they CHOSE to be there.

Which leads to another unpopular truth: A disturbingly large number of soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be there if they were qualified to do anything else. Yes, there are some who signed up to serve their country, and that's laudable. But a huge number of them just needed a job and had no other options. And that sucks. In fact it's a huge problem with our society. But it doesn't automatically make those soldiers any more noble or heroic. I don't want to see anyone die. I don't want to see any more mothers lose their children, or children lose their parents. In fact I think we should stop throwing our soldiers' lives away and bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. But do they get paid too little? I don't know about that. Frankly, $38K for a 22-year-old kid with a high school education and a rifle sounds a little high to me. If we truly valued these young people's lives we would put the systems in place to provide them the opportunity to build better lives, and not just treat them as cannon fodder.

These kind of "chain posts" feed into two troubling trends in American society today, both favorite themes of the Tea Party: The idea that public employees should not be paid at a competitive rate, and the deification of the American soldier. Scapegoating and idol worship never solved anything.