Google Search

Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts

Monday, May 19, 2014

House Republicans are doing work – and encourage Senate Dems to do the same

In this week’s Republican address, the authors of more than a dozen House-passed jobs bills call on President Obama and Senate Democrats to act and match the House’s focus on the economy.

Each of these bills are aimed at creating jobs, strengthening the American economy, and easing the squeeze for hard-working Americans. These are only a few of the 232 bills stuck in the Senate, and as Rep. John Kline (R-MN) said, “More are in the works.”

For House Republicans, the focus remains on building a stronger economy and a better America. “It’s time for President Obama and Senate democrats to step up and make that their priority, too,” said Kline.

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI): H.R. 890 passed to “Protect reforms that help thousands of welfare recipients find jobs and lift their families out of poverty.”

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC): H.R. 803, helps “More American workers gain the skills and education necessary to compete for in demand jobs.”

Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE): H.R. 3 approves the building of The Keystone XL Pipeline, and “supports more than 42,000 direct and indirect jobs.”

Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL): H.R. 1406 will “Allow private sectors to take advantage of the comp-time benefits that public employees enjoy.”

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV): H.R. 761 targets “The development of strategic and critical minerals used to support American and manufacturing jobs.”

Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX): H.R. 2481 aimed at “Providing our service members with the tools that will help them find good jobs when they return home.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO): H.R. 1965 will “Make it easier to develop resources that will lower energy costs and reduce dependency on foreign oil.”

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA): H.R. 3309 will “Promote innovation and job creation by helping businesses defend themselves from abusive patent litigation.”

Rep. George Holding (R-NC): H.R. 2804 passed to “Reign in red tape and increase transparency of new regulations, so small businesses can better plan ahead.”

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL): H.R. 3474 will “Incentivise small businesses to hire more of our veterans.”

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH): H.R. 2824 passed to “Fight back against the administration’s war on coal that’s destroying jobs and causing electricity prices to skyrocket.”

Rep. Todd Young (R-IN): H.R. 2575 will “Restore working hours and wages that millions of part-time employees lost because of Obamacare.”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX): The recently passed H.R. 4438 will “Permanently extend research and development tax credit, so we can keep good ideas and good jobs right here at home.”

Rep. John Kline (R-MN): Also recently passed, H.R. 10 intends to “Strengthen charter schools and encourage more choice and opportunity through our education system.”


View the original article here

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Senate backs Medicaid expansion

The Arizona Senate on Thursday approved expanding the state's Medicaid program, capping a rancorous debate that had split the Republican Party and had been building since January, when Gov. Jan Brewer issued a surprise call to increase Arizona's health-care program for the poor.

How they voted on Medicaid expansion

YES

Sen. Ed Ableser, D-Tempe

Sen. David Bradley, D-Tucson

Sen. Olivia Cajero-Bedford, D-Tucson

Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa

Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix

Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson

Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix

Sen. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix

Sen. Jack Jackson Jr., D-Window Rock

Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix

Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Tucson

Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix

Sen. Barbara Maguire, D-Kearny

Sen. Robert Meza, D-Phoenix

Sen. Lynne Pancrazi, D-Yuma

Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott

Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale

Sen. Anna Tovar, D-Tolleson

Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa

NO

Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix

Sen. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert

Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West

Sen. Chester Crandell, R-Heber

Sen. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford

Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson

Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Peoria

Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma

Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City

Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler

Sen. Kimberly Yee, R-Phoenix

A handful of Senate Republicans teamed with Democrats to approve the fiscal 2014 budget plan and overcome a flood of amendments intended to scuttle Medicaid expansion, pushing through the governor's top legislative priority on a 19-11 vote after three hours of debate.

Although the legislation faces an uncertain future in the House, its passage late Thursday was a key victory in the governor's effort to bring health care to an additional 350,000 Arizonans.

Brewer and her supporters -- including some who, like her, oppose the federal health-care overhaul that makes expansion possible -- said Arizona could not afford to reject the billions of federal dollars that come with it.

But opponents of expanding the state-federal health-care program for the poor and disabled, including Republican legislative leaders, said it goes too far, beefing up an already unaffordable, unsustainable government entitlement program that goes against GOP principles and discourages people from taking responsibility for their own health care.

A standoff set in for weeks, with Senate President Andy Biggs, who was an early and ardent expansion opponent, saying he would not bring a Medicaid expansion bill to the floor and House Speaker Andy Tobin saying he didn't like Brewer's plan and was working on alternatives.

On Tuesday, Biggs cranked the legislative machinery into gear and started moving toward a vote on the fiscal 2014 budget without Medicaid. By bringing it to the floor, it allowed proponents of Medicaid expansion the opening they needed, setting up what Biggs called "the most consequential decision of a generation."

Weighing down the bill

The maneuvering began the evening before the vote, and it could be heard as the copy shop in the state Senate buzzed with activity.

As soon as the Senate Appropriations Committee finished its work Wednesday afternoon, setting up Thursday's vote, lawmakers started flooding staffers with budget amendments for the floor session.

By 6 p.m. Wednesday, Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City, had filed seven amendments designed to weigh down the expansion proposal. Ward, a physician and freshman lawmaker, is one of the Senate's most outspoken Medicaid- expansion opponents.

Biggs came in with 13 anti-expansion amendments.

Majority Leader John McComish, R-Phoenix, filed two amendments, which contained the heart of the fight.

Though he had not publicly expressed support for the plan, he was thought to be on board and, in the end, became the spear carrier for Medicaid expansion.

In all, there were 24 Medicaid-related amendments, and 34 were related to other parts of the budget.

Decision day

Thursday opened with a tense Republican caucus meeting. GOP senators aired their differences on the the expansion proposal as a crowd of lobbyists, reporters and Capitol regulars listened in.

Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Peoria, called McComish's sponsorship of the Medicaid-expansion amendment a "betrayal" because most of his GOP colleagues were opposed to it.

And, he predicted, the move would be an incentive for more Arizonans to take a cut in pay so they would qualify for state-sponsored health coverage.

Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, urged his colleagues to reject the lure of the federal money that would pay for most of the expansion.

"To me, it's immoral and unethical to accept this money," he said.

The meeting lasted an hour and a half. McComish held his comments to the end.

"People of good faith and good conscience differ," he said. He wanted a civil debate.

With that, the meeting ended, and members filtered out of the room and up to the Senate floor, where proceedings opened with debate and voice votes on all the budget bills except the Kryptonite that is Medicaid expansion.

Other proposals pass

Proposals to increase spending on K-12, child welfare and universities passed with support from a changing array of three to six Republicans, who were joined by all 13 Democrats. Their amendments added about $34 million to the $8.8 billion budget, frustrating conservatives in what just two years ago was called the "tea party Senate."

Conservatives attempted to pressure their colleagues by forcing formal votes on motions to cut some of the spending.

They failed.

Ward, who is among the chamber's conservatives, tweeted: "The rolling of the conservative majority has begun."

Medicaid debate

Biggs had saved Medicaid for last and was ready with his amendments intended to kill, or at least weaken, the bill.

But again and again, McComish and four other GOP senators -- Majority Whip Adam Driggs and Sens. Rich Crandall, Steve Pierce and Bob Worsley -- stood with the chamber's 13 Democrats to defeat most of Biggs' amendments. And they teamed with Democrats to approve the Medicaid amendment on an 18-12 vote.

Democrats remained mostly silent, letting McComish do most of the work defending the governor's plan.

"We're faced with two unpleasant choices," he said. "If we don't do Medicaid expansion, our rainy-day fund will be totally wiped out."

Biggs chided his colleagues for not taking more time to consider such an enormous public-policy issue and warned that they would regret their decision for generations to come.

There had been no hearings, not even a proper bill, he said, just an amendment tacked on during floor debate -- hardly befitting a decision of this magnitude.

"This is the most important policy decision that we've encountered in a generation," Biggs said during a rambling floor speech that included lessons about why the federal government -- "a dubious partner" -- should not be trusted.

Unfair 'burden'

"This is not about expanding health care because it's some kind of altruistic program. It's about expanding health care to get federal money," Biggs said. "The money will unfairly burden our children and our grandchildren."

Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, made an impassioned plea for an amendment to require a two-thirds majority vote in keeping with a 1998 voter-approved law intended to curb tax and fee hikes.

The assessment on hospitals, although it would be implemented by the state's Medicaid program, is clearly a tax, he said, adding that failing to require a supermajority approval is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent.

Two of Biggs' amendments were successful, including one requiring a three-year "sunset" review by the Legislature of the expanded health-care program. That provision also is contained in a package of bills unveiled this week by House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden.

The second amendment requires the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid program, to report each year how much uncompensated care hospitals are claiming and the amount each hospital pays in provider taxes.

The debate went on for three hours, then ended abruptly after the underlying budget bill, with the Medicaid-expansion amendment, won approval on a voice vote.

In a statement, Brewer thanked the Senate "for acting in a bipartisan, courageous and collegial fashion …. to approve the single most critical policy issue that has faced our state in years."

Next steps

House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, said he has not studied what he calls the Senate budget and can't yet say what he'll do with it. But, he said, he won't move a budget along unless he has Brewer's support. And he won't take up Medicaid expansion unless he has the support of at least half of his 36-member Republican caucus.

If he sends the Senate budget to the House Appropriations Committee, it appears a hostile welcome awaits it.

Chairman John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, called the Senate legislation so loaded with personal vendettas that have resulted from a rift in the GOP caucus in the Senate that he may just toss the whole proposal and start over.

"This is not policy, this is politics," he said.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Ex-Navy SEAL Gomez wins GOP primary for US Senate

BOSTON — BOSTON Democratic U.S. Rep. Edward Markey and Republican former Navy SEAL Gabriel Gomez won their party primaries on Tuesday, setting up a race between a 36-year veteran of Washington politics and a political newcomer for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by John Kerry.

Markey defeated fellow U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch in the Democratic primary while Gomez, who's also a businessman, bested former U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan and state Rep. Daniel Winslow in the GOP primary, according to unofficial returns. The special election is scheduled for June 25.

The race to fill the seat Kerry left to become U.S. secretary of state has been overshadowed by the deadly Boston Marathon bombing, and the candidates had to temporarily suspend their campaigns.

Even before the April 15 bombing, the campaign had failed to capture the attention of voters compared with the 2010 special election following the death of longtime Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy. Former Republican Sen. Scott Brown won the seat, surprising Democrats, but was ousted last year in another high-profile race by Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren.

Markey, 66, led all the other candidates in fundraising and had won the backing early on of Kerry and a large segment of the Democratic establishment. Lynch, a South Boston conservative and self-described "pro-life" Democrat, was dogged in part by his decision to vote against President Barack Obama's 2010 health care law.

Gomez, 47, was virtually unknown in Massachusetts politics before announcing his plan to run for Kerry's seat earlier this year.

Gomez, the son of Colombian immigrants, celebrated his outsider status, wearing his lack of Washington experience as a badge of honor. Gomez also had a compelling life story, learning to speak English in kindergarten before going on to become a Navy pilot and SEAL, earn an MBA at Harvard Business School and launch a career in private equity.

Gomez, of Cohasset, cast himself as the new face of the Republican Party, which has struggled to reach out to minority populations following the defeat last year of GOP presidential candidate and former Gov. Mitt Romney.

Gomez has introduced himself in Spanish in campaign ads and on the stump in a state where Hispanic voters are a small but growing slice of the population.

Sullivan, an early favorite among conservative Republicans, touted his law enforcement and national security background, having helped investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and the failed attempt to blow up an airliner using shoe bombs.

But Sullivan, of Abington, collected the smallest amount of campaign contributions of the three GOP candidates and was unable to run any statewide TV ads.

Winslow, a former judge from Norfolk who served as chief legal counsel in Romney's administration, finished third despite putting $150,000 of his own cash into the race.

While Gomez easily outraised his challengers he also loaned his campaign at least $600,000.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Obama’s Labor Nominee Faces G.O.P. Critics in Senate

WASHINGTON — Responding to sharp criticism from Republicans for his work on housing discrimination and voting rights at the Justice Department, Thomas E. Perez, President Obama’s choice to head the Labor Department, on Thursday defended his record and said that if confirmed, his focus would be on tackling the nation’s high unemployment rate.

Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the ranking Republican on the labor committee, cited a scathing report from other Republican lawmakers as he questioned Mr. Perez about a deal he helped broker with officials in St. Paul for the city to drop a housing discrimination lawsuit in exchange for the Justice Department’s declining to join two whistle-blower complaints against the city.

“That seems to me to be an extraordinary amount of wheeling and dealing outside the normal responsibilities of the assistant attorney general for civil rights,” Mr. Alexander said.

He later added that he expected Mr. Perez to respond in full to a subpoena from Representative Darrell Issa of California, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, for personal e-mails believed to contain more information about the deal.

Mr. Perez countered that not only had he sought the guidance of ethics experts on the agreement, his had not been the final word.

“The senior career people in the civil division kicked the tires on this case. They looked at it very carefully, they made a very considered judgment that it was a weak case,” he said.

Democrats were eager to voice their support for Mr. Perez, who, if confirmed would be the only Hispanic member of the cabinet.

Anticipating questions about the deal, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, the committee chairman, opened the questioning by leading Mr. Perez through a series of largely yes-or-no queries designed to rebut the Republican report.

“As I said, we have gone through this with a fine-tooth comb, with our lawyers, with our staff,” Mr. Harkin said. “And everything I can see is that you acted appropriately and ethically to advance the interests of the United States.”

Questioning the role of politics in Mr. Perez’s challenges to voting laws, Senator Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, brought up the Justice Department’s move to block that state’s voter identification law in 2011 on the grounds that it would discourage minority voters.

“As I look at your management style, it seems to have a political perspective, a political bias in the management style,” Mr. Scott said. “It seems not to be open and not to be balanced and certainly not to be fair.”

Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, released a statement in March vowing to block Mr. Perez’s nomination pending a response from the Justice Department on his accusations of uneven enforcement of voter registration rights in his state.

As expected, many of the questions focused on job creation, with senators from both parties asking about his commitment to the Job Corps, a training program for young people, among others.

“Jobs, jobs, and jobs,” Mr. Perez said, summing up his top priority as labor secretary. “I believe it’s critically important to get Americans back to work, and I believe the Department of Labor can play a critical role.”

The committee plans to take up the nomination again next week.


View the original article here

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

House awaits Senate action

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where comprehensive immigration reform went to die in 2006, is the wild card in this year's immigration-reform debate.

House leaders are taking a wait-and-see approach as the Senate begins crafting a bipartisan immigration-reform bill, and while advocates are optimistic about its chances, many House conservatives are sure to continue to oppose any polices that might be construed as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has signaled a willingness to tackle the issue this year in a bipartisan way, but he might have trouble getting a majority of his fellow Republicans to go along with him.

A decision to collaborate with Democrats on such a hot-button issue as immigration could put his leadership position in jeopardy.

Politically, the anti-amnesty sentiment continues to simmer with the grass-roots "tea party" activists who are often influential in GOP primaries.

And to some House Republicans, the long-term future electoral viability of the Republican Party may be a secondary priority to their avoiding a primary foe next year.

So far, Boehner has not endorsed or rejected the bipartisan framework that was announced last Monday by a group of four Democratic senators and four Republican senators.

Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Arizona Republicans, are among the so-called "Gang of Eight" who crafted the plan.

"Boehner is going to play this close to his chest, see what happens in the Senate and not commit too early," said David Cort, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. "Why waste political capital now when he doesn't have to? He can let the Senate go first."

Flake, who was sworn in as Arizona's newest senator last month after six terms in the House, understands the dilemma his former colleagues face.

"There are some who aren't excited about taking up this thing," said Flake, who already is trying to sell the Senate plan to House Republicans. "Anybody with elections every two years worries more about that. But I think everybody is anxious to see this in the rear-view mirror. So that's some motivation there."

Less risk in Senate

While there is no guarantee the Senate will ultimately pass a comprehensive bill, senators generally face fewer political risks in taking on divisive issues than House members do, analysts said.

In representing an entire state, senators tend to be accountable to a more politically diverse group of constituents and can take a more moderate view, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, immigration-law expert and professor of law at Cornell University.

They also have the relative luxury of having to face voters every six years rather than every two years as House members do.

That makes it a bit easier for them to look at issues from a longer-term perspective, Yale-Loehr said.

"Having to face re-election every two years can make a member of the House more cautious thinking about how this might affect his or her primary chances," he said. "Republicans have to worry about a primary-election challenge from a 'tea party' or other conservative candidate."

In 2006, the then-GOP-run Senate passed a comprehensive immigration-reform bill co-authored by McCain and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., but it went nowhere in the Republican-controlled House, which instead passed its own tough enforcement bill that also ultimately failed.

Later that year, Republicans lost control of both the House and Senate in a Democratic wave election. Republicans regained control of the House in the 2010 election.

On Wednesday, Politico reported that a group of eight House members -- four Democrats, four Republicans -- are quietly working on their own immigration-reform plan to offer to House leaders for consideration. None is from Arizona.

Flake acknowledged that some of his former GOP House colleagues who represent Republican-dominated districts could attract a primary foe by embracing comprehensive immigration reform.

However, even Republicans who come from areas with few Hispanic voters have an interest in solving the problem, he said.

"I hope that we have enough who say, 'I'll risk it in my primary, but, boy, for the good of my party, we need to broaden the base,'" Flake said.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is expected to be more open-minded toward immigration reform than his predecessor, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who has already condemned the Senate blueprint as "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

Likewise, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who chairs the panel's Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, is "a smart guy who approaches this thing in a very deliberative fashion," Flake said.

"With the people in place now, from Goodlatte to Gowdy to others, we are in a better position than we were before," Flake said.

Hopeful on consensus

While Arizona's two senators are in a leading role on reform, many of its House members are largely silent, though some are hopeful.

Rep. David Schweikert, a Republican who represents the northeast Valley, praised the Senate's efforts in a written statement to The Arizona Republic on Wednesday, revealing support for some principles of reform.

Like most Republicans, he argued enhanced border security is a must.

But he also said an immigration overhaul to deal with the millions of people living in the country illegally is "well overdue."

He cautioned that such a plan should not favor illegal immigrants over those who have been waiting in line to come legally to the United States.

"I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a fair and equitable solution that addresses the very real problems that exist in our system of immigration and border security," he said.

Rep. Ron Barber, a Democrat from Tucson, said he expects a bloc of Republicans to oppose reform but the group may not be large enough to hold up a bill.

"Coming out of the election, Republicans are reflecting across the board on what they need to do on a number of issues, where they stand and how they're perceived, and one of those issues is fixing the broken immigration system," Barber said.

He pointed to "major breaks" within the Republican caucus in recent weeks that aided passage of bills on the "fiscal cliff," Hurricane Sandy relief and the federal-debt ceiling.

"I really believe that can and will happen on immigration," he said.

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat who represents a swing district in northern Arizona, also is hopeful.

"I'm optimistic both parties can agree on some of these principles … and move past the stalemate that's been in place so long," Kirkpatrick said.

Freshman Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said she is grateful that Arizona's two senators are among those who are leading the reform effort.

"It's great for our state and it's great for the prospect of getting reform done," she said.

The Latino factor

The GOP-led House is more likely to pass comprehensive reform if it passes overwhelmingly in the Democratic-led Senate with strong support from Republican senators, Yale-Loehr said.

"But if it passes by just a few votes, I think that will make it harder to get something similar through the House," he said.

If the Senate sends over a strong bipartisan bill, Boehner most likely will call the House GOP caucus together and try to convince them that passage is key to the Republican Party's political future and its ability to attract the growing number of Latino voters, Cort said.

President Barack Obama won more than 70 percent of Latino voters in his re-election bid. Latino voters also overwhelmingly favored Democratic congressional candidates.

"I think Boehner will tell his GOP caucus that Republicans cannot afford to be blamed for the bill going down," Cort said. "He will tell them not to give the Democrats a weapon to use against them at the polls."

Jennifer Gordon, a law professor at Fordham University School of Law in New York City, said she believes the message will resonate with a growing number of House Republicans.

"Supporting reform may not be in the personal interests of some representatives, but it's unquestionably in the interests of the Republican Party as a whole," Gordon said. "The last election was a powerful message to the Republican Party. That's what makes me reluctant to make the standard prediction of it (reform) failing in the House."

Flake said he believes Boehner would be willing to move forward with an immigration bill even if a majority of House Republicans oppose it.

"He's done that a couple of times recently (passed bills largely with Democratic votes), and I think he will do it again," Flake said. "The desire to get immigration behind us extends pretty far and pretty deep, even with people who don't necessarily agree so much with the principles or the direction of it."

Boehner also could be helped by Republican political-action committees such as the Hispanic Leadership Network, which sent e-mails to House Republicans last week urging them to avoid inflammatory rhetoric in the coming debate that could alienate Latino voters.

The group, the Hispanic outreach arm of the American Action Network, cautioned GOP members against referring to immigrants as "illegals" or "aliens" or denouncing the Senate plan as "amnesty."

Meanwhile, Arizona's House members are reviving their bipartisan meetings in the new Congress, a move that the senior member of the delegation,Democratic Rep. Ed Pastor, hopes can help bring consensus on immigration and other issues.

The first outing was an evening social last month hosted by Republican Rep. Trent Franks.

Pastor plans to sponsor monthly delegation breakfasts beginning Feb. 14, and other members are expected to host events as well.

"They have their own interests, they have their own politics, they have districts they represent," Pastor said of his colleagues. "For me, it's holding conversations in a private manner to talk about (immigration reform) and try -- as legislation is developed and passed -- to speak with them and encourage and answer questions."

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted


View the original article here

Sunday, August 12, 2012

In Missouri Senate Race, Ads Beset Incumbent Democrat

As the three Republican candidates have battled it out, Ms. McCaskill has had to buckle down as well. Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, David and Charles Koch’s Americans For Prosperity, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 60 Plus Association have dumped as much as $15 million into the state since July 2011 to keep her on her heels.

In their advertisements, Ms. McCaskill’s face is sometimes bloated, sometimes goofy, sometimes exhausted. She is usually joined at the hip with President Obama. And she is always almost single-handedly to blame for Missouri’s economic travails, the nation’s skyrocketing debt, the Democrats’ health care law and a scandalous level of duplicity.

“As one guy said to me in rural Missouri, ‘Don’t worry, they’re trying to tenderize you before they pick a candidate,’ ” Ms. McCaskill said Thursday.

The sustained campaign could become a textbook for future efforts in a new era of anything-goes campaign financing, both Ms. McCaskill and her opponents say.

Most of the spending is coming from tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations like Crossroads GPS, which may accept large corporate and individual donations without disclosing donors’ identities. And the outcome could show that third-party advertising from these organizations and from “super PACs” — like Now or Never, which works on behalf of Sarah Steelman, one of the Republican candidates — could tip the balance to a larger degree in a statewide or Congressional race than in the presidential contest.

In other states with contested Republican primaries, like Arizona, Indiana and Wisconsin, outside money flowed in to take sides in the primaries themselves, leaving the Republican contenders wounded and the Democrat in better shape. In Missouri, it flowed in largely to take down the Democrat, providing vital air cover while the Republicans fought each other below the radar.

The three Republican candidates may be lesser known and less dynamic than Ms. McCaskill, a mainstay of Missouri politics, but she is possibly the most endangered incumbent in the Senate. A Mason-Dixon poll published on July 28 in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch found her trailing all three of her potential opponents, John Brunner, a businessman; Ms. Steelman, a former state treasurer; and Representative Todd Akin.

“When you have a late primary like in Missouri’s, the ability to keep a sustained message-fire on the incumbent is going to be important to whoever the nominee is going to be,” said Kenneth Goldstein, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks campaign television spending.

Republicans are reluctant to give the outside groups too much credit. They say Ms. McCaskill’s uphill climb to a second term is due to her fealty to Mr. Obama’s legislative agenda in a state where he is unpopular.

“Certainly the outside spending has reminded voters why they might not like her much,” said Todd Abrajano, an aide to Mr. Brunner. “But if there was no outside money, she’d still be in the predicament she is in today.”

But when pushed, Republicans do not deny that the groups have helped.

“They are keeping the pressure on McCaskill,” Mr. Akin said. “And that’s making any of us think, ‘We can do it, we can do it.’ ”

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, allowed, “I can’t deny it’s had some impact.”

The Missouri Senate race has drawn outside money from more than a half-dozen groups: two Democratic outfits, the Majority PAC and Patriot Majority USA; and five Republican allies. The Campaign Media Analysis Group tallied $5.2 million in ads since June 1, compared with $4.8 million in Ohio, $2.9 million in Florida, $1.5 million in Montana and $1.1 million in North Dakota, where other contested Senate campaigns have drawn outside attention.

The Majority PAC has spent $722,000 since June to help Ms. McCaskill. Crossroads GPS has spent $857,000 against her, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $190,000.

Democratic strategists say those numbers understate the impact. Crossroads GPS’s first ads ran in early July 2011, and since then, nine separate ads have come in a rolling barrage. When Crossroads GPS eased up in June, the chamber peaked in July. By the Democrats’ count, anti-McCaskill spending has already reached $15.2 million, with an additional $18 million in advertising slots reserved for the fall.

“People will look back at Missouri and look back at the money that’s been spent by outside forces and say this is an election that shows whether or not these anonymous masters of the universe can buy these elections,” Ms. McCaskill said. “If it works in Missouri, then I think we’re in for a rough ride in this country.”

Her opponents dismiss that. Since Ms. McCaskill’s narrow Senate victory in 2006, her state has drifted right. Mr. Obama lost Missouri in 2008 by fewer than 4,000 votes out of nearly three million cast. But in a 2010 Senate race, Roy Blunt, then a Republican representative, crushed Robin Carnahan, a Democratic scion of Missouri political royalty, by nearly 14 percentage points.

Some Missouri Republican strategists said the outside groups knew that Ms. McCaskill could not win and flooded the state to claim a scalp to take to their donors. Others said they saw her weakness and decided they could not forgive themselves if they let her off the mat.

For her part, Ms. McCaskill has made the outside money the main opponent of the campaign.

One McCaskill advertisement says: “They just keep coming back. Secret money attacking Claire McCaskill. These big oil and insurance companies don’t want you to know who they are.” As a stream of televisions showing her competitors’ ads moves across the screen, it continues: “Claire McCaskill will fight them. Always has, always will.”

Republicans say her effort has proved to be a major strategic error. Ms. McCaskill’s focus on the money has only intensified awareness of the campaign’s national importance, made her look defensive and increased the resolve of the outside groups to stay in, they say.

But Ms. McCaskill said that once her opponent was chosen, she could shift gears and try to move the race from a referendum on her to a choice between her and her opponent.

“I’ve had to tread water,” she said, “while they have been pounding me with certainly more per capita than anybody else in the country.”


View the original article here

Monday, July 30, 2012

In a U.S. Senate Runoff, Texas Republicans Spend to Agree

On the Republican side, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz, the former state solicitor general, agree on virtually every issue that could come before them in the Senate. But more than $40 million has been spent by the campaigns and outside groups trying to convince voters that the race provides an opportunity to upend all that is wrong with the federal government. If the wrong candidate wins, each side insists, the opportunity will have been wasted.

“Ted is being viciously attacked by the establishment because he will bring real change to Washington,” former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska says in a robocall for Mr. Cruz.

In Gov. Rick Perry’s latest advertisement for Mr. Dewhurst, he counters: “David’s the one candidate best prepared to make conservative change happen in Washington. Don’t let anyone tell you different.”

The Democratic candidates, former State Representative Paul Sadler of Henderson and Grady Yarbrough, a former teacher, have significant differences on the economy and illegal immigration, but they are struggling to draw the attention of voters or donors, as the campaigns’ spending is well under $1 million. Texas has not elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994.

Mr. Sadler said that those who dismiss Texas as a “red state” are ignoring how far to the right Mr. Dewhurst and Mr. Cruz are. Democrats have the chance to present a viable alternative, he said.

“The Republicans are singing the same hymnal,” Mr. Sadler said. “The real debate begins on Aug. 1, when there’s a contrast of substantive issues.”

Mr. Yarbrough agreed that Democrats are being underestimated. He has spent much of his savings on broadcasting television advertisements aimed at black and Hispanic voters.

“They’re the ones that put me in the runoff, and if I go to those voters and plead our case, I am sure they will come out again,” Mr. Yarbrough said. “I’m taking a $75,000 to $80,000 gamble here.”

Although the two races are drawing significantly different levels of interest, both have turned on whether the voters should value legislative experience.

Mr. Sadler says that only those who have held elected office are qualified to join the Senate. Mr. Dewhurst does not go quite as far but stresses his history of passing budgets and cutting taxes.

“You could argue that there’s not that much difference between us, other than that I’ve done all the things Mr. Cruz says that he wants to do,” Mr. Dewhurst said.

Both Mr. Cruz and Mr. Yarbrough dismiss “career politicians” as part of the problem in Washington.

“All over the country, Americans are fed up with the same tired establishment incumbents that don’t believe in anything,” Mr. Cruz told voters in Willis this month. “There is a tidal wave sweeping this country as Americans are looking for new leaders who will stand and fight and get back to the Constitution.”


View the original article here

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Senate Candidate in Hawaii Gets Unusual Support From Alaska

Linda Lingle may enjoy the broad and hopeful support of the Republican Party in her bid to fill an open Senate seat in Hawaii, but she can count out Representative Don Young of Alaska, a Republican who is not only supporting Ms. Lingle’s Democratic opponent, Representative Mazie K. Hirono, but went out of his way to make an ad with his House colleague.

After discussing his work with Ms. Hirono on an amendment that helped save funding for schools for native populations in their respective states, Mr. Young says: “Here’s what’s important, Hawaii: If you’re looking for a United States senator who doesn’t just talk about ‘bipartisanship,’ but actually knows how to work with both Republicans and Democrats to get things done, Mazie Hirono will be that senator.”

The often-irascible Mr. Young then tries to make unkind remarks about Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader and former speaker, while Ms. Hirono gives him a playful nudge.

Lawmakers from Hawaii and Alaska often bond over the far-flung and federally dependent nature of their states in a way that defies party loyalty. But endorsing a Democrat against a Republican challenger in a Senate race that could potentially help Republicans vault to a majority in the Senate, and to do it in such a public and aggressive manner, is unusual to say the least.

“Having worked together on several issues important to both Alaska and Hawaii,” said Luke Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Young, “Congressman Young and Congresswoman Hirono have developed a close personal friendship and working relationship. Congressman Young respects Congresswoman Hirono’s ability to work across party lines and do what’s best for the people of Hawaii.”

Mr. Young should not expect to hear “mahalo” from his fellow Republicans.


View the original article here

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Wisconsin: Democrats Take Senate

Officer’s Death Reminds a City of Work to Be Done The Mormon Lens on American History Room for Debate: Are Gay Stars Obliged to Be Out? Relearning to Fly at Japan Airlines How Kurt Vonnegut taught one writer to hate the semicolon; how William James convinced him to love it.

A Carbon Catalyst for Half a Century On the eve of their Fourth of July concert in Salt Lake City, the Beach Boys still exhibit the political tensions that divide us all.


View the original article here

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Senate Primary Over, New Battle Begins in Indiana

Democrats were casting the general election fight as a referendum on whether moderates should still have a place in Washington, while Tea Party organizers said it would be seen as a national test of the movement’s enduring strength.

Democratic leaders, who had doubted their odds against Mr. Lugar, a Republican so moderate that even the leaders admitted that plenty of Democrats liked him, sounded giddy about their November opponent: Richard E. Mourdock, a Tea Party-supported Republican who seized a remarkable 61 percent of the vote in part by denouncing bipartisanship and pledging to an unwavering conservative approach.

“Democratic donors across the country are going to see this as a prime pickup opportunity,” said Matt Canter, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who added that the Indiana seat would fall among five top Republican-held seats being targeted in the fight for control of the Senate.

Labor leaders, too, said they saw an opportunity now in Indiana. “We’re all ramping up our plans as we speak,” said Nancy J. Guyott, president of the Indiana A.F.L.-C.I.O.

National conservative groups, some of which had poured more than $3 million to benefit Mr. Mourdock in the primary, were poised to send still more if needed. The number of such outside groups also appeared likely to grow if the contest here, against Representative Joe Donnelly, a Democrat, appears truly competitive — a notion some conservative leaders remained skeptical about, given Indiana’s Republican leanings.

“It’s a big race because a lot hinges on our success,” said Brendan Steinhauser, director of federal and state campaigns at FreedomWorks, which trains Tea Party members and which spent about $850,000 in Mr. Mourdock’s victory and plans to be similarly involved in the general election.

“If Mourdock were not to win,” Mr. Steinhauser said, the gloating would come not just from Democrats but establishment Republicans, pointing to the Tea Party. “They would want to blame that on us — ‘See, we told you so,’ ” he said.

By Wednesday, the outlines of a new political battle were emerging, with Democrats trying to paint Mr. Mourdock as a far-right candidate with little appeal for independents or moderate Republicans, and conservatives portraying Mr. Donnelly as a typical Democrat.

The Club for Growth, which had spent money on television and radio commercials against Mr. Lugar in the primary and said it would contribute more, if needed, in the general election, said Mr. Donnelly was “an economic liberal who votes in lock-step” with Democratic leaders.

Mr. Donnelly, who was elected in 2006 to represent a northern Indiana district, described himself as among the most conservative Democrats in the House in a moment when, he said, voters are looking for something different than they were in 2010. “Right now, it’s not about fire and brimstone,” he said. “It’s about jobs and the opportunity for your family to succeed.”

Although President Obama won Indiana in 2008, the state has long been a place where Republicans do well, and Mr. Obama is considered unlikely to win here again. None of it would seem to be fertile ground for a Democratic Senate bid, and some conservative leaders said they remained unconvinced that Mr. Mourdock would have any trouble in November.

But Dan Parker, the chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party, described Mr. Mourdock as an “extreme Tea Party candidate,” who would not appeal to a general election audience. “Dick Lugar was the mainstream Republican,” he said. “Indiana is not crazy conservative.”

Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat, who rose from nowhere to be elected in 2010 after Republicans there rejected a popular moderate and nominated Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell, said he reached out to Mr. Donnelly Tuesday night after Mr. Lugar’s defeat.

“I think there’s a very good chance he could be the Chris Coons of 2012,” the senator said.

State Republican leaders, calling on Wednesday for party unity following Mr. Lugar’s loss, stood beside Mr. Mourdock on a stage here and seemed eager to play down his Tea Party ties and emphasize his traditional Republican credentials. Complicating the efforts, Mr. Lugar, who was not in attendance at the gathering, issued a sharp statement condemning what he suggested was a rising trend of rejecting political independence and bipartisan conversation.  

“He comes right out of the heart, right out of mainstream of our party, and I think that was really, among many, his longest single suit in the huge win that he had yesterday,” said Gov. Mitch Daniels, the governor, who had endorsed Mr. Lugar and had previously said he viewed Mr. Mourdock as a friend.

Indeed, Mr. Mourdock is in his second term as state treasurer, and he has been known for appearing at local Republican events and county dinners for years; when he announced his bid for the senate, he had a surprising majority of endorsements from the party’s county chairmen and chairwomen around the state.

“The first label they’re going to try to put on me is that Mourdock is this wild-eyed Tea Party guy,” Mr. Mourdock said. “But as the governor said, I’ve been swimming in the pool of Republican politics a long time,” he said, growing choked up as he described his love for the party.

Jonathan Weisman contributed reporting from Washington, and Steven Greenhouse from New York.


View the original article here

Monday, May 14, 2012

Senate Republicans Block Bill to Avert Rise in Student Loan Rate

Along party lines, the Senate voted 52 to 45 on a key procedural motion, failing to reach the 60 votes needed to begin debating the measure. Senator Olympia J. Snowe, the moderate Republican from Maine who is retiring, voted present.

Senators said quiet negotiations had begun to resolve the impasse, but Democrats sought to raise the political pressure, vowing to take to the Senate floor to show the cost of inaction for students in their states.

“Mitt Romney says he supports what we’re trying to do. I’d suggest he pick up the phone and call Senator McConnell,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, referring to the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Republicans blamed Democrats for the impasse and suggested that they were manufacturing a political controversy instead of working out differences in private.

“We all agree we’re not going to let the rate go up,” Mr. McConnell said.

The vote was the Senate Republicans’ 21st successful filibuster of a Democratic bill this Congress, which started in January 2011. Republicans have blocked consideration of President Obama’s full jobs proposal, as well as legislation repealing tax breaks for oil companies, helping local governments pay teachers and first responders, and setting a minimum tax rate for households earning more than $1 million a year. Republicans say the measures were flawed and potentially harmful to the economic recovery.

But the student loan filibuster may be the highest-profile stalemate yet, because unlike those earlier bills, this one is not likely to be abandoned. Mr. Obama has elevated the issue by hammering Republicans on it for weeks. American students took out twice the value of student loans in 2011, about $112 billion, as they did a decade before, after adjusting for inflation. Over all, Americans now owe about $1 trillion in student loans. In 2010, such debt surpassed credit card debt for the first time.

The bill in limbo addresses only part of that burden. Graduate students with Stafford loans pay a higher rate, as do students with unsubsidized Stafford loans. Most undergraduates take out both unsubsidized and subsidized loans.

Republicans say they want to extend Democratic legislation passed in 2007 that temporarily reduced interest rates for low- and middle-income undergraduates who receive subsidized Stafford loans to 3.4 percent from 6.8 percent. But the Republicans would not accept the Senate Democrats’ proposal to pay for a one-year extension by changing a law that allows some wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes by classifying their pay as dividends, not cash income.

“They want to raise taxes on people who are creating jobs when we are still recovering from the greatest recession since the Great Depression,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, who instead wanted to pay for the rate decrease by eliminating a fund for preventive health care in Mr. Obama’s health care law.

Before the vote, Senate Democrats arrayed college students to plead for a yes vote, including Clarise McCants, 21, a junior at Howard University in Washington who said she pulled herself out of a troubled neighborhood in North Philadelphia and relies on $13,500 in Stafford loans for her tuition.

“I know I’m not the only one with dreams,” she said. “I’m here to ask Congress, ‘Don’t double my rate.’ ”

Republicans have not always been so averse to closing the loophole that the Senate bill addresses. In 2004, when it emerged that John Edwards, then a vice-presidential hopeful, had classified himself as a “subchapter S corporation” to pay himself dividends rather than income, conservatives criticized him for avoiding payroll taxes.

But the Democratic line of attack has been complicated by the House’s actions. Shrugging off a veto threat, the House passed an extension of the subsidized rate last month, paid for with the preventive health care fund. Thirteen Democrats voted for the bill, making up for the 30 Republicans who voted no because they opposed federal subsidies for an interest rate that they believed should be set by market forces. Those Democratic defections put the House bill over the top and fortified Republican arguments that the Senate Democrats were now to blame for the stalemate.

Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House minority whip, said Tuesday that those Democratic votes were driven by politics, not substance. “They didn’t want that 30-second ad” attacking them for opposing a rate-subsidy extension, he said. “That was not a demonstration at all for the funding source.”

Republicans made clear they would go on offense, blaming Democrats if interest rates doubled July 1.

“Instead of compounding the problem with more bad policies that raise taxes on small businesses and raid Social Security and Medicare, we must work together to prevent a rate increase on students and make it easier for job creators to hire them when they graduate,” Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, said after the vote.


View the original article here

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Outside groups spend big in Ind. Senate race

WASHINGTON – Outside spending in Indiana's Senate race has reached about $4 million, topping all other congressional races in the country.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. and Richard Mourdock, left, participate in a debate on April 11 in Indianapolis. Pool photo by Darron Cummings

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. and Richard Mourdock, left, participate in a debate on April 11 in Indianapolis.

Pool photo by Darron Cummings

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. and Richard Mourdock, left, participate in a debate on April 11 in Indianapolis.

Nearly 70% has been spent to help state Treasurer Richard Mourdock defeat Sen. Richard Lugar in next Tuesday's GOP primary.

But when the candidates' own spending is included, Lugar's side has doled out about $8 million compared with $4.6 million spent on Mourdock's side, campaign disclosure reports show. And Lugar had $1.4 million in the bank as of April 18 compared with Mourdock's $255,193.

Still, challengers don't need to match the incumbent in spending, said Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, which analyzes congressional campaigns. Challengers just need enough money to make their case — and outside groups supplied that in Indiana.

"If Lugar goes down, this is one of those races where you would say all the outside conservative groups, each of them can put a notch on their belt for Lugar," Rothenberg said. "(Outside spending) has been a huge factor. It wouldn't be a competitive primary without it. Conservatives have made this their cause celebre."

Tea Party activists saw Lugar as their best chance to defeat a Senate GOP incumbent and the Club for Growth and the National Rifle Association have spent more against Lugar in this relatively early primary than in any other race so far. On Lugar's side, former aides and center-right Republican groups came to his aide once they saw he was being targeted.

"Of races where you have this kind of a divide in the Republican Party and there's a lot of money on both sides of that equation, that's why you're seeing so much money in this particular race," said Bill Allison, editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation, which tracks outside spending.

The biggest outside spender is the Club for Growth, an anti-tax and pro-free market group that goes after Democrats as well as Republicans they view as not sufficiently conservative. Different arms of the group have reported spending a total of more than $1.7 million to defeat Lugar as of mid-day Wednesday. And that doesn't include two rounds of ads they ran criticizing Lugar for which spending did not have to be disclosed.

"We felt, in this case, that the more Hoosier Republicans heard about Senator Lugar's record of support for bailouts, tax increases, and (President Barack) Obama's judges, the more they would decide it was time for a change," said Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller

The next largest spenders on Mourdock's side are the National Rifle Association ($421,899) and FreedomWorks for America, a group aligned with the small-government Tea Party movement that expects to spend more than $500,000 on the race.

The $403,715 that FreedomWorks reported spending so far has gone for polling, staff, phone banks, online ads and thousands of yard signs, bumper stickers, palm cards and door hangers.

Mourdock supporters can go to the group's website and download literature to distribute, or participate in the phone banks for Mourdock. In promoting a Saturday rally for Mourdock, FreedomWorks say it wants to "show the naysayers that the Tea Party movement remains powerful."

The biggest spending on Lugar's side was the American Action Network, a self-described "action tank" that advocates for "center-right policies."

The group initially disclosed that it intended to spend $645,153, most of it on anti-Mourdock ads in the Indianapolis TV market in the final weeks before the primary. But American Action Network stopped the ads about two-thirds into the run.

"We've decided that were going to let this race play out," said American Action Network spokesman Dan Conston, who declined to comment further.

The next largest amount reported on Lugar's behalf was $459,608 spent by the Indiana Values SuperPAC, a group created by former Lugar aides. Andy Klingenstein, a private investor who worked for Lugar in the early 1980s, has contributed $25,395 to the PAC. Other large contributors include Richard Freeland, owner of the Pizza Hut franchises in northeast Indiana who gave $20,000 and Mark Dalton, an investor who shares Lugar's alma mater who gave $100,000. Dalton did not respond to requests for comment.

The most recent entrant on Lugar's side is YG Network Inc., a center-right group started by former aides to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

"We support principled conservatives who believe in getting results," said John Murray, the group's president. "You can be conservative, but you can seek policies and seek to find ways to get things done."

The group has spent $208,628 on mailers supporting Lugar. One says Lugar "has always represented mainstream Indiana values" and points out that Hoosiers do not need to be a registered Republican to vote in the primary.

"The goal is to cast a wide net of people here who we believe support this messaging and the center-right philosophy of principled conservatism that can get results," Murray said.

The group has also sent mailers to help former state House member and GOP state chairman Luke Messer win the crowded GOP primary in the 6th District, which GOP Rep. Mike Pence is giving up to run for governor.

Outside spending in the House races has been relatively small and is focused on the GOP primaries in the heavily- Republican 6th and 5th districts where the winner will be favored in the general election.

Citizens for a Working America PAC, whose only other expenditure this cycle was $455,000 to help GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has spent $11,166 on mailers for Messer and $30,282 on mailers for former U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks and against former Rep. David McIntosh. McIntosh and Brooks are among the eight Republicans running to succeed retiring Rep. Dan Burton, R-Indianapolis, in the 5th District.

The Campaign for Primary Accountability, a super PAC that opposes incumbents and had planned to help defeat Burton, reported Wednesday spending $64,627 in mailings and Internet ads for McIntosh.

Another GOP candidate in the 5th District, former Marion County Coroner John McGoff, has gotten $75,000 in help through radio ads and mailings paid for by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Political Action Committee.

This close to the primary, outside spending has to be reported within 24 hours, and more reports are likely before Tuesday.

This isn't the first time outside spending has been heavy in Indiana. Outside groups spent more than $3.4 million in two House races in 2010.

Spending is usually heavier in the general election than in the primary. And Indiana's Senate race could attract even more money in the fall, regardless of whether Mourdock or Lugar win the GOP nomination to face Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly.

"If it looks like there's a chance that the Democrats can take the seat, they're going to spend a ton of money. And if it looks like the Republicans might lose the seat, they're going to spend a ton of money," Allison of the Sunlight Foundation said. "There are more groups, and they're spending more than ever."

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Monday, March 12, 2012

Senate rejects GOP environment, energy proposals

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate killed Republican-backed attempts to overturn several of President Barack Obama's environmental and energy policies Thursday as lawmakers worked against a March 31 deadline to keep aid flowing to more than 100,000 transportation construction projects around the country.

The two-year, $109 billion transportation bill before the Senate has wide, bipartisan support, but has become a magnet for lawmakers' favorite causes and partisan gamesmanship. Among the amendments batted aside were GOP proposals to bypass Obama's concerns about the Keystone XL oil pipeline, to delay tougher air pollution standards for industrial boilers and to expand offshore oil drilling.

Action on those and other amendments came under an agreement between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., aimed at clearing the way for passage of the transportation bill next week.

Obama lobbied some Senate Democrats by telephone ahead of the Keystone vote, urging them to oppose an amendment by Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., that would have prevented the president from intervening in decisions related to construction of the pipeline and would have speeded its approval. Pointing to the administration's environmental concerns about the project, which would carry tar sands oil from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast, Republicans accused Obama of standing in the way greater oil supplies at a time when Americans are coping with rising gasoline prices.

But some Democrats, especially those from oil producing states, were torn between support for the pipeline and their support for the president. The amendment was defeated 56-42, even though 11 Democrats broke ranks to support it. Sixty votes were needed for passage.

Republican leaders jumped on the White House lobbying.

"Most Americans strongly support building this pipeline and the jobs that would come with it," McConnell said in a statement.

The president's lobbying against the Keystone provision came "a week after the president signaled to me and to Sen. McConnell that he might be willing to work with us on some bipartisan steps forward on energy legislation that the American people support," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters. "If we're going to have bipartisan action on energy, the Keystone pipeline is an obvious place to start."

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama felt it was "wrong to play politics" with the pipeline, especially since the company behind the project has said it still was working on a final route that might satisfy environmental concerns. He also said it was "false advertising" to suggest the amendment would have any impact on gasoline prices.

Also defeated was an amendment by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, which would have forced the Environmental Protection Agency to rewrite a rule requiring boiler operators to install modern emissions controls. Boilers are the second-largest source of toxic mercury emissions after coal-fired power plants. Collins said the EPA's rule would drive some manufacturers out of business.

And the Senate turned down an amendment to expand offshore oil drilling even though its sponsor, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., contended it would increase domestic energy supplies and reduce gas prices.

The transportation bill itself would overhaul federal transportation programs, including boosting aid to highway and transit programs, streamline some environmental regulations in order to speed up approval of projects and consolidate dozens of programs.

Lawmakers are under pressure to act quickly because the government's authority to collect about $110 million a day in federal gasoline and diesel taxes and to spend money out of the trust fund that pays for highway and transit programs expires at the end of the month. Chris Bertram, a Transportation Department official, said that if Congress doesn't meet the deadline, aid to about 130,000 transportation projects around the country will be disrupted and federal workers who send that money to states will be furloughed.

The construction industry, already suffering 17.7 percent unemployment at the end of January, would be especially hurt.

House Republicans crafted their own five-year, $260 billion bill, but they've been unable to marshal the support of rank-and-file lawmakers behind it. Conservatives say it spends too much money, while moderates say it would penalize union workers and undermine environmental provisions.

Boehner conceded Thursday that for the moment the House's best option is to take up the Senate bill after it passes — "or something like it" — although GOP leaders were still talking to their members in the hope of resurrecting their bill.

The inability of House Republicans to pass a highway bill of their own is an example of a paralysis that has struck several times in the past year. Last summer, an impasse over labor issues and subsidies for rural airports led to a two-week shutdown of non-essential Federal Aviation Administration operations.

In December, Boehner overrode his own rank-and-file when he agreed to a deal to extend the Social Security payroll tax cut after most lawmakers had gone home.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Dina Cappiello, Andrew Taylor and Ken Thomas contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Keystone oil pipeline bill fails in Senate

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican proposal to give a permit to the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline in a vote that will give Republicans more ammunition to criticize President Barack Obama's energy policies on the campaign trail.

Republicans argue the pipeline, which would ship oil from Canada and northern states to Texas, would create jobs and improve energy security at a time of surging gasoline prices.

Obama put TransCanada's $7 billion project on hold earlier this year pending further environmental review. He took the unusual step of calling some senators personally ahead of the vote, asking them to reject the proposal.

"He understood that a majority of the American public, a majority at least in the Senate, are strongly in favor of this project," said Senator Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, who sponsored the bill to take control of the pipeline decision away from Obama.

The Republicans tried to advance their plan as an amendment to a highway funding bill. It failed on a vote of 56-42, four short of the 60 needed to pass, although 11 Democratic senators voted with the Republicans.

Republicans are using the proposal to highlight Obama's delay of the project ahead of November presidential and congressional elections, linking his decision to rising gasoline prices.

"We're going to continue this fight," said Republican Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, who championed the bill.

He told reporters he hoped the measure might still be attached to the highway funding package when the Senate and House of Representatives work on a final version.

"With gas prices going up every day, with what's going on in the Middle East, I'll tell you what: the pressure is just going to increase on the administration to get this project done," Hoeven said.

Obama has supported construction of the southern leg of the pipeline, and his administration will assess a new route around an environmentally sensitive area of Nebraska once it has been identified, said White House spokesman Clark Stevens.

"Once again, Republicans are trying to play politics with a pipeline project whose route has yet to be proposed," Stevens said. The entire project will take more than two years to build once permits are granted.

 

GREEN GROUP: 'TEMPORARY VICTORY'

The Keystone amendment was among 30 measures - many of them energy-related - being voted on as the Senate pushes in coming days to renew funding for highways and other infrastructure projects, slated to run out at the end of March.

Earlier, the Senate defeated proposals to expand the area available for offshore oil drilling and extend the time for manufacturers to phase in new pollution regulations set by the Environmental Protection Agency for industrial boilers.

But the Keystone amendment attracted the most attention. The pipeline would carry crude from Canadian oil sands to Texas refineries and would also pick up U.S. crude from North Dakota and Montana along the way.

Environmental groups have fought the project, staging large protests last year that pressured the Obama administration to block approval.

"Today's vote was a temporary victory and there's no guarantee that it holds for the long run," Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, said in a statement.

"We're grateful to the administration for denying the permit and for Senate leadership for holding the line."

With a 34-64 vote, senators also defeated a proposal from Democratic Senator Ron Wyden that would have blocked exports of oil from the pipeline, as well as refined products made from that oil.

Wyden said lawmakers need to carefully think through projects that would increase exports of oil, fuel and natural gas, lest the exports end up boosting prices for Americans.

"This is just a step in what is clearly going to be an extensive debate," Wyden told Reuters after the vote.

Democratic senators who voted for the Republican Keystone plan included Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jim Webb of Virginia.

Two Republican senators were absent, and all the 45 who were present voted for the amendment.

(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro; editing by Mohammad Zargham and Todd Eastham)


View the original article here

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Senate blocks bid to speed pipeline from Canada

WASHINGTON (AP) — Under pressure from the White House, the Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday blocked a Republican bid to speed approval of an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.

The 56-42 vote came after President Barack Obama called Democratic senators to lobby them to oppose the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from western Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

Even so, 11 Democrats sided with Republicans to sidestep Obama's rejection of the pipeline and allow the $7 billion project to go forward. Sixty votes were needed for approval.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., blasted Obama after the vote.

"President Obama's personal pleas to wavering senators may have tipped the balance against this legislation. When it comes to delays over Keystone, anyone looking for a culprit should now look no further than the Oval Office," McConnell said.

Democratic opposition to the pipeline "shows how deeply out of touch they are with the concerns of middle-class Americans," McConnell added.

White House press secretary Jay Carney confirmed that Obama called senators, but did not identify them.

"The president believes that it is wrong to play politics with a pipeline project whose route has yet to be proposed," Carney said, referring to a yet-to-be-settled route that would avoid the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region in Nebraska. Obama had cited uncertainty over the Nebraska route in rejecting the pipeline in January. The president said there was not enough time for a fair review before a deadline forced on him by Republicans.

Carney dismissed GOP claims that the pipeline would ease rising prices at the gas pump as "false advertising."

Carney called the Republican proposal "ineffectual sham legislation that has no impact on the price of gas and is irresponsible because, as we said before, it tries to legislate the approval of a pipeline for which there is not even a route." The State Department initially had blocked the project in November, citing concerns about a proposed route through the Sandhills.

Pipeline supporters, including congressional Republicans, the oil industry and some labor groups, have been attacking Obama for blocking the pipeline, which they say could create thousands of jobs and provide a stable source of oil from a close neighbor and ally.

Democrats and environmental groups counter that the pipeline would transport "dirty oil" that takes huge amounts of energy to extract, adding to the pollution blamed for global warming. They also worry about a catastrophic oil spill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the Republican amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, would have short-circuited the process needed to plan the best route for the pipeline.

"If Republicans truly want to move ahead with this pipeline, they should stop treating it like a political football," Reid said, noting that the GOP inserted a pipeline provision into an unrelated tax bill in December. It was that bill that led to Obama's rejection of the pipeline in January.

The pipeline operator, Calgary-based TransCanada, said last month it would build a portion of the pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas. That 485-mile line from Cushing, Okla., to Port Arthur, Texas, does not require presidential approval because it does not cross a U.S. border.

The Obama administration had suggested development of an Oklahoma-to-Texas line to alleviate an oil bottleneck at a Cushing storage hub.

"Half of the pipeline is already being built, and the company building the pipeline is submitting another application for the remainder of the route," Reid said, adding that the permit process should be given time to work and not be affected Republican desires "to appease the tea party or big oil companies."

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, one of the 11 Democrats who voted in favor of the pipeline, said he was disappointed by the Senate vote.

"Congress missed another chance to move the ball forward," Tester said, adding that the pipeline will put Montana residents to work and increase U.S. energy security.

"I'll keep fighting to see it built - and built responsibly," he said.

Tester faces a tight re-election race against Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg, who supports the pipeline.

The pipeline would run through Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma before reaching Texas.

___

Follow Matthew Daly's energy coverage on Twitter: (at)MatthewDalyWDC


View the original article here

US Senate blocks bid to speed pipeline from Canada

WASHINGTON (AP) — Under pressure from the White House, the Democratic-controlled Senate blocked a Republican bid Thursday to speed approval of an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.

The 56-42 vote came after President Barack Obama called Democratic senators to urge them to oppose the 1,700-mile (2,735-kilometer) Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from western Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

Even so, 11 Democrats sided with Republicans to sidestep Obama's rejection of the pipeline and allow the $7 billion project to go forward. Sixty votes were needed for approval.

The leader of the Senate's Republican minority, Sen.Mitch McConnell blasted Obama after the vote.

"President Obama's personal pleas to wavering senators may have tipped the balance against this legislation. When it comes to delays over Keystone, anyone looking for a culprit should now look no further than the Oval Office," McConnell said.

Democratic opposition to the pipeline "shows how deeply out of touch they are with the concerns of middle-class Americans," McConnell added.

White House press secretary Jay Carney confirmed that Obama called senators but did not identify them.

"The president believes that it is wrong to play politics with a pipeline project whose route has yet to be proposed," Carney said, referring to a yet-to-be-settled route that would avoid the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region in Nebraska. Obama had cited uncertainty over the Nebraska route in rejecting the pipeline in January. The president said there was not enough time for a fair review before a deadline forced on him by Republicans.

Carney dismissed Republican claims that the pipeline would ease rising prices at the gas pump as "false advertising."

Carney called the Republican proposal "ineffectual sham legislation that has no impact on the price of gas and is irresponsible because, as we said before, it tries to legislate the approval of a pipeline for which there is not even a route." The State Department initially had blocked the project in November, citing worries about a proposed route through the Sandhills.

Pipeline supporters, including congressional Republicans, the oil industry and some labor groups, have been attacking Obama for blocking the pipeline, which they say could create thousands of jobs and provide a stable source of oil from a close neighbor and ally.

Democrats and environmental groups counter that the pipeline would transport "dirty oil" that takes huge amounts of energy to extract, which would add to the pollution blamed for global warming. They also worry about a catastrophic oil spill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the Republican amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, would have short-circuited the process needed to plan the best route for the pipeline.

"If Republicans truly want to move ahead with this pipeline, they should stop treating it like a political football," Reid said, noting that the Republicans inserted a pipeline provision into an unrelated tax bill in December. It was that bill that led to Obama's rejection of the pipeline in January.

The pipeline operator, Calgary-based TransCanada, said last month it would build a portion of the pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas. That 485-mile (780-kilometer) line from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Port Arthur, Texas, does not require presidential approval because it does not cross a U.S. border.

The Obama administration had suggested development of an Oklahoma-to-Texas line to alleviate an oil bottleneck at a Cushing storage hub.

"Half of the pipeline is already being built, and the company building the pipeline is submitting another application for the remainder of the route," Reid said, adding that the permit process should be given time to work and not be affected by Republican desires "to appease the tea party or big oil companies."

___

Follow Matthew Daly's energy coverage on Twitter: (at)MatthewDalyWDC


View the original article here

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Senate GOP's next move awaited in nominations spat (AP)

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's appointments to two key agencies during the Senate's year-end break ensures that GOP senators will return to work Monday in an angry and fighting mood.

Less clear is what those furious Republicans will do to retaliate against Obama's "bring it on" end run around the Senate's role in confirming nominees to major jobs.

While Republicans contemplate their next step, recess appointee Richard Cordray is running a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the National Labor Relations Board, with three temporary members, is now at full strength with a Democratic majority.

Obama left more than70 other nominees in limbo, well aware that Republicans could use Senate rules to block some or all of them.

The White House justified the appointments on grounds that Republicans were holding up the nominations to paralyze the two agencies. The consumer protection agency was established under the 2010 Wall Street reform law, which requires the bureau to have a director in order to begin policing financial products such as mortgages, checking accounts, credit cards and payday loans.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the five-member NLRB must have a three-member quorum to issue regulations or decide major cases in union-employer disputes.

Several agencies contacted by The Associated Press, including banking regulators, said they were conducting their normal business despite vacancies at the top. In some cases, nominees are serving in acting capacities.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., at full strength, has five board members. The regulation of failed banks "is unaffected," said spokesman Andrew Gray. "The three-member board has been able to make decisions without a problem." Cordray's appointment gives it a fourth member.

The Comptroller of the Currency, run by an acting chief, has kept up its regular examinations of banks. The Federal Trade Commission, operating with four board members instead of five, has had no difficulties. "This agency is not a partisan combat agency," said spokesman Peter Kaplan. "Almost all the votes are unanimous and consensus driven."

Republicans have pledged retaliation for Obama's recess appointments, but haven't indicated what it might be.

"The Senate will need to take action to check and balance President Obama's blatant attempt to circumvent the Senate and the Constitution, a claim of presidential power that the Bush Administration refused to make," said Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is his party's top member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Grassley wouldn't go further, and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky hasn't tipped his hand after charging that Obama had "arrogantly circumvented the American people." Before the Senate left for its break in December, McConnell blocked Senate approval of more than 60 pending nominees because Obama wouldn't commit to making no recess appointments.

Republicans have to consider whether their actions, especially any decision to block all nominees, might play into Obama's hands.

Obama has adopted an election-year theme of "we can't wait" for Republicans to act on nominations and major proposals like his latest jobs plan. Republicans have to consider how their argument that the president is violating Constitutional checks and balances plays against Obama's stump speeches characterizing them as obstructionists.

Senate historian Donald Ritchie said the minority party has retaliated in the past for recess appointments by holding up specific nominees. "I'm not aware of any situations where no nominations were accepted," he said. The normal practice is for the two party leaders to negotiate which nominations get votes.

During the break, Republicans forced the Senate to convene for usually less than a minute once every few days to argue that there was no recess and that Obama therefore couldn't bypass the Senate's authority to confirm top officials. The administration said this was a sham, and has released a Justice Department opinion backing up the legality of the appointments.

Obama considers the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a signature achievement of his first term. Republicans have been vehemently opposed to the bureau's setup. They argued the agency needed a bipartisan board instead of a director and should have to justify its budget to Congress instead of drawing its funding from the independent Federal Reserve.

Cordray is expected to get several sharp questions from Republicans when he testifies Tuesday before a House Oversight and Government Reform panel.

The NLRB has been a target of Republicans and business groups. Last year, the agency accused Boeing of illegally retaliating against union workers who had struck its plants in Washington state by opening a new production line at its non-union plant in South Carolina. Boeing denied the charge and the case has since been settled, but Republican anger over it and a string of union-friendly decisions from the board last year hasn't abated.


View the original article here

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Top Senate Republicans call for more transparency in debt limit negotiations (Daily Caller)

The top Republicans on the Senate Finance and Budget Committees sent a letter to President Obama on Friday, calling on the president to release any proposals discussed during the debt limit negotiations.

While warning against a rushed, 11th-hour deal, Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, wrote that proposals need to be made public in order for them to be reviewed by congressional committees, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the public.

Also on Friday, Sessions announced his intention to introduce legislation that requires any deal on a debt limit increase to be made public seven days before a vote can occur.

The moves come just one day after the Obama administration floated a new deadline for the deal: July 22.

If Sessions proposal for a seven-day notice passes, that means a deal would need to be reached and sent to Congress by July 15.

In their letter to the president, Sessions and Hatch wrote that Americans should know the “vision” their elected officials have for the country’s fiscal future. (Rep. Franks blasts administration for engaging terrorist group)

“Unfortunately, this information is being kept a secret as part of the closed-door negotiations,” the senators wrote. “We respectfully request that you provide us, in detail, the most recent version of the proposals that were discussed, including a list of any tax increases for which the White House reportedly advocated.”

Earlier this week. President Obama scolded Congress for dragging its feet on reaching a deal to raise the debt limit. Though a group of bipartisan lawmakers have met with Vice President Joe Biden for weeks in an attempt to negotiate a deal, both sides are digging in their heels.

Democrats and the White House maintain that any deal must contain revenue increases along with spending cuts. Republicans, however, insist that any deal consisting of tax increases will not make it through Congress. (GOP senator accuses Obama of ‘phoning it in’)

“The votes simply aren’t there – and they aren’t going to be there,” said Speaker of the House John Boehner in response to Obama’s press conference, adding that a deal must contain spending cuts that exceed the debt limit increase, long-term solutions for cutting spending, and no tax increases.

“The longer the president denies these realities, the more difficult he makes this process,” said Boehner.

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Rob Lowe's son to intern for House Majority Leader Cantor

Top Senate Republicans call for more transparency in debt limit negotiations

Pawlenty campaigns raises $4.2 million in second quarter

Fiery rhetoric not expected from Thaddeus McCotter

Reports conflict about Glenn Beck buying or renting


View the original article here

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Recess canceled; Senate to work next week on debt (AP)

WASHINGTON – The Senate canceled its planned July Fourth recess on Thursday, but partisan divisions remained razor sharp as the clock ticked on efforts to strike a deal to avoid a government default and trim huge federal deficits.

A day after President Barack Obama accused congressional leaders of procrastinating over the impasse, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced that the chamber would meet beginning next Tuesday. The Republican-run House is not in session this week but had already been scheduled to be at work next week.

Despite the Senate's schedule change, there was no indication the two sides had progressed in resolving their chief disagreement. Democrats insist that a deficit-cutting package of deep spending cuts also include higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans and fewer tax breaks for oil companies. Republicans say any such agreement would be defeated in Congress, a point Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., made anew when he invited Obama to meet with GOP lawmakers at the Capitol on Thursday afternoon.

"That way he can hear directly from Republicans why what he's proposing won't pass," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "And we can start talking about what's actually possible."

McConnell's invitation seemed almost like a taunt, since well before McConnell spoke the White House had announced that Obama was heading to Philadelphia to attend Democratic fundraising events.

White House spokesman Jay Carney defended Obama's decision to attend the fundraisers, saying, "We can walk and chew gum at the same time." He also said McConnell had merely "invited the president to hear what would not pass. That's not a conversation worth having."

The Obama administration has warned that if the government's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit is not raised by Aug. 2, the U.S. will face its first default ever, potentially throwing world financial markets into turmoil, raising interest rates and threatening the economic recovery. Many congressional Republicans indicate they're unconvinced that such scenarios would occur, and some administration officials worry that it could take a financial calamity before Congress acts.

One Democratic official familiar with the debt talks said the real deadline for reaching an bipartisan agreement on the debt and deficit reduction is mid-July, in order to give congressional leaders time to win votes and put final details of a deal into shape. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to reveal details of private negotiations.

Obama has said that in talks, Republican and Democratic negotiators have found more than $1 trillion in potential spending cuts over the coming decade, including reductions favored by both sides.

The Democratic official said Thursday that of those cuts, roughly $200 billion would come mainly from savings from Medicaid and Medicare, the federal health insurance programs for the poor and elderly.

Another $200 billion would come from cuts in other automatically paid benefit programs, including farm subsidies. Another large chunk would come from cuts in discretionary spending that Congress approves every year — presumably over $1 trillion, which is more than the White House but less than Republicans have proposed.

Both sides would then also count whatever interest savings they achieve through those deficit cuts.

The White House is also proposing about $400 billion in higher tax revenues. Republicans want no tax increases and deeper spending cuts than Democrats have proposed.

The overall goal would be to cut at least $2 trillion over 10 years.

Increasing the current borrowing limit by about $2.4 trillion would carry the government until the end of 2012 — thereby avoiding another congressional vote on the issue until after the next presidential and congressional elections. Republicans have insisted on coupling any extension with at least an equal amount of budget savings.

For next week, Reid laid plans for the Senate to debate legislation authorizing U.S. involvement in Libya. He told reporters that Democratic senators would also discuss the deficit standoff with Obama next Wednesday at the Capitol or the White House, meet with administration economic advisers and learn about a deficit-cutting plan crafted by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

"What we have to do is too important to not be here," Reid said.

But GOP senators belittled the plans, saying little would be achieved.

"Talk about Libya? How does that answer the concerns expressed by the president" about the debt limit, said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.

A confrontational tone dominated the day, with each side accusing the other of lacking seriousness about finding a way to extend the debt ceiling.

"Where is the president? Campaigning," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., one of a parade of GOP senators who took to the Senate floor to accuse Obama of not tackling the deficit standoff. "We're here, Mr. President."

Democrats focused on the GOP refusal to consider tax increases, including loophole closers Democrats have proposed on companies that ship jobs abroad and on wealthy owners of yachts, race horses and aircraft.

"Protecting them is not protecting America," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Senate Democratic leader.

The stakes of the debate were underscored when a Standard & Poor's executive said the credit-rating agency would give the government its lowest rating should lawmakers fail to agree on raising the borrowing limit and cause a federal default.

Should that occur, S&P would drop the U.S. rating of AAA to D, John Chambers, managing director of sovereign ratings for the company, said on Bloomberg Television.

The United States pays an average of about 3 percent on its existing debt, according to the Treasury Department. In 2010, that added up to $197 billion in interest payments.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects interest paid will rise from $463 billion by 2015. That's under the assumption that the U.S. keeps its AAA credit rating. A D rating from Standard & Poor's would force the government to pay sharply higher interest rates.

Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP, noted that one of the biggest challenges if the U.S. defaults would be finding enough investors who could buy junk-rated bonds. Pension funds and other institutional investors who buy a large number of Treasurys aren't generally allowed to buy securities with such low credit ratings.

___

Associated Press writers Ben Feller and Christopher S. Rugaber contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Senate GOP blocks hearing on free trade bills (AP)

WASHINGTON – Senate action on three stalled free trade agreements was cut short Thursday when Republicans refused to participate, objecting to linking the deals to renewal of a program that retrains workers hurt by foreign trade.

A Senate Finance Committee hearing on legislation involving agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama was canceled amid recriminations from both parties about playing politics.

There's bipartisan support for action on the pacts, holdovers from President George W. Bush's administration. Economists have said they could generate 250,000 jobs and increase U.S. exports by $13 billion.

But the Obama administration has said it wants the legislation to include renewal of expired sections of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides financial and job-retraining help to workers hurt by foreign competition. Republicans want to consider that separately.

"The president knew where we stood and he chose to ignore those who disagreed with him," said Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the committee's top Republican. He spoke after GOP lawmakers announced they were boycotting the hearing and using a procedural tactic on the Senate floor to block it from occurring.

The committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont, said the move "means the opportunity to pass important job creation legislation is now delayed."

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the president believes the agreements are "economically vital" and that now is the time for Congress to act.

The trade deals were finalized in the Bush administration but were never taken up by the then-Democratic-controlled Congress.

The Obama administration has renegotiated the treaties to secure greater access for U.S. auto exports in Korea, change laws in Panama that made it a tax haven, and commit Colombia to acting to protect worker rights.

Republicans have pressed the administration to submit the bills to Congress, saying delays were causing billions of dollars in losses for U.S. farmers and manufacturers who are having trouble competing in those markets because of high tariffs.

The bills to put the trade deals in place need approval from the Senate committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, with the White House getting involved to help negotiate a final version that each chamber can pass or reject, but not amend.

The House committee has yet to meet on the issue.

House Speaker John Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, said Republicans were pleased that Obama was finally submitting the bills to Congress. But the GOP has maintained its position on the trade assistance program "and that is how we expect to proceed," he said.

Senate Republicans said there was no precedent for linking trade deals to a program they have supported in the past but which they now say is too expensive in an age of mounting deficits.

Committee Democrats disagreed and noted that a trade assistance bill was attached to the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s.

At issue are expansions in the program that were approved as part of the 2009 economic stimulus package. They extended benefits to people working in the service sector and made it easier for displaced workers to buy health insurance. Those sections expired in February and Democrats want them renewed, at least in part.


View the original article here