Democratic Political Theater, in the Senate

[sirs]

Senate's Pathetic Oil Stunt
Guy Benson

Democrats want Americans to know that they care about high gas prices.  They also want the public to believe the GOP is blindly loyal to big, bad oil companies (the top five of which, incidentally, control a whopping six percent of the world's oil), at the expense of consumers.  Their plan to achieve both of these ends: Raise taxes on oil companies.  Noted Economist Harry Reid insists that by raising the tax burden on these dastardly companies, their product will go down in price.  Really:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested Tuesday that the Democrats' bill eliminating tax breaks for the big five oil companies could be the first step in helping bring down "exorbitant gas prices.?

?We have to do something about the exorbitant gas prices, and the best way to start with that is to do something about the five big oil companies getting subsidies they don't need,? Reid said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning.

And now, the very next sentence of the very same news story:

But two different studies concluded the bill would have no affect on gas prices.

A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that eliminating the $21 in tax breaks would affect gas prices neither positively nor negatively.

"The price of oil is determined on world markets and tends not to be sensitive to small cost variations experienced in regional production areas," the CRS said last week.

A different study published by Congress?s Joint Economic Committee also found that eliminating tax breaks ?will not affect the output or price of crude oil or natural gas.?

Senate Republicans are circulating quote after quote from Democrats admitting as much, including an incriminating line from -- you guessed it -- Harry Reid:

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): ?This was never intended to talk about lowering prices.? (CNN?s ?The Situation Room,? 5/11/11)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): ?So this is a question of fairness and a question of priorities. Certainly a question of economics. But it is not a question of gas prices.? (Sen. Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/16/11)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): ?You know, this is not going to change the price at the gasoline pump. That?s not the issue.  I don?t see that as an issue at all. The issue I see is who shares.? (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Hearing, 5/12/11)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): ?It will not reduce gasoline prices by one penny.? ?I would just like to add my strong voice to urging my colleagues to read this bill, to look at it and understand the inherent unfairness in it, the lack of significant deficit reduction, and the fact that it will not, although it is being touted as, it will not reduce gasoline prices by one penny.? (Sen. Landrieu, Floor Remarks, 5/11/11)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): ?It won't decrease prices at the pump.?

?There is a lot of talk right now about ending tax incentives for oil and gas industry, but the high profits right now of these companies are easy targets. But one thing Alaskans know, just because you have an easy target doesn't mean it is the right thing to shoot. It won't decrease prices at the pump for our families and small businesses. It will discourage companies, especially the independents, from domestic investment and job creation.? (Sen. Begich, Floor Remarks, 5/11/11)

Sweeping evidence and reason aside, the vote on Reid's bill is expected to move forward this evening.  Oh, and one more minor detail, it's patently unconstitutional:

[Reid] and most of the Dem caucus couldn't be happier that their Republican counterparts are circling their wagons around big oil companies to protect their multi-billion dollar annual tax subsidies. And they'll have great fodder for attack ads starting Tuesday night, when a Senate bill that would rescind those subsidies is expected to fail along party lines.

But even if by some miracle it passes, it would have to be shelved. In their zeal to put Republicans on the spot, Democrats neglected one key technicality: eliminating tax loopholes raises revenues, and any legislation that raises revenues must, according to the Constitution, originate in the House of Representatives.

Tonight's stunt is political theater -- plain and simple.  It will not reduce the price of gasoline.  It will give Democrats the empty satisfaction of symbolically sticking it to Big Oil, while trying to make Republicans squirm.  Americans demand solutions, not cynical posturing. 

But if one were to remove "empty posturing" from the Democrats' playbook, what would remain?

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is curiously strange how first we were told that this would not affect Big Oil at all: it was just a nasty thing to do to brave wildcatters.

Now it turns out that it DOES affect Big Oil,and Big Oil has sent its lobbyists to tell Congress how it will hurt them. Whereas before, we were told that it would make no difference at all. They would pass all the costs on to consumers and it would not affect Big Oil at all.

So either we were lied to by Big Oil twice, or they are p!ssing money away on expensive lobbyists.

Do they deserve tax breaks? They do not.
Government should try to be fair, and it is not fair to give these clowns tax breaks.

[sirs]

Yea, we are being lied to........this go around, it happens to be the Democrats, in the Senate

[Plane]

  I can't imagine oil and gas producers accepting any sort of increase in costs without raising prices.
We are only discussing whether the Government will gouge us more or less.

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are not an oil company. I own several funds that own oil companies, and therefore I have a stake in this, but I still say that the tax break is unwarranted and should be abolished.


If it were easy for oil companies to pass the lack of a tax break on to the public, they would not be spending all that money to defeat the bill.

[sirs]

Perhaps because they actually care more about this country than the Senate Dems

[Xavier_Onassis]

You actually believe that the Big Oil companies give a rat's ass about this country?

Please.

[sirs]

If they didn't, they'd ratchet up the prices far more, just as you alluded to.  Keeping in mind, the countless congressional hearings bent on trying to find some form of price gouging, price manipulation, price fixing, some nefarious foundation to those evil profits, by evil Big Oil.  Couldn't find any could they

Naaa, those that could give a "rat's ass" are those Democrats in the Senate.  Most of them, at least

[Plane]

You are not an oil company. I own several funds that own oil companies, and therefore I have a stake in this, but I still say that the tax break is unwarranted and should be abolished.


If it were easy for oil companies to pass the lack of a tax break on to the public, they would not be spending all that money to defeat the bill.

  There is a negative effect to them if they loose a lot of sales , but the government would also loose a lot of tax if gas were to price far out of reach.

   What atre the Gas producers and distributors supposed to pay this tax with? Money they found laying around or with money they will demand from their customers?

[sirs]

Here we go.  Senate Democratic leadership is expected to hold a series of budget votes this evening. They will ask their colleagues to vote on four 2012 budget proposals -- not a single one of which is their own plan.  That's because, as we've pointed out ad nauseam, a Democratic plan does not exist.  They haven't produced one because they're invested in the political calculation that attacking Republican alternatives will help them win the next election.  Their misreading of last night's results in NY-26 will only reinforce that perception.  This may be good politics; we shall see.  But it is inexcusably irresponsible policy.  President Obama has called the status quo "unsustainable," and warns that the rising tide of US debt "will cost us jobs and damage our economy."  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says American red ink is "our biggest security threat" because by 2025, virtually all of our military spending will be unpaid for.  Medicare will become insolvent in 2024, five years earlier that its previous projected demise.  This is not a game, but Senate Democrats are treating it as such.

Which brings us to this evening's slate of votes.  Congress' upper chamber will vote to proceed on Paul Ryan's plan,
Pat Toomey's plan,
Rand Paul's plan,
and -- because Mitch McConnell will exercise his prerogative as minority leader to force it --
President Obama's catastrophic 2012 budget, which was released and widely panned in February. 

All four votes are expected to fail.  From what I hear, the Ryan and Toomey plans will receive the highest number of votes -- likely all from Republicans (though a handful of GOP Senators have already announced their opposition to the House budget).  Sen. Paul's budget will fail by a much wider margin, and -- get this -- President Obama's budget could literally receive zero votes.

How could that be?  Hill sources tell me that Republicans will vote in lock-step against the president's budget because, well, it's horrendous.  It adds $9.5 trillion to the debt over ten years, and entirely ignores his debt commission's entitlement reform recommendations. 

Democrats, many of whom praised the budget when it was released (stay tuned for more on that), are now expected to overwhelmingly oppose it as well.  They will argue that since unveiling his official budget, the president has outlined a new "vision" for debt reduction, rendering his actual on-paper budget obsolete.  They'll say that yet another bipartisan commission -- led by Vice President Biden -- must be allowed to do its work, so they have no problem voting down a proposal that the president himself has all but abandoned.  This will be their professed cover for voting no. The problem with this move, however, is that President Obama's 2012 budget is literally the only Democrat-generated plan on the table.

Democrats' cynical, high-stakes game of three card monte relies on promoting, then attacking, Republican plans.  They explicitly want to be the party of 'no' in this case, not precious "the party of ideas" they claim to be.  By committing their own blueprint to paper, they'd invite a genuine debate over competing worldviews -- a confrontation they're desperate to avoid.  Instead, they'll sit back, shine the spotlight on GOP proposals, ruthlessly lie about them, and reap the expected electoral windfall.  This is not the behavior of responsible leaders or good faith actors; it's a stunningly reckless ploy intended solely for short-term political benefit.  Shameful.

I'll close with this quote from President Obama in 2009, chastening the GOP for what he viewed as its knee-jerk opposition to all of his policies.  His bottom line -- stop complaining and advance your own solutions:

"I do think that the Republican Party right now hasn't sort of figured out what it's for," Obama said in a White House interview with The Courier-Journal and reporters from five other newspapers. "And so as a proxy, they've just decided 'we're going to be against whatever the other side is for.' That's not what's needed in an economic crisis."

Someone should ask Obama, to whom does this gripe apply today?  Stay tuned to The Tipsheet for updates on tonight's showdown.

UPDATE - Friendly reminders: It has now been 756 days since the Democrat-controlled US Senate passed a budget resolution.  During that time, Democrats haven't even introduced a proposal.  Also, according to federal statute, Congress was supposed to have passed a budget over a month ago.
 
UPDATE II - Democrats are currently ripping Republicans' plans on the Senate floor.  Keith Conrad calls Ryan's budget "not even act of courage," which is rich coming from the chairman of a Budget Committee that has done a giant pile of nothing.  Reid chimes in, saying the Ryan plan "makes the rich richer and the sick sicker."  He claims it "breaks the promise" of Medicare with American seniors.  Of course, the Ryan's plan does not affect current or soon-to-be seniors -- and Medicare's "promise" will be broken in 2024 when the program goes broke.

[sirs]

UPDATE: As predicted, ZERO Senators have voted for President Obama's budget.  Therefore, the only Democrat-crafted 2012 budget proposal on the table has been unanimously defeated in the United States Senate.  This is simutaneously remarkable and pathetic.  The final roll call was 0 -97. 

Not a single Democrat -- for reasons outlined previously -- was willing to affix his or her name to the president's disastrous proposal, even though many of them lavished praise on it just a few months ago.

[sirs]

What did many of these same Democrats have to say about the very budget they just defeated when a Democratic President introduced it earlier this year?

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV):?President Obama?s budget is a serious attempt?? (Sen. Reid, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY):?This is a responsible proposal? I believe this approach should have bipartisan support.? (Sen. Schumer Press Release, 2/15/11)

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE):?I am encouraged ? I applaud the President for remaining committed to innovation...? (Sen. Coons, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. TOM CARPER (D-DE):?The President's budget is an important step forward??(Sen. Carper, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA): ?I applaud President Obama?? (Sen. Cantwell, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH):??a responsible framework...?(Sen. Shaheen, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. BILL NELSON (D-FL):?I personally think that the President's budget is a step in the right direction.?(U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Hearing, 2/16/11)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND):?The President?s budget gets it about right in the first year.? (Sen. Conrad, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-MD):?President Obama has given us a credible blueprint?? (Sen. Cardin, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-NC):??a good start.? (Sen. Hagan, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. HERB KOHL (D-WI): ?The President's budget is a good first step?? (Sen. Kohl, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY):?? the President?s budget provides a good place to start the conversation.?(Sen. Gillibrand, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): ??the President?s budget provides a good blueprint for achieving many of our shared goals.? (Sen. Blumenthal, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ):?President Obama?s budget presents a careful evaluation of what our nation needs...? (Sen. Lautenberg Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT):?The President's budget? strengthens our economy...? (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Hearing, 2/16/11)

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-OH): ?The President?s budget proposal will put us on track?? (Sen. Brown, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. AL FRANKEN (D-MN):?The President's budget proposal is headed in the right direction?? (Sen. Franken, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-IA): ??the President has proposed a balanced approach?? (Sen. Harkin, Press Release, 2/14/11)

SEN. TOM UDALL (D-NM): ?? it's a solid starting point.? (Sen. Udall, Press Release, 2/14/11)

[sirs]

Are Voters As Stupid As Insiders Think?

Do Americans have the will to cut government spending in order to curb the rampant growth in government debt and liabilities? Not if the politicians they send to Washington have anything to do with it.

On Tuesday, a Republican candidate lost a special election to replace a disgraced GOP congressman from Buffalo, N.Y. -- to a Democrat who won with the help of a third-party candidate. Presto.

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called a vote on the House GOP budget bill. As The New York Times reported, Reid "brought the legislation to the floor so that Senate Republicans would either have to vote for it, exposing them to attacks from Democrats and their allies, or against it, exploiting growing Republican divisions on the issue."

Under Reid, the Senate has not passed a budget since April 29, 2009. The Senate has yet to pass a resolution to authorize the use of military force in Libya, even though the 1973 War Powers Resolution requires Congress to authorize military force abroad lasting longer than 60 days. Friday is the 60th day.

But when Reid sees a chance to make Republicans squirm in a symbolic vote that won't change anything, he is a tiger.

The GOP package failed, as expected, after four moderate Republicans and Kentucky purist Rand Paul voted against it.

Then the Senate voted on the Obama spending blueprint. It tanked 97-0.

While headlines focused on the GOP 57-40 loss, there was not a single Democrat who voted to take up the Obama budget. Gee. Reid sure is good at exploiting GOP divisions.

So tell me, what do the Democrats stand for?

I know what most Republicans stand for. The House budget plan trimmed federal spending by $6 trillion over 10 years and targeted the big enchilada, entitlement spending. Under Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's plan, Medicare enrollees would receive subsidies that would allow them to purchase private health care plans starting in 2022.

Democrats call that "ending Medicare as we know it." Republicans counter that the Medicare trust fund is expected to go bust in 2024 (five years earlier than trustees predicted last year) so Washington better change Medicare -- and fast -- in order to save it.

House Republicans are so righteous about reform that their plan includes means-testing to make affluent seniors pay more for Medicare. At a speech to the Economic Club of New York earlier this month, House Speaker John Boehner told billionaire and deficit hawk Pete Peterson, "Pete, I love you to death, but I don't think the taxpayers ought to be paying your Medicare premium."

Democrats are so stuck in "no" mode that they have been reduced to protesting Boehner's remarks. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, issued a statement in which he complained, "this idea may undermine Medicare and cost beneficiaries more at the same time."

The conventional wisdom inside the Beltway says that Republicans lost twice this week -- first in a special election, then a Senate vote. Conventional wisdom says that voters will bite if politicians, who promised fiscal discipline, lift a finger against entitlement spending.

But a 97-zip vote on Plan Obama? Who calls that "winning?"

[sirs]

Because this is what's SO MUCH MORE important than our Economy and Budget disaster
--------------------------------------------------------
As the Congressional Republicans have attempted to pass a budget that tackles our pending deficit and Medicare crises, Democrats have become quite adept at shooting down budgets while not bothering to propose any practical solutions of their own (today would be day 758, I believe?). It is understandable, though, that they just do not have the time to worry about a federal budget, since they are so darn busy coddling the general welfare. The latest legislation? Forget the budget; we need even more federal standards for sunscreen lotion labels! The Hill has the story:

"As families prepare for Memorial Day festivities, and plan outings this summer, most will be outdoors without adequate sun protection, even if they use sunscreen," Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the sponsor, said this week. "This is because there are currently no rules that sunscreen makers must follow when making claims about the level of protection their products provide."

The bill, S. 1064, would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to finalize its 2007 proposal mandating that sunscreen labels disclose the extent to which the product protects against ultraviolet rays known as UVA rays. UVA rays can penetrate the skin more deeply than UVB rays, but currently, sunscreen labels are not required to tell consumers how they protect against UVA rays.

Aside from Reed, the bill is sponsored by several Democratic heavy-hitters, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rules and Administration Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-NY). First-term Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is also a sponsor.

According to Reed, forcing the application of the FDA proposal would require labels to "disclose the level of UVA protection in a standard format that appears near the sun protection factor rating, and ensure that the SPF rating actually corresponds to a product's protection against UVB rays."

The bill would require the proposed FDA rule to take effect within 180 days after it became law.

"I look forward to a summer when Americans can finally feel protected from the sun's harmful rays," Reed said.

Well, what a relief that Senator Jack Reed is looking out for me, because otherwise, I would have had no way of knowing about the subtle differences in the sun blockage provided between SPF 75 and SPF 85 (hint: there are none), and never mind the numerous studies that suggest that sunscreen may actually accelerate cancer. Good grief! While this legislation was originally proposed in 2007, this is just a taste of what will happen if the looming menace of Obamacare stays on schedule: since I know that I will not have to feel the full costs of getting any skin cancer spots surgically removed, I have less of an incentive to limit my sun exposure. I know that "society" will pay for it, so I will not take conscious action to lessen my future demand for health care, and the system will become overburdened and expensive. Hence, it becomes the federal government's job to make decisions about my welfare for me and further encumber the mind-blowing bureaucracy that rules our lives.

But hey, even if I cannot afford to buy sunscreen because of federal spending, higher taxes, and a wracked economy, at least I will be able to understand the labels.

[sirs]