Hey folks...I know you don't like it when I talk politics. I know you're not big fans of our President. I know you tend to support the Republicans that Utah has sent to congress. But this isn't me trying to pick a fight, it's just a comment on a very eye-opening event that happened this past week. So even if it's just this once, please hear me out.
Yesterday the House of Representatives passed a bill sending $26.1 billion in assistance to the states. The bill passed the Senate last week, and once the House passed it, it was a matter of hours before the President signed it into law. This funding is specifically for two things: to extend additional Medicaid assistance to states and to help states create and retain teachers’ jobs. According to one estimate, in the state of Utah alone this assistance is keeping 1,800 teachers employed.
You might ask, in this economy how can the country afford to pay for it? What did Congress do to make this "budget neutral" as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office certified that it was? This bill is paid for in part by closing a tax loophole that benefited multinational companies. In other words, we're saving the jobs of our teachers by not paying companies to ship jobs to other countries. Sounds responsible, right? Sounds like a win/win situation, right?
It is. And every one of our Republican congressmen from Utah voted against it. The congressional Republicans called this a "bailout" of "special interest groups" by "raising taxes." I suppose this is technically true. But you know which "special interest groups" are being "bailed out?" Your mother (a school teacher.) Your children. Your grandparents. Anyone with a child in school, anyone who teaches, anyone who relies on government medicaid subsidies for their health care.
Utah Congressional Scorecard:
Sen Orrin Hatch (R) - voted no
Sen Robert Bennett (R) - voted no
Rep Rob Bishop (R) - voted no
Rep Jason Chaffetz (R) - voted no
Rep Jim Matheson (D) - voted yes
The Republican position on this legislation is completely indefensible. There is no responsible moral reason to vote against retaining teacher's jobs by fairly taxing companies who choose to stimulate foreign economies over our own. None whatsoever. The only reason for voting no is a political one - Republicans don't want Democrats to "score a victory" in an election year. Our representatives in congress are playing a despicable political game with our teachers' jobs and your children's education. Period.
I'm disgusted and you should be too.
Cancellation...
-
Dear Readers,
I hate to do this to you on Christmas day, but it must be done...I'm sorry
to inform you that after only a short run of 6 posts, my Advice Bl...
15 years ago
2 comments:
It may be a good thing, but I have also learned that things like this are usually pretty complicated. Did you know that nearly half of the money came out of the food stamp program? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of education and I would probably vote to shift money from food stamps to education, but what do I know about the details? I wish I knew more about the multinational companies that are funding the rest. Maybe they deserve to pay more taxes; but maybe they don't.
I think I agree with the bill. But I won't go so far as to say the Republican votes are indefensable.
Yeah, I knew that they shifted some funding from food stamps.
The additional tax revenues from multinational corporations comes from closing a tax loophole. They're saving in taxes by shipping jobs overseas. So this legislation funds education while encouraging them to keep the jobs in the US. And THOSE revenues amount to $10 billion...the same figure that went toward education.
It's my understanding that the remaining $16.1 billion came from a variety of sources, including cuts to the food stamps program...a program that isn't popular among conservatives anyway.
Perhaps my use of the word "indefensible" was a bit hyperbolic. Still, the Republicans' track record of actually contributing to worthwhile legislation over the past two years is basically nil. Sen. Jim DeMint's hope that health care reform would be "Obama's waterloo" basically explains the obstructionist attitudes that have pervaded the senate since the President took office. With over 300 bills waiting in the senate for action, countless "secret holds" on important legislation--including aid for Haiti, and the recent filibuster of the Defense Authorization Bill over the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, it's my opinion that the Republicans in congress are more concerned about making the President fail than they are about the welfare of the country.
Post a Comment