Bunning Has Successfully Blocked Extension of Unemployment Benefits, COBRA Funding, and Highway Money
Feb 27th, 2010 | 87 responses
Now, at least, Sen. Bunning’s hard work is done and he can go home to a well-deserved rest and a truly awesome weekend:
The Senate failed late Thursday to extend programs for laid-off workers, jeopardizing unemployment benefits scheduled to expire over the weekend.
The benefits are part of a larger package of government programs, from highway funding to loans for small businesses, set to expire Sunday because senators couldn’t agree on how to pay for an extension.
The House passed a bill Thursday extending the programs for a month while lawmakers consider how to address the issues long-term. Senate Democrats repeatedly tried to follow suit Thursday night but they couldn’t overcome the objections of a single lawmaker, Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, that the $10 billion bill would add to the budget deficit.
The bill would extend unemployment payments to laid-off workers and provide them with subsidies to help pay health premiums through the COBRA program. It would extend funding for highway projects and spare doctors from a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments. It would extend a small business loan program, the National Flood Insurance Program and the copyright license used by satellite television providers.
The Senate adjourned just before midnight with no further votes scheduled until Tuesday. To avoid an interruption in benefits, senators would have to act quickly when they return, a task made difficult by Senate rules that let a single senator slow the process. Bunning vowed to fight the extensions as long as they add to the deficit, though he acknowledged they will probably eventually pass.
87 Responses to “Bunning Has Successfully Blocked Extension of Unemployment Benefits, COBRA Funding, and Highway Money”
If you're in favor of knowing how to pay for what we spend, and if you believe Republicans' record in this area is abysmal, surely Bunning deserves praise for a step in the right direction. You're lamenting Republicans' free spending and failing to propose spending cuts, yet Bunning just did the opposite.
If you are in favor of knowing how to pay for what we spend, and if you believe that Bunning should be praised for taking a step in the right direction, and if you believe that the right place to draw the proverbial line in the sand is with a bill that extends funding for unemployed and uninsured Americans, surely Pres. Bush deserves condemnation for funding two wars and two massive tax cuts for the rich off the books. Even more to the point, if you believe all of the above about Bunning, surely, Dr J, surely, surely, you should have spoken out publicly, on blogs and on newspaper's letter to the editor pages, and in letters and phone calls to the White House and to your elected representatives, with your conviction that it's irresponsible and deplorable to allocate billions of dollars to war and tax cuts for the rich without paying for those allocations.
If you didn't — and excuse me for the presumption, but I'm 99 percent sure you didn't — then why didn't you? Even more to the point, if you didn't express your outrage for those unpaid-for entitlements back when Bush was president, then why are choosing people like sjones9 to put your figurative foot down on?
So, Reid knew this deadline was coming up and had the extension in that jobs bill, but decided to pull it out anyway? What kind of heartless man is he?
I think this kind of knee-jerk blame-spreading for something that is clearly and overwhelmingly one man's fault is truly deplorable.
That quote is Exhibit A for why we need health care reform that includes a strong public option to provide competition to those private insurers and choice for consumers who, shockingly, would prefer to have an alternative to private insurance companies for their health insurance needs.
High risk pools may help huge private corporations like Anthem and Wellpoint that make billions of dollars in profit every quarter by taking away most of the customers that they would actually have to pay out for, but it doesn't help the people who are in those high-risk pools and have to pay much higher premiums or deductibles for the health care they need.
“I don't care why the [drunk] puts down the bottle.”
Cute analogy, but I think you know that no one is putting down the bottle here. It's simply that the Republicans on their watch “serve” their wealthy supporters.
They're not willing to be fiscally responsible when they're serving their wealthy special interests, but they want Democrats to fail in delivering even basic human needs, apparently in order to deny them any victories that might be popular with voters.
So you won't hear Republicans calling to scale back the tax cuts which they voted for, and which we can't afford. You will see them oppose any expenditures, as I said, for the needy rather than the greedy.
Yes, Kathy, I disapprove of Bush's spending spree and these disastrous wars.
And I'll agree with you that if people with expensive medical problems are to have their bills paid by someone else, government involvement of some sort is the only way. Insurance companies have neither the incentive nor the moral legitimacy to do so, and I don't know why this would surprise anyone. If government is going to do it, there are a whole range of possible ways, from wholesale socialism to sending people checks to pay their bills with. I tend to favor the latter.
You're right, KK, on this specific issue of Bunning's blocking the bill. I was trying to expand the conversation beyond the immediate story.
Needless to say, I wasn't advocating violence in my comment immediately following the post, but was reacting to the seriousness of Bunning's action. Anyone who thinks that it isn't violent having your life and family disrupted by losing jobs, homes, and even your faith has truly been leading a sheltered life. So no, I'm not interested in beating Bunning up with a baseball bat, but that is in effect what he is trying to do to others with this sociopathic piece of grandstanding. As has already been observed by others here, this is hardly the place to draw a line in the name of fiscal responsibility, especially by folks who have supported and run interference for creation of worse debt in cases where no moral imperative even existed. Again, the H word applies (as has already been pointed out by others)
Yes, Kathy, I disapprove of Bush's spending”
Me to. As far as Anthem goes (for the third time in this forum): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487…
Toxic warning: This is a WSJ editorial so hide the kids.
Thank you for your encouragement! I have a few options left – credit, a little social security income, family and friends. Many people have none of that. I know things will work out for me one way or another.
” It's simply that the Republicans on their watch “serve” their wealthy supporters. “
And who has been serving them now? It wasn't the Repubs that want to require, by force of law and threat of jail time, everyone to have insurance. It's not the Repubs that refuse to discus tort reform to the delight of the trial lawyers. Who is it that guaranteed big Pharma that their profits were secure? Who is serving what besides the load of crap you are peddling. All Bs aside I wont argue about past actions trash anyone you want but lets not ignore what is going on right now in your rant against how bad the Republicans were!
“So you won't hear Republicans calling to scale back the tax cuts which they voted for, and which we can't afford. You will see them oppose any expenditures, as I said, for the needy rather than the greedy.”
I am of the school that tax cuts can improve the economy thus actually increase the income of the government. Now this is not absolute across the boards by any means, but it's a recognized theory, which may be why the current administration is continuing more than a few of the Bush tax cuts. Or is Obama just paying off the same business interests?
Heh, we agree…its just that you're blaming one guy and I'm blaming the rest of the senate. Pardon me for trying to think a little bit more in the grand scheme. From now on, I'm with you…let's vote all of the Repubs out, because the Dems are the only ones who can save us.
What is that definition of insanity again?
As for the law requiring insurance, it's already the case with auto insurance. Big deal.
“Carry on. Stay strong. You are not alone.”
Speak to yourself, where the need is greatest, Kathy. How many threads about this, which is nothing out of the ordinary, overdue, and welcome coming at least from someone in Congress who is retiring. (Oops — you may not be interested in simply facing the reality, which is not catastrophic in any way.)
What are you going to do in 10-20 years when your all-important Service Agency and Surrogate Parent in DC runs into serious limits and the need to establish priorities and cease much of what it does and spends money on now? If this is a catastrophe, worth multiple threads, what will that be?
“As for the law requiring insurance, it's already the case with auto insurance. Big deal.”
At the risk of taking things in a wholly different direction, I really need to mention that:
1. I carry insurance
2. I, or people in my immediate family, have been hit several times.
3. Not one time did the person who hit us have insurance.
But my car was repaired each time. Why? Because I carry uninsured motorist coverage.
Really, auto insurance is not the comparative you want. The argument breaks down immediately.
Yah, probably not the best comparison, but to borrow a qoute from Groucho: “That is my argument, and if you don't like it… well, I have others.”
The point is, we have so many mandatory way we “tithe” and most of them give us back less in return than health insurance would. In any case, it remains to be seen whether or not it will be a real issue or not.
It wasn't a good comparison or analogy at all.
The real issue with “mandatory health insurance” is that the insurers cannot (sanely) be forced to issue policies to those with pre-existing medical conditions or otherwise be required to issue policies unless they have everyone contributing and “participating” in order to get the money they need (and which is also needed to reduce per capita costs, which cost-conscious reform proponents already know).
Sorry if your having difficulty finding a job, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Congress should actually be able to explain where the money will come from. Its a red Herring.
Sorry another Red Herring. My compassion or lack thereof doesn't excuse Congress from spending the money of the American taxpayer without an explanation of where it will come from. Ad homs and appeals to emotion do not change this.
“I carry uninsured motorist coverage.”
Incidentally, Polimom, you may notice or recall that auto insurance is itself an “amusing” subject with all kinds of problems learned. For example, no-fault auto insurance is not a panacea. In Michigan, where I was, it was notorious for being a mess with terribly high costs. I suspect the same is true in a place like New Jersey. Then there's the situation such as in California, and probably in other states, where at least several years ago there was a problem with too many people who didn't need it going into the assigned risk pool because the assigned-risk insurance rates were more affordable. (This has an analogy to health care although the health high-risk pool may require certain conditions to qualify for admission, as in the state I'm in now.) Also, the uninsured-motorist problem becomes one of affordabilty — years ago, Roxani Gillespie, the state insurance commissioner, in CA, had to wrest with a dispute between the insurers, who wanted the rates raised for them to keep providing this service, and Gillespie, who needed to keep rates to a level where people could afford to pay them, or else people would be driving uninsured instead. (Health reform includes concern of affordability of the high-risk insurance or other insurance.)
From Polifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/stateme…
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/stateme…
I am as well, no disagreement whatsoever. I do however believe Congress needs to be transparent about how they will pay for this though. I do not opposed the idea of this spending in general, I oppose the lack of accountability of Congress.
Of course the rationale behind requiring insurance is to increase the pool, thus lowering the costs… in theory.
A valid objection assuming those bills did not specify how they would be paid for. Do you have an example of such behavior? It wouldn't surprise me but I'll need actual evidence to accept this as fact.
And I was a critic of runaway GOP spending as well. This is not a convincing point to justify more spending without transparancy. Whats so hard about humoring Bunning's request that it is made transparent where the money comes from? Regardless of where Bunning may have stood on other items, it it or is it not a good idea for Congress to make transparent where the money for its government programs will come from?
Is it or is it not a good idea for Congress to make transparent where the money for its government programs will come from?
Of course it is in general, Leonidas, but not at A Time Like This. I mean, to raise it right now, on an issue with such obvious benefits people need, just shows a lack of compassion. Why don't you bring it up when we're considering legislation that no one benefits from at all?
I've had it. There's no more excuse for it. This should never be allowed to happen in a civilized place!
Restore that highway money NOW, dammit! I expect good roads to drive on…
“I am of the school that tax cuts can improve the economy thus actually increase the income of the government.”
of course you are. There's a name for that, but I can't use it here because it's considered an ad hominem attack
Yeah, jchem, you're absolutely right. As someone else wrote here (can't remember her name), when 99 senators, both R and D, have agreed that funding for employment benefits and COBRA funding should not be allowed to expire, and one senator blocks that process so that the funding *does* expire, that one person is grievously at fault. I fully agree that both Democrats and Republicans could have forced the issue, shouldn't have gone home for the weekend, should have made Bunning stay there all weekend, too, and read from the phone book. I just don't have this obsession, or compulsion, you and other conservatives and “centrists” seem to have about naming all the names of all the parties who are to blame in every written or spoken communication on the topic. Bunning did something monstrous, which will cause enormous human suffering. He is a vile and deplorable excuse for a human being. I can say that, jchem, in a single particular post here, on TMV, and there can still be an understanding that there are some other people who did not do enough to stop him from doing his vile deed. I just don't feel the urgent need to say, in every post, “So and so did something really bad, but everybody else was to blame, too, and they were just as much to blame, and I would assign the percentages as about 33%, 33%, and 33% (Bunning, Republicans, Democrats) and let's figure out what to do about that one percent, who gets that share of the blame?”
You know? It's OKAY to blast Bunning for what he did, EVEN IF others were secondarily to blame for what they let Bunning do. You can always say that in the NEXT missive, jchem. It's okay. It really is okay. It won't make you a French Revolution zealot brandishing a guillotine or an unspeakable horrible extremist if you let one occasion go by without listing all the guilty parties.
This must be a difficult concept for a lot of people, since people are always screaming about the importance of blaming everyone, and each one, and both sides now, but for some reason it's not difficult for me. C'est la vie.
I am sure things will work out eventually. And I wish you all the good luck there is.
You know, Kathy, this almost seems pointless; its unfortunate that I tried to look at this in the broader scope of things rather than saying one man, on his own, has the absolute power to shut down the business of the US Senate as you seem willing to assert. I linked to an article that described how Reid pulled these exact same measures out of the jobs bill…you said nothing. I linked to a DailyKos entry that cited both Crooks and Liars as well as Roll Call, hammering on the weakness of people like Durbin who didn't have the spine to do anything…you said nothing. But here comes Bunning, and you have the need to drop 3 posts on him, describing him as monstrous.
You want to call me a conservative or a centrist, simply because I have the temerity to call you out when there's much more to the story than you present. I've found that quite often you look down upon anyone who dares disagree with you. If you do not want to have a discussion about your post just say so up front and we both can save the time required to pretend to have one. Otherwise, I'll leave your echo chamber alone.
If anyone out there needs an example of how ineffective and unnecessary the U.S. senate is ,they don't have to look any further than the idiot from Kentucky JIM BUMMING from that state,Why any one individual is allowed to hold the United States of America hostage is beyond reason!!
.
This is a follow up statement I made earlier about how in effective and unnecessary the U.S.senate is.This afternoon Senator Lamar Alexander made the following statement.”If the healthcare bill is allowed to pass through reconciliation it will mean the end of the senate.”My question is does anyone give a shit if it does??At least we will have some respite from the idiocy being displayed from the likes of “tough shit”Bunning and his idiot in training Mitch McConnell!!
Alot of us people on unemployment that have lost thier jobs in a higher position are willing and looking for a lower position that are being told they are over qualified to work in a lower paying job. Like myself. To be straight forward no one wants to stay on unemployment it doesn't even keep a person a float and to see watch you have worked so hard for just dissappear. So a dumb a** like urself to speak out that you no nothing about should put the shoes on for a few months and see how it feels to no any day your dreams will be ripped out from under you. Now for the banks that were bailded out the interest for the loans that were made should go towards the unemployed because it was the tax peoples dollars that were giving to them to bail them out. I have worked construction for 28 years i'm been throught the saviings and loan in the 80's jobs were still around then even after the economy went down. My feels to the people running this conuntry is suppose to be for the people by the people that was a lie, for every rep. and dem. that have there hands in someones pockets are living high on the hill just watching them on T.V. just sickings me they look like a bunch of none productive hens setting on a nest with no eggs TAKE there jobs. I am sure you would start to see a lot of eggs being shit then.
I would like to know why thw MODERATE VOICE deleted the word shit that was used by a U.S.senator on the senate floor when I commented about it???
Hi there and welcome Bud. The Moderate Voice holds to newspaper standards. Read the commenters rules at the top of the home page.
Thanks
[...] Bunning Has Successfully Blocked Extension of Unemployment Benefits, COBRA Funding, and Highway Mone… (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
“There's a name for that, but I can't use it here because it's considered an ad hominem attack
”
What the Keynesian School? In fact almost every modern school of thought is that raising taxes lowers productivity to some degree. And I know of no school of thought that does not belive there is a point where increasing taxes ends up grenerating less income for the goverment. Google a Laffer Curve. Attack all you want, it just shows how little you care about reality and who much is about you trying to be a chearleader. Just sad
[...] Bunning Has Successfully Blocked Extension of Unemployment Benefits, COBRA Funding, and Highway Mone… (themoderatevoice.com) Related Posts:Video: No signs of bipartisanshipWithers: Obama , DADT, and the State of the UnionSoccer Capsules: U.S. striker Dempsey injures knee in Premier LeagueAlan Grayson on Countdown: The Republican Party is a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Corporate AmericaKO Special Comment on McCain & The Ashley Todd Attack Hoax [...]