The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label 113th Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 113th Congress. Show all posts

Thursday, December 26, 2013

CNN Poll, Congress 'Worst In Their Lifetimes' , Crooks And Liars

The 113th Congress wears a deserved 'collar': worst ever. But, sadly it is suffering for GOP (itis) to the maximum. When a party collaborates to obstruction administration, commits to suppressing votes, turns its back of the people at every turn, how can the opposing party accomplish the meaningful business of governance?

Some politicking fools have post the GOP is slightly ahead in posturing for the 2014 mid-terms. If the GOP bodes well in 2014, the nation deserves every plutocratic and inhumane slap offered from the GOP.


CNN Poll: Most Americans Say This Congress 'Worst In Their Lifetimes' (via http://crooksandliars.com)
By Susie Madrak December 26, 2013 7:01 am Voters often say Congress does the least harm when it does nothing, but the last Congress showed us the things they don't do matter just as much. While I'm sure the bobbleheads will interpret this as Americans…

StumbleUpon

Thursday, December 12, 2013

RepresentUS: For High Information People Only (Video)

Re-blog from RepresentUS.....

As we move towards awakening to the horrors of US politics ruled by money, RepresentUS is moving towards educating those who want to be be educated.  There are millions who blindly follow and cast votes that are leading to a US plutocracy and oligarchy.  Can you imagine a world where lobbyist have the final say in all matters of federal and state governance? Well, can you imagine we are getting awful close?

If you need a basic example, we offer:

Think of the 2010 mid-terms elections and the tragedy that follows our failure to it the polls with progressive "UMPH."  Koch brothers money funneled into tax free organizations such as FreedomWorks and many others, as well as funding of the Tea Party's false premise and activities contributed to the GOP infestation of the House of Representatives.  Has the US ever witnessed a group of legislative quacks comparable to the 'crew" resulting from the 2012 mid-term?  More significantly the strategy to win in 2010 reaped GOP dividends far beyond your and my comprehension (at the time).  The party in with the House majority in January of 2011, was handed the "magic wand' of congressional redistricting just after the competed 2010 Census.  The Kochs, Karl Rove and the rest of the plutocracy mongers could ask for nothing better.

We literally gave ourselves a the Sequesters, a shutdown federal government to the tune of $24 billion, the GOP War on Women, voter suppression like never before, reduced funding of Public Education, and a GOP treasure chest of obstruction to the nation's 44th President that is unparalleled in both actuality, scope and in net-net affect on the US economy.

If we pay attention to organizations like RepresentUS and other information treasure troves, we can and will make better election decisions. Examples of types of information shared by RepresentUS is posted in the table below. 

http://youtu.be/LWnJr_amf_A


Representative Jim Himes first caught our attention when he helped push through a bill written by CitiGroup lobbyists. As it just so happens, CitiGroup is also Rep. Himes’ #1 financial backer. That’s why we decided to make a “generous donation” of our own. 
We decided to target Jim Himes because he’s emblematic of a much larger systemic problem: Our Congress is being corrupted by big money and no longer represents the people. Rep. Himes co-sponsored and helped push a bill called H.R. 992 through the House. 992 would further deregulate derivatives, a financial instrument that played a major role in the 2008 crisis (source).
Our organization doesn’t have a position on derivatives trading. What we do have a position is corruption, and this is a textbook case. The New York Times revealed that 992 was written by big bank lobbyists — 70 of the 85 lines in 992 were written by lobbyists for CitiGroup (source).
 
As it just so happens, Jim Himes has received more money from CitiGroup than any other member of Congress — The only politicians who received more money from CitiGroup in the 2012 election cycle were Mitt Romney and Barack Obama (source). 7 of the top 10 interests funding his campaign committee and leadership PAC were financial services institutions (source). 
The Congressman who co-sponsored a bill written by big bank lobbyists — a bill which would directly benefit big banks if it ever becomes law — is completely dependent on those same banks to get reelected. Jim Himes also sits on the House Financial Services committee. He’s supposed to regulate the financial sector, and instead he’s letting their lobbyists write our laws. It’s flagrantly corrupt, and astonishingly legal. 
What used to be a shoebox full of unmarked bills has been replaced with a handful of checks from a lobbyist. The nature of corruption has evolved, and our laws have failed to evolve with it. That’s why we’re pushing for the American Anti-Corruption Act: A law that would put and end to the legalized bribery that’s come to define modern politics. Click here to read the Act, and add your name to the petition on this page to show your support the Act and join the movement.
The following accompanies the YouTube video above.
Published on Dec 6, 2013
Rep. Jim Himes lets lobbyists and donors write our laws, so we decided to make a "generous donation" of our own. Learn more and take action at https://represent.us/action/operation...

----- Sources -----

How did your Rep vote on H.R. 992?
[1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote...

Contributions by Vote
[1] http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/...

On H.R. 992, derivatives regulation:
[1] http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/2...
[2] http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/3...

Citigroup's Involvement:
[1] http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/2...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/20...
[3] http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/2...
[4] http://maplight.org/content/73351/cit...

Representative Jim Himes (D - CT):
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...
[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/reci...
[3] http://maplight.org/content/73257
[4] http://www.businessweek.com/articles/...
[5] http://dccc.org/blog/entry/dccc_chair...

How derivatives work:
[1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/1...
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3im-i...

StumbleUpon

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Congressional Approval Rating: Thanks to the Tea Party!


Poll: Congress approval rating at 6 percent record low (via The Moderate Voice)
Members of Congress can see the South Pole sign now. A new poll puts Congress’ approval rating at 6 percent: Americans are split down the middle on whether filibuster rules in the Senate are good or bad, but only 6% of Americans approve of the job…

StumbleUpon

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Reid Drops the "NUKE" Option




mushroom-Cloud


The United States Senate votes and passes the "nuclear option." Late in 2012, Senate Minority leadership convinced Harry Reid (D) Senate Majority leader to avoid and not being the nuclear option up for a vote. The conditions under which Reid agreed were clear. The filibuster would be enacted only in special cases and would cease to be a tool form the Right for Obama opposition. We read there was a 'gentleman's agreement' republicans would not declared a filibuster for each and every proposed piece of legislation and judicial nominations from the White House.


Many on the Left felt Reid was the victim of McConnell's political acumen and an unwitting and reluctant subject of GOP malfeasance.  It appears we hit the nail squarely on the head as the GOP never even put a crimp in their blanket opposition to "all things Obama.

Earlier today Huffington Post published the following article.

Ryan Grimryan@huffingtonpost.com

Michael McAuliffmike.mcauliff@huffingtonpost.com
Senate Votes For Nuclear Option
Posted:   |  Updated: 11/21/2013 1:33 pm EST



C-SPAN Video
http://youtu.be/z6MwVzQJjZc

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled the trigger Thursday, deploying a parliamentary procedure dubbed the "nuclear option" to change Senate rules to pass most executive and judicial nominees by a simple majority vote. 
The Senate voted 52 to 48 for the move, with just three Democrats declining to go along with the rarely used maneuver. 
From now until the Senate passes a new rule, executive branch nominees and judges nominated for all courts except the Supreme Court will be able to pass off the floor and take their seats on the bench with the approval of a simple majority of senators. They will no longer have to jump the traditional hurdle of 60 votes, which has increasingly proven a barrier to confirmation during the Obama administration.
If you take a look at the following Facebook meme, you should get the picture.


As you know, if you visit here form time-to-time we will not leave a piece without dropping a bit of information. Some might be curious about the filibuster.

US Constitution Online

Questions
Q139. "Why can't I find anything about filibusters in the Constitution?"
 A. The short answer is because  there is nothing there to find: the  Constitution does not  contemplate  the filibuster in any  way, directly  or indirectly. So,  then, what is all  this talk about  the Framers, the  Senate, the  filibuster, and its    relationship to  the Constitution?
By way of definition, the filibuster is a delaying tactic that is a part of the rules of the Senate. It is a word that comes from the Spanish word for "freebooter," which means "pirate." The origin seems to be that a person who filibusters is plundering the time and focus of a deliberative body, like a legislature. Specifically, in the U.S. Senate, a filibuster is used by a single Senator or group of Senators to stop or delay action on a piece of legislation. It has long been the tradition of the Senate that debate may not be stopped unless those taking up the debate allow it to be stopped. In other words, once a Senator has the floor, he or she may continue to talk forever. This rule goes back to the very beginnings of the Senate. 

The Constitution allows each house of Congress to set its own rules. Early on, both houses had unlimited debate provisions. The House of Representatives, however, as a much larger body, found this rule unworkable and rules to limit debate came into effect. The Senate, until recently, never created such a rule. The term for the use of unlimited debate as a legislative tactic became known as a filibuster in the 1850's. The first attack on the filibuster came in 1841, by no lesser a figure than Henry Clay. It survived, though, until 1917, when the Senate adopted a rule allowing a filibuster to be stopped by a two-thirds vote. Such a vote is known as "cloture." Cloture ended the ability of a single Senator to hold up Senate business, but since a two-thirds vote can be difficult to get, it certainly did not stop the filibuster.

In 1975, the two-thirds rule was changed to three-fifths. Today, the three-fifths rule allows cloture on the basis of the vote of sixty Senators. In 2005, the filibuster again came under attack when threats to filibuster judicial appointments prompted calls for a rule change specifically against filibusters on judicial appointments.
So the filibuster has its constitutional origins in the ability of each house of Congress to set its own rules. It has its origins in the framers in that they saw the Senate as a place where extended debate and discussion would have a cooling effect on the actions of the more "heated" House. And it has its origins in the concept ingrained in our political system that the rights of the minority must be protected from the force of the majority.
The Senate procedure was not part of the Us Constitution. In fairness, the procedure has been used throughout modern US History and it has been used by both sides of the congressional isle.

McCain and McConnell have already run to microphones with clear threats of future Senatorial retaliation.


We will end this piece at this point with full knowledge the issue will be widely published here going forward. 
StumbleUpon

Monday, November 4, 2013

Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever!





"Segregation now, Segregation tomorrow, Segregation forever!"
If you think America is a true melting pot, you would be the perfect customer for PT Barnum's, "There's a sucker is born every minute." Better yet and more relevant, you might be the person who would sign-up for Donald Trumps Enterprise (University) Institute and actually believe you will finish the lecture program equipped to become a millionaire. That is until you realize the full scope of the institute's charges and your real prospects of quick millions; you have been "had." 
OK, let's assume you are not a Barnum or Trump "mark." Have you thought of the nation as a fair and balanced for all regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or social economic status? If you have read through the previous verbiage, you should have been taken to a place that you really already know. A place you would rather not admit publicly. 

Let's face it, if you are reading here you are not a right-wing ideologue, probably not a far-right libertarian; and you may consider yourself an independent or progressive moderate. We define moderate progressive, or those who will claim such, people who would not hesitate to ignore the past and vote for a GOP ticket based on candidate charisma. Charisma would have to be the decision-point as no GOP candidate can even remotely claim: "The GOP is good for the nation." Of course, any candidate can claim such, but no GOP candidate can display data that would back-up the claim. 

Now that we have set a few parameters, let's work at real divides across the nation that manifest as dangerous as non-nuclear enemy of the state. An enemy that can best be described as demographic and social gaps that pull at national cohesiveness.

Between October 17th-20th, ABC News/FUSION via Langer Research Associates conducted a poll that revealed stark gaps in how a respondent group 1,002 adults viewed matters of race and gender in politics within the survey construct of partisan politics and political ideology.

ABC NEWS/FUSION POLL (Langer Research Associates)
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE (full survey results pdf)
METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Fusion poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 17-20, 2013, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,002 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. 5 
The linked results and the following key excerpts cast a very dim light on the prospects of a collective synergy for the good of the nation.
• Among all adults, 53 percent think women have fewer opportunities than men in the workplace. But that ranges from 68 percent of Democrats to 38 percent of Republicans, a difference of 30 percentage points. Comparing the most unlike groups, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, it's 76 vs. 35 percent. 
• Forty-one percent overall think nonwhites have fewer opportunities than whites in society. Fifty-six percent of Democrats say so, as do 62 percent of liberal Democrats (more than the number of nonwhites themselves who say so, 51 percent). Among Republicans that dives to 25 percent. 
• Forty-three percent of Americans say it would be a good thing if more women were elected to Congress - but the range here is from six in 10 Democrats and liberals alike to just 26 percent of conservatives and 23 percent of Republicans. Instead two-thirds or more in these latter two groups say it makes no difference to them. 
• Just 23 percent overall say it would be a good thing if more nonwhites were elected to Congress; 73 percent instead say it makes no difference to them. Seeing this as a good thing peaks at 50 percent among liberal Democrats (far more, in this case, than the number of nonwhites themselves who say so, 29 percent). Among conservative Republicans, it's 5 percent. 
• Thirty-nine percent of adults say they trust the government in Washington to do what's right; six in 10 don't. Apparently reflecting views of the Obama administration, trust peaks at 62 percent of Democrats, as many liberals and 69 percent of liberal Democrats. Just a quarter of Republicans and conservatives, and 18 percent of conservative Republicans, feel the same. 
• Support for legal status for undocumented immigrants, 51 percent overall, ranges from 77 percent among liberal Democrats to 32 percent among conservative Republicans. Views on this issue also show sharp differences among other groups - for example, nonwhites vs. whites, 70 vs. 43 percent; and adults younger than 40 vs. their elders, 61 vs. 47 percent. 
• Fewer than half of all adults, 45 percent, say political leaders should rely somewhat or a great deal on their religious beliefs when making policy decisions. But again the range is wide: Six in 10 conservatives, as many Republicans and 65 percent of conservative Republicans hold this view. That falls sharply to 39 percent of Democrats and independents alike, four in 10 moderates and 32 percent of liberals.
Since the ABC Survey identified major social gaps among a group of 1,002 adults, and with consideration of the number as s small sample, it is worthwhile to see demographics of the 113th Congress. 

The 113th Congress was touted as being the most diverse Congress in US history; at least for 20 women sworn in to the US Senate in January of this year. Diversity in the 113th Congress remains a bastion of the white male, and it seems incumbents feel that is no problem. Since, a more diverse Senate and House could mean fewer seats for white males, a case could be made for self-preservation. But, the issue is far more serious than a seat on the most "do nothing" Congress in US History.
www.huffingtonpost.com
If we accept the premise that more minority representation in the federal legislature, we are subscribing to a tenet of diversity obviously not shared by many. Since the 113th Congress (as all before) remains overwhelmingly white male we can assume that 5% of conservative republicans feel a more diverse congress is echoed across the greater GOP. 

If the nation's legislators are significantly influenced by the Far-Right and Far-Left political ideologues, can we actually ever expect those legislators to find cause for social healing? Politics has contributed greatly to the social gaps, politicians should be charged with reversing the deleterious gaps promulgated to win elections.

You might ask, why is diversity in Congress even an issue? If you think as such, realize the nation is very ethnically, racially, gender diverse. We are seeing irrefutable evidence diversity is increasing as time passes and sometime in the 22nd Century whites will no longer populate as the nation's majority.



Current congressional representation demographics and congressional districts maps are sadly revealing, if you care about fair and balanced representation as an American

If after viewing the Atlantic Cities maps, you remain one who feels race and ethnicity (and gender) in congress makes little to no difference, we suspect you are from the majority population. While living the majority population is not a crime, being a denizen of the majority population group has conferred privileges not shared with other demographic groups. It is unfortunate, but as we look at the focus of the 112th Congress and 113th Congress people who live as minorities, women, LGBT and poor in America do not get a fair shake from a government to which each group pay taxes.


We cannot hope to secure congressional seats for the chronically poor, but we, as a nation, should feel opportunity to affect demographic change in Congress. Demographic change that could lead to a fair and balanced life for the under-represented in the United States. 

Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever!
StumbleUpon

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

The Sequester: A Sham And The Right Loves It!

Re-post from Facebook

Join the Coffee Party Movement
There is no death with dignity in starvation. This graphic makes me heartsick. Is this what Congress was looking for when they said yes to the sequester?

IMHO, the graphic offers more proof that America is compartmentalizing its values due to the shock and awe of the wealth creators having mustered enough political power to opt out of any social contract implied by being an American.

The media would have us argue faux free market v social safety net, a false choice. We, the actual taxpayers, provide tax loopholes, tax subsidies, and tax incentives and receive a slap in the face when it comes to getting anything back. I say, if you want to keep "your" money, go earn it in "your" country, you know, the one that “you” built. I'd like to know exactly where that is, your country of Me-me-me-stan.

‪#‎FreeTheElected‬ from the need to suck-up to big money, and we will have a government we admire rather than resent or fear.
Jeanene

_______________ 

End Coffee Party Movement

We at the TPI are firm in our belief the GOP is as pleased with the sequester as they are with Fox News and with copious legislation regarding women's rights.
StumbleUpon

Sunday, June 30, 2013

The "Sequester": The Legacy Of The Worst Congress In US History

  So much we have forgotten! Forgotten among the various issues which have cloaked the nation in cynicism, angst, and opportunity, the  dreaded "Sequester" looms like a circling vulture awaiting its dying meal. The "Sequester," Obama's problem! An issue for the president and anyone on the Left or moderate who recognize and acknowledge the failings of national "austerity.'  Ah, yes the promise to delay "it all" until January 2013 (after the election), and then the kicked can through March 2013.  The can is still tumbling along with no progressive towards settlement.  No compromise and dogmatic glee from the Right. Of course, the Right is excited about the 'forced additional austerity'. They are as excited as seeing our president and our intelligence community under scrutiny via the national spotlight I call "SNOWDEN GATE."  (Brief digression)

The US Defector is as notable and damaging to US security as John Anthony Walker and his years of spying for the Soviet Union.  Let's leave Snowden wallowing in his infamy for a bit.



Jared Bernstein has published a running "Watch" of the continuing Sequester and its impact across the nation. We have linked (below) the "Sequester Watch" Series from April 29th through June 24th. You might recall the Congress passed legislation to extricate the FAA Air Traffic Controllers from sequester furloughs. How self-serving? And, they did so under the guise of "keeping our airways safe!" Yes, especially on weekends when the congressional journey home to their districts. 




For those who remain aware of slow improvement in the nation's economy, you probably have opinions on why we are seeing growth et al.  We at the TPI do not agree the sequester is contributing to an improved economy. 

Bernstein's linked series includes sequester cuts in food programs for the needy through funding for schools across the entire nation.  We watch as the nation crumbles under the scourge of a Tea Party laden House of Representatives (replete with "Blue Dog" Democrats) and the Senate refuse to enact deep cuts in subsidies to big business (particularly big oil).  

Jared Bernstein's "Sequester Watch"

Sequester Watch, #2 | Jared Bernstein | On the Economy  Apr 29, 2013


Of course, for you and me the sequester is just sitting i-place and chipping away at the nation's services programs foundation.  No, we have not forgotten the sequester also hit national defense.  Those cuts are of no concern for the "defense loving" GOP as its members of Congress know the nation funds national defense at a unimaginable level. (Click charts to navigate to sources)




A quick look at how the proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Discretionary Spending Budget shows 64% for Defense Spending, it is always a good comparison to view defense spending of other nation's.




The last graph clearly shows why the GOP will sit in pure glee as the sequester rolls along with adverse impact on all other economic sectors with ties to the federal budget. 

Since we referenced 2014 above, let's take a quick look at how the Administration and GOP proposals focused on ending the sequester.

National Priorities Dot Org (March 2013)

COMPETING VISIONS: PRESIDENT OBAMA, REP. PAUL RYAN, SEN. PATTY MURRAY, AND HOUSE PROGRESSIVES RELEASE BUDGET PROPOSALS FOR 2014

March 14, 2013 
National Priorities Project examines how new budget proposals stack up against what Americans want.
By Chris Hellman and Mattea Kramer
  • UPDATE: Rep. Paul Ryan's budget passed the House in a vote of 221-207, and Sen. Patty Murray's budget passed the Senate in a vote of 50-49. The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget did not pass the House.
  • UPDATE (April 10, 2013): Inserted President Obama's budget proposal column.
  • UPDATE (April 12, 2013): Check out our easily-readable one-page version.
Public Opinion: What Do Americans Want?President ObamaRep. Paul Ryan and the House Budget CommitteeHouse Congressional Progressive CaucusSen. Patty Murray and the Senate Budget Committee
Job Creation95 percent  say restoring the job market is a top priority.$166 billion over 10 years for job creation initiatives, including infrastructure repairs and tax credits for small businesses that hire or raise wages.No new funding for job creation.$4.2 trillion over 10 years for job creation through infrastructure investment, tax credits, and aid to the 50 states and the District of Columbia.$100 billion in near-term spending for job creation, including $50 billion for transportation infrastructure and $10 billion for worker training programs.
Medicare88 percent  say it is very important to preserve the long-term stability of Medicare.Negotiates for lower prescription drug prices and raises premiums on wealthy retirees, among other changes, to save $392 billion over 10 years.Beginning in 2024 seniors would receive a lump sum of money to buy private insurance. The lump sum would keep pace with inflation but not the rate of health care cost growth.Negotiates for lower prescription drug prices to save $157 billion over 10 years.Saves $275 billion over 10 years by accelerating health care reforms that reward quality of care rather than pay fee-for-service.
Social Security88 percent  say it is very important to preserve the long-term stability of Social Security.Proposes changing cost-of-living adjustments using an inflation measure known as "chained CPI" to reduce benefits over time and save $230 billion over 10 years.Requires the president and Congress to submit plans for the long-term financial outlook of Social Security.No proposed changes.No proposed changes.
Tax Loopholes80 percent  want to see loopholes closed for big corporations, while  66 percent want to see loopholes closed for wealthy taxpayers so that money can be used for deficit reduction.Places limits on tax deductions for the top 2 percent of income earners (to raise $529 billion over 10 years). Among other changes, ends the “carried interest” loophole that benefits hedge fund managers ($16 billion) and eliminates special tax breaks for oil and gas companies ($44 billion).Plans to close tax loopholes but does not specify which ones.Closes loopholes that favor oil, gas, and coal companies, and that create incentives to move jobs overseas. Eliminates corporate loopholes for stock options, private jets, and meals and entertainment. Also eliminates the home mortgage-interest deduction for vacation homes and yachts.Plans to close tax loopholes for $975 billion in deficit reduction but does not specify which ones. Plans to target loopholes that currently benefit the wealthy and major corporations.
SNAP (food stamps)75 percent  oppose cuts to SNAP.No proposed changes.Makes deep cuts to SNAP funding and converts the program to a block grant administered at the state level.Increases funding for SNAP as part of an overall increase of $312 billion over 10 years for income security programs.No proposed changes.
Education73 percent  say it’s very important to make a college education more affordable, while 83 percent  oppose cuts to K-12 education.Expands access to pre-kindergarten education to move toward a goal of universal pre-kindergarten education and expands mandatory funding for Pell grants.Freezes the maximum Pell grant award at the same level for the next 10 years, provides financial aid to fewer families, and reduces general discretionary spending for education.Expands the education budget and provides $25 billion over 10 years to hire back 300,000 laid-off teachers and modernize 35,000 public schools.Calls for supporting elementary and secondary education and making college more affordable but does not specify how.
Individual Taxes70 percent  want a simpler tax code with lower rates and  66 percent want to see higher taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers.Places limits on tax deductions for the top 2 percent of income earners, as noted above. Also imposes a “Buffett rule” – a minimum tax rate on millionaires – to raise $53 billion over 10 years.Steeply reduces tax rates for top earners by replacing the current tax brackets with just two brackets of 10 percent and 25 percent.Ends the Bush-era tax cuts for families earning over $250,000, creates five new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, and ends special low tax rates for investment income.Places limits on tax expenditures claimed by the top 2 percent of income earners.
Corporate Taxes64 percent  want to see corporations pay more in taxes, while  73 percent want to prevent corporations from avoiding taxes by shifting profits overseas.Proposes no new taxes on corporations. Would close some tax loopholes as part of tax reform to simplify the tax code and lower tax rates, thereby raising no new tax revenue from corporations.Reduces the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and releases overseas profits from U.S. taxation.In addition to closing tax loopholes (specified above), creates a “Wall Street sales tax” on financial transactions including the sale of stocks and bonds.Proposes changing corporate tax provisions that allow corporations to avoid taxes with offshore operations.
War Funding60 percent favor removing troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible.Does not specify.Provides $47 billion for war funding in 2014, a cut of 53 percent below the 2013 level. Maintains annual war funding of $37 billion or more for the next decade.Calls for an expedited troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and ends war funding beginning in fiscal 2015.Based on current plans to end the Afghanistan war in 2014, provides $100 billion in fiscal 2013, $50 billion in fiscal 2014 and $25 billion in fiscal 2015.
Military Funding58 percent  would like to see major reductions in military spending.Prevents across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration from affecting the military budget. Proposes a Department of Defense base budget of $526.6 billion in 2014, a cut of 1.6 percent.Prevents across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration from impacting the military budget.Reduces military spending by $897 billion over 10 years through a smaller force structure and reductions in Cold War-era weapons.Would gradually reduce military spending beginning in fiscal 2015, for a savings of $240 billion over 10 years.
Medicaid52 percent support the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare, while 46 percent  oppose any cuts to Medicaid.Maintains the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare.Makes deep cuts to Medicaid funding and converts the program to a block grant administered at the state level.Maintains the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare and increases funding for Medicaid through supplemental grants to states over the next two years.Maintains the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare.

Budget Totals

Public Opinion: What Do Americans Want?President ObamaRep. Paul Ryan and the House Budget CommitteeHouse Congressional Progressive CaucusSen. Patty Murray and the Senate Budget Committee
Total Proposed Change in Spending56 percent  want to see a mix of spending cuts and tax increases; 35 percent want cuts only.$1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years.$5.7 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years.$3 trillion in spending increases over 10 years.$837 billion in spending cuts over 10 years.
Total Proposed Change in Tax Revenue56 percent  want to see a mix of spending cuts and tax increases; 5 percent want only tax increases.$583 billion in new tax revenue over 10 years.No change in tax revenue.$5.7 trillion in additional tax revenue over 10 years.$923 billion in additional tax revenue over 10 years.
Total Deficit Reduction72 percent  say deficit reduction is a top priority.Reduces deficits by $1.8 trillion over 10 years.Reduces deficits by $5.7 trillion over 10 years.Reduces deficits by $2.7 trillion over 10 years.Reduces deficits by $1.8 trillion over 10 years.
SOURCES: All numbers and analysis drawn directly from budget proposals released by the White House , House Budget Committee , the Congressional Progressive Caucus , and the Senate Budget Committee.
The real shame beyond the information and graphics above is the lack of major angst from the pubic about the extent to which a do nothing, lowest rated Congress in US History has hog-tied opportunities to advance our economic well-being.  conservatives do not care as their agenda is being satisfied  progressives, Independents and Liberals are another story.   
StumbleUpon