• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Side Effects: Higher Health Insurance Taxes

    Union bosses howled about one Obamacare tax hike: the levy on “Cadillac” health plans (expensive plans rich in benefits). The problem with this tax, as they see it, is that it hits the very plans often enjoyed by their rank-and-file.

    Ever eager to please the unions, Democratic leaders added a “fix” to the reconciliation bill the president will sign into law today (Tuesday). It delays the unpopular tax to 2018. The pols are touting it as a scaled back version of the tax. But even the “fix” is broken.

    While the tax won’t bite until after the president leaves office, “scaled back” it is not. The revised version raises the threshold for plans that would be subject to the tax. But it also indexes the threshold to rise with the general inflation rate.

    The original tax was indexed to general inflation plus 1 percent. The “plus 1” was meant to account for the higher rate of inflation in medical costs. Dropping that “plus 1 percent” means that more and more Americans’ health plans will fall under the tax as premium costs continue to outpace inflation.

    According to the Joint Economic Committee, “Under the provisions of the proposed “fix”, the high cost plans tax will hit the average family plan five years earlier. The subsidized exchange “silver plan” premium would be subject to the tax eleven years earlier.”

    Bottom line: Though the tax may be “scaled back” in the short term, it will hit more Americans’ health plans sooner in the long term.

    Rather than simply increase taxes to expand government health programs, Congress should replace the current tax exclusion with a fairer system: universal tax credits. Short of that, there are a number of practical steps Congress can take to expand private health insurance coverage and treat all citizens more equitably. It’s all explained here by Heritage analyst Stuart Butler.

    To learn more about sensible tax reform that experts and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle support, click here.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    69 Responses to Side Effects: Higher Health Insurance Taxes

    1. Zack says:

      healthcare-(a good/service)/(or provide for the wellfare of the people) is under the commerce clause -they are both in the constitution

      tax cuts hurt us. they will add 2.5 trillion to the national debt by 2016. and what good have they done?…anything, tell me just one thing? look the the federal income tax reductions from 2003-2010 up until expiration for 95% of the country compared to the highest income earners.- its not even close! we didn’t get tax cuts. maybe you make 250,000- 500,000+ and if so good for you. and all the recepients from both bush tax cuts will now pay their fair share for the the healthcare bill as they should.

      bush and the (republican/conservative led congress added 5.5 trillion to the national debt. another 500 billion for private militry contracts in “operation iraqi freedom” so 8.5 trillion dollar

      conservative talking point that i hear all the time—- “ the total debt of the previous administration’s entire 8 years has already been eclipsed by one year of the current”.. really? so obama has spent over 8.5 trillion dollars in 2009? wow, that sure is something. pardon my sarcasm but seriously dude! are you kidding around?

      bush the the republican led senate. remember that. (republican led senate) added 1.7 trillion in 2008 then obama and the democratic congress added 1.5 trillion to the national debt in 2009. remember that over 93% of all bills under democratic sponsorship in the house were blocked by republicans or vetoed by president bush from (2006-2008)-opencongress.org. votesmart.org, so go use the typical talking point…but, but, democrats had the house when the numbers prove this was the republcian congress all the way up until 2008. . so bush added more in his last year then obama did in his first. go to treasurydirect.com-

      hopefully heritage will post this comment. and just so you know- as much as conservatives demonize everything and anything, like the cbo, i suggest not demonizing treasurydirect.com because it is an accurate source. or ha, anyone can just take a picture of the national debt clock in nyc from jan. 2001-jan 2009.

      and i will justify blaming the other administration, conservative and republican policies. tax cuts did not and will not work. deregulation doesn’t work. the trickle down theory is a theory in itself. and how does adding 2.5 trillion dollars for tax cuts (both passed by reconcilation) to the national debt work for you?

      i cant blame people on this website for constant ignorace. i blame websites like this.- the worst information and debt graphs and charts i have every seen, that are so flawed i dont know where to begin. its like rasmussen- the most accurate polling system???….thehe. -thats always a good one to hear..

      look when you dont tax you increase debt. when you pass programs that dont work, you increase the debt. we will pay for the mistakes of the previous administration, republican and conservative policies for a long time, as we are paying for them now. thats right "our children and grandchildren" along with people now are paying for your mistakes. yea, healthcare reform is alot of money and it will add to the defecit and taxes will go up(for high income earners) but at least im realistic.

      go study and research. infact, everyone on this website that is a claimed “conservative” really really really needs to do some non-partisan research.

      ps. by the way, this blog is completely fabricated. but what's new.

      ps. refute over 8 trillion added to the national debt by bush and republicans and conservatives policies and executive and congressional control. no, go ahead, i dare you. anyone give is a shot..

    2. Zack says:

      heritage moderators. im suprised you have not blocked me or deleted my comments. im following the moderation request given below to specific detail. im just suprised because rarely do you have facts anywhere on this website and most of the time when conservatives are offered a different set of actual facts they bury it. im proud of you. way to go heritage moderators!

    3. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      We still don't get it yet. ObamaCare is not about "health care". It's about POWER to control every aspect of our lives. Within the passed few days, even the New York Times reported that most every part of ObamaCare is designed for the "redistribution of wealth". In addition, we are learning this is the first step to

      the real Obama and socialist agenda, "single payer" system, i.e. full government

      run and controlled health care.

    4. Ken in Virginia says:

      I notice that the commentators like Zack don't know how to spell or to construct a complete logical sentence. Maybe they went to public school in a Democratic district where learning such things was considered "uncool". Demonstrating their ignorance by their spelling and grammar gives us some insight into who it is that believes in Obamacare.

    5. cathy poole,north ca says:

      I THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BE A PART OF THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEA'S AND COMMENT. THE SOLUTION TO ALL THESE PROBLEMS IN OUR SELVES AND OUR LEADERS IS THE SAME AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN. IT IS AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE A SPIRITUAL PROBLEM . WITHOUT CHRIST IN US , WE DON;T HAVE ANY REAL SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM. IT IS A CLOSE , PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR LOVING CREATOR THAT TRANSFORMS US AND OUR WORLD. LET IT BEGIN WITH US !

    6. Zack says:

      Ken, I'm at work with limited time so yea, I have piss poor spelling. I race through these comments. I have always had poor grammar and it was a problem in college. The more time I take to write, the better it is. Now as far as logical, you explain to me one single thing in my comment that was not factual. Go ahead, give it a shot. Instead of attacking someone for spelling try and dispute the debt increase under the people and politics you support. Explain the failed republican and conservative policies and legislation. In fact, anybody on this website, I challenge you to dispute anything I have left in my comment. I already know this website is a partisan joke. The only reason I post comments is to put websites like this in check.

      PS. what is "uncool" is your ignorance to the problems that conservatives and republicans put this country in. You know what else is "uncool"… that your only comeback is to attack my spelling or grammar. Dime a dozen man. Sticks and stones.

    7. Pingback: Morning Bell: $1 Billion AT&T Headache is Just Obamacare’s First Side Effect | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    8. Kathryn Nix Kathryn Nix says:

      Zach,

      I think this piece should answer your questions: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/bg2382
      Kathryn

    9. Bill, Kansas City, M says:

      Zack,

      Dude, you need to check your math. 5.5 trillion plus 500 billion does equal 8.5 trillion. Not even close.

    10. Zack says:

      -wait, you do realize that you just posted a heritage report link from some conservative opinion maker Thomas A Roe right?

      you just doubled the lack of credibility that you never had to start with.

      -for Obama to "double the national debt" he would have to bring it up to 22.5 trillion dollars! which he wont.

      -the only two presidents to nearly double the national debt were ronald reagan and george w. bush

      try and hold onto a slight bit of credibility and use treasurydirect.gov., and not some heritage opinion from some bias conservative on a bias website.

      5.5 trillion added from 2001-2009

      2.5 trillion for both tax cuts

      .5 trillion for unfunded military contracts.

      8.5 trillion. done. period. cut and dry. it has already been in effect.

      and no sources were provided from what you linked except from heritage research.

      try again.

      what makes people like you continue to post false information.

      do some research. stop getting sources from heritage! or rassmussen!

      its killing conservative credibility!

    11. Zack says:

      the heritage foundation center for data analysis. hahahahahahahaha! come on guys! its becoming ludacris at this point. bush had the national debt over 11 trillion dollars before his debt rolled into the obama administration and on top of that the tax cuts- we didn't get taxed so the money adds to the national debt. and on top of that, lowering taxes for high income earners adds to the national debt. did you happen to see the debt comparrison heritage posted last year- it was so far beyond what the actual national debt was. also heritage always add's the worst case scenario debt charts for obama and never ever ever ever includes money being payed in. you making it too easy, you really are. and by the way, everytime i try to post links or any charts or graphs from credible sites like treasurydirect.gov or votesmart.org or opencongress.org or legislative and economic archives. they dont post my comment or delete my comment. they silence me. seriously, they literally just did that on another blog that i left comments on. how embarassing.

    12. Zack says:

      and no Kathryn, you didn't answer a single question. The link didn't answer a single question. its all conservative bias worst case scenario opinions on the wrath and destruction that is President Obama! my challenge was not met. infact sending me heritage links is the worst thing you could have done. still waiting. anyone refute the 8.5 trillion added to the national debt and how obama could possibly put 22.5 trillion by 2016. answers anyone…anyone? infact bush and the republicans spent more in 2008 then obama and democrats spent in 2009- treasurydirect.gov.- suprised, probably so because it seems nobody on this website looks at real information and real sources.

    13. Zack says:

      hey Bill..dude. 5.5 trillion from 2001-2009 (treasurydirect.gov) 2.5 trillion for both tax cuts still being added to the debt.(cbo, center for budget policy.) 500 billion for unfunded private military contracts like blackwater. I would be willing to bet unfunded private military contracts were alot more then that.

      total is 8.5 trillion. bush administration, republican congressional legislation, conservative congressional legislation(opencongress.org, votesmart.org). math? do you guys even bother to try and look slightly credible, dude?

      do conservatives just assume the money not being taxed doesn't add to the national debt?

      instead of sending me more extremely flawed "heritage" links and not being able to add up 3 numbers or attacking me for bad grammar can anyone dispute this national debt increase under your policies and politics and your legislation with direct evidence to back up what you write. anyone?

    14. Zack says:

      Heritage, why did you delete my response to Ken in Virginia? Let me try this again, hey Ken is that all you have to say? Attacking me for bad grammar. Im at work and I type fast. What, if anything did you accomplish by your comment?

      Heritage, im following the guidelines of the comment "policies" and your being very far from fair. When someone leaves a comment with factual information opposing a conservative point of view you delete it. How embarrasing. Your losing credibility more and more everyday and you think this type of (silence the opposition) will lock a november victory? The more tea party get togethers and websites like this one become more and more extreme, the more of a guarantee we have in keeping democratic victory's. Please, keep posting false information and extremely inaccurate charts and graphs. Sometimes I think the dnc should be paying this website for the assistance you give us.

    15. Pingback: Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell: 3/31/10 | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

    16. MediumD says:

      Hey, Zack, take a breath. I don't think you'll get much traction here with the "But…but…Bush!" argument. Bush's overspending doesn't excuse Obama's overspending.

    17. Zack says:

      It will and should get alot of "traction" for anybody that understands economics or "fiscal responsibility" as conservatives swear by. I'm calm as can be and I feel very relaxed leaving comments regarding republican/conservative debt increase and spending. President Obama's spending money on healthcare to insure 30 million americans has a little more "traction" then spending 2 and a half times as much on tax cuts for the rich. The "but…but Bush" evidence will work because we will be affected for years to come with the 2.5 trillion increase for both tax cuts, deregulation, private military contract spending, blocking any and all measures for healthcare reform. The 5.5 trillion already spent and what to show for? The debt increase for years to come will be failed republican/conservative and Bush policies It is very much so their accountability as well. I know Obama has added to the debt and has spent money on some programs that have no evidence to work but lets remember what got us in this mess and remember how extremely hypocritical conservatives have been this last 15 months. Maybe you should do a little more research, put some work in and breath a little harder instead of just relying on typical talking points. I clearly remember the last 10 years, and most seem to just forget and the solution from conservatives is to have the same policy driven agenda that put us in this mess in the first place. I choose to not forget.

    18. RockyMt, Colorado Sp says:

      Hey, Zack – you seem like an intelligent guy. You can slam Heritage all you want but they get their data from non-biased sources (e.g. OMB, CBO, etc and site those accordingly). Obviously you don't like Heritage because of their conservative values – and that's fine.

      You want to compare numbers and spending? Let's use your TreasuryDirect.gov, which is another unbiased source of info. Let's also use the Constitution which states that the Congress controls the purse strings, not the President. Bill Clinton was not responsible for surpluses, which didn't occur until 1998 (CBO), rather Congress was. And both houses were controlled by the Republicans. Unfortunately, the same Republican congress also spent us into big deficits starting in 2001. We all know how that turned out in the last election.

      Since we know congress is responsible for the purse strings, why don't we compare spending between the Republicans and Democrats when they control Congress (namely the House)?

      Using your favorite website, the National Debt went from $998 billion in 1981 to $4.7 trillion in 1994 – that's a net increase of $3.7 trillion. That includes the evil Reagan years. Problem is the Democrats controlled the House all of those years, and the Senate most of the years.

      In 1995 the debt was about $5 trillion and it increased to $8.5 trillion in 2006, a net increase of about $3.5 trillion. In those years the Republicans controlled the House. They controlled the Senate in all but 2 of the years.

      However, on a percentage basis, the Dems increased the debt by a whopping 370%. The Republicans increased the debt by 70%. Now, 70% is still too much for me, but don't tell me this is the evil Republicans fault.

      You can blame tax cuts all you want, but the fact is tax cuts have lead to increased govt revenue in the long run every time it happened. The problem is with spending and that, my friend, has never been cut. Explain to me how another addition to mandatory spending (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) is supposed to help this country when we don't have any money to fund it?

      Oh, by the way, every mandatory spending program (i.e. entitlement program) was passed by the Dems. And it's manditory spending that's hurting us economically, not cutting taxes.

    19. xfactor says:

      "healthcare-(a good/service)/(or provide for the wellfare of the people) is under the commerce clause -they are both in the constitution" – Zack

      The Commerce Clause is under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of our Republics Constitution and reads:

      "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

      "tax cuts hurt us. they will add 2.5 trillion to the national debt by 2016. and what good have they done?…we didnt get tax cuts" – Zack

      POTUS GWB 1st tax cut, The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 were across the board tax cuts for all:

      1 – a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.

      2 – the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket

      3 – the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.

      4 – the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006

      5 – the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006

      6 – the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

      The 2nd tax cut, The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_

      "bush and the (republican/conservative led congress added 5.5 trillion to the national debt. another 500 billion for private militry contracts in “operation iraqi freedom” so 8.5 trillion dollar" – Zack

      5.5 trillion + 500 billion = 8.5 trillion? Only with that obama fuzzy math.

      GWB became POTUS on January 20, 2001 and he had the 107th Congress( January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003), 108th Congress(January 3, 2003 – January 3, 2005) and the 109th Congress(January 3, 2005 – January 3, 2007) were controlled by Republicans.

      The National Debt on January 20, 2001 was $5,727,776,738,304.64 Trillion and increased to $8,677,214,255,313.07 Trillion on January 3, 2007. That's an increase of $2,949,437,517,008.43 Trillion.

      Democrats took control of the 110th Congress( January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009) and POTUS GWB presidency ended on January 20, 2009.

      The ND went from $8,677,214,255,313.07 Trillion on January 3, 2007 to $10,626,877,048,913.08 Trillion on january 20, 2009. That's an increase of $1,949,662,793,600.01 Trillion.

      That's an 8 year total increase of $4,899,100,310,608.44 Trillion not the "5.5 trillion" you claim. This "2.5 trillion" for the 2 Bush Tax cuts is a major Liberal talking point with no basis in reality. That figure is derived from $2.11 Trillion in lost revenue + roughly 390 Billion in interest payments. The first logical fallacy you assume is that there is some magical revenue line we have and must meet. I know Liberals love to increase revenues to match their out of control spending but to claim that giving people their money back in the form of a tax cut created a $2.5 trillion increase to the ND is wrong.

      FYI Democrats controlled both chambers of the 110th Congress( January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009) so no one but you remembers this "(republican led senate) added 1.7 trillion in 2008". Jan 3, 2007 to Jan 3, 2008 the ND increased from $8,677,214,255,313.07 Trillion to $9,194,946,241,047.38 Trillion. That is an increase of $517,731,985,734.31 Billion, not the "1.7 trillion" you falsely claim.

      The 2009 "1.5 trillion" was close at $1,433,015,054,883.29 Trillion.

      POTUS Bush had 12 total vetoes, so try again that it was 93% and this time provide a list of these blocks and vetoes.

      "democrats had the house when the numbers prove this was the republcian congress all the way up until 2008. . so bush added more in his last year then obama did in his first. go to treasurydirect.com" – Zack

      Republicans controlled Congress until January 3, 2007 and it has been controlled by Democrats since that date and it has been all downhill since then.

      A POTUS budget runs from Oct 1 current year to September 30 next year, so let's see.

      GWB last full budget would have been from Oct 1, 2007 to Sept 30, 2008 and the ND increased $962,172,496,555.84 Billion.

      obama 1st budget runs from Oct 1, 2009 to Sept 30, 2010 and the ND has increased $844,359,747,298.76 Billion with 6 months to go.

      GWB and Republicans used "reconcilation" to give people their money back. You notice on the roll call votes for both tax cuts that Democrats were vehemently against this?

    20. Zack says:

      "You can slam Heritage all you want but they get their data from non-biased sources (e.g. OMB, CBO, etc and site those accordingly)"- really? you mean conservative sources. Infact, i rarely see a single source on just about every conservative "opinion" given on this conservative opinion driven website.

      "Bill Clinton was not responsible for surpluses, which didn’t occur until 1998 (CBO), rather Congress was" -Bill clinton had a 238 billion dollar annual surplus instead on an annual defecit which had not happened for over 30 years. Of course he increased the national debt just like every president. Point being? oh, 23 million jobs were created, unemployment went donw 3.9% and job losses didn't exist during his presidency. He was responsible for a surplus regardless of what anyone says. Also, the house and senate were almost tied in numbers regarding republican and democratic seats But of course the surplus had nothing to do with democrats or Clinton because you said so without providing evidence of a single piece of republican sponsored legislation that brought us a 238 billion annual surplus.(treasurydirect.gov)

      "Congress controls the purse strings, not the President"- now that's a good one. again….really? then you explain to me why from 2006-2010 that over 93% of all democratic sponsored bills in the house or senate were either blocked by republicans(filibustered) or vetoed by President Bush. And democrats only had the house until 2010. The republicans had the senate majority, even by a slight margin, nevertheless they had the senate majority and from 2006-2010 again, over 90% off all legislation was made final in the republicans led senate before a presidential signature making anything public law.(votesmart.org)

      "the National Debt went from $998 billion in 1981 to $4.7 trillion in 1994 – that’s a net increase of $3.7 trillion. That includes the evil Reagan years. Problem is the Democrats controlled the House all of those years, and the Senate most of the years" Reagan tax cuts and executive public law from the Reagan administration had nothing to do with the national debt increase either right? And over 72% off all democratic sponsored legislation during his administration was also blocked by republicans and vetoed by Reagan himself.-(votesmart.org) i hope your not one of those that looked at reaganomics to be a success…i sure hope not. What a pituful policy driven agenda that guy had. Im not suprised, he was an actor for over 20 years before he became president.

      "In 1995 the debt was about $5 trillion and it increased to $8.5 trillion in 2006, a net increase of about $3.5 trillion. In those years the Republicans controlled the House. They controlled the Senate in all but 2 of the years"- correct you are. But, lets remember both tax cuts passed in that time that will add 2.5 trillion to the national debt. Lets also remember how well they worked…..? Lets also remember the 3 million jobs created during those years compared to the 23 million under clinton and dont use the "technology boom" excuse cause even with any and all jobs directly related to the internet surge he still created over 17 million jobs.

      "However, on a percentage basis"- what does that even mean? (you provided nothing to have any accurate percentage), "the Dems increased the debt by a whopping 370%. The Republicans increased the debt by 70%. Now, 70% is still too much for me, but don’t tell me this is the evil Republicans fault" its ammusing how you forget the constant republican filibusters and presidental veto's both by bush and reagan that blocked around 82.5% of all democratic legislation and most of them before ever getting out of the house and senate sub-committee's. Hey, democrats block legislation too but when both bush and regan were in power, very limited democratic policy became public law and thats typical politics anyway.(votesmart.org)

      "You can blame tax cuts all you want, but the fact is tax cuts have lead to increased govt revenue in the long run every time it happened" -wait, you didn't just actually write that did you? tax cuts for upper class tax brackets(250,000-5,000,000 average annual income) have and will never lead to government revenue. You have that absolutly backwards. Federal revenue is increased by "taxes" not by tax cuts. Besides, the tax cuts on those income levels were 4% higher compare to the other 95% of the tax payers in this country at least until they expire this year in 2010. And both tax cuts were passed by partisan, republican/conservative reconcilation that again will add 2.5 trillion to the national debt. Infact over 31% of the debt increase until 2016 under Obama (if he is in office that long) will be tax cuts defecits brought to you by Bush, republican/conservative failed policies. And over 1.1 trillion will be added to the national debt by 2011 because of those tax cuts.(centerforbudgetpolicy, congressionalbudgetoffice)

      "The problem is with spending and that, my friend, has never been cut" – you are correct again. Spending will always be there and what republicans and conservatives espically like to seemingly forget is revenue or money payed into programs or a tax increase for high income tax brackets.

      "Explain to me how another addition to mandatory spending (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) is supposed to help this country when we don’t have any money to fund it"- Healthcare reform is mandotory spending. A very easy way to pay for it is making every single high income earner that received the most benefits from bush/republican tax cuts to pay for HR3590. -Is that not fair? They received very unbalanced tax cuts that did absolutly nothing to help our economy except add another 2.5 trillion to our debt which we are paying for now and for years to come. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have worked regardless of the constant mislead information given by conservatives in particular. These programs are a neccessity and they need constant reform and stability. Everytime i hear some republican or conservative on the senate or house floor yelling about these programs i feel like asking if I can take it away from them and see how they would feel about that. Do conservatives and republicans think that helping to build up our great country comes at no expense? I agree, these programs need to be constantly attened to but they became public law for a reason.

      "Oh, by the way, every mandatory spending program (i.e. entitlement program) was passed by the Dems. And it’s manditory spending that’s hurting us economically, not cutting taxes"

      -so "operation iraqi freedom was not mandatory spending? or the reagan tax cuts? or the bush tax cuts?, or the mandatory deregulation of the housing market, financial market, credit agencies, and healthcare that have had no attention from any republicans or conservatives in any republican/conservative administration or republican/conservative congress for over 35 years now? that is not hurting this economy and hurt us for years to come? by the way, current projections for social security by 2075 with no reform and worst case scenario would result in a 4% federal income increase by the high income tax bracket and about a 1.2%-1-4% increase for the other 95% of tax payers.(centerforbugetpolicy, congressionalbudgetoffice) these programs have worked and will work with the right attention.

      Democrat's have added to the national debt and have had far from perfect programs but republicans and conservatives get no pass nor have they ever deserved any credit for "fiscal responsibility" and espically in the last 12 years. Republican/conservative president for 8 years, senate for 12 years, house for 12 years, banking and finance committe chairs for 10 years, treasury secretary's for 12 years. Adding 5.5 trillion to the national debt from 2001-2009 with over less then 8% of all legislation brought by democrats. Adding another .5 trillion with unfunded private military contracts. Adding another 2.5 trillion with both tax cuts including interest of course- i must be fair. Over 8.5 trillion added to the national debt by conservative/republican policies. Come on! The hypocracy is getting old. Its has been old for years now. Cutting taxes and dropping government programs do not work, they never worked and they will never work.

      try again…

    21. Zack says:

      one correction. my 2006-2010 for the republicans led senate was meant to be 2004-2008. opps.

    22. Zack says:

      and! from 1996-2008 the republicans had both the house and senate. the 2004-2008 reference was the 7% of democratic legislation passed into public law. pardon the error.

    23. xfactor says:

      "Bill clinton had a 238 billion dollar annual surplus instead on an annual defecit which had not happened for over 30 years" – Zack

      Really? A POTUS budget runs from Oct 1 current year to September 30 next year, so let’s see.

      National Debt = Debt Held by the Public + Intragovernmental Holdings

      Oct 1, 1996 the ND was $5,234,730,786,626.50 Trillion. Sept 30, 1997 the ND was $5,413,146,011,397.34 Trillion = $3,789,667,546,849.60 Trillion DHBTP + $1,623,478,464,547.74 Trillion IH. ND increased so NO surplus

      Oct 1,1997 the ND was $5,420,505,789,573.34 Trillion. Sept 30, 1998 the ND was $5,526,193,008,897.62 Trillion = $3,733,864,472,163.53 T DHBTP + $1,792,328,536,734.09 IH. Now DHBTP did go down but IH went up more + the ND increased, so NO surplus.

      Oct 1, 1998 the ND was $5,540,570,493,226.32 T. Sept 30, 1999 the ND was $5,656,270,901,633.43 T = $3,636,104,594,501.81 T DHBTP + $5,656,270,901,633.43 IH. Now DHBTP did go down but IH went up more + the ND increased, so NO surplus.

      Oct 1, 1999 the ND was $5,652,679,330,611.02 T. Sept 30, 2000 the ND was $5,674,178,209,886.86 T = $3,405,303,490,221.20 DHBTP + $2,268,874,719,665.66 IH. Now DHBTP did go down but IH went up more + the ND increased, so NO surplus.

      Oct 1, 2000 the ND was $5,674,178,209,886.86 T. Sept 30, 2001 the ND was $5,807,463,412,200.06 T = $3,339,310,176,094.74 T DHBTP + $2,468,153,236,105.32 T IH. Now DHBTP did go down but IH went up more + the ND increased, so NO surplus.

      Where was the surplus? The ND and Intragovernmental Holdings INCREASED every year.

      23 Million jobs were added but what Clinton policy(ies) achieved this? The 3.9% unemployment you brag about happened in Clinton's last 4 months in office. The dotcom bubble ran from 1995 to March of 2000. 7 Million jobs were added from Jan 93 to Dec 94 and 16 Million were added during the dotcom timeframe.

      Clinton lost 51 thousand jobs in Mar 93, 16 thousand jobs in May 95, 19 thousand in Jan 96, 18 thousand in Aug 97, 46,000 thousand in Jun 2000 and 11,000 thousand in Oct 2000

      "lets remember both tax cuts passed in that time that will add 2.5 trillion to the national debt" – Zack

      $2.5 Trillion in over spending will add "2.5 trillion to the national debt". Giving people back money that they've already earned does not create a deficit. You get deficits from spending more than you have.

      As for taxes just go to http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-tax

      How much of the $4,899,100,310,608.44 Trillion that POTUS Bush increased the ND was due to Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare? And somehow Bush and Republicans are responsible for these abysmal failures?

      "mandatory deregulation of the housing market" – Zack

      Community Reinvestment Act by Jimmy Carter and Didn't Bill Clinton sign the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999? http://banking.senate.gov/conf/grmleach.htm

      Barney Frank was head of The Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee since January 4, 2007. And his job was to oversees the entire financial services industry, including the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries.

      Financial services were not deregulated during the Bush Administration, so what are you talking about? I'm sure the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 didn't due any harm.

      HMO Act of 1973 tied healthcare to employment and created the 3rd Party payer.

      http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/4a.pdf Look how the SS revenues poured in.

      To have an effective tax policy you must have a broad base with low taxes and the intent on making poor people rich, not rich people poor.

      Progressive taxation to fund out of control spending has never worked and it never will.

      Again Republicans lost control of Congress on January 3, 2007. It was the 110th Congress to be exact.

      When have Republicans had the votes to reform health care?

    24. Zack says:

      all talking points. i provide facts, you provide talking points. you should really leave a comment with all the spending conservatives and republicans have had including the defecit. 2.5 trillion will be added to the debt because of tax cuts. you just seem to not understand. but, im sure your another person that finds credibility in this website. its dissapointing how much false information you left in your comment. its pointless to try and help any of you.

    25. Zack says:

      its weird. you actually didn't prove a single thing in anything you had written in that comment. you fudge the numbers just like heritage does. you must work for them. oh and making the rich pay their fair share is making the rich people poor? pure ignorance. i give up. its a waste of typing.

    26. Zack says:

      Let me pull an essay I created back at the U of U. Real information is way more credible then someone like you fudging the numbers. You forget about shared budgets, the private military contracts, the seperation of wealth, how you claim conservatives and republicans were for housing regulation- haha, really. More government supported by the right wing?- no thanks. Im not that idiotic. Let's start with tax cuts.

      Wealth creation via tax breaks for investors, each claimed, would generate more jobs and more income for more people.

      But there are good reasons why we should be skeptical of such claims. If results of the past 20 years provide any evidence, it is clear that wealth doesn't "trickle down," and that "free" markets do nothing to redistribute income or help people out of poverty. Just the opposite, in fact.

      This is what all recent studies on income inequality, from around the world as well as from the World Bank, emphatically tell us. Pro free-market policies, they point out, haven't worked in the past. There is no reason to believe they will work in the future.

      Yes, they report, new wealth has been created. Yet it is only a small few who have benefited from this "more market/less government" line.

      Looking at total net worth or gross income over the 1980s and 1990s, each of these studies has found a number of disturbing trends. One of the most distressing is the skyrocketing gap between the top and the growing bottom in all of our societies.

      In the U.S., the Economic Policy Institute has found that the richest 10 per cent hold 72 per cent of all wealth, the top 1 per cent more than half of this. By contrast, the other 80 per cent of Americans had only 17 per cent of all accumulated wealth in 2000. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. now leads the way among advanced economies in having the worst rate of inequality.

      Similarly, the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives has reported that currently the richest one-fifth of families hold 76 per cent of all wealth in Canada. By contrast, the bottom half of us had only 5.6 per cent of all accumulated wealth.

      And if these figures aren't jarring enough, it seems that things are only getting worse.

      During the 1990s in the U.S., the top 1 per cent of earners took home most of the benefits of economic growth, with their incomes growing an astounding 59 per cent.

      CEOs saw their bank accounts swell, their average salaries rising from a ratio of 72 times more than the wages of an average worker, to a ratio of more than 310 to 1.

      For young families, though, especially young single mothers, things only got worse. In the U.S., a third of single mothers live in poverty, and for the poorest two-fifths of households, incomes fell.

      Likewise in Canada, the average wealth of the poorest 20 per cent of households fell from $1,474 in 1970 to a paltry $150 in 1999 after adjustments for inflation.

      Sadly, this is the trend worldwide.

      Currently, four-fifths of the world's population lives below the poverty line, while the richest 1 per cent of the world have income equivalent to the poorest 57 per cent.

      The reasons why this is occurring are not hard to figure out. Tax cuts confer huge benefits on the wealthiest. Since they own almost all the stocks, they reap huge benefits from RRSPs and capital gains exemptions, as well as from stock dividends.

      For the poorest, however, tax cuts mean the exact opposite.

      With little or no disposable wealth, for the poor as well as for modest income earners, tax cuts have only led to a reduction in transfer income, as well as cuts to programs aimed at helping them live in security or in finding the education, training, and support needed to find better jobs.

      Consequently, most working people find it harder and harder to make ends meet.

      In addition, in the attempt to compete, businesses cinch down wages, lay off fulltime workers, and hire part-timers at lower rates. New jobs are bad jobs — part-time, low-paid, and with few benefits.

      If this is supposed to be the model of the "new" global economy, it is hard to imagine what a model in trouble might look like. The theory of a "trickling down" of growth and redistribution obviously has serious limits.

      Markets do generate wealth, but don't spread it around. They never have, and never will. Only governments can distribute wealth, income, and opportunity equitably.

      For people to benefit from economic growth, what is needed are effective public policies: Progressive taxation systems that redistribute income. A living wage standard that gives people enough income to live on. Training and child care programs that allow people to make a decent living. Retirement incomes that give the elderly a good quality of life.

      More than ever, we need policies like these to ensure that whatever wealth we generate helps all of us live better lives, and makes our world more secure and more stable.

      This is something neither tax cuts nor markets can do.

    27. Zack says:

      another failed program that will continue to fail unless we let it expire.

      more information for your fudged numbers and bias sources..

      The Treasury study casts doubt on several widespread claims about the tax cuts. For example, supporters of the tax cuts have credited those measures for the recent increase in investment. The Treasury study finds, however, that making the tax cuts permanent would initially lead to lower levels of investment. (The Treasury study does find that if the tax cuts are paid for by cutting government programs, they would eventually lead to higher levels of long-run investment.) In addition, the Treasury study finds that making the tax cuts permanent would reduce long-run labor supply (i.e., the number of people working and the number of hours they work) by 0.3 percent, undercutting another popular argument — that the tax cuts will help the economy by creating jobs and encouraging more work.

      The Treasury study also shows results if alternative assumptions are used regarding the responsiveness of people’s working and saving to changes in taxes. The study finds that even if people are much more sensitive to tax rates than economists generally assume, the size of the economy would rise, after many years, by only 1.2 percent. Over 20 years, this is the equivalent of an increase in the average annual growth rate of just six one-hundredths of one percent (i.e., to an annual growth rate of 3.06 percent of GDP instead of 3.0 percent).

      Moreover, the CRS study suggests that the Treasury’s base case assumes an unrealistically high level of responsiveness of people’s work and savings decisions to tax rates. According to CRS “the empirical evidence… actually supports the low case somewhat more.” In the Treasury’s “low case,” the level of long-run output eventually increases as a result of the tax cuts by a mere 0.1 percent of GDP (rather than by 0.7 percent of GDP), and even this tiny increase is based on the assumption that the costs of the tax cuts are offset by dramatic (and unrealistic) cuts in government programs.

      (center on budget and policy priorities)

    28. Zack says:

      Failure, failure, failure…

      Analysis of the Treasury study by the Congressional Research Service finds that if the tax cuts are paid for with dramatic spending cuts, then the economic growth generated by making the tax cuts permanent would offset only 7 percent of the initial cost of the tax cuts and 10 percent of the long-run cost. The effect would be even smaller with assumptions CRS considers more realistic.

      One straightforward way to derive such a revenue estimate is to compare the cost of the tax cuts in the absence of any dynamic effects to the added revenue that would result from the increased level of economic growth the tax cuts are assumed to produce. According to CBO’s official cost estimate, the Administration’s proposal to make the tax cuts enacted since 2001 permanent would cost 1.4 percent of GDP annually. (This does not include the relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax that the Administration regularly proposes on an annual basis, which would bring the total cost to 2 percent of GDP.) The Treasury study finds that the tax cuts would raise national output by “as much as” 0.7 percent over the long term; with tax receipts projected to be about 18 percent of GDP, this translates into an increase in revenues, as a result of greater economic growth, of about 0.13 percent of GDP.

      Thus, under the Administration’s optimistic dynamic-scoring scenario, the net cost of the tax cuts would equal approximately 1.27 percent of GDP annually after the dynamic effects of the tax cuts are taken into account. This is more than 90 percent of the conventional cost estimate of the tax cuts (see Figure 2).[4] Moreover, the Treasury study finds that the tax cuts would have even smaller effects on economic output, and hence presumably on tax revenues, in the first years after they were made permanent.

      This finding shreds claims that the tax cuts are paying for themselves or offsetting a sizable fraction of their costs.

    29. Zack says:

      Now the true increase to the national debt for these failed policies.

      A few key bullet points for you to consider. This report has been verified and infact the defecit increase through 2006 was over 1.3 trillon.

      • The tax cuts enacted since 2001 will add more

      than $1 trillion to the deficit through 2006.

      Over the next decade, 2007-2016, they will

      increase deficits by another $2.0 trillion, even if

      they expire as scheduled.

      • Making these tax cuts permanent and

      extending Alternative Minimum Tax relief would

      cost an additional $2.8 trillion over the next ten

      years. When the added interest payments that

      would have to be made are taken into account,

      the total cost of extending the tax cuts rises to

      $3.3 trillion over the ten-year period.

      • All but $0.6 trillion of this $3.3 trillion price tag

      reflects the cost of extending the tax cuts

      enacted in 2001 and 2003 (and the portion of

      AMT relief needed to mitigate the AMT

      problems those tax cuts have caused).

      • When the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003

      are fully in effect, their annual cost will be more

      than three times as large as all federal funding

      for education and also more than three times

      the cost of all veterans programs.

      • The cost of these tax cuts will be as large as the

      entire budgets of the Departments of

      Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security,

      Energy, State, HUD, and EPA combined.

      • In 2016, the cost of the tax cuts

      alone would be slightly more

      than $500 billion. This would

      equal 2.4 percent of the

      projected size of the economy

      (i.e., of the Gross Domestic

      Product) that year.

      These costs would be in addition to

      the high price being paid for the tax

      cuts already enacted.

      • Through fiscal year 2006, the tax

      cuts enacted since the start of

      2001 have had a direct cost of

      $1.0 trillion. Another $850

      billion in direct costs will be

      incurred before the tax cuts are

      slated to expire, for a cumulative cost of $1.9 trillion.

      • Because these tax cuts have not been paid for, they also are generating substantial increases in

      the national debt. The additional debt now being built up will persist even if the tax cuts are

      allowed to expire on schedule. As a consequence, the interest payments that must be made

      each year on this added debt will continue indefinitely, even if the tax cuts end. (This is the

      reason that the graph above shows a cost of more than $100 billion a year from the tax cuts in

      years after 2010, even if the tax cuts are permitted to expire.) The increased interest costs

      caused by the tax cuts already enacted will total $1.3 trillion from 2001 through 2016.

      • Thus, the overall cost of the tax cuts enacted to date, including the related interest costs, will

      total $3.2 trillion through 2016.

      • Since the cost of the tax cuts already enacted will be $3.2 trillion through 2016, and the cost of

      making the tax cuts permanent will be another $3.3 trillion over the same period, the combined

      cost will be $6.5 trillion through 2016, if the tax cuts are extended. Of this total, $5.4 trillion

      will occur in the coming ten-year period — the period from 2007 to 2016. (See Table 1.)

      The costs of making the tax cuts permanent would reach even higher levels in subsequent

      decades. In the decade following the current ten-year budget window — the period from 2017

      through 2026, when all of the tax cuts would be in effect for the full ten years — the cost of making

      the tax cuts permanent would be $6.3 trillion before taking interest costs into account, and $9.9.

    30. Zack says:

      and by the way, how can you be so far off with the amount of national debt increase from 2001-2009. You blame the democrats in congress when from 2006-2208 in the 110th congress less then 8% of all democratic sponsored bills became public law!? Of course republicans and bush spent over 5.5 trillin during that time if not more. 2009 is a shared budget. And who payed for the private military contracts…blackwater? Who payed for the tax cuts…-NOBODY!. Its funny when conservative republicans attack democrats for spending when your policies simply consist of borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend, tax cut, tax cut, tax cut.

      Let me sum up this entire debate right here and right now.- Almost 10 years of conservative/republican policies and look where it got us.

      By the way, your little "blaming clinton or carter or democrats for the housing crash is just way too easy to dispute" Cra or any other government regulation made up of less then 10% of the entire housing market share from 1998-2007 (fdic reports) And if government programs like the community reinvestment act were to blame then why did that program work for over 30 years? I'm glad you cited the (grmleach bill) that neglected regulatory reform for any sector of the housing market. -passed by bush and republicans.- thanks again for posting that. fdic reports. It was high cost subprime lending as well as low cost subprime lending that was never under any government control. It was deregulation and no regulatory reform that cause the housing crisis. And from the 103-109th congress, republicans and conservatives didn't pass a single bill for reform and people like you say the democrats blocked it!. I sure hope your kidding. That is one of the most pitiful excuses I seem to hear over and over.- yea, republicans and conservatives for more government regulation. Your comment is like a walking contradiction.

      try again and dont post pitiful sources and fudge numbers. It's not working.

    31. Zack says:

      "When have Republicans had the votes to reform health care?"

      ……….hahahahahahahaha! wow. Yea, because for over 35 years you guys had a single attempt to reform any sector of healthcare.- With that comment you pretty much locked up the loss of credibility that you never had in the first place. Again, lets see if heritage lets me post this factual information.

    32. xfactor says:

      "including the defecit. 2.5 trillion will be added to the debt because of tax cuts." – zack

      You can parrott and regurgitate Robert Greenstein flawed report asll you want, it's still factually incorrect.

      All numbers came from your provided link, so what numbers were fudged?

      "Let me pull an essay I created back at the U of U" – Zack

      LOL!!! There Zack. Unless you were John Peters and worked for commondreams.org on january 20, 2003 you PLAGARIZED that entire response, which can be verified at http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0120-06.htm

      You then go on to PLAGARIZE, and regurgitate ad nauseam a story from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which was founded by liberal Robert Greenstein. So a retreaded Carter failure turned Clinton crony is your proof?

      "I’m glad you cited the (grmleach bill) that neglected regulatory reform for any sector of the housing market. -passed by bush and republicans" – Zack

      The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, AKA, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was passed by the 106th Congress(January 3, 1999 – January 3, 2001) and signed November 12, 1999 by Bill Clinton.

      The 106th Congress was comprised of a 50/50 Senate and a 221(R)/211(D) House of Representatives.

      The bill passed the House 362-57 and the Senate 90-8 on November 4, 1999

      You remember Robert Rubin our Republics 70th United States Secretary of the Treasury appointed by Bill Clinton resigned to become a CEO at Citigroup?

      Where did Republicans pass this and where did George W Bush sign it?

      A blizzard of words to say absolutely nothing. You can copy and paste all day long zack, but responses minus refutation is nothing more than Zack hot air.

      If you make a point the onus is on you to support that point.

      Keep trying Zack, as you are one misinformed, brainwashed liberal that has to resort to plagarism to make any kind of point.

    33. Zack says:

      "You can parrott and regurgitate Robert Greenstein flawed report asll you want, it’s still factually incorrect"- factually incorrect? really. because your opinion tells us otherwise? which part is incorrect? in detail, where, oh you mean the part that doesnt agree with your conservative mindset…so embarrasing.

      "All numbers came from your provided link, so what numbers were fudged"- how about everything you wrote. -thats what people like you do. Conservatives. they answer nothing and offer talking points. You know the debt increase and you know it was over 5.5 trillion for bush and republicans from the 103rd-109th. and 2009 is a shared budget for bush and AGAIN less then 7% of all bill from 2006-2008 came from democratice sponsorship. Your wrong. Dead wrong and take a look at the 2009 shared budget again and try a little harder.

      "LOL!!! There Zack. Unless you were John Peters and worked for commondreams.org on january 20, 2003 you PLAGARIZED that entire response"

      -haha, nice acussation.

      part of my essay is listed here—it also included information directed at you for one reason to remind you of things you choose to forget.

      Let me sum up this entire debate right here and right now.- Almost 10 years of conservative/republican policies and look where it got us.

      By the way, your little “blaming clinton or carter or democrats for the housing crash is just way too easy to dispute” Cra or any other government regulation made up of less then 10% of the entire housing market share from 1998-2007 (fdic reports) And if government programs like the community reinvestment act were to blame then why did that program work for over 30 years? I’m glad you cited the (grmleach bill) that neglected regulatory reform for any sector of the housing market. -passed by bush and republicans.- thanks again for posting that. fdic reports. It was high cost subprime lending as well as low cost subprime lending that was never under any government control. It was deregulation and no regulatory reform that cause the housing crisis. And from the 103-109th congress, republicans and conservatives didn’t pass a single bill for reform and people like you say the democrats blocked it!. I sure hope your kidding. That is one of the most pitiful excuses I seem to hear over and over.- yea, republicans and conservatives for more government regulation. Your comment is like a walking contradiction..

      -just because i posted that part after the previous comments I left before is not my fault. I write too fast and didnt leave the source. Its a source that I have had a long time and anybody can find it. I have no problem posting sources. You would be better holding your tongue when making such an assumption.

      "You then go on to PLAGARIZE, and regurgitate ad nauseam a story from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which was founded by liberal Robert Greenstein. So a retreaded Carter failure turned Clinton crony is your proof"

      -I left the source, so explain to me again how i can plagarize when i leave the source? I guess this is your weak attempt to not actually have an adult consersation and provide ME sources which you have not.

      "The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, AKA, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was passed by the 106th Congress(January 3, 1999 – January 3, 2001) and signed November 12, 1999 by Bill Clinton"

      -i remember clearly that bush and republicans did absolutly nothing for regulatory reform or any aspect of that bill to avoid the housing collapse- dispute that please! find one bill that passed for regulatory reform/regulation from a single republican or bush. please, try and find one. you know exactly what im talking about and you know you have no response. expect barney frank and chris dodd, blah blah blah(since they have magical powers to control the entire republican congress) is at fault. again, talking points.

      The 106th Congress was comprised of a 50/50 Senate and a 221(R)/211(D) House of Representatives.

      The bill passed the House 362-57 and the Senate 90-8 on November 4, 1999

      -yup, a great bill that was passed by republicans mainly to ensure doing NOTHING for regulatory reform. Ive read the entire bill. -What a huge mistake that was. Its like a promise to let the free housing market collapse without a second thought to avoid it. – again, embarrasing.

    34. Zack says:

      "blizzard of words to say absolutely nothing. You can copy and paste all day long zack, but responses minus refutation is nothing more than Zack hot air.

      If you make a point the onus is on you to support that point"

      -and you have no answers for nothing. I have provided facts and you have given refutation- haha, please.

      -you can and will not answer for the 5.5 trillion spent by bush and republicans

      -you can and will not answer for the .5 trillion for private military contracts

      -you can and will not answer for the 2.5 trillion national debt increase by the failed tax cuts.

      -you can and will not answer for the 93% sponsored legislation from republicans from 2006-2008

      -you can and will not answer the fact that less then 10% of the entire housing market share that was under cra or any other government regulation.

      -you can and will not answer the fact that 89%+ of the eniter housing market share was based on complete free market economics with no government intervention

      -you can and will not answer the fact that not a single bill for mortage lender/housing market regulation or regulatory reform was passed from a single republican during their entire time in congressional power or the bush administration for the matter

      -you can and will not answer the fact that bush and republicans in congress had some brilliant idea to push for 5 million more homeowners in an already fragile subprime market.

      -you can and will not answer the fact that bush and republicans only created a mere 3 million jobs.

      -you can and will not answer the fact that unemployment went up over 3.5 points during that time.

      -you can and will not answer the fact that republicans/conservatives have done NOTHING to combat the healthcare reform neccessity and blocked any and all measures to just get something fixed.

      -you can and will not answer the fact that your policies, your policy driven agenda and the entire time your part had control of the house and senate for 12 years, the administration for 8, banking and finance committee chairs, and treasury secretary's for 12 years did noting to help the economy, infact you deregulated and neglected regulatory reform, did nothing for healthcare, had a president that waste time and money on a useless war, added over 6 trillion to the defecit just in 8 years with another 2 or 3 trillion to come for failed policies.

      -you can and will not answer any of these problems that have already happened.- and for that i need no sources- they already happened!

      i think you need to let the hot hair out of your head.

      -you follow websites like this!

      -im also willing to bet you watch fox news, listen to hannity, rush and probably coulter and hopefully beck. look at your party, look at your failed policies.

      TRICKLE DOWN WILL NEVER WORK- TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH WILL NEVER WORK. We just went through a bush/republican/conservative recession and dont you forget.

      I got all day and will load this page with an opposing viewpoint. Its about time somebody does. I cant believe anyone finds this site to be the least credible for anything.

      "Keep trying Zack, as you are one misinformed, brainwashed liberal that has to resort to plagarism to make any kind of point"

      -is that the best you can say? try some real sources, facts, some valid points.

      im bored with conservative talking points.

      try again.

    35. Zack says:

      and the best part is that you actually think your winning this debate. a little advise, unless you can answer every single question i asked in the last comment then I have no point wasting my time with you or any other conservative for that matter. go ahead, give it a shot. oh, and try doing it without spin or talking points which people like you seem to do over and over and over and over.

    36. Zack says:

      the difference between people like you and people like me is that i can admit mistakes that democrats have made such as… large spending, adding to the defecit, some bad policy's, having too much government. The problem with people like you and people on the political right is that they cant seem to hold themselves accountable for anything…nothing! and you take every single thing Obama and democrats do and place it as "worst case scenario", fear mongering and false information and just about everytime you get called out for it. This conservative hypocracy is starting to get old….very old.

      You know the 5.5 trillion was added to the debt. You know tax cuts will cost at least 2.5 trillion and add the the national debt if not more. You know that when you give tax cuts to the rich, federal revenue drops and when programs like that are not taxed and or payed for it is eventually added to the national debt. Its so simple to figure out but you cant possibly allow yourself to see something so easy. You know that republicans and conservatives have done nothing for healthcare reform. You know that the majority of all lenders were NOT subect to cra or any other government regulation-less then 10%. All of these problems have already happened and all of these problems were created by failed republican and conservative policy. Thats it. And for you to accuse me of plagarism…now that's pretty weak. When i write fast i have poor grammar, sentence structure and paragraph structure and i leave out a source. I gave you bits and pieces of the essay i had at the U of U. I could care less what you think and the assumptions you have made. It is a very pitiful, embarrasing and idiotic attempt you made that failed miserably.

      bring everything you got….

    37. Zack says:

      Allegations are circulating that Democrats are responsible for the economic fallout from

      the subprime housing crisis because of their support for affordable housing, including the

      Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”).

      In fact, Democrats repeatedly pushed for stronger action to address predatory lending

      practices that led to the subprime crisis, while Republicans promoted financial

      deregulation and failed to rein in Fannie and Freddie during their long period in power.

      • Housing Crisis Cause. The crisis was not caused by a Democratic emphasis on

      affordable housing. In fact, during the Clinton Administration, homeownership rates

      surged and the homeownership gap between whites and minorities narrowed, without

      widespread subprime abuses or loan losses. In contrast during the Bush Administration,

      the homeownership rate stagnated and the homeownership gap between whites and

      African-Americans grew by 5%, while subprime lending escalated. The current

      economic crisis was caused by a housing crisis caused in large part by the proliferation

      of risky subprime loans originated by deregulated lenders, sold off by securities firms

      into subprime mortgage pools, and abetted by rating agencies that failed to do their job.

      Republicans were slow to even acknowledge there was a problem. Democrats took the

      first step to identify high cost loan problems by passing legislation in 1994 (HOPEA),

      and escalated warnings during the Bush years about subprime abuses. Yet, President

      Bush admitted that he did not start working on the problem until August 2007.

      • Response. Republicans failed to pass predatory legislation in the 12 years of control of

      Congress. Democrats took over and passed a House bill curbing predatory lending by

      a vote of 291-127, but the Bush Administration opposed and killed the bill. Democrats

      support prudent banking and securities regulation to address risky loans – while the

      Bush Administration failed to use its regulatory authority over lenders, investment

      banks, and securities markets to rein in excesses and even expanded deregulation.

      • Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Fannie and Freddie are not the cause of the housing crisis,

      they merely participated in it by purchasing risky subprime securities that resulted in

      huge losses. Moreover, the claim that Democrats were responsible for blocking needed

      reforms to Fannie and Freddie is false. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 to

      2006 and the White House starting in 2000, and failed to enact a reform bill in that

      period. Within 5 months of taking office in 2006, Democrats passed a reform bill in the

      House. In January 2008, Treasury Secretary Paulsen turned down Chairman Frank’s

      offer to put a reform bill into the stimulus bill, delaying final passage until July.

      • CRA. Claims that CRA forces banks to lend to unqualified borrowers and is therefore

      a major cause of the mortgage crisis are contradicted by facts. CRA does not require

      banks to make loans to risky borrowers, only to serve their communities and qualified

      low income borrowers. In fact, the great percentage of troubled, subprime loans were

      made by lenders not subject to CRA. Default rates on loans by CRA lenders are much

      lower than default rates on subprime loans, and are comparable to prime loans. Studies

      have shown that CRA has actually increased the volume of responsible lending to lowand

      moderate income borrowers. Finally, any claim that Clinton-era CRA changes

      caused loan losses is belied by the fact the riskiest subprime lending which created the

      crisis did not take off until 2003, the very time when Bush Administration regulators

      were decreasing both the number of institutions subject to comprehensive CRA exams

      and CRA data reporting requirements.

      Housing Crisis Cause

      • Risky Subprime Lending Cause of Housing Crisis. The housing crisis was caused

      in large part by a proliferation of risky subprime loans to unqualified borrowers that

      were originated by deregulated lenders, sold off by securities firms into subprime

      mortgage pools, and abetted by rating agencies that failed to do their job. The problem

      was exacerbated by exotic loan terms with attractive introductory rates that reset at

      unaffordable rate levels, leaving borrowers with little or no equity in the properties.

      Foreclosures and declining housing prices led to huge mortgage losses for banks and

      other investors, which escalated into a broader credit crisis and economic dislocations.

      • Emphasis on Affordable Housing Did not Cause the Housing Crisis. Democrats

      have never supported lending to unqualified homebuyers, and in fact have led the way

      in emphasizing that homeownership must be sustainable and that affordable rental

      housing is a critical component of housing policy. In fact, the Clinton Administration

      succeeded in raising the national homeownership rate from 64% to 68% and narrowed

      the minority homeownership gap, without widespread subprime abuses or loan losses.

      • Bush Administration Neglect of Affordable Rental Housing Exacerbated the

      Problem. The Bush Administration took office in 2001 touting a homeownership

      agenda, with a goal of 5.5 million new homebuyers – but it neglected to address

      affordable rental housing needs. In fact, the Bush Administration repeatedly tried to

      slash HUD affordable rental housing programs, touting homeownership as the answer

      for almost all families. This led to an environment in which families who were not

      ready or qualified for homeownership were improperly encouraged to buy a home.

      • The Bush Administration Was Slow to Recognize There was even a problem.

      Supbrime lending began to escalate in 2003, with default and foreclosure levels

      building over the ensuing years. Yet, on December 4, 2007, asked about whether the

      Administration was slow to recognize the subprime problem, President Bush said,

      “We’ve been working on this since August.” This failure to acknowledge the problem

      was compounded by a failure to take decisive steps to address the growing credit

      problems that this subprime crisis posed for the broader housing market, for institutions

      holding mortgage backed securities, and ultimately, for the economy as a whole.

      Response to the Housing Crisis

      Predatory Lending

      • Democrats Enacted First Bill Dealing with Predatory Lending and Subprime

      Loans. While in control of Congress in 1994, Democrats passed into law the Home

      Ownership and Equity Protection Act” (HOPEA), which identified high cost loans, and

      established enhanced disclosures for those potentially problematic loans.

      • Republicans Took No Action As Predatory Lending Escalated. As predatory

      lending began to escalate and explode after the Bush Administration took office,

      Democrats repeatedly called on the Bush Administration to take action. Democrats

      introduced numerous bills and pushed for adoption of legislation to strengthen

      protections against predatory lending beginning in 2001, but were repeatedly blocked

      by Congressional Republicans from acting on such legislation.

      • Democrats Take Action when they take over Congress in 2007. When Democrats

      took over and passed a House bill curbing predatory lending by a vote of 291 to 127, in

      November 2007, the Bush Administration opposed and thereby killed that bill. That

      bill would have required lenders to extend loans only to those with a demonstrated

      ability to repay, outlawed many abusive mortgage practices, required the licensing of

      mortgage brokers, and held Wall Street accountable when they bought securitizations

      containing predatory loans.

      • Democrats Pressed for Stronger Regulatory Protections against Predatory

      Lending. During the Bush Administration, Democrats repeatedly urged the Federal

      Reserve and Bush Administration-appointed regulators to adopt guidance and

      regulations to protect borrowers against abusive predatory lending. Although HOPEA

      authorized the Federal Reserve to prohibit acts and practices in connection with

      mortgage loans that it finds to be unfair and deceptive, the Federal Reserve refused to

      act for more than 12 years while the Republicans controlled Congress. After the

      Democrats regained Congress in 2007, they continued to urge the Fed to act, and

      finally the Federal Reserve issued proposed regulations defining certain practices as

      unfair and deceptive.

      Deregulation

      • Democrats Support Sound Financial Regulation. Democrats support prudent

      financial regulation and pushed for better regulation of risky mortgage products as they

      proliferated.

      • Bush Administration Financial Regulators Failed to Do Their Job. The Bush

      Administration has failed to use existing regulatory authority over lenders, investment

      banks, and securities markets to rein in excesses, and in fact actually expanded deregulation.

      Enhanced Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

      CLAIM: The claim is being made that Democrats, as supporters of Fannie Mae and

      Freddie Mac (the “GSEs), blocked enactment of comprehensive legislation to improve

      financial regulation of these two GSEs, thus permitting their collapse in recent months.

      THE FACTS:

      • Democrats have historically supported the mission of Fannie Mae and Freddie,

      particularly their purchase of affordable mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income

      homebuyers, But Democrats have for many years supported and worked for passage of

      legislation strengthening financial regulation of these two GSEs – including passing in

      1992 the bill that established the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,

      which has provided GSE financial regulation since then.

      • Republican Inaction. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 through 2006, with

      the Bush Administration in charge from January, 2001. Republicans failed to pass any

      major legislation strengthening regulation of the GSEs in that time.

      • 2003/2004. In October, 2003, House Republicans on the Financial Services

      Committee scheduled a markup of comprehensive GSE reform, and had worked with

      Democrats on a bi-partisan bill. At the last moment, the markup was called off,

      because the Administration did not support the bill. The House took no further action

      for the rest of the 108th Congress on this legislation.

      • 2005/2006. House Democrats and Republicans worked together on major GSE reform

      legislation and reported a bill out of committee (H.R. 1461) on May 25, 2005 by a vote

      of 65 to 5 (all 5 no votes were Republicans). Republican Chairman Mike Oxley,

      commenting about this, said they had received “a 1-finger salute” from the Bush

      Administration. On October 26th, the House adopted this bill by a vote of 331 to 90.

      The Bush Administration opposed this bill, through its Statement of Administration

      Policy. Earlier, on July 28, Senate Republicans took a more partisan approach, passing

      a bill on a party line 11 to 10 vote out of committee. No further action was taken in

      2005 or 2006.

      • 2007. Democrats take over Congress and Chairman Frank formally organizes the

      Financial Services Committee on January 31st. On March 28th, the Committee reports

      out a comprehensive GSE reform bill (H.R. 1427) by a bipartisan vote of 49 to 15

      (once again, all no votes were Republicans). On May 22, the full House approves the

      bill on a vote of 313 to 104 (all 104 no votes were Republicans).

      • 2008. In January, in the middle of negotiations between the Bush Administration and

      Congress, Chairman Frank offers to insert the GSE reform bill into the stimulus bill

      that was enacted shortly thereafter, and Secretary Paulsen says no. On May 8th, the

      House sent a major housing bill (H.R. 3221) back to the Senate, adding GSE reform

      legislation. Subsequently, the Senate Banking Committee reported their own bill, and

      after reconciling House and Senate differences, the President signed the bill into law as

      part of the broader housing bill. P.L. 110-289.

      The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

      CLAIM: The claim is being made that CRA requires banks and thrifts to make loans to

      unqualified low-income and minority borrowers, and that this has been a major cause of

      the subprime mortgage crisis, and ensuring housing and economic problems.

      THE FACTS:

      • CRA does not require banks or thrifts to make loans that are unsafe or unprofitable –

      the law states that CRA lending must be done consistent with safe and sound banking

      practices. In fact, studies by the Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve have

      shown that CRA has significantly improved the availability of fair and affordable

      credit and services without negatively affecting safety and soundness.

      • There is no evidence that CRA caused lenders to make risky subprime loans that

      contributed to the current housing crisis. In fact, studies indicate that CRA obligations

      helped deter insured depositories from engaging in lending practices that fueled

      foreclosures and the subsequent financial crisis, and that that CRA-covered banks and

      thrifts were significantly less likely than other lenders to make high-cost loans:

      • Non-CRA lenders made a disproportionate number (84.3%) of high-cost

      loans in the 15 largest metropolitan areas [per 2006 HMDA data].

      • The Federal Reserve found that in 2005, 34.3% of home purchase loans

      issued by non-CRA mortgage companies were high-cost loans, while the

      number for CRA-covered institutions was just 5.1%.

      • Only a few of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 were federally regulated

      depository institutions with CRA obligations and the vast majority of the

      top 20 producers of risky interest-only and option ARM loans were not

      covered by CRA [Inside B&C Lending and Inside Mortgage Finance]

      • A 2000 CRA study found that defaults on CRA mortgage loans were not

      appreciably higher than defaults on prime mortgage loans (and more than

      70% of CRA banks reported default rates equal to or lower than prime

      default rates). By comparison, losses on subprime loans have much higher

      default rates than default rates on prime loans.

      • Most subprime loans are not made to minorities or low-income borrowers.

      Between 2005 and 2007, 58% of higher cost loans were made to white

      borrowers, and fewer than 30% of subprime loans in 2006 were made to

      low- and moderate-income borrowers (Source: HMDA data analysis by

      Compliance Tech and the Center for Responsible Lending).

      • The timing of the foreclosure crisis also reinforces that CRA was not

      responsible for the mortgage market meltdown. CRA regulations were

      strengthened in 1995 and contributed to a significant increase in prime

      lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers in the ensuing years. The

      riskiest subprime lending was most prevalent, however, between 2003 and

      2006, a period in which federal banking regulators decreased the number

      of banks and thrifts subject to comprehensive CRA exams and reduced

      CRA data reporting requirements for these financial institutions.

      http://www.majorityleader.gov-

      now after having 8 years in the bush administration, 12 years of congress, banking and finance committee chiars and treasury secretary's all republican and conservative what is your "talking point" excuse this time..come on, lets hear it….

      AND DONT EVEN CONSIDER TELLING ME THAT REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVEs WERE ALL ABOUT MORE GOVERNMENT AND REGULATION IN THAT TIME- THEY WERE NOT AND THE REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY NOT PASSING A SINGLE BILL TO COMBAT THE HOUSING CRISIS STAMPS IT IN GOLD. THE FIRST REFORM BILL THAT PASSEd WAS BY DEMOCRATS. pardon the caps, im just trying to help you "see" a little clearer.

      like i said before….bring it on.

    38. Zack says:

      some other valid points to ask yourself before blaimg the cra for the hosing crisis that led to the "republican/conservative" recession. but wait! you didn't really mention the coummunity reinvestment act. I will make sure i correct you before you even consider blaming that program.

      Let's clarify the causes of current circumstances. Ask yourself the following questions about the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act and/or the role of Fannie & Freddie:

      • Did the 1977 legislation, or any other legislation since, require banks to not verify income or payment history of mortgage applicants?

      • 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. How was this caused by either CRA or GSEs ?

      • What about "No Money Down" Mortgages (0% down payments) ? Were they required by the CRA? Fannie? Freddie?

      • Explain the shift in Loan to value from 80% to 120%: What was it in the Act that changed this traditional lending requirement?

      • Did any Federal legislation require real estate agents and mortgage writers to use the same corrupt appraisers again and again? How did they manage to always come in at exactly the purchase price, no matter what?

      • Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting (AU) systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible?

      • How exactly did legislation force Moody's, S&Ps and Fitch to rate junk paper as Triple AAA?

      • What about piggy back loans? Were banks required by Congress to lend the first mortgage and do a HELOC for the down payment — at the same time?

      • Internal bank memos showed employees how to cheat the system to get poor mortgages prospects approved that shouldn't have been: Titled How to Get an "Iffy" loan approved at JPM Chase. (Was circulating that memo also a FNM/FRE/CRA requirement?)

      • The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases) are: Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority regions were impacted by the Community Reinvesment Act ?

      • Did the GSEs require banks to not check credit scores? Assets? Income?

      • What was it about the CRA or GSEs that mandated fund managers load up on an investment product that was hard to value, thinly traded, and poorly understood

      • What was it in the Act that forced banks to make "interest only" loans? Were "Neg Am loans" also part of the legislative requirements also?

      • Consider this February 2003 speech by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozlilo at the American Bankers National Real Estate Conference. He advocated zero down payment mortgages — was that a CRA requirement too, or just a grab for more market share, and bad banking?

      The answer to all of the above questions is no, none, and nothing at all.

      The CRA is not remotely one of the proximate causes of the current credit crunch, Housing collapse,and mortgage debacle. As I detailed in Barron's, there is plenty of things to be angry at D.C. about — but this ain't one of them.

      -that was by a comment on the website- http://www.thenextright.com
      the pitiful rhetoric is too easy with that website anyways.

      since your so "well educated" on this carter/clinton/democratic disaster then dispute any of the questions that were given in this comment.

    39. xfactor says:

      "you can and will not answer for the 5.5 trillion spent by bush and republicans" – Zack

      POTUS GWB had a Republican controlled Congress from January 20, 2001 to January 3, 2007 and that was the 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses.

      January 20, 2001 the ND was $5,727,776,738,304.64 Trillion and the ND increased to $8,677,214,255,313.07 Trillion on January 3, 2007.

      Now, no matter how you do the math, that equals $2,949,437,517,008.43 Trillion that POTUS Bush and Republicans are directly responsible for.

      January 3, 2007 the Democrats took control of the 110th Congress(January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009) and the ND was $8,677,214,255,313.07 Trillion it increased to $10,626,877,048,913.08 on January 20, 2009.

      Now, no matter how you do the math, that equals $1,949,662,793,600.01 Trillion that POTUS Bush and Democrats are directly responsible for.

      In 8 years POTUS GWB increased the ND $4,899,100,310,608.44 Trillion.

      When GWB took office January 20, 2001 the ND was $5,727,776,738,304.64 Trillion. For GWB to have doubled the ND as liberals like you parrott, the ND would have had to equal the January 20, 2001 total and as you can see it does not. All numbers are verifiable from your provided link at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?applica

      The 103rd Congress was January 3, 1993 – January 3, 1995. It was Democratic controlled and Bill Clinton was the POTUS.

      What you were regurgitating with "You know the debt increase and you know it was over 5.5 trillion for bush and republicans from the 103rd-109th." is anyones guess.

      "factually incorrect? really. because your opinion tells us otherwise? which part is incorrect? in detail, where, oh you mean the part that doesnt agree with your conservative mindset…so embarrasing." – Zack

      Yes! Yes really! No facts tell us otherwise!

      Where, meaning the burden is on you, does/did the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 or the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 allot $200 Billion for the adjustment of the Alternative Minimum Tax incidence, like your source Robert greenstein, did?

      There are plenty more, but I'll wait for you to do your research(LOL!!!) and respond.

      "part of my essay is listed here" – Zack

      “Let me pull an essay I created back at the U of U” – Zack

      OK, whatever you say???

      "TRICKLE DOWN WILL NEVER WORK- TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH WILL NEVER WORK. We just went through a bush/republican/conservative recession and dont you forget." – Zack

      Ronald Wilson Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter's stagflation and with 2 tax cuts created 16 Million jobs and ended the stagflation. GWB inherited the dotcom bubble burst and with 2 tax cuts created over 4.4 Million jobs in 6 years.

      Funny how the tax breaks for the rich increased their burden of taxes. every year! http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/15

      Here's an excellent link with source provided at the bottom: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/

      "you can and will not answer the fact that less then 10% of the entire housing market share that was under cra or any other government regulation" – Zack

      What share wouldn't be regulated?

      So you have to troll other websites to get your responses?

    40. Zack says:

      I got what I wanted. Typical conservative talking points and spin. Yea, i trolled and everytime I end up with the same thing. No questions answered. No credible response, all talking points. I feel for people like you. No offense, its just sad to see someone so partisan and mislead. My facts stand. Good luck in November!

    41. xfactor says:

      "I got what I wanted." – Zack

      You came here to be eXposed as a lying plagarizer?

      "Typical conservative talking points and spin" – Zack

      If that's what you call FACTS, then ok.

      "Yea, i trolled and everytime I end up with the same thing" – Zack

      EXposed as a lying plagarizer

      "No questions answered. No credible response, all talking points" – Zack

      1 – "refute over 8 trillion added to the national debt by bush and republicans and conservatives policies and executive and congressional control. no, go ahead, i dare you. anyone give is a shot.." – Zack

      "That’s an 8 year total increase of $4,899,100,310,608.44 Trillion not the “5.5 trillion” you claim. This “2.5 trillion” for the 2 Bush Tax cuts is a major Liberal talking point with no basis in reality. That figure is derived from $2.11 Trillion in lost revenue + roughly 390 Billion in interest payments. The first logical fallacy you assume is that there is some magical revenue line we have and must meet. I know Liberals love to increase revenues to match their out of control spending but to claim that giving people their money back in the form of a tax cut created a $2.5 trillion increase to the ND is wrong." – xfactor

      Try again Zack

      "I feel for people like you. No offense, its just sad to see someone so partisan and mislead." – Zack

      Whatever it takes for you to justify your partisan, "mislead"( try misled next time) brainwashing.

      "My facts stand" – Zack

      You didn't provide 1 fact but when you lamely attempted it was through Robert Greenstein and plagarizing John Peters.

      "Good luck in November!" – Zack

      New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts tell a different story.

    42. Zack says:

      haha. Your like a kid that has to get in the last word.

      your numbers keep supporting me..thank you.

      "$4,899,100,310,608.44 Trillion not the “5.5 trillion” you claim"

      -so the other .6 trillion was not in the shared 2009 budget? those are republican/conservative policies and that is their shared budget.

      -it is possible that the 5.5 trillion should be even more.

      "$2.11 Trillion in lost revenue + roughly 390 Billion in interest payments"

      -3rd grade math class- = 2.5 trillion. So if it was not taxed it was borrowed from federal revenue and when you borrow from federal revenue and don't pay it back it adds to the national debt! -9th grade government class

      -for some reason you forget the .5 trillion in unfunded private military contracts or heck, the true cost of the iraq war but thats another debate.

      -so $4.8 Trillion + $2.1 Trillion + .39 Trillion + .5 Trillion= 7.79 Trillion NOT including the shared budget for 2009. Hey, I guess we are finally in agreement. Thank you for supporting me:)

      "EXposed as a lying plagarizer"

      -I posted all sources but WOW, your getting very angry and upset and name calling! Thats what happens when you lose a debate. Oh and thank you for correcting my spelling….another thing that happens when you lose a debate. Your all over the place!

      On a serious note you honestly didn't answer anything. You left out many questions that needed answers. Your math lines up with my math so basically you confirmed the "around" 8 trillion added under bush, republicans and conservatives. Heck, I will give you the .5 trillion, im having a good day.

      one word-

      embarrasing.

    43. Zack says:

      "democrats controled congress from 2006-2008"…..hardly..

      REPUBLICANS had the exact number of seats for 1 year- 49-49, with one independent that would causus as republican and the other as democrat.and the remaining time it was 49-49 republican majority with one independent that would always caucus as a republican and the other a vacant seat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress)

      110th congress—-

      Democratic Party: 49 members.

      Republican Party: 49 members.

      Independents: 2 members.

      (wiki!)

      you know what else wrecks your claim…

      the fact that only 7% of all democratic sponsored bills in the house and senate became public law from 2006-2008, either blocked by republicans or vetoed by president bush. 93% of ALL legislation from 2006-2008 was passed by republicans and president bush. (votesmart.org.) oh and the president of the senate(mr. war monger himself) counts too, so your not even close to having a valid claim of this so called democratic senate (legislative) power.

      .. legislation passed provides much much much more evidence then your claim.

      we only had the house from 2006-2008 and guess what else! over 85% off all bills were either drafted or finalized in the senate. (votesmart.org)

      besides, when did bush ever support democratic legislation?

      #1- you are wrong about the tax cuts. they did not provide any stability to our economy, nor did deregulation or neglected regulatory reform or blocked reform(hey, republicans/conservatives HATE government so not a big suprise), otherwise we would not have gone through a recession after 12 years of republican/conservative house, republican/conservative senate, republican/conservative treasury secretary, republican/conservative banking and housing finance committe chairs and 8 years of a republican/conservative administration. you can spin this anyway you want but you darn well know these tax cuts for the RICH were not payed for or taxed. it will add over 2.5 trillion to our national debt by 2016 if not earlier. and absolutly NO evidence has been provided that tax cuts worked even in the slighest way.

      #2- republicans/conservatives did not pass a single bill for regulatory reform or regulation for the housing market. NOT A SINGLE BILL. (votesmart.org) (opencongress.org) less then 10% of the entire housing marke share was under cra or any other government regulation. 85% of all lenders subject to cra had no corrisponding rise in bank failures(f.d.i.c. reports)- find it for yourself. besides, when did the government ever "force" banks to make loans for homes at $500K to average annual incomes of 50K? Its beyond ignorant claims to blame the big bad "government" for the housing crisis or that barney frank had magical powers to control the entire republican congress majority.

      #3- and for you to be soooo desperate to name call and accuse me of palgarism. haha, so pitiful. my grammar sucks of course and i posted every source possible so you can take your accusation and keep it to yourself.

      as i said before, democrats have made bad choices and will add to the national debt and i can guarantee that democrats and obama will spend more then bush and republicans/conservaives… but healthcare reform, banking reform, wall street reform, market stability hold more water then tax cuts, over extended military budgets and forced market deregulation. This idea of productive tax cuts and republican fiscal responsibility is a joke at best.

      how many more questions can you not answer?

      I did infact answer many questions and provided sources as evidence.

      let me try again……

      you can and will not answer for the 5.5 trillion spent by bush and republicans

      -you can and will not answer for the .5 trillion for private military contracts

      -you can and will not answer for the 2.5 trillion national debt increase by the failed tax cuts.

      -you can and will not answer for the 93% sponsored legislation from republicans from 2006-2008

      -you can and will not answer the fact that less then 10% of the entire housing market share that was under cra or any other government regulation.

      -you can and will not answer the fact that 89%+ of the eniter housing market share was based on complete free market economics with no government intervention

      -you can and will not answer the fact that not a single bill for mortage lender/housing market regulation or regulatory reform was passed from a single republican during their entire time in congressional power or the bush administration for the matter

      -you can and will not answer the fact that bush and republicans in congress had some brilliant idea to push for 5 million more homeowners in an already fragile subprime market.

      -you can and will not answer the fact that bush and republicans only created a mere 3 million jobs.

      -you can and will not answer the fact that unemployment went up over 3.5 points during that time.

      -you can and will not answer the fact that republicans/conservatives have done NOTHING to combat the healthcare reform neccessity and blocked any and all measures to just get something fixed.

      -you can and will not answer the fact that your policies, your policy driven agenda and the entire time your part had control of the house and senate for 12 years, the administration for 8, banking and finance committee chairs, and treasury secretary’s for 12 years did noting to help the economy, infact you deregulated and neglected regulatory reform, did nothing for healthcare, had a president that waste time and money on a useless war, added over 6 trillion to the defecit just in 8 years with another 2 or 3 trillion to come for failed policies.

      -you can and will not answer any of these problems that have already happened!

      continue the spin!!!

    44. Zack says:

      "EXposed as a lying plagarizer", "brainwashing"

      -look at your anger and hate…your soooo mad.

      -use anger and hate at the politicians and policies you support that put us in this mess in the first place, not me.

      -your the type of person who just settles with majority and not economic and legislative history.

      -do a little more research and bring something productive to this debate or else I'm wasting my time.

      oh, and please respond. I'm having fun with you.

    45. Zack says:

      heritage, don't be a coward. stop erasing my perfectly civil comments.

    46. janie, las cruces ne says:

      What will the Obamacare taxes be for my small business? We have 2 full time employees.

    47. Zack says:

      let me repost what heritage deleted after i posted.

      "EXposed as a lying plagarizer”

      -xfactor!, such anger. you are so mad.

      its funny that heritage will post this "Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated" yet! its ok for someone to write "EXposed as a lying plagarizer”

      hmmmm. well, xfactor and everyone else on this website, I have some advice for you- You should use that anger and madness against the very politicians and policies that you support that put us in this mess in the first place (based on legislative and economic history) and not based on Heritage, Fox News, Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Beck, Palin or any other 300+ radio shows, broadcast networks, newspapers, magazines, websites that submit to false information that get taken for credibility from too many people.

      so heritage moderators, since you cant find one thing uncivil about this comment.

      are you still willing to delete it?

      pathetic…

    48. Zack says:

      HR 3590 does not require that small businesses provide coverage to their employees. Instead, the Bill provides tens of billions of dollars in new TAX-CREDITS to small businesses to make it easier for them to provide coverage if they choose to do so.

      Today, small businesses pay up to 18 percent more than large firms for the same health insurance policy. The independent and non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that with health insurance reform, premiums for small businesses will go down.

      In addition, you will be protected from sudden, arbitrary rate hikes because a worker get sick; because insurance companies will no longer be permitted to base the cost of coverage on health status.

      NO MANDATES, NO PENALTIES, YOUR BUSINESS TAXES WILL NOT REPEAT, WILL NOT GO UP DUE TO THIS BILL. Now, large business's that REFUSE to offer coverage will pay which they darn well should.

      Don't believe anything Heritage tells you. Read HR 3590 or the ammendment on opencongress.org. This website has no corrisponding evidence of what is actually in the healthcare bill, it's all fear mongering, worst case-scenario, mislead rhetoric and you dont have to believe me either. Read the bill online!

      And I don't know what "Obamacare" is or "Obamacare taxes" is? You should call it the Healthcare Reform bill that was passed by both the house and senate.

    49. Zack says:

      xfactor, where did you go? I'm not done with you.

    50. xfactor says:

      "xfactor, where did you go?" – zack

      I'm here. Just thought when you stated "I got what I wanted….My facts stand. Good luck in November!" that you were done.

      FYI: The onus is not on me to refute your visible ignorance, it's on you to prove it. And to date you've done nothing. When you post "(votesmart.org) (opencongress.org) " and such provide the eXact link.

      You keep trying there zack, I get a good laugh with your every cretinous response.

    51. xfactor says:

      “haha. Your like a kid that has to get in the last word.” – zack

      Pot meet kettle!

      ““democrats controled congress from 2006-2008?…..hardly..” – zack

      No kidding! I never said that, so what point are you trying to make?

      109th Congress January 3, 2005 – January 3, 2007
      110th Congress January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009

      The 2 Independents voted D, so it was 51(D) to 49(R)

      Is this a ruse or are you really that uninformed?

      FYI: I’ve already debunked your cretinous analogy once, what will doing it twice do for me?

      You keep trying zack and by all means keep regurgitating the same thing over and over and over.

    52. xfactor says:

      “healthcare-(a good/service)/(or provide for the wellfare of the people) is under the commerce clause -they are both in the constitution” – zack

      The Commerce Clause is under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of our Republics Constitution and reads:

      “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”

      LOL!!! Where does it say this?

      “let me try again……” – zack

      Debunked in order:

      1 – POTUS Bush and Republicans spent $2,949,437,517,008.43 Trillion in 6 years. Verifiable at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

      2 – Provide a credible link.

      3 – $2.5 Trillion is a fallacious number that were assumed by Robert Greenstein.

      4 – 109th Congress ran from January 3, 2005 – January 3, 2007 and had a Republican majority. House 232(R), 201(D), Senate 55(R), 44(D), 1(Independent that voted D).

      110th Congress ran from January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009 and had a Democrat majority. House 233(D), 202(R), Senate 49(D), 49(R), 2(Independent that voted D).

      5 – What part wasn’t regulated and provide a credible source.

      6 – A free market? Again provide a credible source

      7 – When did they have the votes to do this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related

      8 – What year? And it had bipartisan support.

      9 – POTUS Bush and Republicans created over 4.404 Million jobs in 6 years. Verifiable at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

      10 – Unemployment went from 4.2% in January 2001 to 4.4% in December 2006. Verifiable at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

      11 – LOL!!! Again provide a credible link. Ever checked Jr Senator obamas healthcare reform voting record?

      12 – What did Republicans deregulate? Deficit didn’t go over $5 Trillion in 8 years.

      13 – They haven’t happened anywhere except in your eXtremely gullible mind.

      Continue to parrott!

      Don’t forget to address the 1st questions before you embark on your blizzard of words that will say absolutely nothing!

    53. Zack says:

      you still provided nothing. nice links. your a waste of my time.

      you have been defeated.

    54. Zack says:

      the fact that you are so partisan and unable to provide any legislative history to support your very flawed argument is enough to just let you keep going. Your the type of person that just pulls a link without looking into anything else. Your a copy and paste child. You know that republican/conservative policies are more to blame for our current status but you cant ever ever admit that. You, like the other people on this website have this unstable hatred for obama without any substance behind what you say. I did provide facts. This entire debate was on you and you have been asked enough questions to provide your side but nothing happened. You a truly a waste of time for me to write anything else.

    55. Zack says:

      and your links end up nowhere. pathetic.

      ive dealt with brick walls like you before and i end up where i started. nowhere!

    56. xfactor says:

      Where does the Commerce Clause say what you claim? You read it but ignored it it because it doesn't say what you claim. Wanna try again?

      The old liberal links don't work eXcuse? That's desperation at its finest. Anyway here's the homepeage for the links provided http://www.bls.gov/ now tell me you can't find it.

      Provide the link where you claim all this legislation was vetoed or fillibustered?

      "you have been defeated" – Zack

      Only in your mind.

      "I did provide facts" – Zack

      Where? Oh you mean where you plagarized John Peters of commondreams and claimed it was a paper you wrote while you attended the U of U?

      Zack, why do you waste your time with the garbage you parrott and regurgitate? You got NOTHING and it's painfully obvious in your cretinous responses.

      Notice how I ask you to PROVE the Commerce Clause says what you claim and you can't but just like I predicted you then embark on a 3 response blizzard of words that said nothing?

      You fail to answere or debunk any of my 1 thru 13 responses because you can't!

      Again zack you can claim whatever you want but the facts are this, when you are pressed to provide facts you've can't.

      You don't even know the duration of each session of Congress.

      Address the questions with verifiable links or don't bother. We both know you've got nothing.

      Don't worry zack I'll be patiently awaiting your next cretinous masterpiece.

      Here's my prediction if you choose to respond. You will again not address 1 question with a verifiable link and embark on another blizzard of words that say nothing.

      zack your facts are nonexistent which perfectly compliments your nonexistent game.

      FYI: The onus of proof is on you to prove what you claim! I've already debunked everything you've posted.

      Show me where the Commerce Clause says what you've claimed? When you can't just admit you can't!

      Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

      2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7

      2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0

      2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7

      2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4

      2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9

      2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

      "This entire debate was on you and you have been asked enough questions to provide your side but nothing happened" – zack

      Who made the first post in this thread? I debunked all 13 questions you've asked? Just because you refuse to accept facts is no basis for your cretinous claims. Now tell me the unemployment #s from above are wrong.

      I know your plate is full of questions but where did I claim any party affiliation?

      have fun zack and for once in your liberal life respond with something other than words.

    57. xfactor says:

      Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

      2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7

      2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0

      2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7

      2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4

      2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9

      2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

      There you go zack, it's now zacklified so yu have 1 less distarction.

      4.2% when POTUS George W Bush took over January 20, 2001 to 4.4% when Republicans lost control of Congress on January 3, 2007.

    58. Zack says:

      -your hopeless. Good job with the last decade running the country. The political right was so successful in lowering debt, cutting spending, creating jobs and keeping the markets regulated! Great Job!

      -congressional and executive actions always hold accountability within the next administration but I guess you wouldn't know that. My numbers stand, infact they may be even higher when it's all said and done.

      -Your the type of person that is satisfied with numbers without looking at long term effects, legislative and economic history.

      -I'm not sure why I bothered to debate someone on the Heritage Foundation anyways. It's like talking to a brick wall. Have fun being misguided the rest of your life.

      -and by the way, I already answered your questions. You didn't debunk anything. You infact left out many of my questions. Besides, you don't listen.

      Continue with the anger and frustration. Another thing that might make you even more angry is the fact that you lost the debate long ago.

      But continue with the typical conservative blah blah blah.

      LOST CAUSE!

    59. Zack says:

      you have just been destroyed. I'm done with you. Enjoy Heritage, Fox News and Conservative Radio because they got you right where they want you!

    60. Zack says:

      1-Your beloved tax cuts.

      Some of the reporting on the Treasury analysis has made a basic mistake. The Treasury study found that making the tax cuts permanent would increase the size of the economy over the long run — i.e., after many years — by 0.7 percent, if the tax cuts are paid for by unspecified cuts in government programs. This is a very small effect. If it took 20 years for the 0.7 percent increase to fully manifest itself (Treasury officials have indicated it would take significantly more than ten years but have not been more specific than that), this would mean an increase in the average annual growth rate for 20 years of four-one-hundredths of one percent — such as 3.04 percent instead of 3.0 percent — an effect so small as to be barely noticeable. Moreover, after the 20 years or whatever length of time it would take for the 0.7 percent increase to show up, annual growth rates would return to their normal level — that is, they would be no higher than if the tax cuts were allowed to expire.

      Several news reports, however, mistakenly said that the Treasury found that making the tax cuts permanent would lead to a 0.7 percentage point increase in the annual growth rate. If true, that would be an enormous economic benefit; it would increase the size of the economy by 40 percent after fifty years. It would be more than fifty times larger than the 0.7 percent increase in the size of the economy over several decades that the Treasury study actually found.

      On July 25, the Treasury Department released a study entitled “A Dynamic Analysis of Permanent Extension of the President’s Tax Relief.” This study refutes many of the exaggerated claims about the tax cuts that have been made by the President and other senior Administration officials, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and various other tax-cut advocates. Contrary to the claim that the tax cuts will have huge impacts on the economy, the Treasury study finds that even under favorable assumptions, making the tax cuts permanent would have a barely perceptible impact on the economy. Under more realistic assumptions, the Treasury study finds that the tax cuts could even hurt the economy.

      In addition, the study casts doubt on claims that the tax cuts are responsible for much of the recent growth in investment and jobs. It finds that making the tax cuts permanent would lead initially to lower levels of investment, and would result over the longer term in lower levels of employment (i.e., in fewer jobs).

      The Treasury also study decisively refutes the President’s claim that “The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring,” — in essence, that the tax cuts have more than paid for themselves. [1] Instead, under the study’s more favorable scenario, the modest economic impact of the tax cuts would offset just 10 percent of the long-run cost of making the tax cuts permanent according to an analysis of the Treasury study by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS).[2]

      Finally, the conclusions in the Treasury study are based on the assumption that the tax cuts will be paid for by deep and unspecified cuts in government programs starting in 2017. The Treasury study is consistent with other research on dynamic scoring in finding that in the absence of such budget cuts — i.e., if the tax cuts continue to be deficit financed indefinitely — the tax cuts would end up weakening the economy over the long run.

      The following are four key findings from the report.

      Finding #1: At best, making the tax cuts permanent would have a barely perceptible effect on the economy.

      The featured estimate in the Treasury study is that making the tax cuts permanent would add 0.7 percent to the size of the economy over the long run, under the unrealistic assumption that the tax cuts are paid for by deep and unspecified reductions in government programs that start in 2017. The report does not specify what “long run” means, but if the higher growth rates were spread over 20 years,[3] an ultimate increase of 0.7 percent in the size of the economy would mean an increase of just four one-hundredths of one percent in the average annual growth rate. For example, instead of average annual growth of 3.0 percent, the economy would have an average annual growth rate of 3.04 percent. As shown in Figure 1, this difference is so small as to be barely perceptible.

      Moreover, the Treasury study acknowledges that the long-run growth rate would not rise at all. The study indicates that after some period of time (such as 20 years), the barely noticeable, slightly higher annual average growth rate cited above would end, and the rate of economic growth after that would merely be the same as it would be if the tax cuts are allowed to expire.

      Finding #2: The tax cuts would pay for less than 10 percent of themselves in the long run

      The Treasury did not release the findings of its model with regard to the amount of additional revenue that would be generated by the increase in economic growth that the tax cuts are assumed to produce. But analysis of the Treasury study by the Congressional Research Service finds that if the tax cuts are paid for with dramatic spending cuts, then the economic growth generated by making the tax cuts permanent would offset only 7 percent of the initial cost of the tax cuts and 10 percent of the long-run cost. The effect would be even smaller with assumptions CRS considers more realistic.

      One straightforward way to derive such a revenue estimate is to compare the cost of the tax cuts in the absence of any dynamic effects to the added revenue that would result from the increased level of economic growth the tax cuts are assumed to produce. According to CBO’s official cost estimate, the Administration’s proposal to make the tax cuts enacted since 2001 permanent would cost 1.4 percent of GDP annually. (This does not include the relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax that the Administration regularly proposes on an annual basis, which would bring the total cost to 2 percent of GDP.) The Treasury study finds that the tax cuts would raise national output by “as much as” 0.7 percent over the long term; with tax receipts projected to be about 18 percent of GDP, this translates into an increase in revenues, as a result of greater economic growth, of about 0.13 percent of GDP.

      Thus, under the Administration’s optimistic dynamic-scoring scenario, the net cost of the tax cuts would equal approximately 1.27 percent of GDP annually after the dynamic effects of the tax cuts are taken into account. This is more than 90 percent of the conventional cost estimate of the tax cuts (see Figure 2).[4] Moreover, the Treasury study finds that the tax cuts would have even smaller effects on economic output, and hence presumably on tax revenues, in the first years after they were made permanent.

      This finding shreds claims that the tax cuts are paying for themselves or offsetting a sizable fraction of their costs.

      Finding #3: Tax cuts will benefit the economy modestly only if they are paid for by large and unspecified cuts in government programs.

      The featured results in the Treasury study are based on the assumption that government programs are cut sharply starting in 2017 in order to pay for the tax cuts. In total, government spending would have to be reduced by the equivalent of about 1.3 percent of GDP after 2017.[5] That would be equivalent to cutting domestic discretionary spending in half. This is substantially larger than the budget cuts the President has proposed. Thus, the featured Treasury estimates are estimates of the long-term economic effects not of the tax cuts per se, but of the combination of the tax cuts that the President has proposed and unspecified, deep program cuts that he has not proposed.

      Moreover, many low- and middle-income families likely would lose more from the cuts in government programs made under this scenario than they would gain from the combination of the relatively small tax cuts they would get and the slightly expanded economy.6 An analysis conducted in 2004 by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that if the tax cuts were financed through a mechanism that would produce effects similar to those that could occur if the tax cuts were paid for largely or entirely through spending cuts, roughly four-fifths of U.S. households ultimately would lose more from the budget cuts than they would gain from the tax cuts.[6]

      The Treasury study does not report how its results would change if alternative scenarios for cutting government spending were used. Studies of generic tax cuts by Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and academic researchers all have found that the deficits caused by income-tax cuts can result in a smaller economy over the long run. The Joint Committee on Taxation, for example, found that income-tax cuts could help the economy if they were paid for after ten years but that waiting 20 years to finance them would result in much more debt and consequently would hurt the economy.[7] The Treasury study does not present any analysis of what would happen under alternative assumptions about the timing and the specific form of the assumed program cuts. Such analysis might show that the tax cuts could hurt the economy.

      Finally, the Treasury study also estimates that if the tax cuts are financed by income-tax increases, they will reduce long-run national output by 0.9 percent. Since the drastic cuts in programs that the Treasury assumes in its “favorable” scenario are unlikely to materialize, under a more realistic scenario that relies on a combination of program cuts and tax increases, the economy would be little affected and could even be hurt.

      Finding #4: The Treasury study confirms that it is more prudent to raise taxes by a smaller amount today than to raise them by a larger amount in the future

      A standard result in economics is that it is better to finance a given level of government spending with a “smooth” level of taxes.[8] For example, if the long-run budget is in deficit, it is better to act sooner and raise taxes by a smaller amount today than to wait for the deficits to grow so large that taxes have to be raised by a larger amount in the future. This is a basic implication of the old adage that it is better to act sooner to prepare for future challenges.

      The Treasury study confirms this finding. Specifically, it finds that cutting taxes today and raising them by even more in the future to make up for the lost revenue and the larger deficits ultimately would reduce the size of the economy (real GNP) by 0.9 percent. In other words, the Treasury analysis finds that if one does not expect dramatic reductions in government programs to be instituted to pay for the tax cuts, it would be better for the economy to let the tax cuts expire.

      This is consistent with the commonsense prescription: in preparing for our future fiscal challenges, it is better for the economy to have slightly higher taxes today (by letting some or all of the tax cuts expire) than to wait a long time and have to raise taxes dramatically in the future. Similarly, it would generally be preferable to make more modest program reductions today than to make larger program cuts in the future.

      By Jason Furman

    61. Zack says:

      2- unemployment under bush

      2001-01 4.20 2001-03 4.30 2001-05 4.30 Tax Relief & Reconciliation Act of 2001, dec. 2001-07 4.60 2001-09 5.00 2001-11 5.60 2002-01 5.60 2002-03 5.70 2002-05 5.80 2002-07 5.80 2002-09 5.70 2002-11 5.90 2003-01 5.80 2003-03 5.80 2003-05 6.10 2003-07 6.20 2003-09 6.10 2003-11 5.90 2004-01 5.60 2004-03 5.70 2004-05 5.60 2004-07 5.50 2004-09 5.40 2004-11 5.40 2005-01 5.20 2005-03 5.20 2005-05 5.10 2005-07 5.00 2005-09 5.10 2005-11 5.00 2006-01 4.70 2006-03 4.70 2006-05 4.60 2006-07 4.80 2006-09 4.60 2006-11 4.50 2007-01 4.60 2007-03 4.40 2007-05 4.50 2007-07 4.60 2007-09 4.70 2007-11 4.70 2008-01 4.90 2008-03 5.10 2008-05 5.50 2008-07 5.70 2008-09 6.10 2008-11 6.70 2009-01 7.60 "TYPE=PICT;ALT=7.6"

      4.2-7.6 = 3.4 percent increase and his last years policies add to the shared 2009 fiscal year adding another .6 percent

      thats your 4% .

    62. Zack says:

      3- 93% of all senate legislation in the 109th was republican

      Public Laws: Senate Bills

      1. S.5 : A bill to amend the procedures that apply to consideration of interstate class actions to assure fairer outcomes for class members and defendants, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] (introduced 1/25/2005) Cosponsors (33)

      Committees: Senate Judiciary

      Senate Reports: 109-14

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-2 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      2. S.37 : A bill to extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 2 years.

      Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 1/24/2005) Cosponsors (69)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform; House Energy and Commerce; House Armed Services

      Senate Reports: 109-140

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-100 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      3. S.45 : A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift the patient limitation on prescribing drug addiction treatments by medical practitioners in group practices, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl [MI] (introduced 1/24/2005) Cosponsors (5)

      Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; Senate Judiciary

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-56 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      4. S.52 : A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a parcel of real property to Beaver County, Utah.

      Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 1/24/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-43

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-130 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      5. S.55 : A bill to adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado.

      Sponsor: Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] (introduced 1/24/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-19

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-93 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      6. S.56 : A bill to establish the Rio Grande Natural Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] (introduced 1/24/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-45

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-337 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      7. S.101 : A bill to convey to the town of Frannie, Wyoming, certain land withdrawn by the Commissioner of Reclamation.

      Sponsor: Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] (introduced 1/24/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-46

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-380 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      8. S.136 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide supplemental funding and other services that are necessary to assist certain local school districts in the State of California in providing educational services for students attending schools located within Yosemite National Park, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, to adjust the boundaries of Redwood National Park, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 1/24/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources; House Education and the Workforce

      Senate Reports: 109-63

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-131 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      9. S.156 : A bill to designate the Ojito Wilderness Study Area as wilderness, to take certain land into trust for the Pueblo of Zia, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] (introduced 1/25/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-13

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-94 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      10. S.161 : A bill to provide for a land exchange in the State of Arizona between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership.

      Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 1/25/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-40

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-110 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      11. S.167 : A bill to provide for the protection of intellectual property rights, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 1/25/2005) Cosponsors (4)

      Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Judiciary; House Administration

      House Reports: 109-33 Part 1

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-9 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      12. S.172 : A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the regulation of all contact lenses as medical devices, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen DeWine, Mike [OH] (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (9)

      Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; House Energy and Commerce

      Senate Reports: 109-110

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-96 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      13. S.176 : A bill to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.

      Sponsor: Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Energy and Commerce

      Senate Reports: 109-29 House Reports: 109-681

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-297 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      14. S.193 : A bill to increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane language.

      Sponsor: Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (27)

      Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation; House Energy and Commerce

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-235 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      15. S.203 : A bill to reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid for sodium produced, to establish certain National Heritage Areas, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Thomas, Craig [WY] (introduced 1/31/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-4

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-338 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      16. S.205 : A bill to authorize the American Battle Monuments Commission to establish in the State of Louisiana a memorial to honor the Buffalo Soldiers.

      Sponsor: Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] (introduced 1/31/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-24

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-152 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      17. S.212 : A bill to amend the Valles Caldera Preservation Act to improve the preservation of the Valles Caldera, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] (introduced 1/31/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-10

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-132 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      18. S.213 : A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to Rio Arriba County, New Mexico.

      Sponsor: Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] (introduced 1/31/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-166

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-324 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      19. S.214 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the States on the border with Mexico and other appropriate entities in conducting a hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, and modeling program for priority transboundary aquifers, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] (introduced 1/31/2005) Cosponsors (2)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-17

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-448 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      20. S.244 : A bill to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Wyoming.

      Sponsor: Sen Thomas, Craig [WY] (introduced 2/1/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Energy and Commerce

      Senate Reports: 109-32 House Reports: 109-682

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-298 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      21. S.250 : A bill to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 to improve the Act.

      Sponsor: Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] (introduced 2/1/2005) Cosponsors (19)

      Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

      Senate Reports: 109-65; Latest Conference Report: 109-597 (in Congressional Record H5773-5790)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-270 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      22. S.252 : A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land in Washoe County, Nevada, to the Board of Regents of the University and Community College System of Nevada.

      Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 2/1/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-38

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-69 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      23. S.256 : A bill to amend title 11 of the United States Code, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] (introduced 2/1/2005) Cosponsors (12)

      Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Judiciary; House Financial Services

      House Reports: 109-31 Part 1

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-8 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      24. S.260 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical and financial assistance to private landowners to restore, enhance, and manage private land to improve fish and wildlife habitats through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.

      Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (introduced 2/2/2005) Cosponsors (3)

      Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-86 House Reports: 109-562

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-294 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      25. S.264 : A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize certain projects in the State of Hawaii.

      Sponsor: Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] (introduced 2/2/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-33

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-70 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      26. S.276 : A bill to revise the boundary of the Wind Cave National Park in the State of South Dakota.

      Sponsor: Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] (introduced 2/3/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-21

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-71 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      27. S.279 : A bill to amend the Act of June 7, 1924, to provide for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

      Sponsor: Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] (introduced 2/3/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Indian Affairs; House Resources

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-133 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      28. S.310 : A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Newlands Project Headquarters and Maintenance Yard Facility to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District in the State of Nevada.

      Sponsor: Sen Ensign, John [NV] (introduced 2/8/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-188

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-265 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      29. S.335 : A bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

      Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] (introduced 2/9/2005) Cosponsors (4)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Education and the Workforce

      Senate Reports: 109-87

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-143 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      30. S.362 : A bill to establish a program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Coast Guard to help identify, determine sources of, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment and navigation safety, in coordination with non-Federal entities, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] (introduced 2/10/2005) Cosponsors (8)

      Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation; House Transportation and Infrastructure; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-56 House Reports: 109-332 Part 1, 109-332 Part 2

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-449 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      31. S.384 : A bill to extend the existence of the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group for 2 years.

      Sponsor: Sen DeWine, Mike [OH] (introduced 2/15/2005) Cosponsors (9)

      Committees: House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-5 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      32. S.397 : A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

      Sponsor: Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] (introduced 2/16/2005) Cosponsors (61)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-92 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      33. S.418 : A bill to protect members of the Armed Forces from unscrupulous practices regarding sales of insurance, financial, and investment products.

      Sponsor: Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] (introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (12)

      Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

      Senate Reports: 109-282

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-290 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      34. S.435 : A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-189

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-370 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      35. S.449 : A bill to facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals to make Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act available to missed enrollees, eligible elders, and eligible persons born after December 18, 1971, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] (introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Indian Affairs; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-112

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-179 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      36. S.467 : A bill to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.

      Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] (introduced 2/18/2005) Cosponsors (33)

      Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-144 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      37. S.544 : A bill to amend title IX of the Public Health Service Act to provide for the improvement of patient safety and to reduce the incidence of events that adversely effect patient safety.

      Sponsor: Sen Jeffords, James M. [VT] (introduced 3/8/2005) Cosponsors (9)

      Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; House Energy and Commerce

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-41 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      38. S.571 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1915 Fulton Street in Brooklyn, New York, as the "Congresswoman Shirley A. Chisholm Post Office Building".

      Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 3/9/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-50 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      39. S.592 : An act to amend the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 to extend certain contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and certain irrigation water contractors in the States of Wyoming and Nebraska.

      Sponsor: Sen Thomas, Craig [WY] (introduced 3/10/2005) Cosponsors (3)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-167

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-219 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      40. S.643 : A bill to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to reauthorize State mediation programs.

      Sponsor: Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] (introduced 3/16/2005) Cosponsors (3)

      Committees: Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-17 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      41. S.652 : A bill to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin.

      Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 3/17/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-147

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-153 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      42. S.655 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

      Sponsor: Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] (introduced 3/17/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; House Energy and Commerce

      Senate Reports: 109-91 House Reports: 109-510

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-245 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      43. S.686 : A bill to provide for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.

      Sponsor: Sen Frist, William H. [TN] (introduced 3/20/2005) Cosponsors (2)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-3 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      44. S.707 : A bill to reduce preterm labor and delivery and the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and complications due to pregnancy, and to reduce infant mortality caused by prematurity.

      Sponsor: Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] (introduced 4/5/2005) Cosponsors (42)

      Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; House Energy and Commerce

      Senate Reports: 109-298

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-450 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      45. S.714 : A bill to amend section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) relating to the prohibition on junk fax transmissions.

      Sponsor: Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR] (introduced 4/6/2005) Cosponsors (9)

      Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

      Senate Reports: 109-76

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-21 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      46. S.775 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, Oklahoma, as the "Boone Pickens Post Office".

      Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-51 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      47. S.819 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate costs of the Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to reflect increased demands for municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] (introduced 4/15/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-168

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-371 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      48. S.843 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to combat autism through research, screening, intervention and education.

      Sponsor: Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] (introduced 4/19/2005) Cosponsors (48)

      Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; House Energy and Commerce

      Senate Reports: 109-318

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-416 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      49. S.895 : To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a rural water supply program in the Reclamation States to provide a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply to rural residents.

      Sponsor: Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] (introduced 4/25/2005) Cosponsors (9)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-148

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-451 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      50. S.904 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, New Jersey, as the "Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building".

      Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 4/26/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-52 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      51. S.1025 : A bill to amend the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the construction of the Cheney division, Wichita Federal reclamation project, Kansas, and for other purposes" to authorize the Equus Beds Division of the Wichita Project.

      Sponsor: Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] (introduced 5/12/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-192

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-299 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      52. S.1047 : A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of each of the Nation's past Presidents and their spouses, respectively to improve circulation of the $1 coin, to create a new bullion coin, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] (introduced 5/17/2005) Cosponsors (71)

      Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-145 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      53. S.1096 : A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate portions of the Musconetcong River in the State of New Jersey as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ] (introduced 5/23/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-193

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-452 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      54. S.1131 : A bill to authorize the exchange of certain Federal land within the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] (introduced 5/26/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-232

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-372 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      55. S.1140 : A bill to designate the State Route 1 Bridge in the State of Delaware as the "Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge".

      Sponsor: Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] (introduced 5/26/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Transportation and Infrastructure

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-381 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      56. S.1165 : A bill to provide for the expansion of the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge, Honolulu County, Hawaii.

      Sponsor: Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] (introduced 6/6/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-191 House Reports: 109-429

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-225 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      57. S.1184 : A bill to waive the passport fees for a relative of a deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to visit the grave of such member or to attend a funeral or memorial service for such member.

      Sponsor: Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE] (introduced 6/7/2005) Cosponsors (2)

      Committees: Senate Foreign Relations; House International Relations

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-210 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      58. S.1219 : A bill to authorize certain tribes in the State of Montana to enter into a lease or other temporary conveyance of water rights to meet the water needs of the Dry Prairie Rural Water Association, Inc.

      Sponsor: Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT] (introduced 6/9/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; Senate Indian Affairs; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-213

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-410 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      59. S.1234 : A bill to increase, effective as of December 1, 2005, the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans.

      Sponsor: Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] (introduced 6/14/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs

      Senate Reports: 109-138

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-111 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      60. S.1235 : To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve and extend housing, insurance, outreach, and benefits programs provided under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to improve and extend employment programs for veterans under laws administered by the Secretary of Labor, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] (introduced 6/14/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs; House Veterans' Affairs

      Senate Reports: 109-139

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-233 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      61. S.1238 : A bill to amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to provide for the conduct of projects that protect forests, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 6/14/2005) Cosponsors (3)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-152

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-154 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      62. S.1275 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7172 North Tongass Highway, Ward Cove, Alaska, as the 'Alice R. Brusich Post Office Building'.

      Sponsor: Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] (introduced 6/21/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-300 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      63. S.1281 : A bill to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for science, aeronautics, exploration, exploration capabilities, and the Inspector General, and for other purposes, for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

      Sponsor: Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] (introduced 6/21/2005) Cosponsors (4)

      Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

      Senate Reports: 109-108; Latest Conference Report: 109-354 (in Congressional Record H12015-12031)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-155 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      64. S.1282 : A bill to amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to strike the privatization criteria for INTELSAT separated entities, remove certain restrictions on separated and successor entities to INTELSAT, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT] (introduced 6/21/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: House Energy and Commerce

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-34 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      65. S.1285 : A bill to designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, Michigan, as the "Rosa Parks Federal Building".

      Sponsor: Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] (introduced 6/22/2005) Cosponsors (4)

      Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Transportation and Infrastructure

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-101 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      Note: Identical bill H.R.2967 became Public Law 109-98 on 11/11/2005.

      66. S.1310 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation to increase the diameter of a natural gas pipeline located in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, to allow certain commercial vehicles to continue to use Route 209 within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, and to extend the termination date of the National Park System Advisory Board to January 1, 2007.

      Sponsor: Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] (introduced 6/24/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-194

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-156 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      67. S.1323 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located on Lindbald Avenue, Girdwood, Alaska, as the "Dorothy and Connie Hibbs Post Office Building".

      Sponsor: Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] (introduced 6/28/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-301 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      68. S.1340 : A bill to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to extend the date after which surplus funds in the wildlife restoration fund become available for apportionment.

      Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (introduced 6/30/2005) Cosponsors (2)

      Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works

      Senate Reports: 109-125

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-75 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      69. S.1346 : A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of maritime sites in the State of Michigan.

      Sponsor: Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] (introduced 6/30/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-234

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-436 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      70. S.1368 : A bill to extend the existence of the Parole Commission, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 7/1/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-76 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      71. S.1378 : A bill to amend the National Historic Preservation Act to provide appropriation authorization and improve the operations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

      Sponsor: Sen Talent, Jim [MO] (introduced 7/11/2005) Cosponsors (3)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-235

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-453 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      72. S.1382 : A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to accept the conveyance of certain land, to be held in trust for the benefit of the Puyallup Indian tribe.

      Sponsor: Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] (introduced 7/12/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: House Resources

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-224 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      73. S.1395 : A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to provide authority for the Attorney General to authorize the export of controlled substances from the United States to another country for subsequent export from that country to a second country, if certain conditions and safeguards are satisfied.

      Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 7/13/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-57 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      74. S.1413 : A bill to redesignate the Crowne Plaza in Kingston, Jamaica, as the Colin L. Powell Residential Plaza.

      Sponsor: Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] (introduced 7/15/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: House Transportation and Infrastructure

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-89 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      75. S.1445 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 520 Colorado Avenue in Arriba, Colorado, as the "William H. Emery Post Office".

      Sponsor: Sen Salazar, Ken [CO] (introduced 7/21/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-237 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      76. S.1481 : A bill to amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act to provide for probate reform.

      Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 7/26/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: House Resources

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-157 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      77. S.1496 : A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a pilot program under which up to 15 States may issue electronic Federal migratory bird hunting stamps.

      Sponsor: Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] (introduced 7/26/2005) Cosponsors (23)

      Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-187 House Reports: 109-556

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-266 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      78. S.1529 : A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal land in the city of Yuma, Arizona.

      Sponsor: Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] (introduced 7/28/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-300

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-454 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      79. S.1578 : A bill to reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin endangered fish recovery implementation programs.

      Sponsor: Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] (introduced 7/29/2005) Cosponsors (4)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-196

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-183 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      80. S.1608 : A bill to enhance Federal Trade Commission enforcement against illegal spam, spyware, and cross-border fraud and deception, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR] (introduced 7/29/2005) Cosponsors (7)

      Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation; House Energy and Commerce

      Senate Reports: 109-219

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-455 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      81. S.1713 : An Act to make amendments to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 related to International Space Station payments, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] (introduced 9/15/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Foreign Relations

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-112 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      82. S.1736 : A bill to provide for the participation of employees in the judicial branch in the Federal leave transfer program for disasters and emergencies.

      Sponsor: Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] (introduced 9/20/2005) Cosponsors (5)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Senate Reports: 109-158 House Reports: 109-449

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-229 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      83. S.1752 : A bill to amend the United States Grain Standards Act to reauthorize that Act.

      Sponsor: Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] (introduced 9/22/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-83 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      84. S.1773 : A bill to resolve certain Native American claims in New Mexico, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] (introduced 9/26/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Indian Affairs; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-252 House Reports: 109-633

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-286 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      85. S.1777 : An original bill to provide relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

      Sponsor: Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] (introduced 9/27/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Transportation and Infrastructure; House Judiciary

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-176 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      86. S.1786 : A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to make emergency airport improvement project grants-in-aid under title 49, United States Code, for repairs and costs related to damage from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

      Sponsor: Sen Lott, Trent [MS] (introduced 9/28/2005) Cosponsors (6)

      Committees: House Transportation and Infrastructure

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-87 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      87. S.1820 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6110 East 51st Place in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the `Dewey F. Bartlett Post Office'.

      Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (introduced 10/5/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-411 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      88. S.1858 : A bill to provide for community disaster loans.

      Sponsor: Sen Vitter, David [LA] (introduced 10/7/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-88 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      89. S.1869 : A bill to reauthorize the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (introduced 10/17/2005) Cosponsors (2)

      Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-179 House Reports: 109-428

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-226 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      90. S.1886 : A bill to authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign recipients.

      Sponsor: Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] (introduced 10/18/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: House International Relations

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-134 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      91. S.1892 : A bill to amend Public Law 107-153 to modify a certain date.

      Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 10/19/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Indian Affairs

      Senate Reports: 109-201

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-158 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      92. S.1894 : A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide for the making of foster care maintenance payments to private for-profit agencies.

      Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (introduced 10/19/2005) Cosponsors (3)

      Committees: House Ways and Means

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-113 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      93. S.1932 : An original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).

      Sponsor: Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] (introduced 10/27/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Budget

      Latest Conference Report: 109-362 (in Congressional Record H12641-12737)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-171 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      94. S.1988 : A bill to authorize the transfer of items in the War Reserves Stockpile for Allies, Korea.

      Sponsor: Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] (introduced 11/9/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: House International Relations; House Armed Services

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-159 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      95. S.1989 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, Rhode Island, shall be known and designated as the "Holly A. Charette Post Office".

      Sponsor: Sen Reed, Jack [RI] (introduced 11/10/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-175 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      96. S.1998 : A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance protections relating to the reputation and meaning of the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Conrad, Kent [ND] (introduced 11/10/2005) Cosponsors (27)

      Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Judiciary

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-437 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      97. S.2064 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 122 South Bill Street in Francesville, Indiana, as the Malcolm Melville "Mac" Lawrence Post Office.

      Sponsor: Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] (introduced 11/18/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-207 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      98. S.2089 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1271 North King Street in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, as the "Hiram L. Fong Post Office Building".

      Sponsor: Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] (introduced 12/13/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-203 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      99. S.2116 : A bill to transfer jurisdiction of certain real property to the Supreme Court.

      Sponsor: Sen Lott, Trent [MS] (introduced 12/15/2005) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: House Transportation and Infrastructure

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-214 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      100. S.2120 : A bill to ensure regulatory equity between and among all dairy farmers and handlers for sales of packaged fluid milk in federally regulated milk marketing areas and into certain non-federally regulated milk marketing areas from federally regulated areas, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] (introduced 12/16/2005) Cosponsors (2)

      Committees: House Agriculture

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-215 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      101. S.2125 : A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

      Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 12/16/2005) Cosponsors (12)

      Committees: Senate Foreign Relations; House International Relations

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-456 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      102. S.2146 : A bill to extend relocation expenses test programs for Federal employees.

      Sponsor: Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] (introduced 12/20/2005) Cosponsors (2)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Senate Reports: 109-289

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-325 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      103. S.2150 : A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Bureau of Land Management Land to the City of Eugene, Oregon.

      Sponsor: Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] (introduced 12/20/2005) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-306

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-457 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      104. S.2167 : A bill to amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions of that Act and the lone wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to July 1, 2006.

      Sponsor: Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] (introduced 12/21/2005) Cosponsors (31)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-160 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      Note: Extends provisions from December 31, 2005 to February 3, 2006.

      105. S.2205 : A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain parcels of land acquired for the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal features of the initial stage of the Oahe Unit, James Division, South Dakota, to the Commission of Schools and Public Lands and the Department of Game, Fish, and Parks of the State of South Dakota for the purpose of mitigating lost wildlife habitat, on the condition that the current preferential leaseholders shall have an option to purchase the parcels from the Commission, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Thune, John [SD] (introduced 1/26/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-458 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      106. S.2250 : A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug.

      Sponsor: Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] (introduced 2/7/2006) Cosponsors (72)

      Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; House Financial Services

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-395 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      107. S.2271 : A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] (introduced 2/10/2006) Cosponsors (3)

      Committees: House Judiciary; House Intelligence (Permanent Select); House Financial Services

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-178 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      108. S.2275 : A bill to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the national flood insurance program.

      Sponsor: Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] (introduced 2/10/2006) Cosponsors (None)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-208 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      109. S.2320 : A bill to make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] (introduced 2/16/2006) Cosponsors (6)

      Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Education and the Workforce

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-204 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      110. S.2363 : A bill to extend the educational flexibility program under section 4 of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999.

      Sponsor: Sen Burr, Richard [NC] (introduced 3/2/2006) Cosponsors (16)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-211 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      111. S.2370 : A bill to promote the development of democratic institutions in areas under the administrative control of the Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (introduced 3/6/2006) Cosponsors (90)

      Committees: Senate Foreign Relations

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-446 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      112. S.2430 : A bill to amend the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 to provide for implementation of recommendations of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service contained in the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study.

      Sponsor: Sen DeWine, Mike [OH] (introduced 3/16/2006) Cosponsors (3)

      Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-270

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-326 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      113. S.2464 : A bill to revise a provision relating to a repayment obligation of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation under the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 3/28/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Indian Affairs; House Resources

      Senate Reports: 109-284

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-373 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      114. S.2562 : A bill to increase, effective as of December 1, 2006, the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans.

      Sponsor: Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] (introduced 4/6/2006) Cosponsors (4)

      Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs

      Senate Reports: 109-296

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-361 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      115. S.2590 : A bill to require full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds.

      Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 4/6/2006) Cosponsors (47)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

      Senate Reports: 109-329

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-282 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      116. S.2653 : A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to make efforts to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces personnel deployed overseas.

      Sponsor: Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] (introduced 4/26/2006) Cosponsors (44)

      Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-459 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      117. S.2690 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, Virginia, as the "Harry J. Parrish Post Office".

      Sponsor: Sen Allen, George [VA] (introduced 5/2/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-302 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      118. S.2735 : A bill to amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to reauthorize the national dam safety program, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] (introduced 5/4/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works

      Senate Reports: 109-276

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-460 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      119. S.2784 : A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, in recognition of his many enduring and outstanding contributions to peace, non-violence, human rights, and religious understanding.

      Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 5/11/2006) Cosponsors (75)

      Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; House Financial Services

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-287 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      120. S.2803 : A bill to amend the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 to improve the safety of mines and mining.

      Sponsor: Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] (introduced 5/16/2006) Cosponsors (11)

      Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; House Education and the Workforce

      Senate Reports: 109-365

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-236 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      121. S.2856 : An original bill to provide regulatory relief and improve productivity for insured depository institutions, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] (introduced 5/18/2006) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

      Senate Reports: 109-256

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-351 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      122. S.3187 : A bill to designate the Post Office located at 5755 Post Road, East Greenwich, Rhode Island, as the "Richard L. Cevoli Post Office".

      Sponsor: Sen Reed, Jack [RI] (introduced 5/25/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-310 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      123. S.3421 : To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal certain limitations on attorney representation of claimants for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to expand eligibility for the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance Program, to otherwise improve veterans' benefits, memorial affairs, and healthcare programs, to enhance information security programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] (introduced 6/6/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs

      Senate Reports: 109-328

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-461 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      124. S.3504 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] (introduced 6/13/2006) Cosponsors (3)

      Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-242 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      125. S.3525 : To amend part B of title IV of the Social Security Act to reauthorize the safe and stable families program, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] (introduced 6/15/2006) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Finance; House Ways and Means

      Senate Reports: 109-269

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-288 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      126. S.3534 : A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide for a YouthBuild program.

      Sponsor: Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] (introduced 6/16/2006) Cosponsors (4)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-281 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      127. S.3546 : A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to serious adverse event reporting for dietary supplements and nonprescription drugs, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 6/21/2006) Cosponsors (5)

      Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

      Senate Reports: 109-324

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-462 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      128. S.3613 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building".

      Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 6/29/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-311 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      129. S.3661 : A bill to amend section 29 of the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 relating to air transportation to and from Love Field, Texas.

      Sponsor: Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] (introduced 7/13/2006) Cosponsors (3)

      Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation; House Transportation and Infrastructure

      Senate Reports: 109-317

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-352 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      130. S.3678 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to public health security and all-hazards preparedness and response, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Burr, Richard [NC] (introduced 7/18/2006) Cosponsors (14)

      Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

      Senate Reports: 109-319

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-417 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      131. S.3693 : A bill to make technical corrections to the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005.

      Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 7/19/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-271 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      132. S.3728 : A bill to promote nuclear nonproliferation in North Korea.

      Sponsor: Sen Frist, William H. [TN] (introduced 7/25/2006) Cosponsors (7)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-353 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      133. S.3741 : A bill to provide funding authority to facilitate the evacuation of persons from Lebanon, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] (introduced 7/26/2006) Cosponsors (3)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-268 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      134. S.3759 : A bill to name the Armed Forces Readiness Center in Great Falls, Montana, in honor of Captain William Wylie Galt, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

      Sponsor: Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT] (introduced 7/27/2006) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Armed Services; House Armed Services

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-412 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      135. S.3821 : A bill to authorize certain athletes to be admitted temporarily into the United States to compete or perform in an athletic league, competition, or performance.

      Sponsor: Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] (introduced 8/3/2006) Cosponsors (5)

      Committees: Senate Judiciary

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-463 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      136. S.3850 : An original bill to improve ratings quality for the protection of investors and in the public interest by fostering accountability, transparency, and competition in the credit rating agency industry.

      Sponsor: Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] (introduced 9/6/2006) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

      Senate Reports: 109-326

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-291 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      137. S.3880 : A bill to provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror.

      Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (introduced 9/8/2006) Cosponsors (10)

      Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Judiciary

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-374 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      138. S.3930 : A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (introduced 9/22/2006) Cosponsors (2)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-366 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      139. S.3938 : An original bill to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

      Sponsor: Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] (introduced 9/26/2006) Cosponsors (None)

      Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-438 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      140. S.4001 : A bill to designate certain land in New England as wilderness for inclusion in the National Preservation system and certain land as a National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] (introduced 9/29/2006) Cosponsors (3)

      Committees: House Resources; House Agriculture

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-382 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      141. S.4042 : A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit disruptions of funerals of members or former members of the Armed Forces.

      Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 9/29/2006) Cosponsors (5)

      Committees: Senate Judiciary

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-464 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      142. S.4044 : A bill to clarify the treatment of certain charitable contributions under title 11, United States Code.

      Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 9/29/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: House Judiciary

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-439 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      143. S.4046 : A bill to extend oversight and accountability related to United States reconstruction funds and efforts in Iraq by extending the termination date of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

      Sponsor: Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] (introduced 11/13/2006) Cosponsors (29)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-440 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      144. S.4050 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston, Georgia, as the "Sergeant First Class Robert Lee 'Bobby' Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building".

      Sponsor: Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] (introduced 11/14/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-413 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      145. S.4073 : A bill to designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs located in Farmington, Missouri, as the "Robert Silvey Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic".

      Sponsor: Sen Talent, Jim [MO] (introduced 11/16/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: House Veterans' Affairs

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-414 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      146. S.4091 : A bill to provide authority for restoration of the Social Security Trust Funds from the effects of a clerical error, and for other purposes.

      Sponsor: Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] (introduced 12/6/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Committees: Senate Finance

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-465 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      147. S.4092 : A bill to clarify certain land use in Jefferson County, Colorado.

      Sponsor: Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] (introduced 12/6/2006) Cosponsors (1)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-466 [GPO: Text, PDF]

      148. S.4093 : A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend a suspension of limitation on the period for which certain borrowers are eligible for guaranteed assistance.

      Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] (introduced 12/6/2006) Cosponsors (16)

      Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-467 [GPO: Text, PDF]

    63. Zack says:

      4- the cost of the iraq war and unfunded military contracts

      There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion — yes, $3 trillion — on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

      Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.

      The end result of all this wishful thinking? As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion, Iraq is not only the second longest war in U.S. history (after Vietnam), it is also the second most costly — surpassed only by World War II.

      Why doesn't the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month — $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.

      But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") — far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life — and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them.

      But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.

      President Bush tried to sell the American people on the idea that we could have a war with little or no economic sacrifice. Even after the United States went to war, Bush and Congress cut taxes, especially on the rich — even though the United States already had a massive deficit. So the war had to be funded by more borrowing. By the end of the Bush administration, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cumulative interest on the increased borrowing used to fund them, will have added about $1 trillion to the national debt.

      The long-term burden of paying for the conflicts will curtail the country's ability to tackle other urgent problems, no matter who wins the presidency in November. Our vast and growing indebtedness inevitably makes it harder to afford new health-care plans, make large-scale repairs to crumbling roads and bridges, or build better-equipped schools. Already, the escalating cost of the wars has crowded out spending on virtually all other discretionary federal programs, including the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and federal aid to states and cities, all of which have been scaled back significantly since the invasion of Iraq.

      To make matters worse, the U.S. economy is facing a recession. But our ability to implement a truly effective economic-stimulus package is crimped by expenditures of close to $200 billion on the two wars this year alone and by a skyrocketing national debt.

      The United States is a rich and strong country, but even rich and strong countries squander trillions of dollars at their peril. Think what a difference $3 trillion could make for so many of the United States' — or the world's — problems. We could have had a Marshall Plan to help desperately poor countries, winning the hearts and maybe the minds of Muslim nations now gripped by anti-Americanism. In a world with millions of illiterate children, we could have achieved literacy for all — for less than the price of a month's combat in Iraq. We worry about China's growing influence in Africa, but the upfront cost of a month of fighting in Iraq would pay for more than doubling our annual current aid spending on Africa.

      Closer to home, we could have funded countless schools to give children locked in the underclass a shot at decent lives. Or we could have tackled the massive problem of Social Security, which Bush began his second term hoping to address; for far, far less than the cost of the war, we could have ensured the solvency of Social Security for the next half a century or more.

      Economists used to think that wars were good for the economy, a notion born out of memories of how the massive spending of World War II helped bring the United States and the world out of the Great Depression. But we now know far better ways to stimulate an economy — ways that quickly improve citizens' well-being and lay the foundations for future growth. But money spent paying Nepalese workers in Iraq (or even Iraqi ones) doesn't stimulate the U.S. economy the way that money spent at home would — and it certainly doesn't provide the basis for long-term growth the way investments in research, education or infrastructure would.

      By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. StiglitzSunday, March 9, 2008

      im just getting started with you my little one.

      i will own you.

    64. Zack says:

      I have enjoyed this debate. We both have our own facts and opinions but you can't deny the fact that republican/conservative policies are no better then democratic policies. 2000-2009 was a large dissapointment.

      I would like to continue this debate but Heritage has not posted at least 7 of my comments during this debate so far. The last two I composed have not been posted. I have spent a good amount of time making these comments and they decide to either delete or not post them. That stamps the fact that this website is a joke. Hopefully you see it to. Regardless, a large chunk of our current economic status has alot to do with failures by the political right. The iraq war hurt the econmy as well as the tax cuts and other spending. I have already stated that democrats are no better in any way but it seems that conservatives and republicans can never ever admit mistakes or policy failure. That's just the way you guys are.

      I give up, Heritage is anything from factual or fair. Try looking at your own party once in awhile and you might understand a little better where im coming from.

      You can have as many last words as you want. I'm done wasting my time.

      ha, lets see if they post this one.

    65. Zack says:

      by the way, #1 that was DELETED, was evidence of 93% of public law passage from 2006-2008 by republicans.(look it up yourself) #3 was evidence of the national debt increase by both bush tax cuts(look it up yourself) but, HERITAGE DIDN"T POST THEM. for some reason they decided to post my 2nd point. oh well. I'm very satisfied with the 111th congress and espically President Barack Obama. I'm proud to have him as president.

      Later dude!

    66. xfactor says:

      Don't worry zack I'll catch you in another thread!

    67. xfactor says:

      "a large chunk of our current economic status has alot to do with failures by the political right." – zack

      Really? obama has been running the country for 16 months and the Democrats have controlled Congress for 40 months.

      Just look at when it all started going down hill?

      No matter how you spin it, GWB and Republicans handed the 110th Congress 4.4% unemployment and look where it's at now?

    68. Zack says:

      You cant seem to understand that legislation passed by republicans greatly contributes to the national debt and unemployment, even now and for years to come. Over 93% of all public law was republican from 2006 all the way up until 2009. Infact a good amount of the national debt increase we experience now is because of those very policies but you would never understand that. Of course the majority of the current increase since Jan. 2009 is Obama and the 111th but that past legislation is a great deal of increase as well, but again you cant seem to understand how legislation works.

      And don't forget the 12 years of house and senate and 8 years of the Bush administration, but they didn't do anything wrong…of course, because republicans/conservative's are unable to be held accountable for anything right?

      Also, you assume accountability comes to a screeching hault when majority changes. It is now clear that you don't really have a grasp on how congress or legislation works. I have announced 3 times that democrats made mistakes and hold accountability too but it is impossible for conservatives/republicans to admit failure or mistakes which is nothing new, believe me! You just cant do the same and that's were your credibility fell apart long ago in this debate. That is another reason for the democratic victory in 2008 and for sure in november, conservatives/republicans hold no integrity.

      Some people might disagreee with democrats and Obama(i'm one of them on certain issues) but they sure as heck don't trust the people that were in charge and contributed to the reason all of this mess went down. And, the fact that your party knows nothing but "no" and constant attacks without providing any solutions is beyond embarrasing. Seriously, look at this website, the bloggers, the tea party's, fox news, sean hannity, rush limbaugh, ann coulter- all of these things lead and control the political right. How ridiculous is that!

      The 5.5 trillion including the shared budget, 2.5 for tax cuts and .5 for unfunded contracts stands and you will never be able to understand because you choose not to so why do I even bother? (Now, since Heritage for some reason decides to not post my sources or comments how can I continue or provide evidence or facts to support my debate) I hope they will choose to post this comment. I think its funny that some random blogger like me gets shut out of a website. Afraid of facts and evidence Heritage? Heritage will use the excuse that I was uncivil or not following the "moderator rules" haha. Were my comments any different then yours? Pathetic.

      Now after Heritage can pick and choose which comments they will let me post I find no point in debating you. I see nothing different with you then any other conservative/republican I talk to anyways. It's always the Democrats fault right? This recession was Clinton, Carter, Obama and Democrats fault right? Man oh man, it's that kind of one-sided, unreasonable ignorance that puts this country in a hole.

      People like you are constantly fed lies, fear mongered and given completley inaccurate information from the media, websites and radio and the worst part is that you believe it and go to the voting both accordingly. That scares the heck out of me sometimes. It is truly dissapointing.

      I have said all I need to say and i'm sure you will get in the confused last word.

      I offer some advice. Try being reasonable and look at both sides once in awhile, you would be much better off. And Heritage, for you I say farewell and offer you some advice, DO THE SAME! One-sided blah blah blah doesn't work anymore. People are sick of it.

    69. Pingback: Top Ten Side Effects of 2010 | The Conservative Papers

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×