WASHINGTON – Defense secretary nominee Leon Panetta drew support from both Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing Thursday.

Committee members asked Panetta, the CIA director, about topics ranging from the nation’s security budget to “safe havens” for terrorists and policy in the Middle East and Asia.

Nearly all of the 25 senators present thanked Panetta for his continued service during a lengthy career in Washington and applauded him for accepting the nomination during a trying time for the Defense Department. The Pentagon chief must address the president’s order for a $400 billion spending cut while engaging in “two-and-a-half wars,” as Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, referred to the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Republicans tested Panetta about whether he would approve budget reductions that might sacrifice progress recently made in Afghanistan.

Some of the toughest questions came from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who favors higher defense spending instead of cutbacks that he said might compromise security advances made during the recent troop surge.

“I think the assessment is that we have made progress with regards to security in that country, albeit it fragile and reversible,” Panetta said in response. “We also have made good progress in training of the forces there, both police and military force.”

Agreeing with Panetta’s “fragile and reversible” assessment, McCain pressed further by asking if the Obama administration’s planned July troop withdrawals should be “modest,” as proposed by outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

“I’m going to leave it up to Secretary Gates, Gen. [David] Petraeus and the president to decide what that number should be,” Panetta said.

Gates will retire June 30. Petraeus has been nominated to replace Panetta at the CIA.

“Well, if you’re secretary of Defense when that decision is made, obviously you will have significant influence,” McCain said, asking Panetta to answer his question more directly.

Panetta also fielded several questions about terrorist “safe havens” in Pakistan. The nominee called the U.S. relationship with Pakistan “critical” but “complicated and frustrating,” adding that the existence of terrorist cells in Pakistan might compromise U.S. success in Afghanistan.

“Terrorism is not just an enemy for the United States,” Panetta said. “It’s an enemy for Pakistan.”

Other topics included Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s cling to power, cyberterrorism and alternative energy possibilities for U.S. military technology.

In addition to the deployment and budget situations, Panetta said he would work individually with many of the Armed Services Committee members to tackle other issues.

As might be expected of a CIA director, Panetta entered the hearing room the second 9:29 a.m. became 9:30. Other senators entered the room late or left early.

One of the latest arrivals was first-term Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who directed the Office of Management and Budget during President George W. Bush’s second term. Panetta was OMB director for President Bill Clinton.

“I’m delighted to see that a former OMB director can actually make something of himself,” Portman joked. “You did a great job as director, and I know that you’ve had the opportunity today to answer some tough questions, but I’m sure the tone has been appreciative and respectful.”

Most of Portman’s questioning concerned spending. He said the department needs to provide top-notch military equipment for U.S. troops while reducing overall military spending.

“Senator, because of our common background I understand the costs that are involved in this area,” Panetta said. “We’re dealing with a culture that’s developed, and somehow we’ve got to change.

“I think what we’ve got to do is make clear that those that are involved … that they’ve got a responsibility here to be able to work with us to develop better competition.”

Panetta and the committee met in a closed session later in the day.

Michael Stainbrook is a past Toledo Free Press intern, he is currently on assignment with Scripps Howard Foundation Wire.

Tags: Congress, Leon Panetta, Scripps Howard Foundation Wire, Senate Armed Services Committee

This entry was posted on Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 1:26 pm and is filed under Community, Government.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH-9) today announced via a release that post-9/11 veterans and their families are now eligible for additional services under the Caregiver and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act. These services are meant to help eligible post-9/11 veterans who elect to receive their care in a home setting from a primary family caregiver.

Kaptur said the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) is now accepting applications for caregiver services, which include a stipend, mental health services and access to health care insurance if they are not already entitled to care or services under a health plan.

“We know the need is great among our veterans,” Kaptur said. “Now there is additional help available to families who are trying to meet their challenge of care for their loved ones.”

Services that are available under the program include:

· In-Home and Community Based Care: skilled home health care, homemaker home health aide services, adult day health care and home-based primary care.

· Respite Care: relief for the family caregiver from the constant challenge of caring for a chronically ill or disabled veteran at home, including in-home care, a short stay in one of VA’s community living centers or an environment designed for adult day health care.

· Caregiver education and training programs: opportunities that include pre-discharge care instruction and specialized caregiver programs in severe traumas such as Traumatic Brain Injury, Spinal Cord Injury/Disorders, and Blind Rehabilitation.

· Caregiver support groups: family counseling, spiritual and pastoral care, family leisure and recreational activities, and temporary lodging in Fisher Houses, as well as support in a face to face setting or by telephone.

· Other services: durable medical equipment and prosthetic and sensory aides to improve function, financial assistance with home modification to improve access and mobility, and transportation assistance for some veterans to and from medical appointments.

Kaptur urged veterans needing assistance to apply at www.caregiver.va.gov or call her office at 419-259-7000 or toll free 800-964-4699.

Tags: Congress, Government, Marcy Kaptur, veterans

This entry was posted on Friday, May 27th, 2011 at 5:05 pm and is filed under Community, Government.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Ohio’s law enforcement officers make great sacrifices to keep our communities safe. Now, it’s time to make sure that America’s public servants have the resources to remain safe from the innumerable threats they encounter while on patrol. A new proposal would quickly alert the public in the event that a police officer is feloniously attacked while on duty.

Sen. Sherrod Brown

This is one modest investment we cannot afford to ignore.

During National Police Week, communities across Ohio and throughout the United States commemorate law enforcement officials who have died while on duty. Their families, of course, live with their loss every day.

According to the most recent FBI data available, 48 law enforcement officials across the United States were killed in the line of duty in 2009. More than 57,000 were assaulted while on the job.

A mother of two young sons, who I recently met in northeast Ohio, is leading an effort to reduce the number of law enforcement officials who make the ultimate sacrifice. Sara Winfield’s husband, Brandy, was shot and killed while on duty as a Marion County Sheriff Deputy.

Sara once wrote that her husband, Deputy Brandy Winfield, knew that he wanted to be a cop when he was a boy.

“He became an explorer with the Sherriff’s office. He started dispatching before he graduated from high school,” Sara wrote in a tribute to her husband.

Surviving spouses like Sara Winfield are transforming grief into action.

As a leader in the group Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.), Mrs. Winfield is now helping other families cope with the loss of their partner, parent, child, colleague, spouse, or sibling. And she’s fighting to protect police officers and the American public from the most violent of criminals.

To aid advocates like Sara, I’m cosponsoring legislation to create a nationwide alert system to apprehend people suspected of injuring or killing police officers.

The bipartisan National Blue Alert Act of 2011 – similar to the “Amber Alerts” used to find missing children ­­– would establish a national communications network within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to disseminate information when a law enforcement officer is seriously harmed or killed in the line of duty. This alert would drastically reduce the time necessary to locate and arrest suspected criminals.

Some thirteen other states have a Blue Alert system in place. However, no such alert system exists in any Midwestern state.

Using existing Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program funding from the DOJ, the Blue Alert system would, first, encourage state and local governments to develop additional protocols to help apprehend suspects.

Blue Alerts would be broadcast on local media and messaging signs and would include a detailed description of the suspect, vehicle, and other indentifying information.

In addition to the Concerns of Police Survivors, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sherriff’s Association, and other groups support this bipartisan legislation.

We need to act swiftly.

Sara and survivors throughout the United States endure an immense personal loss that can never be repaid.

Here’s what we can do: communities can join advocates for the Blue Alert system in ensuring that the tools are in place to stop the people who harm and kill law enforcement officers. This can serve as a powerful deterrent to a detestable crime.

Let’s work to keep our communities safe.

We can start by equipping law enforcement officials with the tools needed to stop criminals and improve their ability to respond to violence without delay.

For more information visit Senator Sherrod Brown at his congressional website: brown.senate.gov.

Tags: Congress, Guest Opinion, Opinion, Sherrod Brown

This entry was posted on Monday, May 23rd, 2011 at 10:51 am and is filed under Guest Opinion, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The Obama administration and environmental interests generally agree that global warming is a threat that must be dealt with.

But they’re on opposite sides of a Supreme Court case over the ability of states and groups such as the Audubon Society that want to sue large electric utilities and force power plants in 20 states to cut their emissions.

The administration is siding with Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power Co. and three other companies in urging the high court to throw out the lawsuit on grounds the Environmental Protection Agency, not a federal court, is the proper authority to make rules about climate change. The justices will hear arguments in the case April 19.

The court is taking up a climate change case for the second time in four years. In 2007, the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. By a 5-4 vote, the justices said the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under that landmark law. The same reasoning applies to power plants.

The administration says one reason to end the current suit is that the EPA is considering rules that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But the administration also acknowledges that it is not certain that limits will be imposed.

At the same time, Republicans in Congress are leading an effort to strip the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gases.

The uncertainty about legislation and regulation is the best reason for allowing the case to proceed, said David Doniger, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which represents Audubon and other private groups dedicated to land conservation.

“This case was always the ultimate backstop,” Doniger said, even as he noted that the council would prefer legislation or EPA regulation to court decisions. The suit would end if the EPA does set emission standards for greenhouse gases, he said.

The legal claims advanced by six states, New York City and the land trusts would be pressed only “if all else failed,” he said.

When the suit was filed in 2004, it looked like the only way to force action on global warming. The Bush administration and the Republicans in charge of Congress doubted the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Federal courts long have been active in disputes over pollution. But those cases typically have involved a power plant or sewage treatment plant that was causing some identifiable harm to people, and property downwind or downstream of the polluting plant.

Global warming, by its very name, suggests a more complex problem. The power companies argue that any solution must be comprehensive. No court-ordered change alone would have any effect on climate change, the companies say.

“This is an issue that is of worldwide nature and causation. It’s the result of hundreds of years of emissions all over the world,” said Ed Comer, vice president and general counsel of the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group.

The other defendants in the suit are Cinergy Co., now part of Duke Energy Corp. of North Carolina; Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia; Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota; and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA is represented by the government and its views do not precisely align with those of other companies.

Eight states initially banded together to sue. They were California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. But in a sign of the enduring role of partisan politics in this issue, New Jersey and Wisconsin withdrew this year after Republican replaced Democrats in their governor’s offices.

Another complication is that the administration and the companies may be on the same side at the Supreme Court, but the power industry is strongly opposing climate change regulation. The Southern Co. is a vocal supporter of GOP legislation to block the EPA from acting.

“It’s two-faced for them (the companies) to come into court and say everything is well in hand because EPA is going to act,” said Doniger, the NRDC lawyer.

Comer said the key point is that judges should not make environmental policy. “This has important implications for jobs. If you raise energy costs in the U.S., does that lead industry jobs to go elsewhere and if it does, do you get the same emissions, just from another country?” Comer said. “These judgments are properly made by elected officials.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was on the federal appeals court panel that heard the case, is not taking part in the Supreme Court’s consideration of the issue.

The case is American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 10-174.

Tags: Congress, environment, Government, Ohio, Supreme Court, utilities

This entry was posted on Monday, April 18th, 2011 at 1:27 pm and is filed under Community, Environment.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

A last-minute budget deal forged amid bluster and tough bargaining averted an embarrassing federal shutdown, cut billions in spending and provided the first major test of the divided government that voters ushered in five months ago.

Working late into the night on April 8, congressional and White House negotiators finally agreed on a plan to pay for government operations through the end of September while trimming $38.5 billion in spending.

Lawmakers then approved a measure to keep the government running for a few more days while the details of the new spending plan are written into legislation.

Actual approval of the deal is expected in the middle of next week.

“Americans of different beliefs came together again,” President Barack Obama said from the White House Blue Room, a setting chosen to offer a clear view of the Washington Monument over his right shoulder.

The agreement was negotiated by Obama, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The administration was poised to shutter federal services, from national parks to tax-season help centers, and to send furlough notices to hundreds of thousands of federal workers.

All sides insisted they wanted to avoid that outcome, which at times seemed inevitable.

Shortly after midnight, White House budget director Jacob Lew issued a memo instructing departments and agencies to continue normal operations.

Boehner said the deal came after “a lot of discussion and a long fight.” He won an ovation from his rank and file, including the new tea party adherents whose victories last November shifted control of the House to the GOP.

The deal marked the end of a three-way clash of wills. It also set the tone for coming confrontations over raising the government’s borrowing limit, the spending plan for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 and long-term deficit reduction.

In the end, all sides claimed victory.

For Republicans, it was the sheer size of the spending cuts. For Obama and Reid, it was casting aside GOP policy initiatives that would have blocked environmental rules and changed a program that provides family planning services.

In the budget maelstrom stood Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a 90-year-old organization now part of a decades-long congressional battle over abortion. Republicans wanted any legislation keeping the government operating to bar federal dollars for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions. They wanted to distribute the money to the states.

“The country is broke and the vast majority of Americans don’t want tax dollars to take the life of unborn children,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio., chairman of Republican Study Committee, told reporters in a conference call.

Democrats said they saw a radical agenda against women’s health, especially poor and low-income women, and wouldn’t allow it, even if it meant shutting down the government.

“It is appalling that Republicans would hold our economic recovery hostage for a ransom of denying millions of women Pap tests, breast exams, and birth control,” said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. “It shows their top priority is not keeping our economic recovery on track — it is reviving divisive social issues.”

Late Friday, the White House and congressional negotiators reached a deal on the budget and a compromise on Planned Parenthood funds. Under the agreement, the Senate will hold a vote on the money, and it’s likely it would reject the House effort to cut off the cash.

Republicans argue that often all the money ends up in the same account for the organizations.

Giving its version, Planned Parenthood said it performed about 330,000 abortions last year, 3 percent of its total health care services. The organization also said its doctors and nurses annually conduct 1 million screenings for cervical cancer, 830,000 breast exams and some 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases.

The organization said it receives $363 million in federal funds, getting its money from both the Title X program and Medicaid. Title X provides grants for family planning and related health services under a law signed by Republican President Richard M. Nixon in December 1970.

Of the Title X money, Planned Parenthood gets about $70 million, some 25 percent of the $317 million in Title X spending. The organization’s annual budget is $1.1 billion and includes individual donations.

Federal law bars Planned Parenthood from using tax dollars for abortion. In 1976, three years after the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which bars the use of taxpayer funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

Not all policy provisions were struck.

One in the final deal would ban the use of federal or local government funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia. A program dear to Boehner that lets District of Columbia students use federally funded vouchers to attend private schools also survived.

Republicans had included language to deny federal money to put in place Obama’s year-old health care law. The deal only requires such a proposal to be voted on by the Democratic-controlled Senate, where it is certain to fall short of the necessary 60 votes.

The deal came together after six grueling weeks as negotiators virtually dared each other to shut down the government.

Boehner faced pressure from his GOP colleagues to stick as closely possible to the $61 billion in cuts and the conservative policy positions that the House had passed.

At one point, Democrats announced negotiators had locked into a spending cut figure — $33 billion. Boehner pushed back and said there was no deal. During a meeting at the White House this past week, Boehner said he wanted $40 billion. The final number fell just short of that.

In one dramatic moment, Obama called Boehner on Friday morning after learning that the outline of a deal they had reached with Reid in the Oval Office the night before was not reflected in the pre-dawn staff negotiations. The whole package was in peril.

According to a senior administration official, Obama told Boehner that they were the two most consequential leaders and if they had any hope of keeping the government open, their bargain had to be honored and could not be altered by staff. The official described the scene on condition of anonymity to reveal behind-the-scenes negotiations.

The accomplishment set the stage for even tougher confrontations.

House Republicans intend to pass a 2012 budget in the coming week that calls for sweeping changes in the Medicare and Medicaid health programs and even deeper cuts in domestic programs to gain control over soaring deficits.

In the Republican radio address, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., warned of a coming crisis.

“Unless we act soon, government spending on health and retirement programs will crowd out spending on everything else, including national security. It will literally take every cent of every federal tax dollar just to pay for these programs,” Ryan said April 9.

That debate could come soon.

The Treasury has told Congress it must vote to raise the debt limit by summer. Republicans hope to use this issue to force Obama to accept long-term deficit-reduction measures.

Tags: Budget, Congress, Democrat, Government, John Boehner, President Obama, Republican

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 10th, 2011 at 10:18 am and is filed under Community, Government.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Sometimes in politics and legislation, whether you win is less important than how you win.

That’s the dilemma facing House Speaker John Boehner as he tries to round up the votes to pass a fast-approaching spending compromise and avert a partial government shutdown by week’s end.

Boehner, R-Ohio, wants the overwhelming majority of those votes to come from his fellow Republicans, even if dozens of easily attainable Democratic votes could help carry the budget bill to victory.

The goal complicates Boehner’s task, and possibly could push the bill farther to the right. It motivates him to battle for the votes of conservative Republicans who are demanding deeper spending cuts, and greater changes to social issues such as abortion access, than the Democratic-controlled Senate and President Barack Obama say they can accept.

If Boehner can argue convincingly that it’s the only route to House passage, Democrats conceivably could yield on some points they might otherwise win. At the same time, however, Boehner is trying to persuade Republicans that some compromise is inevitable.

“We control one-half of one-third of the government,” he said last week. “We can’t impose our will on the Senate.”

Eventually, both parties must decide where to draw the line in negotiations and whether to risk a government shutdown that could trigger unpredictable political fallout.

Some congressional veterans say Boehner is taking the only realistic approach for a speaker who wants to stay in power. If he cuts a deal that relies heavily on Democrats’ votes, he could alienate scores of House Republicans, who might in turn start seeking a new leader.

“You always have to please at least half your caucus, plus one,” said John Feehery, a top aide to the previous Republican speaker, Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois.

Hastert had a “majority of the majority” rule. It meant he would bring no major bill to the House floor unless most Republicans supported it.

It didn’t matter if every House Democrat backed the bill, which would allow it to pass with a minority of Republicans. In essence, Democrats’ votes were irrelevant to Hastert. Boehner is taking a similar approach, at least publicly.

“Not very interested,” Boehner told reporters last week when asked about forming a coalition with Democrats to pass the legislation to keep the government operating.

Lawmakers and the White House are negotiating, but all sides agree the measure should cut more than $32 billion from current-year spending. Many Republicans want deeper cuts.

Boehner has told colleagues he wants at least 218 House Republicans to vote for the spending package. That’s the magic number for passing bills in the 435-member House.

Members of both parties say Boehner probably could assemble 218 votes easily, if he didn’t care who cast them. As an example, they point to the last short-term spending bill, which passed 271-158 in mid-March. It contained $10 billion in cuts, which Democrats once called unacceptable, and kept the government running for a few more weeks.

Of the 271 “yes” votes, 186 came from Republicans and 85 from Democrats. Voting “no” were 54 Republicans. That’s more than one-fifth of Boehner’s 241-member caucus.

Lawmakers say Boehner probably could muster a similar coalition this time. But the still-unfinished six-month bill is much more contentious, publicized and significant. People close to Boehner say he wants a significantly smaller GOP defection rate.

It’s unlikely that Boehner will persuade 218 Republicans to join him, some Capitol insiders say, but another 54 or so defectors would hurt.

“The loss of a couple of dozen Republicans, who simply must pledge their fidelity to the tea party, are the kinds of casualties to be expected,” said Rutgers University congressional scholar Ross K. Baker.

Such a defection rate would put Boehner right at the 218 threshold. Some lawmakers think his losses will be greater. Recent interviews with a sampling of House Republicans underscore his challenge.

Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., elected last fall with tea party support, said he won’t support a bill unless the spending cuts “are well north of $33 billion.”

That’s the amount that Obama and Senate Democrats say they can accept. Many House Republicans insist on $61 billion in cuts. That amount would fulfill, on a pro-rated basis, their campaign promise of $100 billion in spending reductions for the 2011 budget year, which began Oct. 1 and goes through this September.

Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., said any bill with less than $61 billion in cuts would be an insult, and he pledged to vote against it.

Scott and Broun voted for the March 15 temporary extension, so they were not among the 54 Republicans whom Boehner lost. If they move into the “no” column on the forthcoming six-month bill, he would be losing ground, not gaining.

Meanwhile, Boehner faces plenty of problems from that group of 54.

In light of a government report suggesting duplications in federal programs cost up to $200 billion, even $61 billion in new cuts seems piddling, said Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., another tea party favorite. “What does that say to the American people?” he asked.

Other House Republicans insist on policy add-ons that would curb environmental regulations, abortion access and money for Obama’s health care overhaul. Democrats strenuously oppose them.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said his non-negotiable stand on the spending bill is “no funding to Obamacare.”

Boehner’s allies warn against selling him short.

The speaker “is doing a great job managing an almost impossible process,” said Terry Holt, a Republican consultant and former Boehner aide. The key for Boehner’s team, he said, is to remind wavering GOP lawmakers that Democrats already have capitulated to unprecedented spending cuts, setting the stage for deeper reductions ahead.

Democrats are watching Boehner with bemusement and apprehension.

“He’s obviously doing a dance” with the factions of his caucus, said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

“The tea party wing of his party refuses to give any ground,” Van Hollen said. It demands “a right-wing social agenda under the guise of the budget. That will be unacceptable to the American people.”

Tags: Congress, Democrat, Government, John Boehner, Republican

This entry was posted on Monday, April 4th, 2011 at 10:12 pm and is filed under Community, Government.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Less than three months into a tea party-flavored Congress, federal budget cuts amount to $10 billion. Government shutdowns total zero.

That translates into twin early triumphs for Republicans, who are determined to reduce spending and have so far defied attempts by congressional Democrats to cast them as an uncontrollable rabble that would just as soon shutter the government as downsize it.

“We’ve made it clear that a government shutdown is not an option — period,” GOP Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, said recently as the House was voting to cut $6 billion of the $10 billion while keeping the government running through April 8.

Not exactly.

The rhetorical threat of a shutdown is a recurring one, put to differing uses by various interests in the struggle over the size and scope of the government. As Congress returns this week from a break, that threat hangs over negotiations on legislation to enact tens of billions and keep the government running through the Sept. 30 end of the current budget year.

“If the government were to shut down, I don’t think it’s because we asked for too much,” Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., said recently, neither advocating a shutdown nor ruling one out.

Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich counseled fellow Republicans on the subject over the winter. “Becoming one more promise-breaking, Washington-dominated, sellout group is a much worse fate — politically and ethically — than having the government close for a few days,” he wrote in The Washington Post. As House speaker in the mid-1990s, he led the party into two shutdowns that boomeranged politically, helping President Bill Clinton win re-election and damaging the GOP. Now he’s a presidential hopeful and seeks the support of tea party activists.

The current speaker, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, says he wants no part of such talk. But Democrats seize on shutdown-related comments as they work to deflect attention from their own inability to unify on spending cuts, an issue of immense importance to the voters at a time the deficit is over $1.5 trillion and the federal debt exceeds $14 trillion.

“It’s clear that there is no path to compromise that goes through the tea party,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., before Congress began its break. “We urge Speaker Boehner to push ahead without them. We are ready to work with him if he is willing to buck the extreme element of his party.”

Schumer spoke after the most recent temporary spending bill passed the House, and to underscore his point, he noted that 54 Republicans voted against the measure. Left unsaid was that 66 of the 87 first-term GOP lawmakers voted for it, along with 85 Democrats, a strong bipartisan showing.

Among Senate Democrats, liberals generally want less in the way of cuts than do the moderates, several of whom face potentially difficult races in 2012.

“There are way too many people in denial around here about the nature of the (deficit) problem and how serious it is,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who will face the voters in a state that Obama lost in 2008.

The difference in perspective is explained in polling shown privately to Democratic senators over the winter. In a survey by GarinHartYang, a Democratic firm, 63 percent of Democrats polled said their No. 1 priority for improving the economy was government spending to create jobs and help the United States compete globally. By contrast, 28 percent preferred reducing the deficit through spending cuts.

When independent voters were asked the same question, 50 percent favored cuts to reduce the deficit while only 39 percent backed government spending to create jobs. Obama has called for both.

The report also said that when it comes to re-electing senators, “voters have bigger concerns about not doing enough about the deficit than about going too far.” The margin was 48-41 among independents, and 50-40 overall. The survey results were obtained by The Associated Press.

Beyond the obvious appeal to Republican party activists, it’s unclear whether the shutdown talk within the party is designed to throw the Democrats off balance or perhaps warn Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership to hold firm in the current negotiations.

In those talks, the initial bargaining positions are clear.

The House has voted for $61 billion in cuts. Senate Democrats haven’t agreed publicly to anything more than the $10 billion already enacted. In private negotiations joined by the White House, according to officials familiar with the secretive talks, all sides have acknowledged they must move off their initial figures. Boehner also is defending a series of contentious nonspending provisions that passed the House. Some of those may be acceptable to the White House, but nothing that neuters the year-old health care law or bans Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds.

So far, though, the real surprise is not how hard it’s been to cut spending, but how easy.

The $10 billion total so far was drawn from administration recommendations. There was little Democratic criticism, and Republicans pocketed them gladly, each time calling for more.

The White House wants more, too, as Obama looks ahead to his 2012 re-election campaign.

“We can agree to additional savings and we want to look and find the savings that we can all agree on,” says his budget director, Jack Lew. “It’s going to be somewhere in the middle.”

___

David Espo is AP’s chief congressional correspondent.

Tags: Budget, Congress, Government, Politics

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 27th, 2011 at 7:11 pm and is filed under Community, Government.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Sen. Sherrod Brown

The following is a guest post submitted by Senator Sherrod Brown.

“I live in a small rural town with a big city problem.”

Brittany, a nursing student from Delaware County, reached out to me about the growing prescription drug abuse problem. She is not alone.

It is an issue that touches Ohioans in all 88 counties.

Right now, people can go from doctor to doctor to obtain prescriptions for powerful pain killers and get far more than they need for their own legitimate use. Some of these so-called “pill-mills” – places that distribute addictive pain killers with minimal oversight – are located in Florida, transforming the I-75 corridor that runs from Toledo to Miami into a prescription drug abuse highway.

These pill-mills jeopardize Ohio’s economy and take a devastating toll on Ohio’s families and communities. It will take a combined effort to combat this growing problem. Diverting prescription drugs is illegal. Yet, it happens every day in our state.

Prescription pain medications, such as Oxycodone, morphine, and methadone, are largely responsible for increasing numbers of overdoses and deaths in Ohio. Ohio’s death rate due to unintentional drug poisoning increased more than 350 percent from 1999 to 2008. Oxycodone and other opioids caused more overdoses in Ohio in 2008 than heroin and cocaine combined.

In recent years, accidental prescription drug overdoses have killed more Ohioans than auto accidents. As the national death toll doubled, deaths from prescription drug overdoses tripled in Ohio.

According to the Ohio Prescription Drug Abuse Task Force, the annual costs of unintentional drug overdose in Ohio reached $3.5 billion in so-called fatal costs (which include medical, work loss, and quality-of-life loss) and $31.9 million in non-fatal, hospital admitted costs.

Here are several ways we can combat this costly and deadly problem:

First, I’ve proposed that the State of Ohio establish a Medicaid “Lock-In” program, which would crack down on the illegal use of Medicaid cards to obtain and fill prescriptions for addictive pain medications. This program would prevent prescription drug abusers from acquiring excess prescription drugs – which they may abuse or illegally re-sell – by barring them from visiting multiple doctors and pharmacies.

Second, we can continue Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and crack down on illegal transfers from Florida. I recently urged Florida Governor Rick Scott to maintain the prescription drug monitoring program in his state. According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), nearly all of the nation’s top 50 Oxycodone prescribers are based in Florida.

Although every state is forced to make tough choices due to mounting budget deficits, eliminating drug monitoring programs have far-reaching implications. Florida’s pain clinics funnel unlawful prescription medication into Ohio, so it’s imperative that we stem this growing problem.

Next, we should increase federal enforcement and resources from the DEA. A cohesive strategy can help keep our communities safe, which is why I’ve convened roundtables in Ohio with local, state, and federal officials to solve this problem. I am urging the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency to redouble its efforts to shutter “pill mills” where prescription drugs are dispensed for non-medical reasons.

I have also contacted President Obama to combat Medicaid prescription fraud, which robs taxpayers and fuels drug diversion. The vast majority of Medicaid beneficiaries use their Medicaid card appropriately – but we must stop those Medicaid enrollees who have been misusing their Medicaid cards from continuing this costly and dangerous practice. I have also supported “take-back” programs for unused drugs so hospitals have a safe way to dispose of expired or unused medications.

We need to know how drugs are obtained illegally and work comprehensively to cut off the source. We cannot afford to let improper disposal, pharmacy-shopping, and doctor-hopping threaten the safety of Ohio families.

Parents who will never see their child graduate from high school because an unintentional overdose cut a young life short are left wondering why addictive pain killers are so easy to obtain. Cash-strapped local communities too often see first responders and emergency room resources diverted to address the affects of illegal prescription drug abuse.

Together, we can protect Ohio families and keep Ohio communities strong by eliminating the drug diversion epidemic in our state.

We can move forward and create safer communities by addressing the concerns of Ohioans, like the nursing student in Delaware County, who are eager to work together to eradicate prescription drug abuse – in small towns and big cities alike.

Tags: Congress, Opinion, Sherrod Brown

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 10th, 2011 at 7:37 pm and is filed under Guest Opinion, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed sweeping legislation early Feb. 19 to cut $61 billion from hundreds of federal programs and shelter coal companies, oil refiners and farmers from new government regulations.

By a 235-189 vote, largely along party lines, the House sent the bill to the Senate, where it faces longer odds, and defied a veto threat from President Barack Obama.

Passage of the legislation was the most striking victory to date for the 87 freshman Republicans elected last November on a promise to attack the deficit and reduce the reach of government. Three Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the measure.

The differences betwen the two parties are wide and won’t be resolved soon. That confronts lawmakers with the need for a temporary spending bill when the current one expires March 4.

Democrats say House Speaker John Boehner’s insistence that any temporary measure carry deep spending cuts amounts to an ultimatum that could threaten a government shutdown. Such an impasse played to the advantage of Democratic President Bill Clinton in his battles with Republicans in 1995-1996.

The Obama administration upped the ante on Friday, warning that workers who distribute Social Security benefits for retirees might face furloughs if the Republican cuts go through.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, attending a meeting of finance ministers and central bankers in Paris, expressed hope that over the long term, Democrats and Republicans would find a way to cut spending and reduce long-term deficits. But he said the House-passed measure “would undermine and damage our capacity to create jobs and expand the economy.”

The $1.2 trillion bill covers every Cabinet agency through the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, imposing severe spending cuts aimed at domestic programs and foreign aid, including aid for schools, nutrition programs, environmental protection, and heating and housing subsidies for the poor.

“The American people have spoken. They demand that Washington stop its out-of-control spending now, not some time in the future,” declared freshman Republican congressman Tim Huelskamp.

The measure already faced a rough ride in the Democratic-controlled Senate, even before the Republican amendments adopted Thursday, Friday and early Saturday morning pushed the bill further and further to the right on health care and environmental policy. Senate Democrats promise higher spending levels and are poised to defend Obama’s health care bill, environmental policies and new efforts to overhaul regulation of the financial services industry.

Changes rammed through the House on Friday and Saturday would shield greenhouse-gas polluters and privately owned colleges from federal regulators, block a plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, and bar the government from shutting down mountaintop mines it believes will cause too much water pollution, siding with business groups over environmental activists and federal regulators in almost every instance.

Across four long days of freewheeling debate, Republicans left their conservative stamp in other ways.

They took several swipes at the year-old health care reform law, including voting for a ban on federal funding for its implementation. At the behest of anti-abortion lawmakers, they called for an end to federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides contraception and other birth control services.

The Environmental Protection Agency took hits from Republicans eager to defend business and industry from agency rules they say threaten job creation and the economy. The EPA’s budget was slashed by almost one-third, and then its regulatory powers were handcuffed in a series of votes.

Republicans awarded the Pentagon an increase of less than 2 percent, but domestic agencies would bear slashing cuts of about 12 percent. Such reductions would feel almost twice as deep since they would be spread over the final seven months of the budget year.

EPA foes prevailed in halting the agency from using its powers to try to curb greenhouse gases. The EPA has taken steps to regulate global warming pollution from vehicles and the largest factories and industrial plants and is expected to soon roll out rules that target refineries and power plants.

Republicans recoiled, however, from some of the most politically difficult cuts to grants to local police and fire departments, special education and economic development.

About the only victory scored by Obama during the week came on a vote Wednesday to cancel $450 million for a costly alternative engine for the Pentagon’s next-generation F-35 warplane, which in part would be built at a factory in Speaker Boehner’s Ohio district. Its cancellation was a top priority of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and passed with the votes of many Republican conservatives who opposed the $3 billion program.

Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the measure and Obama has threatened a veto if it reaches his desk, citing sweeping cuts that he says would endanger the fragile economic recovery.

“The bill will destroy 800,000 American jobs,” said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, citing a study by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. “It will increase class sizes and take teachers out of the classrooms … It will jeopardize homeless veterans, make our communities less secure, threaten America’s innovation.”

The 359-page bill was shaped beginning to end by the first-term Republicans, many of them elected with backing from the ultraconservative tea party movement.

They rejected an initial draft advanced by the leadership, saying it did not cut deeply enough.

The revised bill added more reductions, and cut $100 billion from Obama’s request for the current year.

Tags: Budget, Congress, Democrats, Government, President Obama, Republicans

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 20th, 2011 at 1:50 pm and is filed under Community, Government.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Every weekend, I have the opportunity to return home from Washington and meet with constituents’ of Ohio’s Fifth Congressional District. The message I have received from them is simple: The American people are tired of policies that continue to prolong our sluggish economy. As part of our Pledge to America, House Republicans have made job creation a priority in addressing America’s economic challenges. I believe that regulatory reform is of key importance in helping to retain and keep jobs.

Bob Latta

In order to reduce our nations nine percent unemployment rate, the 112th Congress must take action immediately by ending unnecessary red tape. Regulatory reform is imperative to help America’s success, as it creates the right environment for job creation, reins in costly regulations and cuts spending. That’s why this week Congress focused on reviewing the negative impacts of federal regulations on job creation and after nine and a half hours of debate we identified scores of costly and complex regulations that harm America’s productivity.

When regulations are passed, the costs are immediately passed on to consumers and workers by increasing compliance costs and increasing consumer prices. Federal regulations make it difficult for small businesses to exist and adapt, with burdens from federal agencies maintaining a constant state of uncertainty for business owners. It is necessary for Congress to review federal regulations to eliminate unwarranted burdens on America’s job creators.

For example, an unnecessary regulation that will negatively affect Ohio is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to designate coal ash as a “hazardous waste”. The EPA intends to proceed with this regulation despite numerous findings that coal ash does not warrant regulation as environmentally hazardous waste. Overstating the harms of coal ash will cause utilities and companies to incur $16.7 billion in increased costs per year, according to EPA reports. The increased cost would lead to an 18 percent decline in coal generated power; resulting in higher unemployment and energy costs, and further dependency on foreign countries for energy. In this economy, we cannot afford to lose any more jobs in Ohio or the United States, we need to get Washington out of the way by tearing down barriers to job creation.

While House Republicans have moved boldly to address the issue of job creation, the Administration still continues to demonstrate that it is not willing to change its unsuccessful course. As stated recently in the President’s State of the Union address, the creation of more stimulus programs is believed to be the solution to America’s economic challenges. As recent stimulus efforts have failed at reducing unemployment, it is clear that more federal spending will only add to our bloated federal debt.

I count it a privilege to represent the citizens of Ohio’s Fifth Congressional District, and am making it my priority to follow through with the Pledge to America. It is imperative that job creation and cutting federal spending be the focus in fixing our economy and putting Americans back to work. I personally thank all of the individuals who I have spoken to who have echoed this plea, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to address these challenges.

Congressman Robert E. Latta

Fifth District of Ohio

Tags: Bob Latta, Congress, Government, Guest Post

This entry was posted on Friday, February 11th, 2011 at 5:51 pm and is filed under Community, Government.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.