This week saw a vote on the creation of a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The fund would ensure that safe affordable housing would be available to low-income families without having to worry about funding glitches or delays. Most agree that affordable housing is a necessity in this country, but they disagree on how to go about it. The bill passed, but Smith voted against it with the majority of Republicans.
There was also a vote to end the IRS practice of contracting out to private collection agencies to go after back taxes. Too many predatory tactics have been used by these companies, and should we really be contracting out work for such a highly sensitive issue? The program implemented has also cost $57 Million MORE than was projected when it was started. The investment into hiring and maintaining IRS workers to do this job would be more efficient and the workers would be held to higher standards. Smith voted against this bill.
This week also showed that Republicans are establishing a new tactic in how they are wanting to delay much of the work in Congress. They are offering up Motions to Recommit with amendments they want added onto the end of the bills. Some of the motions may be valid, but they are requesting the motions be reported back “promptly”. As I explain in one of the votes, this wording actually could lead to killing the bill entirely. How? Because for the motion to be considered right then and there with no delays, the request to report back must be “forthwith”. By saying “promptly”, the bill has to go back to the committee in question. They then have to schedule an actual markup hearing giving at least a required 3-day notice of the hearing. Most committees schedules are full as they get to the end of this first session. If a markup can’t be scheduled, the bill dies. So while some motions may have some good language, Democrats can’t vote for them because they could kill the bill entirely. Adrian Smith, of course, is joining right in with his party in the continuing political games, something which I find ridiculous. I want to scream at all politicians, regardless of party, that play these games: “Why don’t you just grow up, stop playing games and do the job we sent you to do!”
Within the IRS bill, Republicans tried to get an amendment added that would have repealed the Estate Tax permanently. The cost would be to the tune of $500 Billion. Essentially they would be giving a huge tax break to the wealthiest Americans.
Want to know the irony of that motion and amendment? Adrian Smith voted for the motion, the ending of the Estate Tax (the vote failed, however), and the loss of $500 Billion in revenue. However, in a news article during this week, he stated he supported the President’s veto of the SCHIP bill. Why? Because he agreed with the President that an additional $35 Billion over 5 years was “too costly”.
So there you have it. He will happily give $500 Billion to the wealthiest of Americans, but making sure our children are healthy and receive the medical care they need for $35 Billion is just too costly.
I was thinking about all this and something else came to mind. We all know that Adrian Smith has courted the National Right-to-Life movement for ongoing financial support of his political career. He has taken the hard-right stance of making all abortions illegal, and trying to stop any funding of stem cell research. He has done so by claiming he is pro-life and is trying to protect all life. But what we are really seeing that he is only pro-fetal life. Once that child is born, he could care less what happens to them.
Want health insurance so you grow up healthy? Too bad. You’re parents should be able to afford it.
Parents are working hard full-time but getting paid a low minimum wage? Well, too bad, the market should always determine what people get paid, and minimum wage is already too much.
The kid grows up and wants to attend college to try and better themselves? Well, too bad, Smith doesn’t believe in the government getting too involved in helping people pay for college. Their parents should have saved and found a way to pay themselves on those minimum wage jobs.
So, in the end, you have a child grow up being sick more than they should, in a family that is on survival mode just to make ends meet, and who can’t get out of that rut because they can’t afford college. The cycle then continues for them and THEIR children. And Smith thinks that’s all “pro-life” and just fine.
Maybe I’m exaggerating. But maybe not, because I’ve actually seen families that have fallen into this ongoing cycle. As time and the cost of living increases, the number of families that meet this description are growing more and more everyday. I just wish we had a Representative that looked out for their needs first and foremost.
ROLL CALL VOTES
H.RES.720 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2895) to establish the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to provide for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-income families.
This resolution sets forth the rules for debate on H.R. 2895.
On both votes, Ordering the Previous Question and Agreeing to the Resolution, it passed on party-line votes....as usual. Democrats for, Republicans against.
H.R.2895 - To establish the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to provide for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-income families.
This bill establishes in the Treasury a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Certain amounts will come from the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, including Federal Housing Administration savings. All assistance would be considered federal financial assistance. Conditions of the use of FHA savings are outlined (mortgage insurance, housing counseling, etc). It directs the HUD Secretary to establish a formula and procedure for allocations, and what that formula should be based on. It targets low-income families.
There were 8 amendments offered. Of those, 6 were passed by voice vote. The remaining 2 had roll call votes.
H.AMDT.843 - To establish a state minimum allocation percentage, under which every state will receive at least one half of one percent (.5%) of the total funds available each year that are allocated to states, Indian Tribes, and insular areas. Allocations to all other states would be reduced pro rata to bring these states up to this .5% minimum. The amendment would also provide that the local jurisdiction in each state that is slated to receive the largest amount by formula in such state would be entitled to receive such funds directly [notwithstanding the bill's provision that jurisdictions entitled to their state in any year that nationwide funding is less than $2 billion]. The amendment includes a technical clarification to ensure that the mixed income limitation capping the number of units initially rented to extremely low income families at 50% applies to all of the units in a project [not just those units assisted by trust fund dollars]. The amendment would provide that the exception to the mixed income rule applies to all `elderly only' projects, not just those projects of 25 or fewer units.
This amendment PASSED on a vote of 418-2-16.
Smith voted for it.
H.AMDT.850 - To establish a National Affordable Housing Grant Fund program within the HOME program, which is currently administered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Supporters of this bill stated that this would combine the funds under the bill into one under an existing program. They felt it would be more efficient and cost-effective.
Those opposed to the amendment said that having the two funds would prevent delays in building housing, or delays in funding on a yearly basis due to Appropriations issues. The new system would basically ensure continued service.
The amendment FAILED on a vote of 163-257-16. All the Democrats were joined by only 30 Republicans to vote it down.
Smith voted FOR the amendment.
At that time, a Motion to Recommit was made. Republicans asked that the bill be returned to the Committee on Financial Services “with instructions to report the same back to the House PROMPTLY” with the amendment.
The amendment called for able-bodied adults to be required to at least 20 hours of work activities per month.
The opposition to the amendment stated that, first, no amendments were even offered in the Rules Committee making the same request. Second, enforcing the rule would require organizations to add on new procedures at a greater cost that would take away from housing funding.
Thirdly, the amendment was requested “promptly”. If the request was “report back forthwith”, it could have been handled right then and there. However, as explained when a parliamentary inquiry was made:
As the Chair affirmed on May 24, 2000, the adoption of a motion to recommit with instructions to report back promptly sends the bill to committee, whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately before the House. Unlike the case of a motion to recommit with instructions to report back forthwith, a motion to recommit with ``non-forthwith'' instructions would not occasion an immediate report on the floor. As the Chair put it on the cited occasion, ``at some subsequent time, the committee could meet and report the bill back to the House.'' But the Chair cannot say what in the rules of the committee might constrain the timing of any action it might take. Neither can the Chair render an advisory opinion whether points of order available under the rules of the House might preclude further proceedings on the floor.
The wording does not allow a chairman of a committee to waive the required minimum 3-day notice before a markup can be held on the new amendment. The Committee schedules are already pretty full as it is. Time would be hard to find to put in another meeting.
The Motion FAILED on a vote of 199-218-14. It was nearly party-line with the Republicans voting for it, Democrats against it. Smith, of course, voted for it.
The bill then PASSED on a vote of 264-148-19
FOR: 223 Democrats, 41 Republicans
AGAINST: 148 Republicans
NO VOTE: 8 Democrats, 11 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST the bill.
H.RES.719 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3056) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to use private debt collection companies, to delay implementation of withholding taxes on government contractors, to revise the tax rules on expatriation, and for other purposes.
This resolution sets forth the rules for debate and consideration of H.R. 3056.
As usual, on both Ordering the Previous Question, and Agreeing to the Resolution, it passed on a party-line vote: Democrats for, Republicans against.
H.R.3056 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to use private debt collection companies, to delay implementation of withholding taxes on government contractors, to revise the tax rules on expatriation, and for other purposes.
Known as the Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007, it prohibit’s the IRS entering into private debt collection contracts, with those already in place prior to July 18, 2007 being grandfathered in. The required 3% withhold on payments to such agencies would also be delayed until 2012.
Tax returns of full-time residents of the US Virgin Islands would be treated as being filed with the US so as to provide equality to those residents.
Additional rules were set for high-income individuals that give up US citizenship or residency to avoid US taxation. The property of those expatriates would be considered sold at fair market value the day before their expatriation for tax purposes. Withholding of 30% would be required.
Additional penalties for failing to file correct information returns were included, and adjusted estimated tax payments for certain large corporations in the third quarter of 2012.
The primary focus of this bill, however, was to address predatory practices by collectors and provide further safeguards for taxpayers.
Those opposed to this bill felt that private collectors could do a better job at collected unpaid taxes. They felt the IRS can’t be trust to do a good job. It’s the ongoing argument that government is bad, and that private companies should do the work of the government. (Kind of like how Blackwater can do better than our own soldiers in dealing with insurgents in Iraq, right?)
Those for this bill, however, pointed out that collectors over the years have shown predatory, hostile behavior toward those they are collecting from, including stories about the going after nursing home residents and soldiers serving in Iraq. The hearing before the completion of this bill provided that private collectors were collecting $4 for ever $1 spent on their services. However, if the IRS received the funding instead, complete with the support to hire and train workers to do this job, they would actually bring in $20 for ever $1 spent. Also, public servants would be held to a much higher standard of conduct toward those they were collecting from.
In getting the private contractors involved, the original cost to get the program going had been estimated under a Republican Congress to be approximately $14 Million. So far the cost was $71 Million. Once again, it was shown that a program to try and “contract out” is far more costly and less efficient than a program ran by our own government agencies.
There were no new amendments offered. The Republicans then made a motion to recommit.
In this motion, they once again asked for it “promptly”, which could effectively kill the bill. The amendment they asked to be added was the permanent elimination of the Estate Tax, or as Republicans like to nickname it, the “Death Tax”. In asking for the repeal, they failed to show how they would pay for that loss in revenue, which would be to the tune of nearly $500 Billion.
The Motion FAILED on a near party-line vote of 196-212-23. All Republicans, Smith included, voted FOR the motion.
Essentially, Smith and his fellow Republicans were ready to give a huge $500 Billion tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, while just recently refusing to provide health care to 10 million children for 5 years to the tune of $35 Billion. Are we getting what their priorities are yet?
H R 3056 then PASSED on a vote of 232-173-26
FOR: 210 Democrats, 22 Republicans
AGAINST: 9 Democrats, 164 Republicans
NO VOTE: 12 Democrats, 14 Republicans
Smith voted AGAINST the bill.
The remaining 2 bills passed without opposition:
H.RES.32 - A resolution denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, "honor" killings, acid burnings, dowry deaths, and other gender-based persecutions, and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that participation, protection, recognition, and equality of women is crucial to achieving a just, moral and peaceful society.
H.R.400 - To prohibit profiteering and fraud relating to military action, relief, and reconstruction efforts, and for other purposes.
FLOOR STATEMENTS
Smith made no floor statements or offered any other statements for the record this week.
BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED
Smith did not sponsor any new bills, and he did not add his name as a cosponsor to any bills.
IN THE NEWS
Smith spoke up in support of President Bush when he Vetoed the SCHIP bill. Here the highlights:
Smith supports veto of increase to SCHIP
Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., said he supports President Bush's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and will vote against any House attempt to override the veto.
The joint state/federal program subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.
The legislation would add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.
Of the more than 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, more than 6 million are less than 18 years old. That's more than 9 percent of all children.
In Nebraska, 45,000 children receive health care insurance through the SCHIP program, and another 17,000 are eligible to participate.
Smith agrees with Bush's reasoning that the bill was too costly and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. Bush proposed only a $5 billion increase in funding.
Last month, Smith pointed to the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill that estimated that 2 million new individuals some as old as 21 would opt out of private health insurance plans in order to receive government health insurance.
Smith said that would increase health care costs even more if those individuals would opt out of private insurance.
While Smith supports providing health care for low-income families, he said the bill passed by Congress opens loopholes for illegal immigrants, expands the program to cover individuals with higher incomes, and encourages more federal spending.
Smith also doesn't like funding the bill by increasing tobacco taxes, which he characterized as "unstable" and based on an underlying assumption that 22 million more smokers would be needed to pay for it.
It’s, of course, disappointing that, once again, the Independent took Smith’s press release and just reworked it enough to make a report without challenging any of his false contentions. That’s not reporting, it’s just being a mouthpiece.
However, they did include the following statistics at the end of the article:
According to the National Coalition on Health Care:
National Health Care Spending:
* In 2005, health care spending in the United States reached $2 trillion, and it is projected to reach $2.9 trillion in 2009. Health care spending is projected to reach $4 trillion by 2015.
* The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.
* In 2005, the United States spent 16 percent of its gross domestic product on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent in the next decade.
* Although nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.
* Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 7.7 percent in 2006 and could increase as much as 13 percent, along with the cost of prescription medicine next year.
* Workers are now paying $1,094 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 2000.
* Since 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 87 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 18 percent and cumulative wage growth of 20 percent during the same period.
The Nebraska Hospital Association supports the increased SCHIP funding.
This year, the federal government provided about $34 million for the program in Nebraska, while the state contributed $14.2 million, said Deb Scherer, who heads Nebraska's Kids Connection program.
State officials estimate that the state contribution will be $15.8 million for fiscal year 2008 and $16.7 million the following year at current eligibility levels.
Given the growing number of people not being able to afford health insurance in this country, you’d think Smith would support at LEAST protecting our most precious and most vulnerable citizens: The Children.
But that’s unfortunately not the case.
0 comments:
Post a Comment