McCain has not voted in the senate since April. Hello? nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00137

The democrats tried to object to his even reading of his statements yesterday. Guess they were afraid he would sway some votes. This is long, but please read.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment I have is a product of a lot of work from a number of Senators on this side of the aisle. I especially thank Senator Martinez of Florida, a great leader on this issue, along with Senator Thune, Senator Graham, and many other Senators who have been involved in this discussion. This is an alternative we believe would truly create jobs and stimulate our economy. The total cost is around $421 billion.

I wish, before I describe the amendment--and I know others of my colleagues want to discuss this amendment--I wish to point out it is very clear that public opinion in this country is swinging against the proposal that is now before the Senate and was passed by the other body. They are opposed because they see now in the Senate a $995 billion package which could reach more than $1.2 trillion. Many Americans, certainly now a majority, do not see it as a way to create jobs and to stimulate our economy. They see it loaded down with unnecessary spending programs. They see it, very correctly, with policy changes which deserve extended debate and voting on their own, such as ``Buy American'' provisions, Davis-Bacon, giving Federal workers new whistleblower protections. Some of these policy changes may be laudable, others are not, at least in my view, but all of them deserve debate and discussion rather than being placed in a piece of legislation that is intended to stimulate our economy and create jobs.

I think it is time that we also understand how we got where we are. I have been around this body long enough to recognize that we are now entering the final phase of consideration of this package. Whether it be today or over the weekend or early next week, this bill will be disposed of one way or another by the Senate. So how did we get to where we are today, with a $995 billion package, at least, or $1.2 trillion, or perhaps more than that, with a bill that probably would create, in the view of the administration--and I do not agree with it--3 million jobs, which would mean that each job that is created by it costs the taxpayers $275,000. I do not think many Americans believe that each job created should cost $275,000 of their hard-earned tax dollars.

In fact, the response my office is getting borders on significant anger when we talk about many of the funding programs that are in the stimulus bill. I will go through several of them later on, but $400 million for STD prevention; $40 million to make park services more energy efficient; $75 million for smoking cessation. It is hard to argue that, even though these provisions, many of them, may be worthwhile, they actually create jobs. So we have strayed badly from our original intent of creating a situation in America to reverse the terrible decline and economic ditch in which we find the American economy, to the point we have had spending programs and policy provisions which have nothing to do with stimulating the economy and creating jobs. It may be Government--let me put it this way. It may be legislative activity, possibly, at its worst.

We are offering today an alternative at less than half the cost that we think creates jobs and stimulates the economy. I remind my colleagues, despite the rhetoric about bipartisanship, this bill originated in the House of Representatives, as is constitutionally appropriate. There was no Republican input whatsoever. It passed the other body on a strict party-line basis with the loss of 11 Democrats and came over to this body, where in both the Appropriations and the Finance Committees, almost every Republican amendment was rejected on party lines.

I appreciate very much that the President of the United States came over to address Republican Members of the Senate and Republican Members of the House. The tenor of his remarks I think was excellent. But the fact is, we did not sit down and seriously negotiate between Republican and Democrat. I have been involved in many bipartisan efforts in this body, for many years, that have achieved legislative result. The way you achieve it is not to come over and talk to a body. The answer is to sit down and seriously negotiate and come up with compromises which result in legislation which is good for the country.

That has not happened in this process. Again, the American people are figuring it out. I am confident, because of the way this process has taken place, that gap, which is now 43-37, the majority of the American people opposing this package, will grow.

A majority of the American people still believe we have to stimulate the economy and create jobs. I agree with them. But to spend $1.2 trillion on it, and have no provision for when the economy recovers to put us back on the path of fiscal sanity and stability--as the amendment that I had last night was rejected; we got 44 vote--does not provide the American people with confidence that spending will stop at some time.

One thing they have learned is that spending programs that are initially supposed to be temporary become permanent. They become permanent. That is a historical fact.

So we have initiated nearly $1 trillion--many in new spending, some hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending--with no provision, once the economy has recovered--and the economy will recover in America--this is no path to balancing the budget. Instead, we laid a $700 billion debt on future generations of America in the form of TARP, we are laying $1.2 trillion additional in the form of this bill, and another half a trillion dollars in the omnibus appropriations bill, and then we are told there will be a necessity for another TARP, which could be as much as $1 trillion, because of our declining economy. Yet there has been no provision whatsoever, once the economy recovers, to put us back on a path to balancing the budget and reducing and perhaps eliminating--hopefully eliminating--this debt we have laid on future generations of Americans.

I used to come down to the floor here, and have over the years, and argue against provisions in appropriations bills--which, by the way, has led to corruption. I notice there is another individual staffer who is being charged today, or yesterday, for inappropriate behavior with Mr. Abramoff.

There used to be hundreds of thousands and sometimes thousands. Now, they are in the millions and billions, tens of millions and billions. My how we have grown.

Do we need $1 billion for national security at the Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities to create jobs? We may need $1 billion for National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activity, but to say it will create jobs and will stimulate the economy is a slender reed.

There is nobody who appreciates more than this person the contribution that Filipino war veterans made to winning the Second World War. We are going to give millions of dollars to those who live in the Philippines. Do not label that as job stimulation.

Smoking cessation is something that we all support. How does $75 million for smoking cessation create jobs within the next years that would justify expenditures of $75 million?

This body, in the name of increasing health care for children, raised taxes by some $61 billion, I guess it is, on tobacco use. So we now hope people will use tobacco in order to pay for insurance for children. But the fact is, $75 million for smoking cessation should be an issue that is brought up separately and on its own. And the list goes on and on and on.

Our proposal--I am grateful for the participation of so many Senators--would allocate approximately $275 billion in tax cuts. It would eliminate the 3.1 percent payroll tax for all employees for 1 year and use general revenues to pay for the Social Security obligation.

It would allocate $60 billion to lower the 10-percent tax bracket to 5 percent for 1 year. It would lower the 15-percent tax bracket to 10 percent for 1 year. It would lower corporate tax brackets from 35 percent to 25 percent for 1 year.

We alarmed the world with the ``Buy American'' provisions which are included in this bill. The reaction has been incredible, and the fact is, jobs flee America for a number of reasons. But one of them is we have the highest business taxes of any nation in the world. We used to have among the lowest.

So if we really want to create jobs in America and attract capital and investment for the United States of America, we need to lower the corporate tax bracket. We need to have accelerated depreciation for capital investments for small businesses. We need to assist Americans in need, there is no doubt about that. There are Americans who are wounded and are hurting today. It is not their fault.

We need to extend the unemployment insurance benefits. That is a $38 billion pricetag. We need to extend food stamps. We need to extend unemployment insurance benefits, make them tax free. That is a $10 billion pricetag. And, of course, we need to provide workers with training and employment. That is a $50 billion cost.

We need to keep families in their homes. We needed, and we did adopt last night, the $15,000 tax credit. But we also need to fund the increase in the fee that servicers receive from continuing a mortgage and avoiding foreclosure. We need to have GSE and FHA conforming loan limits. That is $32 billion. We also, by the way, need to do more in the housing area.

You know, it is interesting in all of these spending proposals we have, there is not one penny for defense, not one penny. Obviously, we are going to have to reset our military. We need to replace the aging equipment that has been used so heavily in Iraq and will be needed in Afghanistan.

We need to improve and repair and modernize the barracks, the facilities and infrastructure that directly support the readiness and training of the Armed Forces. We do not have that in the now $995 billion package that is before us. Obviously, we need to spend money on military construction projects which will create jobs immediately. Those people who say that is not the case, I can provide for the record adequate information that many of our military construction projects could begin more quickly than those that are not on our military bases because of environmental and other concerns.

We need to spend $45 billion on transportation infrastructure. There are grants to States to build and repair roads and bridges, including $10 billion for discretionary transportation grants, and $1 billion for roads on Federal lands. Public transit, obviously, we need to fund, and airport infrastructure improvements are necessary, along with small business loans. That is about $63 billion in our proposal.

Finally, the American people believe, and I think correctly, spending is out of control in our Nation's Capital. We continue to spend and spend and spend. We not only have accumulated over a $10 trillion deficit, this will add another $1 trillion or more. I mentioned the TARP of $700 billion, all of which is being paid for--we are printing money in order to fund it.

At some point we are going to have to get our budget balanced or our children and our grandchildren are going to pay the bill. I recommend that this body hear as much as possible from David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office, in the Congress of the United States. He paints a stark picture. In my view, it is also time that we establish entitlement commissions: one for Social Security and one for Medicare-Medicaid and make recommendations so we can act on what is a multi-trillion-dollar deficit in Social Security and over a $40 trillion debt on Medicare and Medicaid.

Unless we address these long-term entitlement issues, there is no way we are going to be able to prevent the majority of Americans' taxes from being devoted to those two programs. So we need to establish those commissions and we need to put them to work and we need to put them to work right away.

Now, I am told there is general agreement. Why not do it now? Why not do it now? We also need better accountability, better transparency, better oversight, and better results. Among many disappointments we have over TARP, one was that we were told the Congress and the American people would have oversight and transparency, and they would know exactly how that initial $350 billion was being spent.

The American people and Members of Congress have been bitterly disappointed as TARP shifted from one priority to another. Funds went to the automotive industry, which none of us had anticipated when we voted for and approved it. We need more transparency and accountability and oversight of how this, probably the biggest single emergency spending package in the history of this country, is being spent.

I notice I have other Members here who wish to speak on this issue. I hope we can pass this alternative, some $421 billion, to what has now surged to over $1 trillion. It probably may not pass for the reasons of numbers, but if we do not sit down and negotiate and come up with a package that is more than a $50- or $60- or $80 billion reduction, when we are talking about $1.2 trillion, the American people will not be well served.

They will not be well served by requiring Davis-Bacon, they will not be well served by requiring ``Buy American,'' they will not be well served by spending their hard-earned dollars on unnecessary programs that even though in the eyes of some may have virtue, have no or very little association with job creation and relief for Americans who are struggling to stay in their homes and either keep their jobs or go out and find a new one.

I believe the United States of America will recover from the economic crisis. I have a fundamental faith, belief, that American workers are the most productive, the most innovative, and the best in the world. But they need some help right now. What they need is the right kind of help.

I urge my colleagues, when you see the money that is being spent in the name of job creation and stimulus that is laying a debt burden on our children and our grandchildren, we need to have serious consideration of this kind of spending because it is not fair, not only to this generation of Americans but to future generations as well.

Decided to post this because it fits so much to today. Same old media tactics too.

By 1967, King had become the country's most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his Beyond Vietnam speech delivered at New York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 -- a year to the day before he was murdered -- King called the United States the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.

Time magazine called the speech demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi, and the Washington Post declared that King had diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.

this is all way over my head... anyone make any sense of it who is willing to share?

I thought senate seats belonged to the state that person resided in. And I thought the people who fill the seats are picked by the people of their states in a vote. These DC people are acting as though their seats are to be handed down to their family members as though they are Royalty. Last I knew I didn't think we lived in a Monarchy, but now I'm beginning to wonder. Bill Clinton is now "suggesting" Hillary's old seat should go to Chelsea Clinton? Impeached Bill should have no say in who the senate seat goes to. The Clintons don't want Caroline Kennedy to fill it because Caroline backed Obama. This is rediculous. They think they are entitled to these positions. My feeling is that the senate seat should be filled with someone who is qualified from that state. Not family members of family members of family members. Caroline Kennedy should run for the seat when the time to run comes up. Not be placed there because her name is Kennedy. As for Chelsea? Talk about someone with NO skills or qualifications to fill the position. She has worked for a manager at some Hedge fund company. She is a total id!ot. Just because daddy was the Prez and mommy held the senate position, does not mean that Chelsea is qualified. And certainly just because she attended a lot of mommy's fund raising events doesn't mean she's qualified. Blimey, why not let Obama's daughter take his old senate seat.

I heard someone describe our government as an aristocracy. There are so many people who are qualified for the positions, but they will never get appointed because they are not rich or don't have the "name' or in the club. I also heard that someone is sitting in Biden's old senate seat "keeping it warm" until Biden's son comes back from the service where he will just waltz in and the seat will be his. All I can say is W-T-F??????

Like I say, I thought senate seats were appointed by people who vote for the candidates to fill the seat. Now I'm hearing seats are just being given to the children and relatives of the ones who held the seat before them. Tell me there isn't something wrong with what is going on. Cripes! We got rid of Bill (finally), sort of got rid of Hillary, and now little miss Chelsea is trying to weezle her way into the scene via mommy and daddy to get there.

Now it's on to the House-Senate negotioations. I just hope we can stand this as a nation.

don't let him blindly lead them down that road. We have a national security force now, the National Guard, but of course, they're stuck fighting for our country since the draft was banned.

We need to get back to draft registration like it used to be, then our military will be good and the Guard can stay home and protect us like they're supposed to be doing.

Hackett has his work cut out for him, but I hope the vets keep running. It is a good sign of potential changes in the WH soon.

Ohio War Veteran Running for Senate

CINCINNATI -- Paul Hackett, the Democratic veteran of the Iraq war who narrowly lost a special election in a heavily Republican congressional district in August, made his official entry into a U.S. Senate race Monday.

He faces a tough Democratic primary with Rep. Sherrod Brown in the race for the nomination to challenge second-term Republican incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine next year.

Paul Hackett, the Democratic veteran of the Iraq war who narrowly lost in a special election in a heavily Republican congressional district in August, announces his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Monday, Oct. 24, 2005, at his home in Cincinnati, Ohio. (AP Photo/Al Behrman) (Al Behrman - AP)

Hackett's only political experience is a stint as a small-city councilman.

I'm asking all the people of this great state, regardless of political affiliation, to consider my message and to consider joining me in the fight to take back our government from the career politicians and their special interest support groups who have hijacked our government, he said as he announced his campaign at his home in suburban Indian Hill.

Hackett decided to run for Congress earlier this year after completing a seven-month tour of duty in Iraq as a Marine reservist. That special election in southern Ohio's seven-county 2nd District was to replace Rep. Rob Portman, who left his seat to become the U.S. trade representative.

Hackett won the Democratic nomination, then battled Republican Jean Schmidt, a former state legislator, in a campaign in which he linked her to embattled Republican Gov. Bob Taft while sharply criticizing President Bush's handling of the war.

Schmidt won on Aug. 2 with 52 percent of the vote, though Portman had consistently won re-election in the district with more than 70 percent and Bush had carried it in 2004 with 64 percent.

Hackett's strong showing in a state that was a pivotal presidential battleground solidified the attorney as a likely 2006 candidate for Congress or statewide office.

After Hackett decided to oppose DeWine, Hackett was irked when Brown, with three decades of elective politics behind him, decided he also would run.

Brown, a former state legislator and Ohio secretary of state, is in his seventh congressional term, representing northeastern Ohio's 13th District. He's expected to officially launch his Senate race in early November.

Brown said Monday he initially didn't plan to run because of family reasons, but changed his mind with his family's encouragement. He said he wasn't expecting the race for the May 2 primary to damage his chances of defeating DeWine in the general election.

I've had primaries before, Brown said. It makes me a stronger candidate.

stimulus package, I'm getting more furious every hour with some of the senators.

It seems there is no bipartisanship happening except the republicans trying to stop the bloated parts of the package, that which has nothing to do with the stimulus. So far, the amount is up to $990B and growing. One senator pointed out that if it passes the way it is, it will be over $1.7 TRILLION and we can't afford it.

Senator Tom Coburn (R) OK stated the Constitution gave us no authorization to do what we're doing (meddling in business, banking, etc.) He had a wonderful speech. I hope to find it on the 'net later.

Sen. James Inhofer (R) OK states he hopes all republicans stand up and agree this won't work but Sen. McCain's amendment should pass and WILL work. I don't know what's in Sen. McCain's amendment as it's not posted yet.

Now, my absolutely favorite senator (NOT!): Sen. Schumer (D) NY. He stated THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT THIS STIMULUS and sort of threatened in a veiled way that it WILL PASS no matter what the republicans want. I think everybody and their friends and family ought to clog his email with messages of how we DON'T want this package the way it is and since when is he a mindreader? The article I posted is probably the American people he is talking about.

Now there's a guy who really understands the American people. I found a little item on the 'net while I was looking for other stuff and I'm providing the link. Maybe a lot of you saw this before, but this is the first I've seen it. The date is JANUARY 22, 2007, so he knew all along that there was trouble brewing.

According to Schumer and Klobuchar, they are sending a letter to AIG Liddy (sp) to tell them to renegotiate the bonuses or give the bonus money back, or else they will draft a LAW and take immediate steps to impose a tax as high as 91% on these bonuses.

I don't know how they can do that, although I would like to see it happen. But if they can break the contracts for AIG, then they can break any contract at will. That's a bit scary.

The Senate is about to vote on a crucial bill, the revised H.R. 4437, that could give amnesty to 12-30 million illegal aliens and open the door for their relatives and a new flood of illegals to enter, which could mean 100-200 million new people coming into the country in 20 years according to expert analysis, virtually all poor, diminishing wages, increasing the crime rate, and bankrupting tax coffers. Now is the time to call any of the key Senators who could be persuaded into a NO vote, otherwise, there is a chance the House-Senate joint committee will approve for a likely vote in the House:

Lindsay Graham (SC): (202) 224-5972
Chuck Hagel (NE): (202) 224-4224
Richard Lugar (IN): (202) 224-4814
Mel Martinez (FL): (202) 224-3041
John McCain (AZ): (202) 224-2235
Richard Shelby (AL): (202) 224-5744
Olympia Snowe (ME): 202) 224-5344
Arlen Specter (PA): (202) 224-4254
Ted Stevens (AK): (202) 224-3004
George Voinovich (OH): (202) 224-3353
John Warner (VA): (202) 224-2023
Robert Bennett (UT): (202) 224-5444
Sam Brownback (KS): (202) 224-6521
Lincoln Chafee (RI): (202) 224-2921
Norm Coleman (MN): (202) 224-5641
Susan Collins (ME) (202) 224-2523
Larry Craig (ID): (202) 224-2752
Mike DeWine (OH): (202) 224-2315

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 � The Senate gave final approval on Thursday to a health insurance bill for 10 million children, clearing the measure for President Bush, who said he would veto it.

The 67-29 vote followed a series of speeches by Republican senators supporting the bill and urging Mr. Bush to reconsider his veto threat.

Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, one of 18 Republicans who voted for the bill, said the White House had shown �little if any willingness to come to the negotiating table.�

Republican opponents of the bill, like Senators Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Cornyn of Texas, said it would be a big step toward socialized medicine, would shift people from private insurance to a public program and would allow coverage for illegal immigrants and children in high-income families.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said it was �intellectually dishonest� to make such �outlandish accusations.�

Mr. Bush has said the bill would move toward �government-run health care for every American.�

�What will move our country toward socialized medicine is not this bill, which focuses on poor children, but the lack of action to allow people in need to have access to private affordable health care,� Mr. Corker said.

The bill would expand the State Children�s Health Insurance Program to cover nearly four million uninsured children, in addition to the 6.6 million already enrolled. It would provide $60 billion over the next five years, $35 billion more than the current spending and $30 billion more than the president proposed.

Mr. Bush has not shown a willingness to compromise. But he may come under pressure so from Republican lawmakers who do not like being portrayed as hostile to children�s interests.

Democrats have selected Graeme Frost, 12, of Baltimore, to deliver their Saturday radio address. He will appeal to the president to sign the bill.

On Monday, the Service Employees International Union will rally outside the White House, and children will deliver petitions urging approval of the bill.

The child health program was born in 1997 from collaboration between Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.

On Thursday, Mr. Hatch said that �it pains me� that Mr. Bush has not worked with Congress to renew the program. Some people in the administration �have been slow to recognize the realities of the new Congress,� where Democrats have a majority, Mr. Hatch said.

The bill has support from AARP, the big lobby for older Americans; the American Medical Association; America�s Health Insurance Plans, the lobby for insurers; and governors from both parties.

In the House, the bill was approved on Tuesday, 265 to 159, with support from 45 Republicans. The House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, said he was confident that the veto would be upheld. A two-thirds majority in both chambers would be needed to override the veto.

The bill would increase tobacco taxes, with the levy on cigarettes increasing to $1 a pack from the current 39 cents. It would require states to cover dental services for children and would increase coverage of mental health services in many states.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said: �Our Democratic colleagues have taken Schip hostage, and what they want in exchange is Republican support for government-run health care., courtesy of Washington .�

McCain has not voted in the senate since April. Hello? nm

Hackett has his work cut out for him, but I hope the vets keep running. It is a good sign of potential changes in the WH soon.

Ohio War Veteran Running for Senate

Who's Blogging?

Jack Welch's Take