|
|
|
|
|
A Few Clouds ~ High: 78°F ~ Low: 63°F Saturday, May 25, 2013 |
|
View from the Capitol: The payroll tax reduction extensionPosted Friday, February 17, 2012, at 8:43 PM
Good Day!
This week your elected representatives in the House and the Senate were able to come to an agreement which extends the payroll contribution reductions through the end of the year, passed important unemployment reforms, and ensured seniors and the disabled are still able to access health care by averting a 27% cut in the reimbursement rates for doctors of Medicare. Although I had hoped for even more reforms to these vital programs, I believe that it represents a needed start. The unemployment insurance program extends benefits for the unemployed but allows states for the first time to enact innovative reforms to empower those looking for work to find jobs. It also allows states to enact accountability reforms such as requiring drug testing of recipients. I support these measures. The extension of the 2% payroll (Social Security) contribution reduction from 6.2% to 4.2% will allow the average American family with a $50,000 income to save approximately $1,000 a year. This will be helpful to families in this tough economy. It does, however, shift the burden of funding Social Security to the federal government instead of being an exclusive contribution system by Americans for Americans. I have concerns about this and believe we need to look at this 'payroll tax holiday' in the future to keep the system solvent while not further burdening the national debt. The third component of this legislation is good news for seniors and the disabled. By averting the 27% cut to physicians' Medicare reimbursements, those most vulnerable will still be able to find a doctor who serves Medicare patients. The proposed 27% cut would have made it cost-prohibitive to provide care for our most needy. With these changes the elderly will retain choices in their health care delivery and access to a doctor to provide care in their local community. In other news, President Obama unveiled his 2013 budget proposal, which is another call for more taxing and spending to further burden America's job creators and harm our fragile economy. This ill-conceived proposal includes $1.9 trillion in additional taxes, risking a deepening of our economic recession. The President's proposal also takes money from defense and shifts it to wasteful spending on programs and bureaucracies. Our military is undergoing dangerous cuts as a result of the Budget Control Act I voted against. Now, the President is calling for reductions, in real terms, while we have troops in combat. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am committed to fighting the President's desire to increase domestic spending on the backs of our men and women in uniform. It is unacceptable! Our highest budget priorities must be national defense, protecting seniors, and cutting President Obama's massive deficits. Have a good week. Vicky Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Vicky Hartzler is the U.S. representative for Missouri's 4th Congressional District. She was raised on a farm in Archie, and lives with her husband, Lowell and daughter, Tiffany, on a working farm in Cass County. She is a graduate of both the University of Missouri-Columbia in 1983 and Central Missouri State University (now University of Central Missouri) in 1992, graduating summa cum laude with a B.S. in Education from MU and a M.S. in Education from Central Missouri. For more information, visit http://hartzler.house.gov.
Hot topics View from the Capitol: Farewell to Saline, other counties not in the new 4th District(5 ~ 3:27 PM, Dec 5)
View From the Capitol -- Anger over administration immigration order
View from the Capitol: Economy threatened by 'fiscal cliff'
View from the Capitol: 'Taxmageddon' looms
View From the Capitol: Pushing for an audit of the Federal Reserve
|
"In other news, President Obama unveiled his 2013 budget proposal, which is another call for more taxing and spending to further burden America's job creators and harm our fragile economy. This ill-conceived proposal includes $1.9 trillion in additional taxes, risking a deepening of our economic recession."
A solid majority of the people, sixty percent, or more, depending on the poll, have for months, and months, favored raising taxes on those making more than 250,000 dollars per annum. In fact that percentage continues to edge higher, including up to nearly 40% of Republicans, 60% of Independents, and over 80% of Democrats
Among other things favored by the majority of the people you oppose this. How can you so brazenly ignore the voice of the people? How can you expect to win another election when you are not on the side of people?
Ms. Hartzler, times change, and the people's needs change, sticking with inflexible Republican Party policy which never changes on that issue is loud, and clear indication that you find the will of the Republican Party more important than the will of the people of your District.
Any idea when drug testing for elected officials is going to become mandatory?
Good one, ChickenPot. What do you think she is smoking?
Regarding Social Security, if find her take quite misleading. Social Security operated with a massive surplus of funds for decades. The congress decided to raid these excess funds and spend them during the Reagan administration.
American workers have paid in more than enough to the feds to provide benefits, it's just that the idiots couldn't stand to keep their hands off the money.
Now that it's time for us baby-boomers to retire, they have spent all of our contributions and now throw up their hands and say "the money's gone."
Shameful and uninformed of Ms. Hartzler to then say:
"It does, however, shift the burden of funding Social Security to the federal government instead of being an exclusive contribution system by Americans for Americans."
The federal government is the ones who spent the surplus for years, Vicky. Are you such a GOP lackey that you can only spew the party line? YOUR PARTY GOT US HERE, and now you make foolish statements like "and cutting President Obama's massive deficits."
Anybody remember Al Gore's "Social Security Lockbox"? Remember the budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton presidency? Remember the concept of using the budget surplus to shore up social security in light of the coming baby-boomer retirement?
I feel dumber just for reading Vicky's take on our political system every time. I really ought to stop reading these jokes.
Neo-cons: Practicing revisionist history in real time!
Oh, yeah, good to see the GOP sticking with a campaign of fear in 2012.
"Be Afraid" seems to be the theme. Santorum and his "Obama makes us less safe" is just shameful and wrong, but it sure plays well to the far right, which is all he cares about anyway.
Apparently Vicky the schoolteacher is a hawk and feels that nation building is the right thing to do. The neo-cons now call it 'regiem change' when they decide it is a good idea to tell other countries how to govern themselves. Isn't that really up to the folks in those countries?
Nation building did not work out so well for us in the past so what makes us think it is a good idea now?
Nation building makes people hate us for interfering in their lives. Also, collateral damage makes new enemies. I would hold that policies that embrace invading soverign nations when there are no viable threats to the USA makes us less safe. It seems we create new enemies at a faster rate than we create friends.
But a fellow who would like to use diplomatic and international solutions to the worlds problems makes us less safe? Yeah, sure.
Neo-con logic. Keep 'em scared and keep 'em thinkin' we are the only ones that can protect them from the boogie man. "The only good country is a country we can beat the crap out of and then tell them what to do."
Are voters really that stupid?
I know that I feel like taking a shower after reading what Miss Vicky has to say. She is just another lap dog for the Neo-Con's and Fox Fanatics. Go home Miss Vicky we don't need this dribble!
Oh come on now BohdiLi, not all politicians are career welfare recipients. In defense of Ms. Hartzler she has not yet been on the public dole long enough to be a career welfare recipient. If she some how stays in office a good while longer, and keeps answering only her personal needs, and those of the Republican Party, she will then be career welfare recipient defined, i. e. on the public dole, giving nothing back to society.