Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

H. Res. 170 struck down in committee

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 11:01 AM
Original message
H. Res. 170 struck down in committee
Received by email from Dennis Kucinich.

H. Res. 170 struck down in committee
In a 22-1 vote the House Ways and Means Committee voted not to hold President Bush accountable for his statements that "there is no Social Security trust." Dennis wrote in his Report from Washington, "If the President's assertions remain unchallenged, the Administration can continue to drain the Trust Fund of its assets and make true its now-false claim that Social Security has no Trust Fund and is going bankrupt." Read the rest of Dennis's comments in his column on the home page at http://www.kucinich.us.

======================================================

April 26, 2005 3:36 pm ET

Ways and Means Kills Inquiry into Question on Trust Fund

Last night, in a rare Monday night session, the Ways and Means Committee of the United States House of Representative voted 22-1 against a resolution which would require the President to produce documentation supporting his oft-repeated claim that there is no Social Security Trust.

The action stopped a Resolution of Inquiry from proceeding to the full House for a vote. I introduced the resolution last month after President Bush had claimed in a meeting in New Hampshire that "there is no Social Security trust." He has since repeated the assertion. The implications of the President's assertions about the Social Security trust fund are quite serious for the 48 million Americans who currently rely on Social Security, and for those who will become recipients in the future.

According to the Social Security Administration's own trustees, Social Security has $1.68 trillion in the Trust Fund. According to the Social Security Administration the surplus will grow to over $6 trillion.

Most interesting, however, the President's assertion that there is no Trust Fund comes at a time when the Administration has borrowed over $637.4 billion from the fund obtained in highly regressive taxes on American workers. That borrowed money is, in effect, being used to help fund an illegal war and to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

If the President's assertions remain unchallenged, the Administration can continue to drain the Trust Fund of its assets and make true its now false claim that Social Security has no Trust Fund and is going bankrupt. They only need the complicity of the Congress.

Now the Congressional committee which has direct jurisdiction over Social Security is refusing to hold the President accountable for his statements. In other words, the Committee itself doesn't want the President to produce any documents supporting his claim that there is no Social Security Trust.

If Congress had formally asked the President to produce documents backing up his contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he would have been unable to do so and would have lacked a sufficient cause to go to war.

If Congress had formally asked the President to produce documents that the United States could afford massive tax cuts to the wealthy without going into huge deficits, he would have been unable to do so and we would not be cutting funds for education, housing, job-creation and other social services (nor borrowing from Social Security) to mask the increasing inability of the government to balance its budget.

The President has a Constitutional obligation to uphold the public debt of the United States. Social Security's financial obligations are, according to the Social Security Trustees, backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States". If, indeed, there is no Social Security trust - as the President asserts with the political protection of his Congressional majority - then it is clear that the President is heading towards a direct challenge to his own constitutional authority and legal responsibilities to affirm the financial obligations of Social Security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's another ANTI-American vote. A vote that xxxxx on the citizenss. It
is LIE LEGISLATION. Be sure to read the last paragraph above.

Thank you Dennis Kuchinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sent request to Dem staffers......
Edited on Sun May-01-05 06:42 PM by paineinthearse
I am seeking a report of the recorded vote. As it has >22 members, it is not possible to determine who voted NO, and who the lone YAE vote belonged to (Dennis is not a member).

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/members.asp?cong=17

Members of the 109th Congress

Republicans:
Bill Thomas, CA Chairman
E. Clay Shaw Jr. , FL
Nancy L. Johnson, CT
Wally Herger, CA
Jim McCrery, LA
Dave Camp, MI
Jim Ramstad, MN
Jim Nussle, IA
Sam Johnson, TX
Rob Portman, OH
Phil English, PA
J.D. Hayworth, AZ
Jerry Weller, IL
Kenny C. Hulshof, MO
Ron Lewis, KY
Mark Foley, FL
Kevin Brady, TX
Thomas M. Reynolds, NY
Paul Ryan, WI
Eric Cantor, VA
John Linder, GA
Bob Beauprez, CO
Melissa A. Hart, PA
Chris Chocola, IN

DEMOCRATS:
Charles B. Rangel, NY
Fortney Pete Stark, CA
Sander M. Levin, MI
Benjamin L. Cardin, MD
Jim McDermott, WA
John Lewis, GA
Richard E. Neal, MA
Michael R. McNulty, NY
William J. Jefferson, LA
John S. Tanner, TN
Xavier Becerra, CA
Lloyd Doggett, TX
Earl Pomeroy, ND
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, OH
Mike Thompson, CA
John B. Larson, CT
Rahm Emanuel, IL







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fleabert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-05 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. 24 repubs. and 17 Dems. hmmm. interesting.
not all the repubs voted. wonder why. I assume they all voted with the Prez.

I'd be interested to know how the vote went as well. Fishy fishy!

41 members, 23 votes... what's up with that? Isn't this kind of important? Maybe I don't understand Ways & Means committee...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-05 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Sounds like they waited until Dems were out of town
to call for a vote.

Maybe they voted Palm Sunday when they were making new laws for Terri Shiavo.

Isn't this the same as giving the Prez the go-ahead to continue draining Social Security? Hold them accountable for giving away our retirement insurance funds to Bush for his never ending war. He can't manage money, don't give hime any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. sent an email to the Ways and Means Committee, too
asking for names of the 22 and 1;
and, asked why the others didn't vote :)

I'm not holding my breath.

do let us know if and when you hear anything

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. and, the (no) response ...
"Good Afternoon.

Thank you for your interest in H. Res. 170.


Unfortunately, we do not provide that information over the internet/phone. If you are in the D.C. area, you can come into our office (1102 Longworth Building) and read this information. In this is not possible, you may also call each individual representative's office of the Committee to ask them specifically how they voted.

Sincerely,

Jared Conley
Committee on Ways and Means"


what a government
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Sander Levin of MI was the good guy
The other Democrats don't think Bush needs to tell the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. Committee's press release concerning H. Res. 170
ACTION
FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 26, 2005
FC 5-A CONTACT: (202) 225-3625

Thomas Announces Committee Action on Resolution of Inquiry, H. Res. 170

Congressman Bill Thomas (R-CA), Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that on Monday, April 25, 2005, the Committee ordered adversely reported, H. Res. 170, a resolution of inquiry requesting the President to transmit certain information to the House of Representatives respecting a claim made by the President on February 16, 2005, at a meeting Portsmouth, New Hampshire, that there is not a Social Security trust, by a recorded vote of 22-1.

DESCRIPTION OF H. RES. 170:

H. Res. 170 would request the President to transmit to Congress information in possession of the President to the U.S. House of Representatives that provides specific evidence regarding a statement made by the President about the Social Security trust in Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GetTheRightVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. My quess for the yea vote would be for Stephanie Tubbs Jones, OH
She has been doing good work on the stolen election in Ohio and she has bee working with Rep. John Conyers.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-05 05:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. They are admitting that they know it's all a lie. Good for K that he made
them go on the record with a vote. These greedy crooks have to be fought every step of the way.

Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-05 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. one hefty
:kick:

dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-05 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
9. "in a rare Monday night session"
:kick:

thank you Congressman Kucinich





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-05 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Rare sessions are way to common.....
the opposite party. Rare = common.

My blood is boiling right now. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-05 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. News from the WMC democratic staff
Edited on Mon May-02-05 11:37 PM by paineinthearse
The "markup" meeting was called with short notice, thus the absence of Dem votes. I translate "in a rare Monday night session" to mean that short notice was given when Dems were away. Slippery rethugs strike again!

The following is from a staffer:

Subject: FW: Committee on Ways and Means, Democrats Web site form
re: Request for more information from the Committee
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 13:09:48 +0000

Mr. (me)

All Republicans (minus Reps. Reynolds and Nussle) voted to report it adversely. Mr. Levin was the ONLY Democrat that attended the markup, given the extremely short notice.

Please find attached the Committee Dissenting views to that markup.

Thanks,
(staffer)


The position paper is in pdf format, so I cannot post here. I've requested a text version.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-05 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. Who and what the hell is going to
hold that two-faced monkeyboy "accountable"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. It's called partisan politics
The committee chair called the committee into session at an unusual time and did not give Dem members sufficient time to get to DC. I am certain he did tell the rethugs there, naturally.

Sounds like grounds for an ethics hearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-05 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
13. Dennis is pretty sharp - always on top of things.
The trouble is that the rest of the Dems too easily give Bush a pass on everything. I want to know which Dems were among those 22 who voted the wrong way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
17. What were these Dems thinking of when they opposed making Bush tell truth?
DEMOCRATS:
Charles B. Rangel, NY
Fortney Pete Stark, CA
Benjamin L. Cardin, MD
Jim McDermott, WA
John Lewis, GA
Richard E. Neal, MA
Michael R. McNulty, NY
William J. Jefferson, LA
John S. Tanner, TN
Xavier Becerra, CA
Lloyd Doggett, TX
Earl Pomeroy, ND
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, OH
Mike Thompson, CA
John B. Larson, CT
Rahm Emanuel, IL


The only one who voted to make Bush tell the truth about Social Security was Sander M. Levin, MI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
18. All right, folks, that's it! We're going in...
If Bush cannot prove there is no trust fund, similar to his asking Saddam to prove he had no WMDs, then it's time to invade. Isn't that the rationale?

Hmmmm....
Most interesting, however, the President's assertion that there is no Trust Fund comes at a time when the Administration has borrowed over $637.4 billion from the fund obtained in highly regressive taxes on American workers. That borrowed money is, in effect, being used to help fund an illegal war and to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

How can I apply this logic to my own finances; How can I, for example, borrow money from a bank account that I say I don't have?

Could I buy a new car this weekend and tell the dealer that the money is coming from an account I really don't have?
KansDem: "Here's you check"
Dealer: "Um, Mr. KansDem, there is no bank information on this check..."
KansDem: "Oh, that's because I really don't have this account..."
Dealer: "Oh, OK, clear enough! Happy and safe drving, Mr. KansDem!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC