Senate cuts funds to wounded warriors and veterans, protect illegals over veterans!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Senate cuts funds to wounded warriors and veterans, protect illegals over veterans!

    Senate Republicans were unable to stop military pension cuts when Senate Democrats blocked a vote on an amendment to prevent the cuts by closing a welfare loophole for illegal immigrants Tuesday evening.

    The two-year budget deal brokered by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, would cut military pensions by $6 billion over ten years, leaving some Senate Republicans scrambling to stop the cuts.

    “Removing this unbalanced treatment of our military retirees ought to be one of the key actions we should take before this legislation moves forward. In fact, greater savings than this can be achieved by passing a legislative fix recommended by the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury that would stop the IRS from improperly providing tax credits to illegal aliens,” Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions said Monday, announcing his co-sponsorship of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker’s amendment to restore the military retirement benefits Monday.

    Additionally, the Alabama Republican offered his own amendment to restore the cuts by targeting a child tax credit loophole that illegal immigrants have used to unlawfully obtain welfare benefits.

    In 2011, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that “individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States” and therefore did not have a valid Social Security number were still able to obtain billions in Additional Child Tax Credits by filing returns with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.

    Specifically the Internal Revenue Service watchdog found that unauthorized individuals received $4.2 billion refundable credits in Processing Year 2010.

    Tuesday evening, Sessions attempted to force Majority Leader Harry Reid allow amendments the budget agreement.

    Sessions hoped to attach his amendment to the deal — which would have closed the loophole by requiring a Social Security number to claim the refundable portion of the child tax credit and restore military retirement benefits.

    Sessions’ motion failed on a 46 – 54 party line vote, with North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan crossing the aisle as the lone Democrat to vote with the Republicans.

    “Reid’s majority just voted to keep pension cut for vets instead of cutting welfare payments to illegal aliens,” a Sessions aide emailed.

    Meanwhile, Sessions slammed Reid and Democrats for blocking amendments and ideas that would prevent the cuts to military retirement benefits, including those for disabled retirees.

    “Today, Reid and his majority quashed the ability of any Senator to offers amendments to the spending deal that emerged from the House. They voted to undermine their own ability as Senators to offer amendments and do legislative work in the clear light of day,” Sessions said in a statement after his motion was voted down.

    “They voted to block the Senate from working to improve this tax-and-spend deal,” he added. “Finally, by blocking my amendment, they voted to cut pensions for wounded warriors. Senators in this chamber have many valid ideas for replacing these pension cuts, including my proposal to close the tax welfare loophole for illegal filers, and all deserved a fair and open hearing. But they were denied.”

    Murray argued that adding more amendments would jeopardize the carefully crafted bill and noted that, given the two-year time frame Democrats and Republicans could continue to work together to find savings in the future.

    The budget deal, which has already passed in the House, is expected to pass in the Senate Wednesday.



    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/senate-dems-block-amendment-to-restore-veteran-benefits-by-closing-illegal-immigrant-welfare-loophole/#ixzz2npq5JP9D

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Senate cuts funds to wounded warriors and veterans, protect illegals over veterans!


    Everyone should be outraged and calling their reps over this!!

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Senate cuts funds to wounded warriors and veterans, protect illegals over veterans!

    Republicans tried to add an amendment, but it was blocked by Dem's.

     
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/12/18/budget-battle-democrats-block-amendment-to-restore-military-retirement-benefits-n1765107#th-modal-send-to-friend

     

    Doubled there, sorry. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Senate cuts funds to wounded warriors and veterans, protect illegals over veterans!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    If it's true it seems pretty f'd up.



    I agree, but I give it pretty long odds on being true.  My guess is it will bounce around the echo chamber for a while, and this time next week the first hit when googling on this will be from snopes.

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Senate cuts funds to wounded warriors and veterans, protect illegals over veterans!


    But it was approved by the Republican Controlled House.  Shouldn't the thread read, "Republicans cut funds to wounded warriors"? 

    And why force the choice between helping wounded Vets and children of undocumented workers?  Do you really want kids without access to health care attending public schools or playing sports with your children?  I for one would prefer that children be able to go see a doctor for things like immunizations and to get treated for contagious diseases and illnesses.

    Maybe if the Alabama Senator hadn't tied the funding for the wounded vets to hurting children, maybe the measure would have passed.

    But I'm sure the republican senator wasn't purposely trying to play politics with wounded veterans.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Senate cuts funds to wounded warriors and veterans, protect illegals over veterans!

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:


    But it was approved by the Republican Controlled House.  Shouldn't the thread read, "Republicans cut funds to wounded warriors"? 

    And why force the choice between helping wounded Vets and children of undocumented workers?  Do you really want kids without access to health care attending public schools or playing sports with your children?  I for one would prefer that children be able to go see a doctor for things like immunizations and to get treated for contagious diseases and illnesses.

    Maybe if the Alabama Senator hadn't tied the funding for the wounded vets to hurting children, maybe the measure would have passed.

    But I'm sure the republican senator wasn't purposely trying to play politics with wounded veterans.



    It was put in the bill by the representative of the Democrat controlled Senate, Murray.  Should the Republicans have threatened to shut down the government over it, or just let the Democrats stick it to vets?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Senate cuts funds to wounded warriors and veterans, protect illegals over veterans!

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:


    But it was approved by the Republican Controlled House.  Shouldn't the thread read, "Republicans cut funds to wounded warriors"? 

    And why force the choice between helping wounded Vets and children of undocumented workers?  Do you really want kids without access to health care attending public schools or playing sports with your children?  I for one would prefer that children be able to go see a doctor for things like immunizations and to get treated for contagious diseases and illnesses.

    Maybe if the Alabama Senator hadn't tied the funding for the wounded vets to hurting children, maybe the measure would have passed.

    But I'm sure the republican senator wasn't purposely trying to play politics with wounded veterans.



    It was put in the bill by the representative of the Democrat controlled Senate, Murray.  Should the Republicans have threatened to shut down the government over it, or just let the Democrats stick it to vets?




    But that wasn't their only 2 choices.  They could have put a 1 penny tax on all stock trades, for example.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Senate cuts funds to wounded warriors and veterans, protect illegals over veterans!

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    If it's true it seems pretty f'd up.

     



    I agree, but I give it pretty long odds on being true.  My guess is it will bounce around the echo chamber for a while, and this time next week the first hit when googling on this will be from snopes.

     

     

     



    slomag,

     

    When I first heard this morning Icould not believe they could not find somewhere else in the budget to cut.

    Seriously. But of course verterans do not have the money to pay lobbyists the way other groups do, do they?

    So what if we made a promise to our verterans.

     

      Senators Eye Changes to Military Pension Provision in Budget Deal

    Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., left, accompanied by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. ranking Republican on the committee. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., left, accompanied by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. ranking Republican on the committee. Evan Vucci/AP

    Though the Senate is poised to pass the Bipartisan Budget Act on Wednesday, lawmakers in both parties are already working to alter some of its provisions in the weeks and months ahead.

    The measure is expected to pass handily, sending a bill to President Obama's desk that will reduce sequestration cuts by $63 billion and fund the government through Sept. 30, 2015. But that has not stopped lawmakers from making preparations to tinker with it after it passes, most notably with a provision reducing military pensions.

    "Nothing is written in stone around here," said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "This is a budget. A budget could be amended next year."

    Levin said Tuesday that his committee will look into nixing the cuts to military pensions before they take effect in 2016. Under the budget agreement, military retirees under the age of 62 will see reductions in cost-of-living adjustments, but the committee could alter or eliminate that change, Levin said.

    Republicans and Democrats in both chambers mentioned concerns about the pension provision when Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Paul Ryan announced the budget deal last week. But Levin's commitment to a review eased some of that tension. Republican Sens. Rob Portman and John McCain both said that the possibility of changing the provision played a role in their decision to vote to bring the budget deal to the floor.

    "That gives some of us some comfort," Portman said.

    But apparently not every senator felt comforted. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., called a vote Wednesday evening that would have allowed Republicans to add an amendment to the budget deal eliminating the military-pensions provision. The measure failed, predictably, on a nearly party-line vote in which only Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., broke with her caucus to support the measure.

    Sessions said that he pushed for the vote as a protest of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to fill the amendment tree on the budget bill, preventing Republicans from filing amendments of their own. The vote also forced Democrats who have said they are sympathetic to veterans facing pension cuts to choose between getting rid of those cuts and siding with their leadership.

    With the 46-54 vote, any changes to military pensions will likely be pushed into the New Year when the Senate Armed Services Committee takes up the measure. Levin and McCain cautioned Tuesday that the pension changes may not disappear. "I can't promise that we will repeal it," McCain said. But even Ryan, who worked the pension measure into the final budget deal over Democratic objections, has said that he is open to making changes.

    "We delayed this provision so that it doesn't take effect until the year 2016, which gives Congress and the military community time to address the broader compensation issue, including this provision, if people believe there's a better way to solve this problem," Ryan told The Weekly Standard.

    The budget bill cleared its biggest hurdle on Tuesday, when the Senate invoked cloture on a 67-33 vote, setting up final passage for Wednesday. A dozen Republicans joined Democrats to clear the 60-vote threshold, which was the last chance Senate Republicans had to derail the budget agreement.

    A simple majority is needed to pass the measure Wednesday, and it is likely to hit that target easily. All 53 Democratic senators and the two independents who caucus with them support the bill, and some Republicans like Portman have agreed also signed on.

    But the budget deal isn't set in stone, and with the specter of another government shutdown effectively off the table, even senators who supported the deal are talking about making changes when Congress returns in January.

    Many Democrats cite concerns that the final deal did not include an extension of unemployment-insurance benefits, which expire shortly after Christmas. Reid has said the Senate will take up the issue after the holidays.

    Murray acknowledged before Tuesday's vote that not everyone got what they wanted in the final deal. "This deal is a compromise, and it doesn't tackle every one of the challenges we face as a nation. But that was never our goal," she said on the Senate floor. "This bipartisan bill takes the first steps toward rebuilding our broken budget process. And, hopefully, toward rebuilding our broken Congress."

    But with lawmakers already plotting to alter some of the provisions that allowed the compromise in the first place, that first step may be on shaky ground. Levin conceded Tuesday that changes to certain aspects of the budget bill could open up a Pandora's box, allowing Congress to re-litigate the entire deal when it returns in January. But the Michigan Democrat said that he wasn't too concerned.

    "It's not—you know, there's nothing here that's permanent," he said.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2013/12/senators-eye-changes-military-pension-provision-budget-deal/75654/

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Senate cuts funds to wounded warriors and veterans, protect illegals over veterans!

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:


    But it was approved by the Republican Controlled House.  Shouldn't the thread read, "Republicans cut funds to wounded warriors"? 

    And why force the choice between helping wounded Vets and children of undocumented workers?  Do you really want kids without access to health care attending public schools or playing sports with your children?  I for one would prefer that children be able to go see a doctor for things like immunizations and to get treated for contagious diseases and illnesses.

    Maybe if the Alabama Senator hadn't tied the funding for the wounded vets to hurting children, maybe the measure would have passed.

    But I'm sure the republican senator wasn't purposely trying to play politics with wounded veterans.



    It was put in the bill by the representative of the Democrat controlled Senate, Murray.  Should the Republicans have threatened to shut down the government over it, or just let the Democrats stick it to vets?




    But that wasn't their only 2 choices.  They could have put a 1 penny tax on all stock trades, for example.



    Or, take the 6 billion out of the food stamp program.  

    Yet another example.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share