MIKULSKI STATEMENT ON SUPREME COURT’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
From the office of U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski:
U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) today was joined by Senate Democrats in front of the United States Supreme Court to offer remarks following the Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Senator Mikulski issued the following statement on the health care reform decision:
“Good morning America! Good morning the world! If you wanted to know what democracy looks like, come to Constitution Avenue. This is what democracy looks like.
“The Congress voted on healthcare. The Supreme Court has ruled on healthcare. We now know that healthcare is legal, constitutional, undeniable and irreversible.
“Let’s hear it for Democracy!
“The system worked and it will work for the American people. We will now be able to go forward with making sure that 32 million people have universal access to health care insurance.
“We’ve broken the stranglehold of insurance companies where guys in pinstripes sitting in their board rooms decided who got healthcare. Now we know the people will get the healthcare they need, that their doctor says that they need, and they will be able to afford to get it.
“The crowds are cheering us on.
“For we women, it’s an enormous victory. Because today, what we’ve been able to affirm is that insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate on the basis of gender. No longer will women pay 30% more for their health care than men of the same health care status.
“Number two, simply being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition. We cannot be denied health care because we are pregnant, because we’ve had a C-section or because we’ve been a victim of domestic violence.
“We affirmed our preventive health care where we’ll be able to get our mammograms at no additional cost and we’ll be able to get our maternity health care.
“And as we fought for the women, we also fought for the men too.
“It’s very noisy here. It’s very exciting here. But this is the voice of democracy – open, free to all.
“God bless you. God bless America. Thank God the Supreme Court followed the Constitution.”
Rep. Harris Responds to Supreme Court Decision to Uphold Obamacare
From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
Today, the Supreme Court ruled that President Obama’s healthcare law is constitutional. In the 5 to 4 decision by the Court, the Court made a legal interpretation of the law’s constitutionality. The Court did not make a determination on whether the law was good policy. As a physician, Congressman Andy Harris will continue to work to repeal Obamacare and replace it with common-sense, step-by-step reforms that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.
Congressman Andy Harris, M.D. released the following statement on the Court’s ruling:
“While I am disappointed by the Court’s decision, I respect its authority to determine these matters. The Supreme Court’s decision determined the law’s constitutionality, not whether the law is good policy. Americans have already made up their mind on that issue. A majority favor repealing the law. As a policy, the President’s healthcare law is making things worse by driving up health costs, restricting access to physicians, and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers. The only way to change this is by repealing Obamacare in its entirety. Today’s decision does not change the overwhelming opposition of the American public to Obamacare.”
AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE JUST ANOTHER BIG TAX
From the office of Sen. Nancy Jacobs:
Time and time again we were told that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would not be a tax increase. However, today’s Supreme Court ruling told us what we already knew; the ACA is another massive tax bill being pushed on middle class Americans.
When Dutch Ruppersberger voted for this bill and openly supported it he was not only supporting massive tax increases but also more job killing regulations and mandates. Dutch Ruppersberger has solidified himself as another tax and spend congressman.
I do not support this tax increase and think it is insulting to the people of Maryland’s 2nd Congressional district that Congressman Ruppersberger is hailing this ruling as a victory. When taxes increase and jobs are lost, nobody wins.
One thing is clear; Every American deserves to receive high-quality care that is affordable, effective, and available. The ACA tax is not the solution.
It will be one of my priorities to repeal these tax increases on the middle class when elected to Congress and replace them with common sense reforms.
County Executive David R. Craig Statement on Supreme Court Decision Regarding Obamacare
From Harford County government:
Harford County Executive David R. Craig today issued the following statement regarding the decision upholding the constitutionality of the “Affordable Care Act” or so-called “Obamacare” law:
Just because a law is deemed to be constitutional does not mean it is good policy. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court declared what we all know to be true – that Obamacare is a tax on all Americans, and particularly the middle class.
Harford Countians, like all Americans, are tired of ever-increasing taxes at the federal and state levels, ballooning deficits, and the burdening of our children and grandchildren with long-term obligations.
Obamacare represents another step in the unraveling of the personal freedoms that our Founding Fathers fought to preserve. While proponents hail this legislation as providing greater accessibility, the fact is that it provides more access to less – less personal choice, fewer resources, and lower quality care.
The passage of this legislation months ago and today’s court ruling pushes our great nation ever closer to the unsustainable economic policies and flawed healthcare systems of Europe which have contributed greatly to the ongoing economic crisis in that part of the world.
I urge our representatives in Congress to work to repeal and replace this bad law with one that ensures that all Americans can benefit from the finest healthcare system in the world.
Well, well, well Mr. Craig has reaffirmed that he is another Republican bobblehead, just like Andy and Nancy. I was willing to consider Mr. Craig as a possible choice for Gov, but between this and screwing over government employees, he’s lost any hope of getting my vote.
Amen brother (or sister!). The Affordable Care Act is good for Americans. Ironically, the folks it benefits the most are the ones squeeking the loudest. Oh well, I’m used to that by now. Anyway, it’s been a good week for Americans! The Arizona immigration law was ruled unconstitutional (bump), The Affordable Care Act was ruled constititional (set), and come November, President Barack Obama will be re-elected (spike!) Nice game Re-Bubba-Cans! Come back another time when you catch up to the 21st century.
I guess you’d like the government to tell you what to do every day of your life and that the rest of us would have to pay for it. Welcome to socialist America.
Overtaxed: Big Brother is private industry and they influence/tell you what to do and tell others what you did much more than the government ever has or will.
I too am skeptical about this new health care mandate, however, from what I see, no one knows exactly how it will be modified between now and the time it is scheduled to kick in. I’ll take the wait and see attitude on this one. Regardless, we the taxpayers are paying now for those medical indigents w/out health insurance. I am tired of people calling ambulance for a free ride to the ER for a chest cold. I welcome new positive approaches to making health care affordable and hopefully limit costs and fees to regular people.
This was originally pretty much a conservative idea. I basically supported it then and now, probably because I don’t put any stock in our two political parties or their talking points presented by 24-7 News. The Democrats were against it then, and the Republicans are against it now. Too bad political demagogues from both parties can’t stop talking out of the mouth and the other end depending on political wind direction. This is why I am no longer affiliated with either. I will not be supporting our “choice” of any of these “fine” career politicians in November. Please think for yourself and help take our county, state and country back from the control of these very politically motivated individuals. Let’s put them all in to long overdue (elected) political retirement.
So both public and private unions are allowed to opt out? Do you think that would happen if Obamacare was actually a good health care system; of course not. This thing stinks from the start – come on the Cornhusker kickback and not to mention the sweetheart deals in Missouri. You don’t wreck the health care of some to redistribute it to others. Sinks like old socks.
@ Money Tree – The basic idea was fine and still is. If you don’t agree with the conservative ideological origin of the idea, please feel to do some basic research. I would throw all current politicians out of office, ban political parties and start over. I support much smaller and more effective government. I take it you must be a Republican as I have read some of your other posts. Also, your talking points sound more like party jargon from the Republican “news” network not the Democratic one. I myself am an old school, small business conservative and in no present way associated with the politics of the current Republican Party. The politics stink on both sides of the aisle. Each party is equally bottom dwelling in its own unique way. If you read my post above, I think I don’t try to hide my disdain for most political behavior. If you are of the party faithful, you and I will never agree. For my part, I have learned to agree to disagree and move on to more productive discourse. A wise woman once told me, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make her drink.” However, I learned quickly how to spot a stubborn horse which is not even willing to check out the water.
So conservatives are mad because a conservative SCOTUS upheld a conservative idea (mandate which was originated by conservative think thank), which was tested by a conservative governor (Mitt Romney in Massachusetts), and backed by conservatives (because it made people accountable instead of free loading off the system which they hate). Now that a Democrat put their idea into action on a national scale, it’s the end of the world.
Makes sense to me.
I’m just trying to figure out why a lot of organizations that traditionally support the Democratic Party are exempt from this and also why Nancy Pelosi has already secured more exemptions for companies in her state than any other Member of Congress.
If this is so good then let’s require Congress and all Federal workers, all unions, all State and Local government workers, all union workers to be included and not able to get an exemption.
Oh, and it is a tax increase. The Supreme Court decision said so.
SNSD,
Nah, that’s not why I’m mad. I’m mad because the Democrat who put their idea in to action (your words) exempted all of his friends and all of the government fat cats including the Supreme Court plus the entire legislative and executive branch. I’m mad because I want what they have and what they have decided that they will continue to have while at the same time telling us that Obamacare is what is best for us.
This was a gift from Roberts. 21 New Taxes. 12 New Taxes on those earning less than 250K a year. Since it was declared a tax, I guess Obama’s lying AGAIN. Remember the no tax pledge under 250K. Thank you Justice Roberts. With over a 60% disapproval rate this will help propel Romney straight into the oval office. Thanks again.
I dont make enough money for health insurance, and I dont have enough to pay the $2,500.00 fine. So Im hoping that all of you that were for this bill will send me a few bucks so that I dont have the IRS after me.
It’s not a fine, it is a tax. And you know what happens in America if you don’t pay your taxes. Not pretty. My best advice to you is to pay. The last folks in the government you want after you is the IRS.
ALEX: Are you in favor of freeloaders on your policy then? You pay taxes for roads, schools, security and now for health care. I know you’d rather get all this for free, but that’s the breaks bub.
The real freeloaders are the ones who get significantly reduced premiums for their health insurance even though they have very costly medical conditions which cost the insurance companies thousands of dollars. I am young and healthy, why should I pay thousands for insurance that I don’t need just to make it cheaper for the sick people? They are the real freeloaders.
I think you miss the idea of insurance. Do you think you should only buy car insurance after you have an accident? If you are accident free, would you care to pay the same rates as a person who is always in an accident or 16 years old or convicted of DUI?
I understand insurance. Insurance is about making money, not losing money. The way to make money is to pass the cost of losing along to those who are healthy and not having accidents.
Under the new health care law, if I had insurance and became ill, would the insurance company be able to raise my premium? Using the auto insurance example, they would be able to raise my premium or even cancel me. Not so with the health insurance. I can be refused auto insurance if my accident record is bad, not so with health insurance if my health record is bad.
It has been said many times, the only way the new health care law will work is by having lots of healthy people pay into the system. What the law wants is MONEY from the healthy people to pay for the sick people, and leave enough left over for the insurance company to make a profit. Who becomes the real “freeloader” here?
Bear: “…if I had insurance and became ill, would the insurance company be able to raise my premium?… I can be refused auto insurance if my accident record is bad, not so with health insurance if my health record is bad.” But you see before Obamacare the insurance companies can drop you, refuse to pay for your illness and raise premiums. Every insurance policy amortizes costs across population. Your home owners insurance cost reflects hurricane damage in Florida. Maryland residents typically do not have high costs due to hurricanes so you are paying for those that do.
You completely forgot accidents in your little analogy, if you have an accident can you then buy insurance? No, your care would be paid for by people with insurance, thus freeloader. And the costs are staggering: “Health care will cost the typical household roughly $20,000 this year…The United States economy produced more than $14 trillion worth of goods and services last year. About one-sixth of this output went to health care. One-sixth of $14 trillion or so is about $2.4 trillion…This country had 117 million households last year. $2.4 trillion divided by 117 million is about $20,000. That is the average cost of health care for each household.” The number one reason for bankruptcy is health related. Obamacare will lower costs for everyone as well as assure healthier people which will lower the need for care.
Your argument that healthy, young folks should not have to subsidize older American’s health care sounds very selfish and short sighted. You too will grow old someday and, like social security, you will want cheap health care. Do you want to throw Mom under the bus? Every American needs to have health insurance, even freeloaders.
I never said young people should not have to subsidize older people. Young people have been doing that for years. I did say that the intent of the health care mandate is to get money from the young and healthy employed people to offset the cost for the unemployed, old and sick. You are saying the same thing.
The real problem in our society is always reverting to name calling/labels for people who we don’t agree with. We also want to make people feel guilty of something just because they don’t agree with our premise. It is not productive in this forum or our national government, and the reason why is because it is rarely true. It is just a tactic to try and get your way.
Not to fret John. Send a quick E-Mail to President Obama. He will direct you to the nearest social services agency for your insurance subsidy. Best of health to you.
Can you afford to become ill or have a catostrophic health incident? There must be some health care insurance you can afford. If you choose to have cable tv, cell phone with data plan, and other non- essentials, then you can find a way. You don’t have to drive, yet if you do, then you must have auto insurance. If you lack health insurance and get ill, should I and the rest of the Dagger pundits have to pay for you? Just askin’
Why can’t he just wait and buy insurance when he gets sick. The new law eliminates preexisting conditions. Why should he waste his money for all those years/months when he is healthy? Buy it when you need it.
Bear, don’t you understand that freeloaders cost all of us with insurance much more in premiums? If they have an accident, or get sick, they are treated but the cost comes out of OUR premiums. If they have insurance, the cost of our insurance goes down. Insurance companies DO NOT lose money. The cost of care must be paid for by someone and I think freeloaders should pay as well.
If I get sick the new law says I can buy insurance at that time. Can’t be refused for preexisting condition. How does that make me a freeloader?
All those sick people want me to help lower their health care costs by taking money away from healthy people.
Andy Harris promising to deliver any form of common sense legislation is like CNN/Fox News promising to deliver accurate news reports.
Health care for all Americans? Not according to Dutch Ruppersberger who specifically said in an interview yesterday afternoon that there “will always be people without health care”. And he was speaking specifically of Americans.
To Barbara Mikulski: If this was Democracy, then American citizens would have been given the opportunity to vote on it.
That is rigght it is a republic. The people you elect represent you in the body that makes these decisions.
“The well fed does not understand the lean.”
In this great country we already have a failing, fragmented healthcare system. We are already paying more than ever for the uninsured though higher insurance premiums, increased costs to Medicaid, Medicare, and lost wages. Yes,most uninsured people work. Common sense would dictate that prevention is less costly than full blown illnesses. Just as recently as 2006, Medicare would cover a stay in the hospital, rehab care, home health care but not cover the prescription that may have prevented the stroke. Yes, parts of the law stink but our representatives (both parties) have perverted the basic premise to further their own agendas.
Let the back door dealing begin.
Roberts actually got this one right. If the fed govt can tax you for FICA, why can’t it tax you for health care? I don’t see how this law would ever be unconstitutional. In fact, I would think most conservatives would approve of a law that forces free loaders (who choose to go without health care and have the rest of us pay for their emergency room stay) and have them pay a tax in-lieu of health coverage.
No, Roberts blew it; and the choice of wording in the dissent gives very strong suggestion that the right decision had the majority before Roberts flipped (or more accurately, flopped). Here’s the reason: If Congress sold the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause, and not the power to tax, who is SCOTUS to revise the law? That’s not interpreting law, that’s MAKING law — and making law is NOT in the Supreme Court’s authority!!
Because during the first day of arguments, the gov’t lawyer argued that it was a tax, in order to try and get the SCOTUS to try and delay hearing the case until after it was implemented.
I didn’t hear anyone complain when the Supreme Court crowned Bush as president. They had no business interfering with an election. That is a state’s right.
When the Govt. taxes you for FICA it is taxing you for something that you received, income. Under the health care act, the Govt. is taxing you for something you did not receive, health insurance. Now our Govt. can tax you for both what you get and what you don’t get. Pretty cool huh? And they don’t even have to call it a tax!
Mike, FICA is for FUTURE payments (if you live to collect) as is the ACA, a future based item. I pay FICA/SS (actually both parts since I am Self Employed). I won’t collect until retirement. Health care will be used by almost everyone in the country at some point in their lives.
Joe,
Yes, I understand FICA is for future payment. You would not pay FICA unless you received wages or were self employed. You would not pay into medicare unless you received wages or were self employed. Both of these taxes are based on something you have received. The ACA mandate tax is based on something you do not receive. Simply put, you must now pay a tax for something you did not buy, and something that the government can not compel you to buy, so says the SCOTUS.
It is about time we get freeloaders off of my healthcare policy and require them to get their own, but I guess the tea party likes freeloaders. Since people want to talk about saving money, let’s start by cutting over two trillion dollars in corporate welfare:
Two trillion dollars. Here is some of the pork you tea party people steal from the middle class and give to the 1%.
Big Oil and Big Gas Tax Breaks
2011-2015 savings: $80 billion Big Oil has made almost $855 billion in profits in the past decade. There is no need to give such a profitable industry a tax break.
Deferral of Taxes on Income of U.S.-Controlled Corporations Abroad
2011-2015 savings: $199 billion Encourages off-shoring of work and capital.
Accelerated Depreciation on Equipment
2011-2015 savings: $141 billion Accelerated depreciation can result in a very low, or even negative, tax rate on profits from a particular investment.
Deduction for Domestic Manufacturing
2011-2015 savings: $76.7 billion Provides virtually no benefit to the economy and is blatant corporate welfare.
Last-In, First-Out Accounting (LIFO)
2011-2015 savings: $24.2 billion Corporations use LIFO to hide their true profits.
Cut Subsidies to Big Agribusiness
2011-2020 savings: $52 billion Small farms are disappearing while big agri-business racks up huge profits—with corporate welfare support.
Permit Government to Negotiate Drug Prices for Medicare.
Savings 2012-2021: $157.9 billion. Barring government involvement is an indirect corporate subsidy.
End Tax Breaks For Drug Companies.
2011-2020 savings: $50 billion Stops a $5 billion-a year annual tax break for direct-to-consumer advertising. We should pay for drug companies to market to us?
Enact A Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee.
2012-2021 Savings: $70.9 billion Imposed on largest banks as a repayment of corporate welfare extended via bank bailouts for financial crisis precipitated by banks.
Enact a Derivatives and Speculation Tax.
2012-2022 savings: $650 billion Wall Street receives indirect corporate welfare/subsidies via a regulatory system and infrastructure investment for which it pays virtually nothing. A very tiny transactions tax will end the corporate welfare.
Cut Military Budget
2011-2020 Savings: $550 billion weapons research, development, and procurement activities…“now routinely cost taxpayers over $200 billion a year. Procurement costs are up 110% in real terms since 2000. Setting aside war-related expenditures, DoD “peacetime” spending on research, development, and procurement has increased 75% in real terms.” This focuses only on the Task Force’s cuts that reasonably have a “corporate welfare” component, primarily weapons systems that don’t work and/or aren’t needed to fight an enemy that does not exist.
Even if some of these expenses are not cut, the money the GOP/Tea Party steals from the middle class pales next to the $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs in 2006.
Why did a Democrat controlled congress (both house and senate) along with a Democrat President permit this to continue through the years 2009 and 2010? Why didn’t they stop all of the stealing you’re talking about? Are they also thieves?
PTBL,
Mike Walsh asks a great question. When deficits were going thru the roof under Obama and a Democratic controlled House and Senate why did your party not stop any of the stuff you listed? Obama could have made a great case to the nation that in the face of extraordinary deficits all of the stuff you listed had to be discontinued or at least curtailed. He and the Congress allowed it to continue. All of it. Why? They are your guys and you continue to support them. Are you so out of touch that even the Dem/Libs won’t implement your ideas?
ALEX: I notice you don’t deny any of the facts I presented. As far as a Democratic congress, one needs 60 Senators for that and we did not have it. BTW John Roberts sends his regards.
Likewise. Don’t give me that 60 votes crap. They didn’t even try to pass anything and you know it. Why? Let me give you a clue. Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was busy taking care of their buddies on Wall Street and in corporate America, and Holder was too busy to actually indict or try any of them. I wouldn’t speculate what he was doing but it wasn’t his job. If Obama had put half of the efoort in to the stuff you mention that he pout in to ramming health care down the throat of Americans, 70% OF WHOM DO NOT WANT IT,
70% is a figure conjured up by Fox. Most Americans do want healthcare. The only thing that will happen to those red states that turn down Affordable Healthcare is they will be voted out of office when the population sees how they are being screwed by the GOP/Tea Party. That would be a good thing.
CNN and MSNBC also acknowledge that a majority of Americans do not favor the present health care reform. While certain parts of the act are favored, many of the parts are not liked by a majority of the citizens.
This has become a talking point regarding the current campaign speak. The Dems are repeating over and over that it is time to move forward (speak for we don’t want to talk about this because we know the numbers are not in our favor) and the Repubs want to talk about repealing the act by electing members of their party as the only way to overturn the act.
. . . . then something would have gotten accomplished.
nice cut-n-paste from democrats.com. Yet you criticize others on this board for “just spewing” what’s on fox and not having original thoughts..
Anyway, my questions for lefts, middles, and rights is this: please define for me the exact range of income “poor” people have, “middle class” have and “rich” people have?
Thanks for the input
No mention of your president who has doubled our debt in a few short years?
You mean George W?
No. He means the President and US Congress for the years 2009 and 2010. As you said, they were all thieves. They stole from the citizens to support their buddies.
MIKE: Perhaps they both are guilty, but the GOP party are the ones who send middle class money to the 1% as a matter of policy:”All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
As Warren Buffett has said, the billionaires are winning.
The reason the debt has increased is that a government needs revenue to operate and since the GOP/Tea Party is only concerned with the 1% billionaires not pay their fair share, we must borrow. I guess you feel the Romney, and his billionaire pals, should only pay 13.1% in taxes? I agree that Tim has been a failure.
Proud,
President Obama, his entire staff, and all of the Demo talking heads on TV are bragging about the huge tax break that has been given to the middle class in the past three years. They repeat time and again that President Obama has given the largest tax break in history to the middle class, and for that reason he should be reelected. You would have us believe that just raising the tax rate on the wealthiest 1% of Americans would solve the problem.
I agree, not having enough revenue to match spending causes debt. Two things need to happen. First, reduce spending, and second increase revenue. Enough of the political crap and class warfare! Get to work and solve the problem!
Mike: The reduction in spending was enumerated in my post on the loopholes given to big businesses (by both parties.)
You wrote “Mike: The reduction in spending was enumerated in my post on the loopholes given to big businesses (by both parties.)”
Then please stop swinging the club at one party.
TAXPAYER: However the score for tax loopholes is nearly GOP-90% and Dem-10%. While they both are guilty, the GOP has most of the blame.
PRBL wrote “TAXPAYER: However the score for tax loopholes is nearly GOP-90% and Dem-10%. While they both are guilty, the GOP has most of the blame.”
Both parties have had control of Congress and the White House and have had the opportunity to eliminate loopholes. Neither wanted to until they were out of power and could point the finger at the other. Both share the responsiblity equally.
Until this country decides to restrain the federal government, we will be racing towards a financial cliff. Instead of solving problems, they just keep ‘kicking the can down the road’ (a line Obama used many times during his 2008 campaign, seems to be forgotten now).
Mike,
The government has enough money to operate, more than enough. It just doesn’t have all that it wants. And it never will have all that it wants. What we lack in government is the willingness to actually operate within the revenue being received. That takes discipline and some amount of hard work. Plus the willingness to make difficult decisions. The government is receiving record levels of income from taxes, fees, fines, etc. The government will never be satisfied, thus we have a growing population that believe we are paying enough taxes and now realize that the only way to make the government operate responsibly is to say ‘not another dime for anything, use what you have’. The response from the elected class is ‘but we will have to cut fire and police and teachers and trash collection and defense and all of that.’ My response to them is ‘if that’s what you think you have to do, then go ahead and let’s see if you are still in office next term.’
Alex R,
If we continue to spend what we receive in revenue then we will never be able to reduce the debt, only the annual deficit. Debt reduction occurs only when we have money to pay towards it over and above program spending.
Like when Clinton was president. He left a surplus which the GOP poured down a rat’s hole of a war off the books.
Good old Bill. What a guy. Paula Jones sends her regards. Her lip is pretty much healed.
ALEX: You always throw in some personal attack that has nothing whatever to do with the discussion to show you have nothing to add to the discussion. This only shows the bankruptcy of your arguments. Bad form.
Please rememeber the budgets Clinton submitted prior to the GOP takeover in the first mid-terms had high deficits for the next five years (as long as his budget projected). It was the swing of the electorate to the right and a GOP Congress that restrained him.
Hey Proud,
“Like when Clinton was president. He left a surplus which the GOP poured down a rat’s hole of a war off the books.” – During Clinton’s term in office, the Republicans controlled both houses from 95 through 2001, the times with the surplus that you credit Clinton. Now, it is much more complicated then just to say the President controls the budget because, in reality, Congress actually controls much more than the president. So, basically, The Republican controlled congress had the surplus until 2001, when the Senate became 50/50, and the tie going to the VP; though the House was still controlled by the Republicans. However, to be fair, it is both of the major parties that spend far too much.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Correct. They both spend to much. Both parties allege they want to spend less, however where to cut becomes political warfare. A significant problem arises when each party, accustomed to essentially buying votes through various programs now need to consider cut backs in those programs. What a bunch of zeros on both sides of the political spectrum!
Sorry, PTBL. It is just that he is such an easy target.
And the assertion that he actually would have had any surplus had it not been for an opposition Congress is laughable. And also not supported by any facts.