Last night in Oakland …Justin Ruben, MoveOn.org Civic Action

Last night, Scott Olsen, a Marine who served two tours in Iraq, was struck in the head by a “nonlethal” projectile fired by the Oakland police. The round fractured his skull, leaving him in critical condition.¹

Olsen had joined with other members of Occupy Oakland to peacefully protest the group’s eviction that morning.When a group gathered to help Olsen after he was hit, a police officer threw a flash bang grenade into the group from a few feet away.

Deeply disturbing video of the incident was captured by a local news crew and provides the clearest evidence yet of the lengths that authorities will go to to stop Occupy protesters from voicing uncomfortable truths about our economy.

Yesterday’s eviction in the predawn hours², and last night’s violence against protesters, are only the latest attempts to silence the voices of those who are speaking up for the 99%. But members of Occupy Oakland, who faced the most brutal crackdown yet, refuse to be intimidated. They’ve called for another peaceful gathering tonight to stand up for their First Amendment rights.³

To help defend their rights, we’re scrambling to put together a rapid response ad to run in Oakland urging the mayor and the police to end their brutal tactics and respect the protesters’ rights. We want to make sure everyone in Oakland sees the footage of the crackdown for themselves. Every dollar we raise will go to pay for the ad, and if there’s anything left over, we’ll donate it to a group doing good work helping our veterans as they come home from war.

Click here to chip in.

We’re also supporting a petition by a local Oakland group—Causa Justa :: Just Cause—to Oakland’s mayor to stop the police repression of Occupy Oakland.

Click here to sign the petition to Oakland’s mayor.

Many MoveOn members experienced the police crackdown firsthand last night. Here’s what some of them said:

The police were intimidating and I have been to many protests in my life, but nothing quite like this. I have never seen such a police presence with such force, especially for a calm crowd. The tear gas was pretty brutal, it is still on my clothes and skin this morning. Anywhere in downtown Oakland had the smell and sting of the gas all night.  —Gina W.

We talked to the police across the barricades about how we were also fighting for them, for their children’s shot to education without lifelong debt, for the preservation of their collective bargaining rights. We expressed this solidarity knowing that they might not be listening, but we also know that the reasons for not listening are deeply personal…  —Julie K.

As a retired military man, I wanted to reiterate what [I heard] the Marine Sgt espousing to the police: There is NO honor in brutalizing your own people. The tear gas stung but I have been exposed to worse, including Agent Orange. What I saw at Ogawa Plaza made me extremely proud of those brave souls that were passionate about their causes. As we say in the Marine Corp and Navy…BRAVO ZULU.—Pete H.

Thanks for all you do.

–Justin, Marika, Anna, Laura, and the rest of the team

P.S. Many occupations are gathering at 9 p.m. ET/6 p.m. PT to stand in solidarity with Occupy Oakland. To find an occupation near you and see if they’ll be gathering, go to
http://www.occupytogether.org/

Sources:

1. “Occupy Oakland protests—live coverage,” The Guardian, October 26, 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=266171&id=32340-17809870-zIalS8x&t=4

2. “Police tear gas Occupy Oakland protesters,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 2011

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=266172&id=32340-17809870-zIalS8x&t=5

3. Occupy Oakland, accessed October 26, 2011

http://www.occupyoakland.org/

Media Matters for America … 10/25 -27th

“The Most Exciting Tax Plan Since Reagan‘s”: Right-Wing Media Tout Perry’s Flat Tax http://mediamatters.org/research/201110260001 Following the release of Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry‘s (R-TX) tax plan, conservative media have hyped the plan, claiming it is “exciting” and a “radical improvement” over the current system. However, economists from across the spectrum have criticized Perry’s plan, noting that it will lead to “substantial” revenue loss and “draconian cuts” while “undermin[ing]” the need to make the tax code simpler. Conservative Media Hype Rick Perry’s Tax Plan As “A Radical Improvement” Weekly Standard‘s Steve Hayes: Perry’s Plan Is “Very Strong” And “Has A Lot Of Very Appealing Pro-Growth Aspects To It.” From the October 25 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier: BAIER: OK, Steve, thoughts on this plan and the rollout? HAYES: Very strong. I like the plan a lot. I think it has a lot of very appealing pro-growth aspects to it. I particularly like the 20 percent tax. There have been already complaints that this is too complicated, that the phase-in or the opt-in and opt-out will make things too complicated. I think that’s nonsense. You have basically the option for people to choose whether they want to pay higher taxes. Who’s going to choose whether to pay higher taxes? [Fox News, Special Report,10/25/11] Steve Forbes: Perry’s Tax Reform Proposal Is “The Most Exciting Tax Plan Since Reagan’s.” An October 20 Yahoo News article reported that Steve Forbes stated that he “helped devise Perry’s plan” and heaped lavish praise on that plan. From the article: Steve Forbes, whose flat tax plan helped make him an unlikely contender for the Republican presidential nomination 15 years ago, is praising a new version of the idea from Rick Perry. And Forbes, who says he helped devise Perry’s plan, left little doubt that he’ll formally back the Texas governor before long. In an interview with Yahoo News, Forbes called Perry’s proposal, announced in a speech Wednesday, “the most exciting tax plan since Reagan’s,” in 1980. Asked whether that included his own 1996 plan, Forbes said it did, because unlike him in 1996, when he fell short of upsetting front-runner Bob Dole, Perry “is going to win.” Forbes, the chief executive of his family’s eponymous publishing empire, said the Perry camp reached out to him for help in crafting their plan. “We got into discussions of basic principles–how the thing might be shaped,” he said. “The candidate concluded it ought be a simple rate. Make it as simple and bold as possible.” [...] Asked whether the Perry plan would immediately raise as much tax revenue as the current system, Forbes did not answer directly. But he said that in the long-run, it would increase revenue, by spurring economic growth. Many on the left argue that a flat tax would increase the tax burden on the poor, while easing the load on wealthier Americans.  Forbes dismissed those concerns. “It’s gonna be good for all taxpayers,” he said. [Yahoo News, 10/20/11] Forbes Reiterated His Support On Fox: The Flat Tax Is “A Tax Cut For Most People, Not A Tax     Increase.” [Fox News, America Live, 10/25/11, via Media Matters] Big Government‘s Dan Mitchell: Perry’s Plan Has “Some Missing Homework, But [Is] A Solid B+” And “A Radical Improvement Compared To The Current Tax System.” In an October 25 post on Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com headlined “Grading Perry’s Flat Tax: Some Missing Homework, But A Solid B+,” contributor and Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell wrote: As a long-time advocate of a pure flat tax, I’m not happy that Perry has deviated from the ideal approach. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the very good. If implemented, his plan would dramatically boost economic performance and improve competitiveness. [...] Depending on the answers to these questions, the grade for Perry’s flat tax could be as high as A- or as low as B. Regardless, it will be a radical improvement compared to the current tax system, which gets a D- (and that’s a very kind grade). [Big Government, 10/25/11] Hoft Hypes Perry’s Tax Plan. From an October 24 post on Jim Hoft’s Gateway Pundit blog: Governor Rick Perry unveiled his 20% flat tax and spending plan tonight. The plan will give individuals the option of paying a 20% flat-rate income tax. It will also cap federal spending at 18% of GDP. Another selling point – the simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs. Sounds good. Steve Forbes was impressed. He endorsed the plan on Monday. [Gateway Pundit, 10/24/11, emphasis original] However, Experts Describe The Plan As “Delusional” And Claim It Will Lead To “Draconian Cuts” And “Substantial” Revenue Loss Syracuse University Economics Professor: Perry’s Plan Is “Delusional Policy” And “The Race To The Bottom On Tax Policy Is Getting Scary.” In an October 25 post on Forbes magazine’s website titled “Perry Optional Alternative Flat Tax — Good Politics, Delusional Policy,” Len Burman, Professor of Practice, Public Administration and Economics at Syracuse University, wrote: Here’s a quick note on Perry’s actual plan, as outlined in his Wall Street Journal op ed today. Yesterday, I noted that a flat tax would be regressive and potentially raise taxes on low- and middle-income people. I was assuming, erroneously as it turns out, that Perry’s plan would be designed to raise at least as much revenue as current law. But it would actually amount to a giant tax cut. Here’s what he said in the WSJ: The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents. The plan is optional, meaning that low- and middle-income families that benefit from refundable credits will stay in the current system.  High-income taxpayers will jump at the chance to avoid paying tax on interest, dividends, capital gains, rents, royalties, and other capital income. That is a large share of their income, and it would be exempt under Perry’s plan. And the 20% rate is much lower than the current top rate of 35%. And, moderately well off people get to keep the most popular deductions. The idea of an optional alternative tax system is not new. John McCain proposed one in 2008 and it would have added $7 trillion to the debt over a decade. It’s virtually always true that if you offer taxpayers a choice, it will cost the Treasury money. I have no idea how big a tax cut Perry’s plan is, but there’s no way this plan will come close to raising 18% of GDP (Perry’s spending target) unless there are hidden revenue raisers that I missed. The idea of adding to our enormous deficits to provide giant tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires just blows my mind. And, by the way, an optional alternative tax system is not simple. Millions of middle-income taxpayers will have to figure their taxes two ways to figure out which plan is better for them. Will it be called the Alternative Maximum Tax? The race to the bottom on tax policy is getting scary. [Forbes.com, 10/25/11] CBPP: Perry’s Plan Would Require “A Dismantling Of Federal Programs” And “Draconian Cuts In Virtually Every Kind Of Spending.” From a New York Times article headlined “Perry Calls His Flat Tax Proposal ‘Bold Reform’ “: Gov. Rick Perry of Texas unveiled a plan on Tuesday to scrap the graduated income tax and replace it with a 20 percent flat rate. By throwing out  rates as high as 35 percent and eliminating estate and investment taxes, the plan would grant a major tax cut for the wealthy. [...] The plan also proposes reducing the scope of the federal government by requiring drastically austere federal budgets — compared with what exists now — that spend no more than 18 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, which analysts said would most likely force big cuts in government spending at almost every level. That would equate to a cut of one-quarter of the budget from 2011 expected levels, and it would mark the lowest level of spending relative to G.D.P. since the mid-1960s, though rising tax receipts during the roaring economy of a dozen years ago temporarily brought the level close to 18 percent. To address the projected long-term financial shortfall within Social Security, Mr. Perry suggested raising the retirement age and potentially changing the age eligibility for Medicare and using a sliding scale to limit benefits based on income — two proposals that could face significant opposition in Congress. Mr. Perry, who said his plan would balance the budget by 2020, also proposed letting younger workers divert some of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts, a longtime goal of economic conservatives. Analysts said it would take time to examine the effects of the Perry plan. But Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said: “There are two things we can say with certainty: It will lower revenue and be a great benefit to the wealthy.” He said the poor who have children would most likely do better under the current system, because refundable tax credits provide some with net payments from the government. But Mr. Williams said it was unclear how many among the middle class would benefit — though families with more children or bigger mortgages would be more likely to opt for his proposal. Mr. Perry pledged to not cut any benefits of current Social Security retirees or those about to tap into the system. But to do that, and cut the budget to 18 percent of G.D.P., would require cutting at least one-third of the remaining federal budget, said James R. Horney, the vice president for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group in Washington. It would require “a dismantling of federal programs,” Mr. Horney said, and “draconian cuts in virtually every kind of spending.” [The New York Times, 10/25/11] Brookings Senior Fellow: Perry’s Plan “Undermines” The Idea That The Tax Code Should Be Made Simpler While Leading To A ” ‘Substantial’ Decrease In Revenues.” From a CBSNews.com article: Perry is offering taxpayers two choices — either stick with the current tax system or opt into a new system in which they pay a 20 percent flat income tax. That incentivizes those who would pay less under the current system to stick with it, and those who would pay less under the flat tax plan — largely Americans on the upper end of the income scale – to opt for the new plan. That would add up to a “substantial” decrease in revenues, says Ted Gayer, the co-director of the Economic Studies program and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Perry has yet to lay out all the specifics of the plan, which makes it difficult to estimate its full impact. But “it’s clearly going to be a reduction in revenues, I think fairly substantial,” said Gayer. Many conservative Republicans want to reduce the role of government in society in part by starving it of funds. [...] What Perry’s plan boils down to is a tax cut for the highest-income Americans, who currently pay a top marginal income tax rate of 35 percent, and no tax change for those who don’t opt for the new system. Perry argues that his plan simplifies the tax code, saying Tuesday that taxpayers will simply need to fill out a postcard to file their taxes. But since they will need to decide between the old system and the new one, it won’t be quite so simple for many Americans. “It kind of undermines the whole we’re making your taxes simpler argument, because you still have to go through both systems to see which one is best for you,” said Gayer. Perry vowed to balance the budget by 2020 and cap on federal spending at no more than 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Under current policy forecasts, the United States will be spending 26 percent of GDP in 2020 and 34 percent of GDP by 2035. Perry would need to dramatically slash federal spending to meet his 18 percent goal. [CBSNews.com,10/25/11] Even Conservative Economists Have Called Perry’s Plan “Fiscally Irresponsible” And “A Disaster” Economist Peter Morici: “Rick Perry’s Tax Plan Would Be A Disaster For America.” In a post on FoxNews.com, Peter Morici, Professor of Logistics, Business and Public Policy at the University of Maryland, wrote: Seeking to jump start his flagging presidential campaign and establish his pro-growth and fiscal responsibility credentials, Governor Rick Perry is unveiling a tax plan that will not jump start the economy and is fiscally irresponsible. In a nutshell, Mr. Perry would give taxpayers a choice between filing under the current income tax system– with all its flaws — and an alternative flat tax 20 percent system. Under the latter, families could maintain their mortgage deductions if they earn less than $500,000, which is about 99 percent of taxpayers, and could declare exemptions of $12,500 for each family member. It seems appealing — a simplified tax system, fewer IRS agents, and so forth. But the plan falls short in two important respects — it won’t encourage many better investment decisions and foster growth, and it will spin the federal deficit permanently into the stratosphere. The whole purpose of a flat tax is to encourage individuals and corporations to invest more in sound business opportunities, instead of prospecting for tax breaks by buying homes bigger than they need or spending on government hobby horse projects like solar panels. By giving tax payers the option of filing under the old system, however, the Perry plan  will encourage the wealthy and near-wealthy to continue prospecting for loopholes and credit. Most of those folks don’t pay 20 percent now, so don’t count on them to volunteer for Mr. Perry’s plan. [...] With less revenue in hand, Gov. Perry proposes slashing government spending to 18 percent of GDP–that would require $900 billion in annual spending cuts, when the Congress is having trouble agreeing on an additional $100 billion. Such cuts are possible by increasing the retirement age to 70 and slashing Medicare and Medicare spending and gutting the defense budget. If Gov. Perry wants to slash taxes that’s fine but let’s go to a real flat tax. Let Gov. Perry tell Americans how he is going to tame the monster that ate Washington–created through escalating health care spending–and rationalize social security and defense spending. [FoxNews.com,10/25/11] Former Chief Economist For House Committee: “Perry’s Plan Would Preserve Crony Capitalist Tax Code.” In an October 25 blog post titled “Perry’s plan would preserve crony capitalist tax code,” Alex Brill, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former chief economist for the House Ways and Means Committee, wrote: Governor Perry’s new proposal for an optional pro-growth tax code will do little for our economy while increasing the complexity of the tax code. A flat rate income tax would lead to positive economic growth, but making it optional as Governor Perry has proposed preserves the opportunities for “crony capitalism” and other existing distortions in the code. This is because an optional flat tax is only appealing to those taxpayers who see it as a tax cut. Taxpayers who can reduce their tax liability by exploiting an existing tax break will do just that. In other words, an optional flat tax is appealing only to those who can’t get a good break elsewhere in the code. In one sense, an optional flat tax is the polar opposite of the AMT: a mandatory, parallel tax system that hits those taxpayers who are “too effective” at lowering their tax burden. But in another sense, it’s quite similar: yet another tax code. [American Enterprise Institute, The Enterprise Blog, 10/25/11] AEI “Resident Scholar”: Perry’s “Optional Tax Code Worse Than A Gimmick.” In an October 25 blog post titled “Optional tax code worse than a gimmick,” Andrew Briggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote: Jim Pethokoukis points out what he calls a “gimmick” in Governor Rick Perry’s proposed flat tax plan: taxpayers would get the choice to file under the current tax code or under the new flat tax plan. While I agree that this is a bit silly from a policy point of view, the problems go deeper than that. Why? Well, the flat tax is supposed to do three things: raise sufficient revenue, reduce compliance costs, and reduce economic distortions. But if you can choose which tax code to file under then, to a first approximation, people will choose whichever costs them the least. In theory at least, to raise the same revenue in a static analysis the flat tax would have to be set such that no one could pay lower taxes than under current law, since if they could pay lower taxes they will pay lower taxes. It’s easy to respond that people would choose the flat tax for its simplicity even if it costs them more, but they can already have a simple tax code under current law: just don’t bother hunting down all your deductions. The same goes for compliance costs: to know which tax code to file under you need to do your taxes under both, undermining the simplicity of the flat tax. One of the reasons compliance costs are so high today is that there can be such a reward for figuring out strategies to minimize your taxes; it’s not clear that Perry’s flat tax fixes this problem. And finally, if people have the option of filing under the current tax code then all the economic distortions embedded in it will remain, at least for that significant portion of the population who would do better under current law than the flat tax. A person may say to himself, “I can pay lower taxes than under the flat tax plan so long as I [insert governmentally imposed distortion here].” Marginal tax rates for high earners would be lower, reducing economic distortions, but it’s unclear where you’ll make up the revenue if low and middle earners get to file under current law where they pay next to nothing. [American Enterprise Institute, The Enterprise Blog, 10/25/11] AEI’s Director Of Economic Policy Studies: Under Perry’s Plan Government Would Have To Drastically Slash Spending. From the Associated Press: By design, Perry’s plan “must lose revenue” for the government, said Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute. To avoid higher deficits, Hassett said, the government would have to slash spending in ways not seen since the steep military drawdown after World War II. [Associated Press, 10/25/11, via ABCNews.com] Contact: Special Report with Bret Baier http://twitter.com/specialreport Contact: Fox News Channel FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 http://twitter.com/foxnews

Fox Revives Myth That “America Is A Center-Right Country” http://mediamatters.org/research/201110260024 This year, Fox has continued to push the right-wing talking point that “America is a center-right country.” In fact, on issue after issue, polls are clear that Americans favor progressive policies. Fox Again Claims America Is “Center-Right” Doug Schoen: “America Is A Center-Right Country.” On the October 19 edition of America Live, Fox News contributor Doug Schoen said: SCHOEN: America is a center-right country, Megyn. Forty percent of America are conservatives, 36 are moderates, 20 percent are liberals, and if the Democrats throw in so closely with a group whose values are inimical to those of swing voters, I think that they will be dangerously out of step with the broad base of American opinion, which, after all, the congressional elections rebutted and refuted the Obama policies and endorsed small government. [Fox News, America Live, 10/19/11] Brit Hume: Obama Advisers Were Wrong To Declare That America “Was No Longer A Center-Right Country.” On Fox News’ Special Report, senior political analyst Brit Hume stated: HUME: For an incumbent president seeking re-election to say publicly that people are not better off than they were before he took off is to say the least unorthodox. Voters are not in the habit of returning to office president who admit that things got worse on their watch. But one begins to suspect that the president and his political advisers are not the wizards they’ve once seen, recalled right after Mr. Obama’s election, David Plouffe, his senior political strategist then and now declared that America was no longer a center right country but had turned center left. You might think that he and the president would have changed their minds after the historic repudiation they and their party received in the midterm election. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 10/4/11, via Nexis] Bernie Goldberg: “America Is A Center-Right Country.” On Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, discussing why Fox News is “now dominating the information flow in America,” Fox News media analyst Bernie Goldberg said to host Bill O’Reilly: GOLDBERG: Well, it’s — let me tell you — let me — this is my take on it. America is a center-right country. Fox tilts to the right. Every single person, if not literally 99.9 percent of the people watching us right now, used to, before Fox, watch the evening news at CBS, NBC, or ABC. They came over to Fox. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 9/27/11] Fox Hosted Andrew Breitbart To Claim That “We’re A Center-Right Nation.” On Fox Business, David Asman hosted right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart to claim that the United States has a “2-1 ratio of conservatives to liberals.” From the broadcast: ASMAN: There was a narrative you don’t remember, but I do. I was there in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was running for president, and the narrative back then from the entire media was that if Reagan is elected, we’ll be at war with the Soviets in a couple of months. The economy, as bad as it was back then, is going to be much worse. And this was with no Fox News, no Rush, no Internet, no Breitbart. And yet, the American public didn’t buy it. All of the media and all of the — the conservative media and the fair and balanced media didn’t exist back then. But despite that, the American people went against the mainstream media. So how do you account for that? BREITBART: Well, look — well, first of all, we’re a center-right nation that’s — and the media’s controlled by the people on the elite coasts. So they — the way that the minority in this country — and according to Gallup, we’re still a 2-to-1 ratio of conservatives to liberals. Yet, we have these squeakers every election cycle. They’re squeakers and it’s 50-50, it’s so close, because of the media being able to frame who the good guys and who the bad guys are. [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 8/24/11] Laura Ingraham Suggested “Most Of The Country Is A Little Bit More Conservative” Than The Media. From the August 15 edition of The O’Reilly Factor: INGRAHAM: [W]hat politician out there today would pass your litmus test on your point. That’s a legitimate point that you just made. You know, speak the same way to every person. GOLDBERG: Not many. INGRAHAM: Who in the Republican field would pass that litmus test? GOLDBERG: Not many. I acknowledge that. INGRAHAM: The point is, the questions always go one way, right, the media they are not going to ask questions from another point of view when, you know, when probably most of the country is a little bit more conservative on some of these social issues than the media. But they are not going to ask the questions the other way around, right. They are always going to put — try to put the conservative in the box by asking them these questions, oh, you are a hateful person. You are not a nice person or whatever. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 8/15/11, via Nexis] Fox Panelist Charles Krauthammer: America “Has Remained” Center-Right “For Over Four Decades.” On his show, O’Reilly argued that the media “will all be trying to get President Obama re-elected.” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer replied: KRAUTHAMMER: You’ve got to remember this: The left, the Democrats always have the press on their side. They’ve had it for 40 years. Nonetheless, the Republicans have won the presidency seven out of the last 11 elections. And that’s because what Republicans have, what conservatives have is the country, which is a center-right country, has remained so almost unchangingly for four decades. So what the media bias does is it slightly — it gives an advantage. It’s a major advantage, but it’s undoing the deficit that Democrats and liberals already have, because it’s a country that is not essentially conducive to a liberal message. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 5/24/11] Bill O’Reilly: “We Are A Center-Right Nation.” Claiming that The New York Times “is crushed” and is “lamenting, wailing their guy is not doing the liberal thing,” O’Reilly asserted: “If Obamacare is thrown out, the left will have pretty much lost everything. The why behind all of this is that President Obama badly underestimated the American public. We are a center-right nation.” [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 4/5/11] The Majority Of Americans Are Progressive On Issues Ranging From The Economy… Major National Polls Show That Americans Believe We Need To Raise Taxes. In a September 19 post on the Capital Gains And Games blog, Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Bartlett wrote: I have previously posted a table showing that people support raising taxes as part of deficit reduction by a 2-to-1 margin over the Grover Norquist/Club for Growth/Tea Party position that the deficit must be reduced only by spending cuts without a penny of higher taxes. In light of President Obama’s new budget plan, which includes higher taxes, I am posting an updated table, including a poll on Friday showing that three-fourths of people support higher taxes and only 21 percent support the doctrinaire right-wing position. [Capital Gains And Games, 9/19/11] Gallup: 70 Percent Of Americans Want To End Wasteful Tax Giveaways To Corporations. In a recent Gallup poll, 70 percent of respondents favored “increasing taxes on some corporations by eliminating certain tax deductions.” [Gallup, 9/20/11] Three Out of Four Voters Support Tax Increases On Oil And Gas Companies, Private Jet Owners, And The Wealthy.In a July CNN poll, 73 percent of those questioned, supported “increasing the taxes paid by oil and gas companies” and “people who make more than $250,000/yr.” Seventy-six percent supported increasing taxes “paid by businesses that own private jets.” [CNN, 7/21/11] Nearly Three-Fourths Of Americans Disapprove Of GOP’s Handling Of Default Crisis. Following this summer’s debt crisis, a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 72 percent of Americans disapproved of congressional Republicans’ handling of the issue. [CBS News/The New York Times, 8/4/11] Time: Americans Agree With Occupy Wall Street Movement. A Timepoll from this month found that among Americans familiar with the Occupy Wall Street movement, 79 percent agree that “the gap between the rich and poor in the U.S. has grown too large,” and 86 percent agree that “Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.” [Time, 10/13/11] To Education… Committee for Education Funding: Polls Show Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Education Cuts. In March, the Committee For Education Funding reported: “Results from nine different public opinion polls since January make clear that the American public strongly opposes cutting federal spending for education programs for both K12 and higher education.” From Bloomberg News: A March 2011 Bloomberg National News poll found that by an almost four to one margin (77-21 percent) the public opposes proposals to “significantly cut education programs, including No Child Left Behind, Head Start, and subsidies for college loans”. [Committee for Education Funding, 3/11] To Public Workers And Labor Issues… CNN: Three Out Of Four Americans Support Using Federal Funds To Hire More Public Workers. In a September CNN Poll, 74 percent of respondents said they favored “providing federal money to state governments to allow them to hire teachers and first responders.” [CNN, 9/14/11] Gallup: A Majority Of The Public Supports Unions And Public Employees. From Gallup: [Gallup, 8/31/11] Wash. Post On Wisconsin Labor Dispute: “The Verdict Is Clear: Americans Support Public Employees In This Standoff.”In a March 2 post, The Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent reported on the public’s consistent support of public employee bargaining rights: Indeed, the verdict is clear: Americans support public employees in this standoff. Whether that will impact the outcome of the fight, of course, remains to be seen. But the bigger story here — one that will ripple far beyond what happens in Wisconsin — is that public employees are not proving the easy scapegoat many predicted they would be, and when faced with the question of whether their fundamental union rights should be taken away, Americans have stepped up and answered with a firm No. [Washington Post, 3/2/11] To Social Benefits… CNN: Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Cuts To Social Security, Medicare, And Medicaid. Eighty-seven percent of Americans don’t want the government to make cuts to Medicare and 84 percent oppose cuts to Social Security in order to reduce the deficit. [CNN, 7/21/11] Pew: Three Out Of Five Americans Feel The Government Needs To Honor Medicare Benefits. Pew found that 62 percent of Americans feel that “the government needs to keep its promises to older people” by maintaining their Medicare benefits, “even for those who are well-off.” [Pew Research Center, 6/11] CNN: Nearly Three Out Of Four Americans Don’t Believe Social Security Is A Failure. From the CNN/ORC poll released on September 13: The Social Security system has been described as a “monstrous lie” and as a failure. Do you think those phrases are an accurate description of the Social Security system, or don’t you think so? Accurate 27% Not accurate 72% No opinion 1% [CNN, 9/13/11] Pew: 87 Percent Of Americans Say Social Security Has Been Good For Our Country. From the poll: [Pew Research Center, 7/7/11] Pew: Americans Also Oppose “Allowing States To Limit Medicaid Eligibility.” From the same Pew article: The public also opposes making Medicare recipients more responsible for their health care costs and allowing states to limit Medicaid eligibility. About six-in-ten (61%) say people on Medicare already pay enough of their own health care costs, while only 31% think recipients need to be responsible for more of the costs of their health care in order to make the system financially secure. [Pew Research Center, 7/7/11] To Environmental Issues… Sixty-Nine Percent Of Americans Support Stricter Limits On Air Pollution. According to a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll, 69 percent of respondents favored the EPA “updating standards with stricter limits on air pollution.” [Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, 2/11] Only 18 Percent Of Americans Agree With GOP Attempts To Block The EPA From Keeping Corporate Polluters In Check.From an ORC International polling memo: Americans do not want Congress to kill the EPA’s anti-pollution updates. Only 18 percent of Americans –including fewer than a third of Republicans (32 percent) — believe that “Congress should block the EPA from updating pollution safeguards,” after being told: “Some members of Congress are proposing to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating safeguards to protect our health from dangerous air pollution, saying they will cost businesses too much money.” More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) — including 61 percent of Republicans– say “Congress (should) let the EPA do its job.” [ORC International, 2/2/11] The Hill: “Even The Most Hardened Conservatives” Support Investing In Solar. A series of polls conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates testing the impact of the Solyndra scandal reportedly found that “even the most hardened conservatives” showed overall support for the solar industry. From The Hill: In addition to the Ohio survey, FM3 conducted focus groups in California on behalf of the Sierra Club, finding that awareness of the Solyndra issue was higher there. The memo states that male GOP swing voters in California voiced “strong faith” about the solar industry’s viability. “These voters were quick to condemn the federal government for failing to do its due diligence in evaluating Solyndra’s business prospects, and for squandering taxpayer dollars on what they saw as a bad bet. But even the most hardened conservatives in that group strongly agreed that the solar industry is strong, growing, and worthy of future investment,” it states. [The Hill, 9/28/11] Sixty-One Percent Of Americans Agree That Government Regulations Keep Businesses Ethical.From the Public Religion Research Institute: Overall most (61%) Americans disagree that most businesses would act ethically on their own without regulation from the government. Less than 4-in-10 (37%) believe that they would. This holds true across political and religious lines, with the lone exception of those who identify with the Tea Party movement (53% agree). [Public Religion Research Institute, 4/20/11] …And Social Issues Gallup: “A Majority Of Americans (53%) Believe Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Recognized By The Law As Valid.” From the May 20 Gallup memo: For the first time in Gallup’s tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans’ views did not change. [Gallup, 5/20/11] CNN Poll Found That 78 Percent Of Americans Favored Repealing DADT. From The Hill article: More than three-fourths of Americans favor repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” according to a new CNN poll. A full 78 percent of respondents said that “people who are openly gay or homosexual” should be able to serve in the armed forces. The results are similar to what CNN found in December of 2008 (81 percent) and May of 2007 (79 percent). [The Hill, 5/25/10] Gallup: A “Record-High” Number Of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana. From the October 17 article: A record-high 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from 46% last year. Forty-six percent say marijuana use should remain illegal. [Gallup, 10/17/11] CNN: Three Out Of Four Americans Support A Woman’s Right To Choose In “Any Or Some Circumstances.” In a September CNN poll, 25 percent of respondents agreed that abortion should be legal under “any circumstances” and an additional 53 percent said it should be legal under  “some circumstances.” [CNN Poll, 9/15/11] Media Figures Attempted To Push The Same “Center-Right” Claim In 2008 Newsweek’sJonathan Darman insisted America is a “center-right country.” [Newsweek,9/19/08] Newsweek’sJon Meacham: “America remains a center-right nation — a fact that a President would forget at his peril.” [Newsweek, 10/17/08] On CNN Newsroom, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan said, “No question this country is center-right.” [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 11/6/08, via Media Matters] During the November 5, 2008, edition of America’s Election HQ, Fox News contributor Karl Rove said: “Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country, and he smartly and wisely ran a campaign that emphasized that.” [Fox News, America's Election HQ, 11/5/08, via Media Matters] Click here for more on the “center-right” myth Contact: The O’Reilly Factor The O’Reilly Factor http://twitter.com/oreillyfactor Contact: Charles Krauthammer letters@charleskrauthammer.com Contact: Laura Ingraham Laura Ingraham Contact: Brit Hume brit.hume@foxnews.com Contact: Bill O’Reilly oreilly@foxnews.com Contact: Special Report with Bret Baier http://twitter.com/specialreport Contact: Fox News Channel FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 http://twitter.com/foxnews You can help support our work: donate to Media Matters for America.

Right-Wing Media Go On Attack Against Student Debt Relief http://mediamatters.org/research/201110270002 Fox News and the right-wing media are attacking President Obama’s student loan relief plan as a “campaign speech” and an attempt to “buy votes.” Obama’s plan is designed to help ease the burden of student loans for millions of people by lowering interest rates, consolidating outstanding student loans, and providing debt relief to students after they spend 20 years paying off their loans. Obama Announces Student Loan Relief Plan AP: “Obama Announces Help For Student Loan Borrowers.” From an October 26 Associated Press article: President Barack Obama recalled his struggles with student loan debt as he unveiled a plan Wednesday that could give millions of young people some relief on their payments. [...] Obama’s plan will accelerate a measure passed by Congress that reduces the maximum required payment on student loans from 15 percent of discretionary income annually to 10 percent. He will put it into effect in 2012, instead of 2014. In addition, the White House says the remaining debt would be forgiven after 20 years, instead of 25. About 1.6 million borrowers could be affected. He will also allow borrowers who have a loan from the Federal Family Education Loan Program and a direct loan from the government to consolidate them into one. The consolidated loan would carry an interest rate of up to a half percentage point less than before. This could affect 5.8 million borrowers. Student loans are the No. 2 source of household debt. The president’s announcement came on the same day as a new report on tuition costs from the College Board. It showed that average in-state tuition and fees at four-year public colleges rose $631 this fall, or 8.3 percent, compared with a year ago. Nationally, the cost of a full credit load has passed $8,000, an all-time high. [Associated Press, 10/26/11, via ABCNews.com] White House: “Obama Administration To Lower Student Loan Payments For Millions Of Borrowers.” In an October 25 press release, the White House outlined the Obama administration’s plan to help Americans “manage student loan debt.” The press release stated that the plan will “offer recent graduates an opportunity to consolidate loans and reduce interest rates.” From the press release: Today, the Obama Administration announced it is taking steps to increase college affordability by making it easier to manage student loan debt. The announcement is part of a series of executive actions to put Americans back to work and strengthen the economy because we can’t wait for Congressional Republicans to act. The Administration is moving forward with a new “Pay As You Earn” proposal that will reduce monthly payments for more than one and a half million current college students and borrowers.  Starting in 2014, borrowers will be able to reduce their monthly student loan payments to 10 percent of their discretionary income. But President Obama realizes that many students need relief sooner than that.  The new “Pay As You Earn” proposal will allow about 1.6 million students the ability to cap their loan payments at 10 percent starting next year, and the plan will forgive the balance of their debt after 20 years of payments.  Additionally, starting this January an estimated 6 million students and recent college graduates will be able to consolidate their loans and reduce their interest rates. [WhiteHouse.gov, 10/25/11] Conservatives Attack Student Loan Relief Plan Guilfoyle: Obama’s Student Loan Relief Plan Is “Campaigning, It’s Politics …. He Wants To Buy Some Votes Of The Youth.” During the October 26 edition of Fox News’ The Five, co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle suggested Obama’s plan to provide some relief to people with student loans was actually an attempt to “buy some votes of the youth.” From Fox News’ The Five: GREG GUTFELD (co-host): Kimberly, I want to ask you, though. The real problem here is tuition. It’s not the loans. If the tuitions were lower you wouldn’t have this problem with the loans. But because you have the loans, the tuition goes up. KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE: Right, but where’s the incentive then to lower the tuition? Some people in colleges and institutions, they like their money. But what this is about is campaigning, it’s politics, it’s 2012. He wants to buy some votes of the youth. It makes sense. GUTFELD: Yeah. GUILFOYLE: These are the people who were very popular, came out for him, supported his presidency. He needs them again. Even more so this time. So this a way to rally them kind of speak to the people that are protesting and the college students. [Fox News, The Five, 10/26/11] Bolling: Obama’s Plan To Help Americans With Student Loan Debt Is An Attempt To “Buy The Young Vote.” During the October 25 edition of The Five, co-host Eric Bolling attacked Obama’s plan to help Americans consolidate and lower their payments on student loans after college before it was even announced. Bolling proclaimed the administration was attempting to “buy the young vote” and asserted that it “should be illegal.” [Fox News, The Five, 10/25/11] Lou Dobbs Claimed Obama’s Plan Offering Relief To Student Loan Recipients Is About “Getting Re-Elected.” In an October 26 Facebook post about Obama’s new student loan relief plan, Fox’s Lou Dobbs wrote, “this is more about getting re-elected than it is spurring economic growth.” [Facebook,10/26/11]   Perino Called Obama’s Announcement Of Student Loan Relief Plan A “Campaign Speech.” In an October 26 Twitter post, co-host for Fox News’ The Five Dana Perino wrote: [Twitter,10/26/11] Hoft: “Obama’s Plan To Bailout Student Loan Recipients Is His Latest Attempt To Buy Votes At The Expense Of The American Taxpayer.” From an October 26 blog post on Jim Hoft’s Gateway Pundit blog: Obama’s plan to bailout student loan recipients is his latest attempt to buy votes at the expense of the American taxpayer. It also happens to be the latest move in his Cloward Piven strategy to destroy the US economy. Free Obama Money for … special interest groups. Obama announced a new plan today that will add billions to his record debt and erode the US economy by giving free money to students who borrowed their way through college.[Gateway Pundit, 10/26/11] Student Loan Debt Is A Growing Burden Data Shows Average Debt For Students Graduating From College Is Rising At A Staggering Rate. Data analysis by The Project on Student Debt found that the average debt for graduating seniors at public universities is “$22,200 — 20% higher than in 2004.” The average debt for graduating seniors at private for-profit universities was “$33,050 – 23% higher than in 2004.” From the January 2010 study titled Quick Facts about Student Debt: Average debt levels for graduating seniors with student loans rose to $23,200 in 2008 — a 24% increase from $18,650 in 2004. In 2008: • At public universities, average debt was $20,200 — 20% higher than in 2004, when the average was $16,850. • At private nonprofit universities, average debt was $27,650– 29% higher than in 2004, when the average was $21,500. • At private for-profit universities, average debt was $33,050 — 23% higher than in 2004, when the average was $26,850. [The Project On Student Debt, Quick Facts about Student Debt, January 2010] U.S. Department Of Education: Student Loan Default Rate At 8.8 Percent — The Highest It Has Been In More Than A Decade. The U.S. Department of Education announced in September that the latest national student loan cohort default rate is at “8.8 percent.” This is an increase from the 7.0 percent rate from the previous fiscal year, and is the highest rate in more than a decade. The cohort default rate is defined as “the percentage of borrowers who enter repayment in a fiscal year and default by the end of the next fiscal year.” From the announcement: The U.S. Department of Education today released the official FY 2009 national student loan cohort default rate, which has risen to 8.8 percent, up from 7.0 percent in FY 2008. The cohort default rates increased for all sectors: from 6.0 percent to 7.2 percent for public institutions, from 4.0 percent to 4.6 percent for private institutions, and from 11.6 percent to 15 percent at for-profit schools. The rates announced today represent a snapshot in time, with the FY 2009 cohort consisting of borrowers whose first loan repayments came due between Oct. 1, 2008, and Sept. 30, 2009, and who defaulted before Sept. 30, 2010. More than 3.6 million borrowers from 5,900 schools entered repayment during this window of time, and more than 320,000 defaulted. Those borrowers who defaulted after the two-year period are not counted as defaulters in this data set. [U.S. Department of Education, 9/12/11, accessed 10/26/11] Contact: Lou Dobbs Email: lou.dobbs@turner.com http://twitter.com/loudobbsnews Contact: Fox News Channel FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 http://twitter.com/foxnews You can help support our work: donate to Media Matters for America.

The sad life of Petland puppies …Cristina Moon, Change.org

Call on Petland USA to stop supporting cruel puppy mills.              While the puppies in Petland USA stores may look cute in their cages, chances are the puppies have led miserable lives that threaten their health from the day they’re born. Petland USA is the country’s largest chain of stores that sell puppies. Most of Petland’s animals come from puppy mills, where thousands of dogs are bred again and again to supply the pet trade. Dogs are kept in cramped, unsanitary conditions, and they often lack adequate vet care. There’s hope to stop puppy mill sales at Petland stores. Last month Petland Canada ordered its stores to stop selling puppies, in part due to continuous pressure from animal protection advocates. So Mary Haight, a Change.org member from Chicago, wants Petland USA to do the same. She started a petition on Change.org asking Petland USA to end puppy mill sales in its stores. Click here to sign her petition. Walk into any major pet store like Petco or PetSmart, and you won’t find puppies for sale. Those stores work with local animal shelters to find homes for the countless animals waiting to be adopted across the country. Yet Petland stores prioritize profit by selling animals from puppy mills, propping up this cruel business. Puppies bred in puppy mills are often plagued with poor health. Kept in cramped conditions and often housed outside in all types of weather, animals in puppy mills lead a pitiful existence. Puppy mill operators are also known to in-breed puppies, leading to other health and behavior problems. Each Petland store in the US is an individually-owned franchise, meaning Petland USA’s corporate headquarters can’t ban puppy sales in stores on its own. But Petland USA can stop any new stores from selling puppies, and a strong statement from the corporation would go a long way to putting a stop to its existing stores that buy animals from puppy mills. Please join Mary Haight in calling on Petland USA to support adoption and speak out against its stores doing business with puppy mills. Sign the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/petland-usa-stop-selling-pets-fire-puppy-mills-petland-canada-has Thanks for being a change-maker, - Cristina and the Change.org team

CBO: Cost Estismate for HR674 and Discretionary Spending

• Cost Estimate for H.R. 674, A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities
  Cost estimate for the bill as reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means on October 18, 2011
• Discretionary Spending
  Testimony before the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, U.S. Congress

the Progress Report

ThinkProgress & Rick Perry Completely Agree That…

By         ThinkProgress War Room

It’s Time to See Millionaire Mitt Romney’s Missing Tax Returns

Back on Oct. 14, we asked if Mitt Romney had something to hide since he’s never released his tax returns despite running for or holding elective office for the better part of two decades:

• Not when he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994, despite calling on Kennedy to release his tax returns to prove he had “nothing to hide.”
• Not when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, despite calling for his opponent’s husband to release his tax returns (after his opponent, who filed separately from her husband, released her own).
• Not when he was governor of Massachusetts.
• Not when he ran for president in 2007 and 2008.
• Not now, despite the fact President Obama has released his own tax returns when running for office in 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, and since becoming president.

Rick Perry Wants to See Mitt’s Missing Tax Returns Too

Yesterday morning, when rolling out his own highly regressive tax plan that would benefit the wealthiest Americans while threatening Social Security and Medicare, Texas Gov. Rick Perry called Mitt Romney a “fat cat”:

JOHN HARWOOD: And you mentioned class warfare. In 1996, when your advisor Steve Forbes was running on a flat tax, Mitt Romney said it was a tax cut for fat cats. If he says that about your plan, what are you going to say to him?

RICK PERRY: Well I would said that he ought to go look in the mirror I guess. I consider him to be a fat cat.

Later in the morning, Politico’s Ben Smith asked the Perry campaign if they wanted to see millionaire Mitt Romney’s tax returns.  The answer:

Governor Perry has always released his tax returns and Mitt Romney and the other candidates should do the same.

The Romney campaign followed up with a non-response:

But Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom said his candidate wouldn’t even consider releasing them until next spring.

“We’ll take a look at the question of releasing tax returns during the next tax filing season,” he said. [...]

Fehrnstrom didn’t offer a defense of Romney’s position but attacked Perry on an unrelated transparency issue.

Who Else Wants to See Mitt’s Missing Tax Returns?

• Iowans: Progress Iowa, a local progressive group in Hawkeye State, who called on Romney to release the returns when he visited the state last Thursday.
• Virginians: Progress Virginia, a local progressive group in Virginia, who called on Romney to release the returns when he visited the state today:

Virginians deserve to know once and for all whether Romney is one of the 100,000 millionaires who is paying a lower tax rate than many middle class workers.  Unless Romney has something to hide there’s no reason he can’t follow President Obama’s lead and show Virginians his tax returns.

What Might Mitt Want to Hide?

• The fact that he’s worth as much as $250 MILLION and uses tax loopholes to cheat the system and pay a lower tax rate — some estimate as low as 14 percent — than many middle class Americans.

IN ONE PICTURE:

Evening Brief: Important Stories That You May Have Missed

At this point in his administration, President Bush had generated more regulations than has President Obama.

Rick Perry touts his reductions to safety net health programs, but he’s “not ready” to cut defense.

A North Carolina judge has blocked state Republicans’ forced ultrasound law.

Michigan considers major new restrictions on voting rights.

Americans support the 99 Percent Movement’s causes and view the GOP as defenders of the wealthy.

What the new show Boss reveals about the grotesqueness of pop culture politics.

Why do liberals dislike Herman Cain?

Anita Hill, Thurston Moore, and the slow decline of sexual harassment.

Why do New Yorkers fight over bike lanes?

 

Congress: the Republican led House the Senate in pro forma Session

The Senate will convene on Monday, October 24, 2011 at 3:45pm and on Thursday, October 27, 2011 at 11am for pro forma sessions only with no business conducted.

Following the pro forma session on Thursday, October 27^th, the Senate will adjourn until 3:00pm on Monday, October 31, 2011.  Following any Leader remarks, the Senate will be in morning business until 4:30pm with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Following morning business, the Senate will proceed to Executive Session to consider Calendar #249, Stephen A. Higginson, of LA, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 5^th Circuit with one hour equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Grassley or their designees.

The next roll call vote will be at approximately 5:30pm on confirmation of the Higginson nomination.

————————————–

CURRENT HOUSE FLOOR PROCEEDINGS

LEGISLATIVE DAY OF OCTOBER 27, 2011

112TH CONGRESS – FIRST SESSION

-The House adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on October 31, 2011.12:58:07 P.M

. -On motion to adjourn Agreed to by voice vote.12:58:00 P.M. -Mr. Gohmert moved that the House do now adjourn.11:55:06 A.M. -SPECIAL ORDER SPEECHES – The House has concluded all anticipated legislative business and has proceeded to Special Order speeches.11:47:31 A.M. -ONE MINUTE SPEECHES – The House proceeded with one minute speeches.11:47:30 A.M. -Mr. Thompson (PA) asked unanimous consent that when the House adjourn on Thursday, October 27, 2011, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. on Monday, October 31, 2011. Agreed to without objection.11:46:29 A.M. -ONE MINUTE SPEECHES – The House proceeded with one minute speeches.11:45:52 A.M. -H.R. 2576Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 448, H.R. 2576 is laid on the table.11:45:37 A.M. -H.R. 2576Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 448, the text of H.R. 2576, as passed by the House, is appended at the end of H.R. 674 as new matter.11:44:14 A.M. -H.R. 674Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.11:44:12 A.M. -H.R. 674On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 405 – 16 (Roll no. 815).11:26:53 A.M. -H.R. 674On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 183 – 235 (Roll no. 814).11:09:59 A.M. -H.R. 674The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.11:01:36 A.M. -H.R. 674DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Andrews motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek strike the entire bill and add language to deny relief to companies that are delinquent in paying their federal taxes.11:01:04 A.M. -H.R. 674Mr. Andrews moved to recommit with instructions to Ways and Means.10:57:59 A.M. -H.R. 674Considered as unfinished business. H.R. 674 — “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities.”10:57:36 A.M. -H.R. 2576Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.10:57:35 A.M. -H.R. 2576On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 262 – 157 (Roll no. 813).10:31:30 A.M. -H.R. 2576The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.9:46:12 A.M. -H.R. 2576DEBATE – The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 2576.9:45:56 A.M. -H.R. 2576Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2576 and H.R. 674 with 1 hour of general debate on each measure. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions on each measure. Measures will be considered read. Bills are closed to amendments. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of both bills and directs the Clerk, in the engrossment of H.R. 674, to add the text of H.R. 2576, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 674.9:45:51 A.M. -H.R. 2576Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 448. H.R. 2576 — “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain healthcare-related programs.”9:45:22 A.M. -H.R. 674Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule 19, further consideration of the bill is postponed.9:45:21 A.M. -H.R. 674The previous question was ordered without objection.9:15:10 A.M. -H.R. 674DEBATE – The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 674.9:14:18 A.M. -H.R. 674Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2576 and H.R. 674 with 1 hour of general debate on each measure. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions for each measure. Measures will be considered read. Bills are closed to amendments. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of both bills and directs the Clerk, in the engrossment of H.R. 674, to add the text of H.R. 2576, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 674.9:14:13 A.M. -H.R. 674Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 448. H.R. 674 — “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities.”9:02:48 A.M. -ONE MINUTE SPEECHES – The House proceeded with one minute speeches which by direction of the Chair, would be limited to 5 per side of the aisle.9:02:19 A.M. -PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – The Chair designated Mr. Johnson, Sam of TX to lead the Members in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.9:02:16 A.M. -The Speaker announced approval of the Journal.  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.9:01:28 A.M. -Today’s prayer was offered by the House Chaplain, Rev. Patrick J. Conroy.9:00:52 A.M. -The Speaker designated the Honorable Steve Womack to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.9:00:38 A.M. -The House convened, starting a new legislative day.