Senate Decision-Making Policies Should Be Reconsidered In Light Of Bunning Filibuster, Says Hoyer

By Antonia Aguilar-University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) stated Tuesday that the Senate should reconsider its policies governing decision-making policies amid the controversy surrounding Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), who has been attempting to block passage of a short term unemployment benefits program in the Senate for the past several days.

"I'm certainly hopeful that the Senate will at some point come to grips with the fact that one person ... is holding up the entire United States Senate from acting on that which members on both side of the aisle agree on," Hoyer said. "The Senate has got to come to a place where the Senate has the ability to function."

Hoyer also noted that he remains hopeful that healthcare reform will move forward and will overcome attempts by Republicans to halt its progress.

"There is opportunity to improve the legislation, not scrap it after so much work has been done on it," said Hoyer. "Starting over is a euphemism for not doing it."

Hoyer said in order for undecided House Members to agree to pass the Senate's bill, they need assurance that the bill will work.

Baucus Accuses Republican Senator Of Attempting To "Gut And Kill" Health Care Reform

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus accused Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) of attempting to "gut and kill" health care reform legislation Thursday during the Committee's seventh day of markup for the America's Healthy Future Act.

“You want to gut the President’s program, or you want to cut health care reform," Baucus said to Crapo. He added, “you want to take away personal responsibility for individuals to buy personal coverage… this amendment guts and kills health care reform."

The amendment states "This amendment provides that no tax, fee or penalty imposed by this legislation shall be applied to any individual earning less than $200,000 per year or any couple earning less than $250,000 per year."

There was a ray of bi-partisanship Thursday when Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment that would allow taxpayers to deduct over-the-counter medical products as medical expenses. Chairman Baucus along with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D- Mich.) offered to assist the Senator from Kentucky on the amendment, both agreeing that it addresses an important issue.

Chairman Baucus hopes to finish the markup late Thursday night. The Finance Committee has heard arguments for 107 amendments of the 564 submitted.

No Single Payer System For Healthcare

Coffee Brown, University of New Mexico, Talk Radio News


In what Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus (D-Mont.) called "an historic moment," the full Committee hearing on Comprehensive Health Care Reform held the first of several planned meetings Tuesday. Their task will be to figure out how to pay for universal access.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) wanted the Employer Exclusion of Contributions for Medical Insurance Premiums and Medical Care from employee income taxes on the table.

James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, described it the Exclusion as progressive and too complex to tamper with.

Jonathan Gruber, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., described the Exclusion as unequivocally regressive, amenable to modification, and a key revenue point.

John Sheils, senior vice president of the The Lewin Group, Falls Church, Va., believes that the Exclusion should be modified, but only after protections are put into place to prevent discrimination against the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions.

All of the panelists agreed that there was an enormous amount of potential revenue there. The Urban Institute calls it "the single largest tax expenditure in the federal budget ... worth $112 Billion.”
Gerald Shea, assistant to the president for governmental affairs at the AFL-CIO said, "That would be a radical change. If you're going to go that far, you might as well go to a single payer system. I'm flabbergasted that you would even consider it."

Baucus was clear that "We're not going to repeal the Employer Exclusion or go to universal single payer healthcare. We have to work with what we have. We can't turn on a dime. It's the devil you know vs the devil you don't know."

After Baucus finished speaking, protesters stood up and recited in favor of the single payer system. As each protestor was escorted out by Capitol Police,another stood including at least one physician.
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) was concerned about a proposal to partially fund healthcare reform by raising taxes on alcohol. He said that thousands of jobs had been lost in the hospitality industry already, and that the last such hike had been followed by a drop in revenue. He asked whether lifestyle taxes couldn't be considered regressive.

Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities responded that all industries have lost jobs, losses in the hospitality industry are not attributable to alcohol taxes, and
whether the tax put more money into healthcare, or resulted in diminished alcohol consumption, it would be a win-win strategy.
Other lifestyle taxes discussed included sugary soft drinks, tobacco and trans-fats.

Stuart Altman, professor of national health policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass., held that end-of-life care was a significant driver of cost in America vs. peer nations.

Gail Wilensky, Senior Fellow for Project HOPE, Bethesda, said that such costs have held at about 28 percent of lifetime healthcare expenses for 30 years.

Altman said, yes, but that's 28 percent for a growing demographic, as Americans age, and of a much larger absolute cost, as Healthcare costs have inflated much faster than the general economy.

Baucus concluded by saying, "I have a feeling this is not the last discussion on this we're all going to have on this."

Taxpayers demand to know where the money went

"Not only is the money being used in ways that Congress did not intend but we do not have the transparency that was promised" said, Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY)

Today the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs held a full committee hearing on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Witnesses were present to give their testimonies. The purpose of this hearing was to explore how the program could be more effective while addressing the current issues of the financial crisis. TARP was initially created last October as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) indicated that Congress granted the Treasury 700 billion of tax payer dollars to aid the economic crisis, however; serious concerns were addressed regarding the misuse of this money due to gaps in Treasury monitoring. Future concerns regarding 350 billion dollars was also critically addressed for the sake of restoring the public's confidence in government spending.

"So many Americans losing their homes, their jobs and their healthcare. That kind of abuse of taxpayer money is offensive" said, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

By Candyce Torres, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

Fed called to answer for bailout of Bear Stearns

Why did you bail out Bear Stearns? It was the resounding question heard over and over in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on "Turmoil in U.S. Credit Markets: Examining the Recent Actions of Federal Financial Regulators." Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, United States Treasury Under Secretary Robert Steel, and President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Timothy F. Geithner, all attempted to answer that question to Congress.

In his opening statement, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), said the stunning fall of Bear Stearns was matched only by the sweeping response to its collapse put together by the New York Fed and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which, with the support of Treasury, "exercised powers in some instances that had not been used since the Great Depression." However, he said, people on 'Main Street' are struggling to pay their mortgages, and so was the rescue of Bear Stearns justified to prevent a systemic collapse of financial markets, or was it a $30 billion taxpayer bailout for a firm on Wall Street?

Yes, but how big do you have to be, to be too big to fail? Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) posed that question in his opening statement. Why, exactly, was it necessary to stop the invisible hand of the market? That is Socialism, he said, adding that he was very troubled by the failure of Bear Stearns. A big question, he said, was who let our financial system become so fragile?

Chairman Bernanke said the that pressures in the short-term bank funding markets have increased, and many lenders have been reluctant to provide credit to counterparties, especially leveraged investors, and they have increased the amount of collateral they required to back short-term security financing agreements. Credit availability is restricted, and some key securitization markets (including those for nonconforming mortgages) continue to function poorly if at all.

Bernanke, nearly at the end of his prepared statement, arrived to the explanation as to why they had assisted Bear Stearns. The news that Bear Stearns would have to file for bankruptcy, he said, raised difficult questions of public policy. "Normally, the market sorts out which companies survive and which fail, and that is as it should be. However, the issues raised here extended well beyond the fate of one company." He said that our financial system is extremely complex and interconnected, and Bear Stearns participated extensively in a range of "critical markets." The damage caused by a default by Bear Stearns "could have been severe and difficult to contain."

The chaotic unwinding of Bear Stearns could have cast doubt of the financial positions of some of Bear Stearns' thousands of counterparties, Chairman Cox said. But a question remained on whether or not investors were at risk. Despite the run on the bank to which Bear Stearns was subjected, Cox said, its customers were fully protected. At no time during the week of March 10-17th were any of the customers of the Bear Stearns's broker-dealers at risk of losing their cash or their securities.

Under Secretary Steel gave an explanation as to why Bear Stearns was assisted, saying a strong financial system is vitally important for all Americans. When our markets work, he said, people throughout our economy benefit, and when our financial system is under stress all Americans bear the consequences. The focus was more on the strategic concern of the implication of a bankruptcy. The failure of a firm that was connected to so many corners of the market would have caused financial disruptions beyond Wall Street.

The risk has its protections, Geithner said. There is a substantial pool of professionally-managed collateral that was valued at $30 billion, the agreement on the part of JPMorgan Chase to absorb the first $1 billion of any loss that ultimately occurs in connection with this arrangement, and a long-term horizon during which the collateral will be safe-kept.

In the written statement of James Dimon, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of JPMorgan Chase, he said they got involved in the matter because the collapse had the potential to cause serious damage to the financial system. They could not, and would not have assumed the risks of acquiring Bear Stearns without the $30 billion facility provided by the Fed, and that the transaction is not without risk for JPMorgan. However, they informed the New York Fed and Treasury that the risks were too great for JPMorgan to buy the entire company on their own. The statement also explains the reason for bailing out Bear Stearns: a Bear Stearns bankruptcy could have touched off a chain reaction of defaults at other major financial institutions, and the consequences could have been disastrous.

The repeated phrase by each and every witness was that the failure of Bear Stearns was a result of a lack of confidence. According to the written statement of Alan Schwartz, President and CEO of the Bear Stearns Companies, even though the firm was adequately capitalized and had a substantial liquidity cushion, "Unfounded rumors and attendant speculation began circulating in the market" that Bear Stearns was in the midst of a liquidity crisis. The unfounded rumors grew into fear and there was a run on the bank.