Cheri Bustos Votes to Support Millionaires, Billionaires and Big Oil

I just read the Congressional Progressive Caucus "Back to Work" budget. You can read that here: CPC Budget

On the campaign trail we heard Cheri Bustos say the following would be her principles in Congress:

1. Ensure that millionaires and billionaires pay more of their fair share of taxes.
2. End tax breaks and incentives for big oil companies and companies that ship jobs overseas.
3. Protect Social Security and Medicare.
4. Cut down on waste, fraud and abuse.

If those were her principles, then why did she vote AGAINST the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget? According to their website, their budget would do the following:

1. Enact a Fair Individual Tax:

• Immediately allows Bush tax cuts to expire for families earning over $250K

• Higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires (from 45% to 49%)

• Taxes income from investments the same as income from wages


2. Enact a Fair Corporate Tax:

• Ends corporate tax bias toward moving jobs and profits overseas 

• Enacts a financial transactions tax

• Reduces deductions for corporate jets, meals, and entertainment 


3. Protect Health Care:

• No benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security 

• Reduces health care costs by adopting a public option, negotiating drug prices, and reducing waste and fraud


By voting against this budget, it's safe to say that Cheri Bustos isn't really against low taxes for millionaires and billionaires. It's safe to say that she's okay with tax breaks for big oil companies. She's also open to cutting social security and medicare. She doesn't prioritize cutting government waste. She clearly doesn't think that tax breaks for companies that outsource are that big of a deal either, otherwise she would have voted for this bill.

Cheri should explain why she didn't support this bill. Exactly what was in it that she disagreed with?

At the bare minimum, the local media in her district should be asking these questions.

ObamaCare Could Put 163,000 Illinois Seniors’ Medicare Benefits at Risk: Will Bustos Join the Fight to Protect It?

Washington Democrats Make Defending ObamaCare a Top Priority This Election Year Despite Its Record Unpopularity

WASHINGTON --- As Cheri Bustos' Washington Democrat allies prepare to ramp up their election year defense of the government takeover of healthcare, it should be remembered that the 163,000 Illinois seniors that are on Medicare Advantage health plans will be particularly hard hit under their big-government law. The government healthcare takeover is paid for in part by nearly $200 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage programs, which means seniors currently on these plans could find their benefits at risk. Since House Democrats are on the front lines defending their big-government healthcare takeover this year, will Bustos join them and accept these consequences for seniors in Illinois?

“Cheri Bustos' House Democrat allies call their government takeover of healthcare their ‘crown jewel’ and have made it clear it is their top priority to defend it this election year,” said NRCC Communications Director Paul Lindsay. “But is Bustos willing to help them when 163,000 Illinois seniors could suddenly find their health benefits at risk because the government healthcare takeover was paid for in part with drastic cuts to Medicare?”

There are currently 163,000 seniors in Illinois who rely on Medicare Advantage benefits. (“Total Medicare Advantage (MA) Enrollment, 2011,” The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Accessed 5/2/12)

The government takeover of healthcare’s cuts to Medicare could put Medicare Advantage benefits at risk:

“Seniors in a number of states risk losing their Medicare Advantage benefits because of cuts in President Obama’s healthcare reform law, according to a new report from Avalere. The law contains about $200 billion in direct and indirect cuts to private Medicare plans through 2017.” (Julian Pecquet, “Report: Healthcare law cuts put Medicare Advantage benefits at risk in some states,” The Hill’s Healthwatch Blog, 3/12/12)

House Democrats in Washington are on the front lines of defending their government healthcare takeover this year:

“The law is divisive, and in swing states it’s an albatross for Democrats including the president and some of his Senate allies. So that leaves the House Democrats, many hailing from safe liberal districts where the health care law is popular, to soldier on like a lonely battalion defending the law and reminding the public of its benefits.” (Jonathan Allen, “The Obama Vacuum: House Dems defend health-care reform,” Politico, 3/21/12)

ObamaCare Could Put 163,000 IL Seniors’ Medicare Benefits at Risk: Will Bustos Join the Fight to Protect It? http://ow.ly/aGiIW #gopcodered

###

Problems with Medicare

As I've mentioned before, I view myself as an independent. I like investing in research, green energy and infrastructure. But I also don't like high taxes, heavy regulation and too much government. I don't support the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. But I support having strong homeland security. Pro-life and pro-gay marriage. See what I mean?

I swear that some days it's the side of the bed that I wake up on that determines who I am going to support.

Which brings me to my problems with Medicare. I'm not to put my head in the sand. We all know that there are many problems with our entitlement system -- especially Medicare. Report after report has shown that Medicare is going to go bankrupt shortly. The most recent report from the CBO saying it will be bankrupt by 2021. That's 5 years sooner than what they were reporting 2 years ago. The problem is accelerating -- especially with so many being out of work for so long.

Marco Rubio -- even though he is a neo con and supports the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya -- made some excellent points. His medicare address on YouTube

In it he lays out 3 points that must be addressed for Medicare reform:

1. Any proposed solution should fix the solvency of Medicare and not just delay it's bankruptcy.
2. Any proposed solution should not affect those who are very close to retirement and have no ability to adapt.
3. Any proposed solution should not adversely affect the economy and put more out of work.

I don't see anything wrong with these three points.

I will admit that I don't know the plan that the Republicans have proposed. All that I have heard is that it will cost seniors more for their health care --- well no shit. It's going to cost them a hell of a lot more if it goes insolvent.

The Republicans have been trumpeting that the proposed changes won't effect anyone 55 or older. Okay...are you suggesting that current seniors don't care about the next generations? Explain your plan and how it will change benefits for future generations.

I think 2 things about this right now:

1. Democrats need to quit being political with this and propose a solution that will fix Medicare and not ignore the problem.

2. Republicans need to start communicating their plan better. Explain your plan to us. Explain it well. If we like it, you'll get reelected. If we don't...well.

Both parties need to get my grandmother and parents out of the political games and make sure that they are taken care of and not thrown under the bus.