This picture will to drive the enviro whackos crazy.
Posted on 03/10/2005 1:43:46 PM PST by John Lenin
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Democrats trying to head off the opening of an Alaskan wildlife refuge for oil exploration lost the year's first skirmish Thursday as the Senate Budget Committee voted to clear the way for drilling.
By a 12-10 vote, the Republican-led panel voted to forbid Senate filibusters against legislation later this year allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Filibusters, a procedural delay, require the votes of 60 of the 100 senators to end — a margin that drilling supporters would probably find difficult to achieve.
The vote kept intact language in the $2.56 trillion budget granting the procedural protection to the opening of the reserve, which has pitted economic and environmental interests against each other. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who led the effort to strip the provision, said putting it in the budget was "a backdoor maneuver."
But Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., said claims of potential environmental damage go "far beyond reality" and said the reserve would create jobs.
The fight came as Republicans pushed their 2006 spending plan toward committee passage. Like President Bush (news - web sites)'s budget and a similar plan the House Budget Committee approved Wednesday, the Senate fiscal outline would shrink record federal deficits over the next five years by trimming domestic spending while cutting taxes and buttressing defense and anti-terrorism efforts.
At both panel's meetings, Democrats criticized Republicans for budgets they said would hurt the poor, students and others. They said deficits would be worse than the GOP was projecting because their plans were omitting the costs of wars in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) beyond 2006, easing the alternative minimum tax's effect on middle-income earners, and Bush's goal of reshaping Social Security (news - web sites).
Overall, the Senate plan requires other Senate committees to write bills by June carving $32 billion in savings from Medicare, student loans, farm programs and other benefits over the next five years. Reflecting the House's more conservative tenor, its budget calls for $69 billion in such savings, nearly $20 billion more than Bush proposed.
The Senate budget also orders $70 billion in five-year tax cuts and gives them a procedural shield from filibusters. The House plan gives such protection to $45 billion in tax cuts, but House leaders say they plan to produce the full $106 billion Bush wants in tax cuts.
The full House and Senate plan to vote on their budgets next week. In April they will try to craft a compromise that eluded them last year because of a tax-cut fight that produced a stalemate.
Congress' budget sets overall spending and tax targets while leaving specific revenue and expenditure changes for later bills.
The House budget did not specify where the benefit reductions would come from. But based on the House committees assigned to find the savings, the Medicaid program for the poor and elderly could be targeted for up to $20 billion in five-year cuts — more than double Bush's plan — plus other reductions for student loans, welfare, farmers and veterans.
By law, benefit programs grow automatically to cover inflation and population growth. While overall spending for these programs would grow under the GOP budgets, growth would be slowed through lower benefits, lower payments to providers or smaller numbers of recipients served.
Both budgets would hold domestic programs except benefits to just less than last year, with decisions on specifics to be made later. They would push Pentagon (news - web sites) spending to $419 billion, growth of 4.8 percent, with a smaller increase for anti-terror programs at home.
Following last year's record $412 billion deficit, the House projects a 2006 shortfall of $376 billion and the Senate a $362 billion gap. Both chambers claim to meet Bush's goal of halving the deficit by 2009, though their starting point is Bush's overestimated 2004 shortfall of $521 billion.
The two chambers see deficits dipping close to $200 billion by 2010. That is the last year covered by both plans, just as the baby boom retirement is expected to start driving shortfalls higher again.
And, HURRY UP!!!!!
ANWR drilling is a can't win for D's. Even the Unions want this one, badly.
Right! By having our OWN oil supply on this continent
we'd alleviate a lot of propaganda about our going into
Iraq for control of the oil. There are Dems out
there that still believe that was the motive for
deposing Hussein! Their minds always get stuck in
that 1970's track..."Follow the money"!
Anyone know the policy of unions towards the social security private accounts.......?
Spud in and lets turn to the right.
Message to Dims: If we're willing to do this for ANWR, we'll sure as heck do it for judicial appointments, if you force us.
Thank you, senate republicans! This action is part of why we the people gave you a senate majority. Good work. Now, on to your next task, which represents the greatest reason we gave you the majority: end filibusters on judicial nominees! I thank you in advance for expediting this task quickly.
Cordially.
A name that has to be on the must-go target list come next election, even for this vote alone. Anybody know when he's up for reelection? Also, could we list the other nine, so their names can get out there? They all need to be on the s -hit list.
Depends on the union. In CA, the unions are in full battle headfeathers and elbow pads about Arnold messing with CALPERS and threatening to replace it with the equivalent of 401K's.
The Teachers, BART, State Employees, Firefighters, Police, and every other union in CA is against it.
It's a similar initiative to the President's, so . . .
The PR problem with the President's initiative on SS is that everyone remembers how they did managing their own 401K's in the 90's. They left their chestnuts in too long and they got burned.
The administration isn't doing a very good job educating people on why his plan will return a better rate than SS will in the same amount of time, in my opinion.
Wow, this is great. Now the President can get on with his energy plan that's been needed for 30 years now. This news could even have a positive short term effect on prices. Kennedy must be having a few drinks by now or even getting his fix.
Awesome. Shove it, John Kerry.
We covered this in one of my classes, "Environmental Issues in Politics" (a bullsh*t class, wouldnt recommend it, duh!), and even the enviro-libby professor couldn't defend those against drilling.
Most of Alaska supports it. Most everyone who opposes it need not worry about it because its thousands of miles away from where they live. They are irrelevant. The biggest argument they can come up with is the caribou migratory patterns would get messed up. It's a ridiculous argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.