• Advertisement

Guinta Voted For Budget That Was Too Extreme For The Majority Of The GOP

Guinta 2010 - 2 (Image by Jason Meserve)

Guinta 2010 – 2 (Image by Jason Meserve)

Shea-Porter Campaign Highlights Most Extreme Republican Study Committee Budget Provisions

MANCHESTER—Today, the Carol Shea-Porter campaign released a list of the most extreme provisions that Frank Guinta supported when he voted for the Republican Study Committee Budgets, known as Paul Ryan’s Republican budget “on steroids.” [RSC FY 2012 Vote, RSC FY 2013 Vote]

“Frank Guinta showed his true colors when he voted for an extreme Tea Party budget that even the majority of his fellow Republicans couldn’t stomach,” said Shea-Porter spokeswoman Marjorie Connolly. “Frank Guinta’s Republican budgets on steroids would decimate investments in the middle class in order to slash Social Security, voucherize Medicare, end investments in our communities, and hand out huge tax breaks to big corporations and billionaires. Guinta’s radical right-wing beliefs would have put New Hampshire’s jobs and our seniors’ retirement security in jeopardy.”

Here are the most extreme provisions of Guinta’s Republican Study Committee Budgets:

Voucherize Medicare Even Faster

Guinta’s Tea Party budgets would have implemented a Medicare voucher program even sooner than the Ryan Republican budget, and would raise the eligibility age for Medicare for those who were born after 1952 [The Hill, 4/8/11].

Raise the Social Security Age While Slashing Benefits

The 2012 Tea Party budget would have raised the Social Security eligibility age to 70 by 2045, resulting in a 20% cut in benefits for seniors [Ways and Means Committee Democrats, 4/13/11].

Expand Corporate Welfare

The Tea Party budgets would have cut both the corporate and top tax rate by nearly 30%. Guinta’s tax plan would even make it easier for American corporations to move jobs overseas and avoid paying U.S. taxes [Bipartisan Policy Center, 4/4/12] [Center for American Progress, 7/16/12].

Deregulate the Big Banks

Proving that Guinta sides with big banks at the expense of middle-class American consumers, his 2013 Tea Party budget would eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the watchdog responsible for cracking down on abusive banking practices and predatory lenders [FY2013 RSC Budget].

Decimate Education Funding

The 2013 RSC budget would have cut $104 billion from Pell Grants and $47 billion from student loan programs [Bipartisan Policy Center, 4/4/12].

End Local Community Investments

The 2013 RSC budget would eliminate the Economic Development Administration, which works for small businesses and local communities in New Hampshire.

If the EDA were eliminated, the City of Rochester would not have gotten a $1.9 million grant that Carol Shea-Porter secured to fund the “construction of water and sewer infrastructure to … serve as a catalyst for expansion of existing businesses, new business development, and opportunities for job creation to replace almost 500 jobs lost due to the recent closure of several manufacturing companies.” [EDA.gov; FY2013 RSC Budget Blueprint]

NH Congressional Reps Sternly Oppose Rep Ryan’s Budget Cuts To Medicare And Other Programs

Ryan Plan and Grandma

From 2012, and yet still relevent

Once again Rep Paul Ryan, playfully known by some as Rep Eddie Munster, released the GOP House budget.  As all of you have probably read the budget continues to favor the 1% over the rest of us.   This is nothing new (see also How many times can the Republicans count the same money toward the budget?).

Rep Ryan’s budget hit the floor like a ton of bricks.  New Hampshire Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter was the first to chastise the GOP plan in her statement.

“I’m disappointed that instead of taking this opportunity to work towards a balanced plan to reduce the deficit and create jobs, House Republicans chose more of the same: tax cuts for a wealthy few while asking for more sacrifice from the middle class.

“The Republican budget would turn Medicare into a voucher program – ending guaranteed coverage for future retirees. It would repeal Obamacare, an effort that amounts to little more than political grandstanding. And it would give Americans at the top a new round of tax cuts while asking students, seniors and the middle class to foot the bill. These ideas were debated over the course of the fall election, and they were rejected by Granite State voters.

“If the Republican House majority truly wants to compromise, they need to put forward a compromise budget.”

Congresswoman Shea-Porter is right.  Granite State voters overwhelmingly voted against the Romney/Ryan plan for America.  Even Speaker John Boehner (unknowingly) pushed a poll that supports raising taxes to balance the budget.  While Congressman Ryan is pushing for another completely partisan budget, Rep Annie Kuster is looking for balance.

“Chairman Ryan has once again proposed an uncompromising, sharply partisan budget that would hurt seniors, undermine critical investments in the middle class, and damage our economy. It’s a plan that relies on the same tired ideas voters rejected in November: ending Medicare as we know it, slashing investments in our future, and putting millionaires before middle class families.

“We need to reduce the deficit and cut government spending. But instead of offering proposals that have no chance of earning broad bipartisan support and becoming law, Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate need to come together and compromise on a balanced plan to reduce the deficit, grow the economy, and protect seniors and the middle class. That type of responsible compromise remains the best and only way to address our fiscal challenges and move our country forward.”

Now all eyes will shift to the US Senate where Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) will release the Senate budget. The rumors are that the Senate plan is a mix of specific budgetary cuts and revenue increases through closing tax loopholes.  The Senate plan would also eliminate the ‘Sequester’ cuts which would end the mandatory furloughs and closures.

Guinta cut FEMA money

Congressman Guinta has decided that it is important for congressional candidates to weigh in on state issues, yet in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, he has dodged questions about why he voted to cut funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  Congressman Guinta voted for the Ryan budget which cuts disaster preparation and response, and passed a continuing resolution that provided $3 billion less in disaster funding than requested by the President.

“Congressman Guinta has a heartless record of voting to cut the funding for FEMA, money that  communities depend on for disasters,” said Carol Shea-Porter.  “Now, he needs to explain whether or not he agrees with Mitt Romney that FEMA should be privatized or left to the states.  New Hampshire, which has just received a federal emergency declaration, deserves to know why he voted against protecting the state and its citizens.”

Background:

  • Romney’s budget cuts FEMA, on its face, by 40%.  Romney has vowed to cut federal spending to less than 20 percent of GDP by 2016 without touching entitlements or defense. That means that non-defense discretionary spending–which includes FEMA aid–would have to be reduced by an eye-popping 40 percent. The Romney campaign won’t say whether FEMA would be spared from those cuts but stresses that the necessary funding would be available.” Washington Post.
  • On September 23, 2011, Guinta voted in favor of HR 2608, a continuing resolution meant to fund the federal government through November 18, 2011. The legislation provided $3.65 billion for disaster assistance, roughly $3 billion less than what the Office of Management estimated the federal government needed in funding. [HR 2608, Vote #727, Office of Management and Budget, 9/5/11; The Hill, 9/23/11]
  • Ryan budget could hammer storm aid, critics say:  Mitt Romney says he wants to give states more power to deal with disasters like Sandy. But his running mate’s budget plan would threaten states’ ability to respond to massive storms, some experts say.  Paul Ryan’s House-passed budget would cut non-defense discretionary funding by 22 percent starting in 2014, according to the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which said in an August report that about one-third of that money goes to state aid for a range of needs including disaster response.  [Politico, 10/30/2012]

 

  • Subscribe to the NH Labor News via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 12,412 other subscribers

  • Advertisement

  • Advertisement