House Republicans this week said they would agree to keep student loan interest rates at their current level, but only if they're allowed to gut spending on preventive health care to finance the costs. The White House balked, but the GOP didn't care -- today, the Republican bill passed, 215 to 195, largely along party lines.
Several Democratic lawmakers noted the impact the GOP health care cuts would have on women's health, and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who's apparently grown a little sensitive to talk about the Republican "war on women," threw a bit of a tantrum on the House floor during the legislative debate.
I can appreciate why Boehner doesn't want to talk about the negative impact Republican policies are having on women, but I'd remind the Speaker that the quickest way to change the conversation is for Republicans to stop pursuing policies that have a negative impact on women.
In this case, rather than simply helping students because it would be good for them and the economy, Boehner's caucus decided to play a cheap little game -- they'll keep interest rates low only if they take funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which has nothing to do with student loans.
What would the real-world impact be if Boehner's health care cuts were to pass? There's no mystery here: these cuts would mean hundreds of thousands of women would have less access to breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings, tens of thousands of children could lose access to immunizations, and programs to prevent congenital heart defects and fetal alcohol syndrome would be eliminated.
That's not an opinion; it's just what would happen. The Prevention and Public Health Fund funds these efforts now, and if Republicans took the money from the fund, the efforts would be dramatically curtailed. It comes on the heels of related GOP Republican proposals restricting contraception; cutting off Planned Parenthood; requiring state-mandated, medically-unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds; forcing physicians to lie to patients about abortion and breast cancer; and fighting equal-pay laws. Yesterday, most Senate Republicans even opposed the Violence Against Women Act.
Boehner can shout, point, and pound the podium to his heart's content, but if he doesn't want to be criticized for Republican measures that undermine women's health, he should change his party's agenda, not whine about Democrats shining a light on that agenda.
Leave a Comment:
I wonder what type of cheese goes with Boehner's whine? These people are so predictable - obstruct, blame, whine, repeat.
You should be asking the Democrats about that whine, after all they already raided the fund for their own projects. Speaking of whine, I believe it was Nancy Pelosi that made such a fuss when PAYGO was adopted again. Apparently it was all for show too.
Just because the WH thought that a given program had too much money and could be cut is NOT a reason to cut it more.
And your full of it shooter , the gop watered down paygo so they can cut taxes and not pay for them , which is exactly what they did when they took the house back , your team has been adding to the deficit every since , while under pelosi that was not allowed , sell your lies else where
You know, maybe they should just shut up and start being a little more... oh, what's the word -- um, reasonable. Hey, Boehner, how about thinking about what's good for Americans rather than what's good for the Republican base?
You're sure asking for a lot.
I like when he said “Do we have to fight about everything?”
What didn't follow was: "Why can't you damn Democrat just do what Donkeys are supposed to do, just nod and go along with all the @!$%# we asked you to carry?"
Oh...Boehner....just cry already....
Here's a thought: Rachel could go to her bosses at NBC, the network, and request they make a point of including this information in the regular news programming, instead of hiding it on MSNBC, where the typical American will not see it. I don't personally watch network news because I find it irrelevant to me. But, it seems that a very large percentage of Americans still get their political information from network news. If NBC used it's considerable media power to report the "real news" more people would choose more wisely. My cynical nature is to doubt that NBC/GE would dare tell the truth to its loyal consumers for fear of effecting their decisions away from their pro-Republican sponsors.
Just a thought.
I've thought that same thing with many MSNBC programs. Reach many more people.
That was a pretentious load of righteous indignation.
I find it remarkable that women will vote against their own interests because of religious beliefs.
I've searched for an open thread, but can't locate one. Please forgive my posting this here, but it's too important not to be widely seen, and I can think of no better forum than The Maddow Blog:
Georgetown Faculty Woodshed Paul Ryan
http://wickershamsconscience.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/georgetown-faculty-woodshed-paul-ryan/
It's the sauce, and the rum-raisin ice cream I suspect.. Poor Boner; dude, it's time to go to meetings!
I would give a two week outpatient detox program to find out what isn't beneath John Boner!
@keepintime:
I am glad the faculty and others at Georgetown University expressed their objection to Paul Ryan's anti-human stance on the economy. Unfortunately, they also hold a theological position that artificial birth control is not something they can fund for students unless it is for purely health reasons not associated with birth control/sex. Since it is a religious position and not a political or scientific position, there is no way to address it logically. The larger picture is that people will have sex, protected or not, in or out of wedlock, and no amount of self-righteous indignation or religious fervor will dissuade them. Denying access to affordable family planning/birth control methods is a form of punishment for the sin of recreational or pleasurable sex. That the "sins" of priests are not included in this condemnation is a blatant form of hypocrisy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
End of lecture.
@ st john-2018697: Your "larger point" is understood and undisputed. However, it's unproductive to argue the merits and/or failings of individual theologies, and I make it a cardinal point to never do so. People are free to believe and worship...or not...as they choose, and it makes no difference whatsoever to me either way. As a matter of public policy, though, it's throughly disingenuous and dishonest for Ryan to constantly couch his economic "plans" for America as somehow being in line with, effectively, the wishes of Jesus Christ. Somehow I think JC himself would, perhaps even will, take issue with Ryan as well.
Boehner and the Republicans are trying to force the Dems to anger women or students. Dems should not make any choice and let the Republicans dangle while the Senate passes its own bill. The Republicans put themselves into this position so let them squirm. Their actions will anger both women and students.
Paranoid of their own shadows yet haughty about their place these heroic "Sky Pilots" seem a tad confused as to who serves who.
With a stiff upper lip and spines made from Corporate greed they hold fast to the basics. A)We need our guns B) We need to let the Corporations write their own ticket C) Obama is our biggest threat(other than our own BS) D) We really need our guns to protect us from us
No way should this take away funds from the Prevention and Public Health Fund - let those monies be used for that purpose. BUT....I do think there is a mindset out there that just likes adding programs - well meaning programs for the most part - without any ideas to fund it. As Steve writes in the post above:
In this case, rather than simply helping students
Yes it would be great to simply help students, and a lot of others in other ways, but to me each proposal must have a way to fund. Yes the "Buffet Rule" tax is about the same amount annually as this subsidy is - a perfect match - but isn't part of the whole point of getting new revenues in the coffers like this millionaires tax is to reduce the deficit? So if we do assign the Buffet tax for this, then we really are not making any headway deficit/debt wise. Granted the Republicans will not even bring this up as an option, but I have not heard anyone on the Democrats side talking about how to fund this.
I think IMO, that every time new money comes in, Congress will find a way to spend it rather than use at least some of it to cut down on the deficit.
You making the same tired arguments as Republicans have made and they would have some merit if the Republicans are willing to discuss tax fairness and increasing taxes. They won't discuss either because of the Norquist pledge so there is no point in talking about paying for bills because they certainly didn't pay for two wars, a prescription program and two tax cuts. We keep going around this same circular discussion. The Republican want cuts with no tax increases so there is no point in trying to discuss the subject. This is particularly even more true since the Ryan budget proposes more tax cuts that are not paid for. The Republicans are not serious about deficit reduction, only tax cuts for the rich and cutting domestic spending.
You are probably right Mike, but what does that have to do with funding this or any other program? Pointing out that the Republicans are not for tax increases (which I did mention) or that they did not fund two wars is all good and fine, and I am 100% in agreement, but don't you think there should be something mentioned on how this subsidy will be paid for? You seem to think I was defending the Republicans. I was not. I was pointing out that it seems everyone is all for stuff like this but only mention the money going out....and not the $$ coming in to pay it.
I'll be the first one to back you up on the Republicans not funding the wars, giving rich guys tax breaks and all the other things that caused a good part of the huge debt. I just don't want to keep doing it - spending without ways to pay for it - and I don't really care who in the past did it, I just want it to stop going foward. But thanks for the history refresher :).
The Republicans want everything paid for with cuts and no tax increases. So the Dems have proposed paying for this with a tax increase. Republicans said no and proposed only cuts. The Republicans will talk as we get closer to the elections and the Bush tax cuts are about to expire. But at that point, the Dems do not have to do anything. I suspect the Republicans will be more amenable to discussion when that deadline looms, particularly if it appears they are going to lose control of the House.
Fair enough Mike. My last sentence in my first post still stands -
I think IMO, that every time new money comes in, Congress will find a way to spend it rather than use at least some of it to cut down on the deficit.
So...a new tax increase is proposed to pay for this. Great. New money in...and it is spoken for. A wash....which is better than going negative, but no decrease in the deficit. Oh well, at least lets try to stay even from now on :).
59% of discretionary spending goes to military and security , the gop want their police state , then their voters can cough up the tax dollars , the gop want to spend even more on the DoD , and not pay for it , instead they go after preventive medicine , that helps keep coast down over all
One can see benefits to a society in people being able to go to college , you can not say the same about the black hole of military spending that they refuse to budge on
Didn't Hochul run -- and win - on the basic principle of defending healthcare access for everyone? And now she votes with the Repubs to slash it? WTF?
Listening to Boehner's screed sort of reminds me a lot of Mitt's Mendacity. Do they have the same speech writers?
Watch him closely. His schizophrenic party and booze have driven him nearly to his wit's end, he's on the verge of a total meltdown, and it ain't gonna be pretty to witness. Should be entertaining, though.
'SUCK IT UP WOMEN...we can't help EVERYBODY!!!' He's a dick. Student loans or no, I WANT the President to VETO it. I want to show those MEN that you can't SCREW with us.
Would someone with more economic training than I have please explain to me why it is OK to allow big banks to borrow from the Fed at 1% or 2%, but it is not OK for students to borrow at 3%?
What do you think about legalizing prostitution in the U S? Take the survey to voice your opinion. https://www.research.net/s/PQ8W8ZK
Goodness, this blog says it all so well.
The way American politic evolve, in ten years USA will look something like Haiti, I'm afraid.
Re: Student loan rate... why should loans by private institutions (banks) be allowed to have higher rates? Did someone make a deal with the bankers on student loans? The bankers will be just fine without raking in all that extra $$ they would be getting. The prime interest rate hasn't gone up, why should this rate go up?
And what do private student loans have to do with taxes? Why should anything have to be cut in compensation? It has nothing to do with the budget... am I think only one who thinks this? Is there something that I'm missing? If it's that simple, why doesn't everyone see it?
It just seems that the bankers won't get as rich as fast from my viewpoint.
Although it is fact that the republicans have been waging a so-called "war on women", I think this college interest rate debate is somewhat hypocritical on the democrats, seeing how President Obama approved of draining money from the said fund to pay for the payroll tax extension. And the democrats approved. Was the president and democrats waging a "war on women" at that time?
Liberty without regulation is equivalent to anarchy because you presuppose that every man and women are intelligent being capable of controlling intelligently their her\his thoughts who, by the way, are emotions. Proof: politician don't addresses to a crowd with intelligent concept but with emotional (usually fear) concept and that's why you see people cheering when they talk about killing, ripping, raping (like Taliban do ) anybody who have different opinions.
Unfortunately, the American dream is really a dream, not reality.
Ask and find by yourself what make you human, not American.
If you can't have a clear idea of what it is, well your country will collapse and you can still blame the Iran, Irak, soviet, corporation, Canadian, Mexican and the rest of the world but ignorance will still be your worst enemy.
Rachel I'm more than a little disappointed with the accuracy of your reporting yesterday. I'm a big fan and I listen every day. I so appreciate how you give the basic facts letting us do some thinking and in doing so, arrive at the inevitable negative view of those nasty republicans.
Your take down of Santorum's neglect to reveal or research facts was correct but especially Ironic as it was followed by the same neglect by you. "the war on women funding cuts".
The targeted fund is the P&P health fund ($1B). The only female specific line refers to breast feeding help. low income breast screening programs are not due to be included until next year giving ample time to find alternative funding. Even so, the few female specific items only amount to 2 tenths of 1% of the entire funding. hardly a war on women, more like a war on health care in general.
You gave me the impression this was almost entirely about targeting women, clearly it is not. I am reminded; it is not always what the media says, but the details not mentioned that gives an accurate conclusion to a story. Here your reporting was bias and slanted for political reasons. I shall listen with a coating of cynical in future.
Still a fan.
Rachel, Rachel! Can't believe you are not aware of the common low-class white male commentary on abortion. (1) Pregnancies not caused by approved, accredited white male husbands and fathers are caused by erring, promiscuous women off the reservation--engaging in sexual relations not under the control of approved, accredited white male husbands and fathers. (2) So-called "rape" is an attempt by a devious, lying, promiscuous woman trying to hide her unapproved sexual behavior by blaming the innocent man. (3) Trying to obtain an abortion is an ipso facto confession that the woman in question is trying to hide the evidence of her unapproved sexual behavior--or an attempt to deprive an approved, accredited white male father of his rightful heir. Add this: The Bible does not regard abortion as murder, but it does regard it as a violation of a husband's right to the child. The punishment (you can look it up) is not the punishment for murder; it is a fine paid to the father. Does this help you understand why all abortions are wrong, even in case of these false accusations of "rape" (oh please) and "incest" (oh please!), and why such women should be shamed and punished--as publicly as possible? We must stamp out all female sexual behavior not under the control of men!
I believe not too long ago there was a vote to continue with the tax loop hole for oil company subsidies. So now the republicans want to take money out of women's health care to pay for the continuation of the student loan rate. What a sad bunch of human beings these republicans are.