1 Center for American Progress | The Top 12 House Votes Against the Middle Class The T op 12 House Votes Against the Middle Class Conservative Leaders Put the 1 Percent Before the 99 Percent Time and Again February 2012 Introduction A deailed examinaion ohe voes casin he House oR epresenaives during he rssession ohe 112h Congress reveals hahe conservaive leadership ohe cham- ber and heir backbench ea Pary rebrands voed 279 imes againshe ineress oAmerican middle-class amilies. We can ’lisal l 279 ohe voes, buwe composed a lisbelow ohe mosegregious ones. Tese voes are emblemaic ohe scanconcerns conservaives in he House have or our embatled middle class. Unorunae ly or hem he public is beginning o noice. Te American people have begun o express increased dissaisacion wih House Republicans. Here’s why. Repealing the Affordable Care Act Vote Repeal of the Affordable Care Act (H.R. 2): House V oe 14. Adoped 245–189: Republicans 242–0; Democras 3–189 on January 19, 2011 Purpose Tis bill called or repealing he Aordable Care Ac, which ensures ha32 million people will gain insurance coverage , addresses rising healh care coss, and includes imporanconsumer proecions againsdiscriminaory insurance pracices such as denying coverage o hose wih pre-ex ising condiions or charging higher raes based on a paien’s sex, race, or age. Te proposed House bill would resore he provisions ohe law amended or repealed by he Aordable Care Acand repeals cerain provisions ohe healh care reconciliaion law wihouoering an alernaive o help he middle
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/2/2019 The Top 12 House Votes Against the Middle Class
3 Center for American Progress | The Top 12 House Votes Against the Middle Class
According o he nonparisan Congressional Budge Oce , he Ryan voucher plan
or Medicare would orce a ypical 65-year-old o pay 68 percen o his or her oal
cos o coverage, including premiums, deducibles, and oher ou-o-pocke coss.
(see he Cener or American Progress analysis on proposals o urn Medicare ino a
premium suppor sysem)
Similarly, he Ryan plan or Medicaid would have drasic consequences. According ohe CBO, “saes would ace signican challenges in achieving sucien cos savings
hrough eciencies o miigae he loss o ederal unding.” Indeed, he CBO said ha
“o mainain curren service levels in he Medicaid program, saes would probably need
o consider addiional changes, such as reducing heir spending on oher programs or
raising addiional revenues. Alernaively, saes could reduce he size o heir Medicaid
programs by cuting paymen raes or docors, hospials, or nursing homes; reducing
he scope o benes covered; or limiing eligibiliy.”
House Republicans considered all o hese changes so ha conservaives in Congress
could cu corporae axes and lower he op individual ax rae o 25 percen rom hecurren 35 percen level or he wealhies Americans. Te ax cus or he wealhy were
so large ha even wih he massive spending cus in he Ryan budge, i would almos
cerainly have caused axes o go up on he middle class o make he numbers add up.
(see he Cener or American Progress analysis o he Ryan Budge) Tis voe was
4 Center for American Progress | The Top 12 House Votes Against the Middle Class
Abandoning homeowners
Vote
HAMP Termination (H.R. 839): House Voe 198. Adoped 252–170: Republicans 234–2;
Democras 18–168 on March 29, 2011
Purpose
Tis bill would erminae he reasury Deparmen’s auhoriy o provide new assisance
under he Home Aordable Modicaion Program, which provides nancial incenives
o morgage servicing companies o suppor reducions in borrowers’ monhly pay-
mens. Tis bill harms he several hundred housand Americans sill reeling rom he
housing marke collapse. Many morgage companies and banks sold risky morgages o
homeowners. By canceling his program here would ineviably be more oreclosures,
given he ragile sae o he naion’s housing marke. (see he Cener or American
Progress repor on ways he adminisraion can build o he HAMP program)
Fouling our air and drinking water
Vote
EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulation (H.R. 910): House Voe 249. Adoped 255–172:
Republicans 236–0; Democras 19–172 on April 7, 2011
Purpose
Tis bill would prohibi he Environmenal Proecion Agency, or EPA, rom regulaing
greenhouse gases in any eor o address climae change. I would amend he Clean Air
Ac o srike specic elemens rom he deniion o an “air polluan” unless regulaiono hose chemicals is no used in an atemp o address climae change. I also would
clariy ha he bill does no limi he auhoriy o a sae o regulae he emission o a
greenhouse gas unless he regulaion atemps o address climae change. Tis bill would
harm all Americans. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and nirous oxide are
emited rom power plans, indusrial aciliies, and oher sources, and released ino he
amosphere. As hese gases linger in he amosphere, hey rap hea radiaing back rom
Earh, and he surace emperaure o our plane rises. Te rise in emperaure causes ris-
ing sea levels, increased rainall, oods, drough, wildres, and severe sorms, which no
only harm our environmen bu also hur our economy. (see he Cener or American
Progress analysis as o why he EPA mus be allowed o regulae greenhouse gases)
Vote
Commercial Boiler Emissions (H.R. 2250): House Voe 791. Adoped 275–142:
Republicans 234–0; Democras 41–142 on Ocober 13, 2011
5 Center for American Progress | The Top 12 House Votes Against the Middle Class
Purpose
Te bill would nulliy cerain EPA emissions sandards or commercial and indusrial
boilers and oher relaed equipmen. I would require he agency o repropose and
nalize he rules 15 monhs aer he bill’s enacmen and would require he EPA o
allow aeced plans a leas ve years o comply aer he regulaions become eecive.
Tis bill essenially pus he ineress o polluers over ha o he healh and saey o
American amilies. I creaes enormous uncerainy and goes ar beyond providing heEPA wih exra ime o nalize heir rulemaking. More roubling, his bill would delay
and could subsanially weaken long-overdue public healh proecions by allowing he
coninued emissions o carcinogens and oher oxic air polluans ha can cause devel-
opmenal harm and oher serious healh eecs. (see he Cener or American Progress
repor on how clean energy invesmens can creae jobs and proec he environmen)
Vote
Water Pollution Regulatory Authority—Passage (H.R. 2018): House Voe 573. Adoped
239–184: Republicans 223–13; Democras 16–171 on July 13, 2011
Purpose
Tis bill would prohibi EPA rom issuing a new or revised waer-qualiy sandard when
a sae sandard has been approved by he agency, unless he sae agrees ha a new
or revised sandard is necessary o mee Clean Waer Ac requiremens. I also would
prohibi EPA rom wihdrawing approval o a sae program or issuing waer-qualiy
permis or limiing ederal nancial assisance i EPA disagrees wih sae waer-qualiy
sandards or he implemenaion o ederal guidance. I would allow saes o assume
and adminiser pars o a waer-permiting program, raher han all or none o i. Tis
bill would do grea harm o all Americans i ever enaced. According o he EPA , his bill
would undamenally aler he curren ederal/sae relaionship oulined in he Clean Waer Ac and would hinder he ederal governmen’s abiliy o ensure here is an equi-
able level o proecion provided o our naion’s waers. Worse ye, he bill hinders ed-
eral and sae governmen eors o use greaer scienic inormaion on he impac o
polluion o human healh and he environmen. (see he Cener or American Progress
repor on why invesmens in waer inrasrucure are needed now more han ever)
Guaranteeing more job losses
Vote
Cut, Cap, and Balance—Passage (H.R. 2560): House Voe 606. Adoped 234–190:
Republicans 229–9; Democras 5–181 on July 19, 2011
Purpose
Tis bill made an increase in he ederal deb limi coningen upon he passage o a bal-
anced-budge consiuional amendmen. I also would se scal year 2012 discreion-
6 Center for American Progress | The Top 12 House Votes Against the Middle Class
ary spending a a dangerously low level. Te bill, i enaced, would drasically undercu
he ederal governmen’s abiliy o mee is core commimens o seniors, middle-class
amilies, and he mos vulnerable. According o an analysis by he Cener on Budge
and Policy Prioriies, he “Cu, Cap, and Balance Ac” would require cus oaling $111
billion immediaely, despie a persisenly high unemploymen rae. According o he
analysis, cus a ha level equal roughly 0.7 percen o he projeced GDP or scal year
2012. A cu ha size could cause he loss o roughly 700,000 jobs, relaive o wha henumber o jobs oherwise would be. (see he Cener or American Progress repor on
he conservaive plan o cap spending)
Encouraging financial fraud
Vote
Consumer Financial Proecion Bureau Overhaul—Passage (H.R. 1315): House Voe
621. Adoped 241–173: Republicans 231–1; Democras 10–172 on July 21, 2011
Purpose
Passage o he bill would replace he Consumer Financial Proecion Bureau’s direcor
wih a ve-member commission. I also would lower he voe hreshold required or
he Financial Sabiliy Oversigh Council o override Consumer Financial Proecion
Bureau rules rom wo-hirds o a simple majoriy and would allow he council o
override regulaions ha hreaen he sabiliy o individual insiuions. According o
Financial Services Commitee Democras:
Te Consumer Financial Proecion Bureau (CFPB) is a very imporan par o he
Wall Sree Reorm and Consumer Proecion Ac, as he ile o he bill makes clear.
Unil passage o ha Ac, consumer proecion in nancial maters was in he hands
o regulaors who consisenly reaed consumer proecion as a second class concern.
Creaing an independen bureau was inended o ensure ha consumer ineress are
ully considered on he meris and no relegaed o an aferhough. H.R . 1315 would
reverse his by resoring he prudenial regulaors’ auhoriy over consumer proecion
by providing ha he Financial Sabiliy Oversigh Council (FSOC) could overrule,
by majoriy voe, a CFPB regulaion on any policy ground i deems appropriae. Tis
would ake away he very independence o he CFPB ha he law inended o esablish.
(see he Cener or American Progress repor on why he appoinmen o he CFPB
8 Center for American Progress | The Top 12 House Votes Against the Middle Class
Cutting benefits for out-of-work Americans
Vote
GOP Payroll Tax/Unemployment Insurance Extensions Package (H.R. 3630): House Voe
923 , Passed 234–193: Republicans 224–14; Democras 10–179 on December 13, 2011
Purpose
Tis bill would have exended jobless benes or some o he unemployed while reduc-
ing he maximum number o weeks o benes ha a worker could receive unemploy-
men insurance. Under he GOP’s bill , saes would have required individuals seeking
jobless benes o be drug esed and would have required mos people receiving
benes o be searching or work and pursuing educaion credenials i hey did no have
a high school diploma. I also called or blocking cerain air polluion rules or indusrial
boilers and incineraors; reezing he pay o many ederal employees hrough 2013;
increasing Medicare premiums or afuen beneciaries; and eliminaing more han $20
billion o spending planned under he Aordable Care Ac.
Tis bill would be devasaing o working amilies all across he counry. Many laid-o
Americans would risk slipping ino povery because o he resricions on unemploymen
insurance benes in his bill. Te bill also reezes he pay o ederal employees, blocks
imporan EPA regulaions, and reduces spending on he Aordable Care Ac. (see he
Cener or American Progresssae-by-sae analysis o he impac o he payroll ax cu)
Conclusion
Te House record is clear. From voing o pu insurance companies above amilies oguting clean air and waer rules, he curren majoriy has proven who hey work or.
Forunaely or America’s middle-class amilies, none o hese proposals will even be
signed ino law.
Te American public is losing aih in he House leadership. I’s clear why.
(Te Source or he voes was Congressional Quarerly and he Library o Congress)