The Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012, or S.3457, would have funded a military veterans’ job program, placing vets in police, firefighting and national park forces, amongst other jobs. On September 11th, the GOP joined with Democrats to vote to move forward with the bill (95 yeas, 5 nays). Now, a little over a week later, the GOP has turned against S.3457—a bill that would serve our serviceman.
Is this not the perfect example of legislative obstructionism? Any time Obama and the Democrats are on the verge of getting the GOP behind something, the obstructionists about-face and claim it’s a budget buster.
The bill was sponsored by Senators Bill Nelson (Florida) and Patty Murray (Washington). After the bill failed to muster the supermajority to force a full Senate floor vote, Murray stated:
“This vote is stark reminder that Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans are willing to do absolutely anything to fulfill the pledge he made nearly two years ago to defeat President Obama. It doesn’t matter who gets in their way or which Americans they have to sacrifice in that pursuit, even if it’s our nation’s veterans.”
As quintessential electoral and obstructionist politics, this puts the GOP in a whole new class of shame.
Stars & Stripes, the military’s newspaper, wrote in response to the GOP’s political maneuvering:
Last week, Democratic leaders inserted several Republican-backed provisions into the legislation in an effort to generate widespread support for the measure, including rules requiring states to recognize military experience in their hiring processes, establishing national credentialing rules for veterans and expanding post-military job training programs.
Republicans are constantly going on about supporting the troops, yet they can’t even stomach $1 billion to give our soldiers jobs when their unemployment rate is around 8%. The sentiment seems to be, “Go secure capitalism’s foothold abroad, sons and daughters, but when you get home you can go fuck off.”
Read the full bull over at OpenCongress.org.
September 20, 2012 at 9:58 pm, Hunter Willis said:
Sadly you left out the MOST IMPORTANT part of the story: Why did they vote it down? Simple answer: it violated budget rules by not paying for itself.
It's CLEAR the Democrats have NO DESIRE to cut spending to preserve the economy for future generations. They're CLEARLY willing to sell future generations up Debt River in order to stay in office today.
Nice piece of shitty, biased, lie-based journalism here guys.
September 21, 2012 at 5:54 am, Frank Savage said:
So they should have done it off the books. The same way the wars were funded under W…
September 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm, Chris Harrison said:
It was funded. They were going to use the penalties collected from medicare overbilling if I recall correctly.
September 21, 2012 at 12:28 pm, Chris Harrison said:
Clarification: penalties collected from doctors and hospitals found guilty of medicare overbilling.
September 21, 2012 at 4:36 pm, Hunter Willis said:
Murray wanted to use those funds retro-actively. That bill was passed in the Spring and she wanted to say, "Hey – we already brought in new revenue 4+ months ago. We'll just go ahead and use that!"
Unfortunately, that isn't how the budget rules work, not the ones she already agreed to.
The Democrats were unwilling to reduce deficit spending (as opposed to total spending) by 0.07% in order to make this happen. They refused to a discussion on off-setting $1 billion in spending, despite spending $1,500 we're already spending above and beyond revenues.
September 23, 2012 at 5:40 am, Steven Hinds said:
that is incorrect, the bill was paid for and met pay go requirements
September 23, 2012 at 5:49 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steven Hinds That is not correct. See my reasoning above. The bill DID NOT include a funding mechanism. She wanted to fund it from a completely different bill. There were NO FUNDS assigned to pay this bill. It met no funding requirements. It failed to meet funding requirements. Any assertion that this bill met the funding requirements is incorrect.
If you have a citation that that contradicts anything I've said, please post it. I already posted how Murray, the bill's author, wanted to fund the bill. That DOES NOT meet PAYGO requirements. The Democrats were seeking a waiver on PAYGO, ergo, it DID NOT meet funding requirements.
September 23, 2012 at 5:58 am, Steven Hinds said:
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah, the republichumps are willing to go ten trillion in debt (Ryan budget) to finance more tax cuts for the rich but 1/10,000 of that amount is obscene to spend on our veterans? Smoke and mirrors talk about it does or does not precisely meet this or that rule is dishonest bullcrap to mask the truth that those pukes could care less about our veterans.
September 23, 2012 at 6:05 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steven Hinds Got it. So your story just changed now that your lie has been called out. Classy… and typical dum-dum liberal.
The Republicans wanted to pass the bill but wanted to pay for the bill. The Democrats REFUSED to cut $1 billion in order to make it happen.
I have no idea why you bring up the Ryan budget. It actually creates less of a deficit than the Obama budget. But, to know that, you need to be an informed voter. It's pretty clear you're just a Democrat lacky who has to create lies and false realities in order to support your positions.
September 23, 2012 at 6:23 am, Steven Hinds said:
I have been a registered Republican more years than you have been alive and never subscribed to liberalism. But I know bullcrap when I hear it and it is flowing in mountains from you. If the Republicans WANTED to pass the bill they would have. Like all legislation they think might make the Democrats look good, they demand what they know they will not get. Since when is eliminating spending for one thing necessary to enable spending for something else? Your dumbass Republicans have been agreeing to add over a trillion dollars a year to the debt if they can just kept the Bush Tax cuts for the rich. Dumb ass Obama has been making that deal with them over and over. Apparently you only pay attention if it supports what you like hear and think. I brought up this and the Ryan Budget to show what a hypocrite you and the Republicans are about deficit spending. You only think in is a good thing if it helps the rich. You know, the ones you idiots call the job creators. What a dumb ass.
September 23, 2012 at 6:27 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steven – you're lying more and more and more to cover your first lie.
How could the GOP have paid for the bill if the Democrats were UNWILLING to make the cuts?
Continue to dig a deeper and deeper hole. You lack integrity. You call me a dumbass and say all kinds of crazy shit but, when asked to back ANY of it up, you refuse. Just like the Dems refused to make cuts.
You never were a Republican. You blindly repeat whatever you're told and then lie when called out on your lies. And when called out, you don't address the point, you just make up more lies and blindly repeat more talking points.
Stop lying, start backing up your statements or start admitting you're a worthless liar.
September 23, 2012 at 6:35 am, Steven Hinds said:
I will tell you what, you name the arbitrator you want to examine my evidence of Republican voter registration, receipts for donations to the RNC, my Republican Congressman, George Bush etc. and then tell me how large a wager you would like to make! We will put the money in an escrow gambling account in Nevada and if I prove my statements, I get the money, if I do not, you get the money. Put up or shut dumb ass. There is not one thing I have said that is untrue.
September 23, 2012 at 8:24 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steven – you're still avoiding the key point: you're a liar. You're a stupid hack who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to engage in this conversation. Perhaps you used to be smart now you're just old, decrepit and senile. Your very first statement was a lie. Now you just blind parrot back lies spoon-fed to you by the DNC. Don't worry – the Dems like nutcases like you. Too stupid to think for yourself but just smart enough to parrot back all the dumass statements you hear.
Tell you what: you name the amount. Let's keep it under $10,000. We'll put it in escrow. Then you go out and prove that this bill paid for itself.
Back it up, chump. Or admit you're an old, stupid, lazy liar who can't handle thinking for yourself.
September 23, 2012 at 9:10 am, Steven Hinds said:
Wow I am so impressed with your level stupidity. Like most of the young mindless psuedo conservatives that have never done or accomplished anything in their life, except sit behind their computers and sling insults, you are a genuine dumb ass. The point of how it was to be paid was made by others, it was clearly stated by the author of the bill. But you in your stupid mindless rhetoric, want to rehash the points over and over in a futile attempt to prove you are right when you never grasp the point of the entire conversation everyone is throwing at you. Let me make the POINT clear to your stupid ass once and for all. THE REPUBLICANS STABBED OUR VETERANS IN THE BACK, IN A PETTY POLITICAL PLOY. ONE BILLION DOLLARS IS NOTHING TO THEM, IF THEY REALLY WANTED IT TO PASS, IT WOULD HAVE PASSED, PERIOD. I slandered the Republichumps who did that, not you. You childishly became frustrated and begin calling me names, and slandering me personally, you chicken shit, ass hole punk. You said I was a lair and never was a Republican. Now that I am willing to prove it, and bankrupt your sorry ass, you want to make the wager about something other than backing up your calling me a lair about what and who I am. Everyone reading this can see you, for what you really are, a pathetic, chicken shit, name calling punk. If you had ever been a vetera, you would understand the importance of the bill to them and the well being of veterans and the rest of the country. Endless deployment recycles and the circumstances of the rules of engagement have led to suicide fatalities being higher than combat fatalities. The situation has become unbearable for those of us who are veterans and understand the stresses of separation and combat. If your sorry, chicken shit ass ever got out from behind a computer, and actually served this country, you would understand too. Now you stupid prick, you have made me lose my temper, something I do not like to do. So go back to your momma and suck on your pacifier and leave politics to people who have done something for this country besides run their mouth.
September 23, 2012 at 9:33 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steven Hinds NO ONE MADE THE POINT OF HOW IT WAS PAID FOR. Everyone, including you, said, "Nope – it was paid for." but offered nothing with it. You're just parroting back what you think is the truth and parroting back what you hear others say but you're too stupid, too lazy, and too worried about working to discover that this bill WASN'T PAID FOR.
"The point of how it was to be paid was made by others, it was clearly stated by the author of the bill."
You're a moron. I'm the one who brought this point up. I even addressed it. That ISN'T how the budget rules work. You don't get to say, "Look – I know we passed this 6 months ago but it raised funds. I want to raid those funds in order to justify this spending instead of doing what we all agreed to do and pay for the bills as we go."
"want to rehash the points over and over in a futile attempt to prove you are right"
Dumbass – I AM right. I've given you NUMEROUS chances to prove that I'm wrong. You've failed each and every time. And know why you failed? Because you're a LIAR!!!
"grasp the point of the entire conversation"
Dumbass II – I STARTED this conversation. You're trying to hijack it because you don't like the truth. The truth is simple: This bill WASN'T paid for.
Dumbass III – "THE REPUBLICANS STABBED OUR VETERANS IN THE BACK, IN A PETTY POLITICAL PLOY" You're such a f*-ing stupid liberal. You realize that the Dems could have had this passed IF they had been willing to cut $1 billion somewhere. The Dems agreed to the rules but they didn't want to follow them. Say all you want (blindly parroting what you hear) about the GOP, the Dems could have had this passed just as easily. They REFUSED. I know you want to suck Obama's dick because you feel white guilt but use your brain… whatever you have left of it after handing it over to the Democrats. The Democrats REFUSED to cut $1 billion of the $1,500 billion we're already spending above and beyond revenues. What do you call that? I know, I know – the GOP are jerks and no matter what they are the ones at fault. That's what you're programmed to think and, like a simpleton, you blindly repeat it. But pretend for a moment you have a brain you can use to think for yourself. What does it say about the Democrats?
Dumbass IV – "You said I was a lair and never was a Republican. Now that I am willing to prove it, and bankrupt your sorry ass," And I gave you a counter-offer. It would bankrupt your sorry ass. $10,000 is probably all you managed to save for retirement. Why not take this offer? You're so sure you're right, why not take it? C'mon you old shit, take the f*ing deal. We both know why you refuse: because you're a liar and you got called out on it.
September 23, 2012 at 9:36 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steven Hinds "Everyone reading this can see you, for what you really are, a pathetic, chicken shit, name calling punk"
And everyone can see you for what you really are: a dumbass liar who is so stupid all he can do is blindly repeat what he is told. You're also such a coward that when you're called out on your lie, you blindly try to justify it by making up more lies. And when I try to bring you back to your original lie, you, like a coward, make up even more lies.
You lack integrity. You lack the capacity to form your own thought. You're about as stupid as they come.
Admit you lied and be done with it.
September 23, 2012 at 10:02 am, Steven Hinds said:
LMAO. OMG. Thank you for validating the whole my point of my involvement. YOU REALLY DON'T GET WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. You are a broken record about payment details "it's not paid for, it's not paid for, it's not paid for, it's not paid for, it's not paid for." You stupid, pathetic, little, chicken shit punk. It's about veterans well being and our taking care of them, it is not about the MONEY. You really ARE a dumb ass. If the Republicans really cared about our veterans, just the author SAYING it was paid for, would be good enough. THEY WOULD NOT CARE IF IT REALLY WAS PAID FOR OR NOT you stupid shit. If the Republicans really cared they would use any excuse, true or not, to get the bill passed. Instead they did that very thing to excuse NOT passing it. You are too retarded to see that. Let me write your response for you and save you some time. "You lie, you still did not PROVE that I am wrong and the bill was paid for." LMAO. Calling you stupid is an insult to stupid people.
September 23, 2012 at 10:11 am, Steven Hinds said:
I give, I can do nothing further. You are too stupid and inexperienced with anything in life to grasp the importance of this bill to veterans and this country. You will mindlessly defend what the Republicans did, not matter what is said, because you are incapable of understanding something that is not written down for you in conservative dogma. You have never done anything, and ARE nothing, but a big mouth, little chicken shit punk with a alligator mouth and a humming bird ass, with absolutely no understanding or care of the sacrifices our people in uniform make every day so you can hide behind your computer and run your mouth.
September 23, 2012 at 10:40 am, Hunter Willis said:
" YOU REALLY DON'T GET WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT."
It's about you lying. That's been clear from the beginning.
" It's about veterans well being and our taking care of them, it is not about the MONEY."
If money was in unlimited supply, I'd be inclined to agree. If there were no other programs like this one for Vets, I'd be inclined to agree (there are at least 7).
"If the Republicans really cared about our veterans, just the author SAYING it was paid for, would be good enough. THEY WOULD NOT CARE IF IT REALLY WAS PAID FOR OR NOT you stupid shit."
Let's use your logic. If the Dems really cared for Vets, they would have followed the budget rules and made the cuts. Since they didn't, the Dems don't care for Vets. That's your logic we're applying there you old pedophile.
I know you're so old that you don't care about the debt and how it will cripple the economy for future generations. Maybe you hate your grandkids and you want to fuck them over like you fucked your son in the ass. Who knows?
"I give, I can do nothing further"
Exactly. That's what happens when you're a liar and you get called out on your lie. Whether or not the GOP could have/should have passed the bill is irrelevant. You lied, you got called out on it and you started crying like a little bitch coward.
" You have never done anything…"
Considering I hold numerous patents and 2,000+ people have a job because of me, I'm inclined to disagree. But think what you will. You've already proven you're a liar, you're senile, you like little boys in your bed Michael Jackson style and you can't hold a candle to me intellectually. What have you done? What have you accomplished in your life? Aside from being an old, stupid liar?
" but a big mouth, little chicken shit punk with a alligator mouth and a humming bird ass, with absolutely no understanding or care of the sacrifices our people in uniform make every day so you can hide behind your computer and run your mouth. "
Tell me – how is being an old, bitter liar with a withered dick something to be proud of?
September 23, 2012 at 10:41 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steven Hinds You don't even have the integrity to admit you're a liar. You're pathetic.
September 23, 2012 at 10:52 am, Steven Hinds said:
Fuck you, you punk ass bitch. I may be older but I am still man enough to make you eat shit punk.
September 23, 2012 at 10:54 am, Steven Hinds said:
I am not surprised you like to talk about man on boy, that is probably how you like BOY!
September 23, 2012 at 3:51 pm, Hunter Willis said:
Go ahead pedophile – make me. While you're trying to figure out how to back up your crap just remember: you're a liar. Not only that, you're too stupid to think for yourself or have your own thought.
September 23, 2012 at 3:56 pm, Hunter Willis said:
Steven Hinds And let's face it, you're not a man. You're a shallow, pathetic, stupid human being. You're too stupid to think for yourself. You're too stupid to know that you blindly repeat lies. You're too stupid to know that pedophilia is against the law – even after your stink in jail.
September 27, 2012 at 12:22 am, Steven Hinds said:
Hunter I never saw anyone talk about sex with children as much as you. They say when under stress, people talk about what gives them security, and they project their innermost onto others. I find it interesting I talk about kicking your ass, and you talk about sex with children. The idea of sex with children must fascinate you or something, or else it would be the furthest thing from your mind. Not only are you a chickenshit punk, you are one sick puppy, who can't get the idea of sex with children out of his mind, or out of the conversation.
September 27, 2012 at 12:27 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steve – considering I'm NOT under stress your conclusion is lacking. Besides, I never saw you deny the allegations (a simple Google search reveals your name registered as a sex offender so I understand you not denying it).
Besides, after several days to look things up you STILL haven't backed up your assertion that the bill was paid for.
I may be a chickenshit punk but at least I'm not a registered sex offender and someone who lies and lies and lies.
September 27, 2012 at 12:44 am, Steven Hinds said:
Fuck you punk. LOL I never denied being the President of Uganda either. Being accused to that makes as much sense. You are trying to move the focus away from the fact that you are a chickenshit punk who can't get the idea of sex with children out of his mind. You are one of those pathetic punks who hides in fear behind his computer and hurls insults. The computer allows your chickenshit punk ass to always have the last word, because the computer protects you from people like me, who would shut your chickenshit punk ass up with fists if you were not in hiding. So go punk, run your mouth some more.
September 27, 2012 at 3:03 am, Hunter Willis said:
When were you accused of being the President of Uganda? Maybe the President Uranus (or the anus of 8 year-olds) but never Uganda. And it is YOUR name on the pedophile registry, not mine. You're the one who likes to stick your shriveled dick inside little boys, not me.
You accuse me of trying to change the subject. Funny – earlier you accused me of staying on point in calling you a liar. Funny stuff these comments. They're easy to reread but you old guys seem to forget that.
Feel free to continue to threaten me. You'd be on the floor before you tossed your walker away. Even then you'd still be a liar. Your threats are just like your comments: you're unable to back them up.
September 27, 2012 at 3:20 am, Steven Hinds said:
The only people on the registry you are talking about, is you and your mama. People on that registry here, cannot hide, their address is public. As you, and and everyone else knows punk, I am no where to be found on any such registry. It is amazing to me how you just cannot stop talking about little children in a sexually way. You fucking piece of shit pervert. Not only are you a punk, you are a pervert. I will be happy to prove I can rearrange you face, anytime. Come on motherfucker, lets do this.
September 27, 2012 at 3:33 am, Steven Hinds said:
You know what chickenshit, I can be found on Google. Look it up. You can easily find my address and phone number. Call or come. If I do not here from you in person, you prove everything I say about your chickenshit, punk, perverted ass. Hoping to hear from you where you cannot hide behind the internet. Please call, I answer all calls that display name and number. I will use that to hunt your punk ass down motherfucker.
September 27, 2012 at 3:45 am, Steven Hinds said:
Come on you fucking punk, I don't hear my phone ringing!
September 27, 2012 at 3:50 am, Steven Hinds said:
You wanted my attention motherfucker you got it! Come one! The kind of baseless accusations you have been making is how people end up with their picture on a milk carton. COME ON MOTHERFUCKER! CALL!!!!
September 27, 2012 at 3:54 am, Steven Hinds said:
I will make it easy for you motherfucker, just call. I WILL DO THE REST. Call, you chickenshit, punk ass, motherfucker!!!
September 27, 2012 at 4:38 am, Steven Hinds said:
Come on motherfucker! Your punk ass said you found me on Google. A friend just looked up my address and phone number in under 2 minutes using Google. Why isn't my phone ringing? Like I told your punk ass, just call. You said you found me. Call you punk ass motherfucker! I will do the rest. You don't have to travel, you don't have to miss work. I will come to you. Call you chickenshit, punk ass motherfucker, I will make it all happen!
September 27, 2012 at 5:46 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steve – this is the kind of anger that will get you in heaps of trouble with your parole officer. I'm sure you'd like to be back in jail again, you know, with all the gang rapes and stuff.
You said the bill you was paid for and you failed to back it up. I asked you dozens of times to prove it and you failed each and every time. Much like your shriveled penis fails to satisfy your wife. Linda – is that her name? Anyway, you never followed through on what I asked for, why should I do the same for you?
What are you going to do when I call? Tell me about your conquests at the playground? Tell me how tight your son's poop shoot was before you got through with him? Tell me I'm smarter than you and more informed than you and that makes me a "chicken shit punk"? Or will you finally tell me the proof that you have, that no one else has, that this bill was paid for?
For my records, is your number: (530) 534-8348?
September 27, 2012 at 5:51 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steven Hinds Wait – maybe your wife is Deanne? There are so many addresses and phone numbers out there it's hard to know which one belongs to whom.
September 27, 2012 at 6:21 am, Steven Hinds said:
Don't make excuses, Call motherfucker! You say you know? Call, you motherfucking punk, I am coming for you! Just call.
September 27, 2012 at 6:44 am, Steven Hinds said:
Call you fucking chickenshit, that's all I need. Your number on my phone. Your ass is mine when you do. Man up motherfucker! You are posting names and numbers, call, call, call. Like I said I am there for all to see motherfucker. If you know, just call you cock sucking, motherfucking chickenshit!
September 27, 2012 at 7:18 am, Hunter Willis said:
For a guy who likes kids you sure do talk a lot about sucking cocks. Is that what you made your son do to you? And I don't like the idea of you having my pooper. I don't know what you'd do with it or what child prostitute your penis has been in.
Do I have the correct phone number?
September 27, 2012 at 7:26 am, Steven Hinds said:
You say you know, if you do, why are you afraid to call? Is it you are not as smart as you think you are? Or are you afraid you are right? If you call, it is over for you. You will never post like this again, I promise you. I will come for you and end this shit forever. Hunter you may smarter than I thought. You are right to be afraid.
September 27, 2012 at 7:31 am, Hunter Willis said:
Stevey – I'm just asking because I don't want to call the wrong person.
What will be "all over for [me]"? You've already proven you're too stupid to know what laws are being passed. Are you going to attempt to give me a good tongue lashing? Tell me all that you've accomplished in the sandbox and the rest of playground? And what "shit" is going to end? That I'll prove to you just how uniformed you are?
You know exactly where I am. You have easy access to my phone number & address. You've made numerous threats. You're all talk. You and I both know you're too afraid to back it up.
September 27, 2012 at 7:52 am, Steven Hinds said:
You said you looked it up, and you know. You do or you don't. Call or shut up.
September 27, 2012 at 7:54 am, Steven Hinds said:
Your call is my invitation. Your name and number on my phone. You say you know it. For the very last time, stop making excuses. Call. Write anything you want now bitch, that is all you do. If you want to see me so we can settle this, just call.
September 27, 2012 at 8:03 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steven – why are you so afraid to confirm that I have the correct number? I already posted it and asked you if that was the correct one.
You better sit down for this one… and take some Tylenol as I'm not sure your old heart can take this news. Okay… you ready? The information you find on the internet isn't always accurate or completely up-to-date. So I want to make sure I have your correct phone number and not call and wake someone up who isn't expecting the call.
Also – I keep asking but you keep avoiding the question: in what way are you going to "settle this"? I've already given you conclusive proof that you were lying. Why do you avoid all of my questions? This is a REALLY bad thing. Are you senile? Suffering from dementia? I'm starting to see why you're such an angry person: you're either extremely stupid or extremely senile. Both can cause frustration. I tend to lean towards you being extremely stupid. Stupid people get enraged when they're stupidity is repeatedly pointed out to them. Senile people tend to agree so they don't look as stupid.
September 27, 2012 at 8:04 am, Hunter Willis said:
Steven Hinds Sorry – rewrote what I said and didn't correct my usage of "they're". Should have been "their".
Does your dementia let you remember details like that?
September 21, 2012 at 5:51 pm, Dan Como said:
If we don't owe returning, and wounded vet 's, who do we owe? If we can continue to send our son's & daughters into wars that do nothing but enrich the few at the expense of the many, we can damn sure see that vets get jobs and vocational training upon return. A pox on both parties.
September 21, 2012 at 11:21 pm, Terri Garza said:
Obama and the Dems try. GOP blocks.
September 22, 2012 at 3:40 am, Teresa Duell said:
their is always two sides to the story if one just gets into all the exact wording in every bill they try to pass….
September 22, 2012 at 4:23 am, Sharon Quinn said:
Omg
September 22, 2012 at 11:12 am, Billy Moore said:
what else would u expect from the cons.
September 22, 2012 at 11:49 am, John Washington said:
Anyone with connection to OUR BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVED FOR THEIR COUNTRY , should be appauld…..
September 23, 2012 at 9:19 pm, Daniel Streckfuss said:
How much of the funding for this bill was going to training veterans?
SEC. 7. 100 PERCENT CONTINUOUS LEVY ON PAYMENT TO MEDICARE PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS.
Paragraph (3) of section 6331(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting `, or, with respect to payments made during the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012, to a Medicare provider or supplier under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.'.
SEC. 8. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR ULTRA-DEEPWATER AND UNCONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS AND OTHER PETROLEUM RESOURCES.
(a) Repeal- Subtitle J of title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16371 et seq.) is repealed.
(b) Rescission- The unobligated balances of funds made available for fiscal year 2012 under section 999H of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16378) (as it existed before the amendment made by subsection (a)) are rescinded permanently.
SEC. 9. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN UNPAID TAXES.
(a) In General- Subchapter D of chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`SEC. 7345. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN TAX DELINQUENCIES.
`(a) In General- If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 4 of the Act entitled `An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes', approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the `Passport Act of 1926'.
`(b) Seriously Delinquent Tax Debt- For purposes of this section, the term `seriously delinquent tax debt' means an outstanding debt under this title for which a notice of lien has been filed in public records pursuant to section 6323 or a notice of levy has been filed pursuant to section 6331, except that such term does not include–
`(1) a debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement under section 6159 or 7122, and.
`(2) a debt with respect to which a collection due process hearing under section 6330, or relief under subsection (b), (c), or (f) of section 6015, is requested or pending.
`(c) Adjustment for Inflation- In the case of a calendar year beginning after 2012, the dollar amount in subsection (a) shall be increased by an amount equal to–
`(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by.
`(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2011' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the next highest multiple of $1,000.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subchapter D of chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`Sec. 7345. Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain tax delinquencies.'.
(c) Authority for Information Sharing-
(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (l) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(23) DISCLOSURE OF RETURN INFORMATION TO DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR PURPOSES OF PASSPORT REVOCATION UNDER SECTION 7345-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall, upon receiving a certification described in section 7345, disclose to the Secretary of State return information with respect to a taxpayer who has a seriously delinquent tax debt described in such section. Such return information shall be limited to–
`(i) the taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer, and.
`(ii) the amount of such seriously delinquent tax debt.
`(B) RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE- Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Department of State for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, carrying out the requirements of section 4 of the Act entitled `An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes', approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the `Passport Act of 1926'.'.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Paragraph (4) of section 6103(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking `or (22)' each place it appears in subparagraph (F)(ii) and in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting `(22), or (23)'.
(d) Revocation Authorization- The Act entitled `An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes', approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the `Passport Act of 1926', is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO DENY OR REVOKE PASSPORT.
`(a) Ineligibility-
`(1) ISSUANCE- Except as provided under subsection (b), upon receiving a certification described in section 7345 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State may not issue a passport or passport card to any individual who has a seriously delinquent tax debt described in such section.
`(2) REVOCATION- The Secretary of State shall revoke a passport or passport card previously issued to any individual described in subparagraph (A).
`(b) Exceptions-
`(1) EMERGENCY AND HUMANITARIAN SITUATIONS- Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary of State may issue a passport or passport card, in emergency circumstances or for humanitarian reasons, to an individual described in subsection (a)(1).
`(2) LIMITATION FOR RETURN TO UNITED STATES- Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of State, before revocation, may–
`(A) limit a previously issued passport or passport card only for return travel to the United States; or.
`(B) issue a limited passport or passport card that only permits return travel to the United States.'.
(e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on January 1, 2013.
Calendar No. 476
September 24, 2012 at 8:22 pm, Jason Harris said:
Then they shouldn't talk about beefing up national security if they're not going to take care of the foks that put themsleves in harm;s way or contribute and are involved in the security of the nation. It's unfair, immoral and hypocritical! It's NOT RIGHT PERIOD. Take care of our service men and put country before politics. The debt is here partially because of 2 unpaid major theatre operations in IRaq and Afghanistan and other worldwide anit terrorists missions.
September 24, 2012 at 6:01 pm, GOP: save Veterans Job Corps Act, cut money from $380 billion in defense contracts | Death and Taxes said:
[...] contracts By DJ Pangburn 1 min agoThe GOP says that the Democrats’ S.3457, a $1 billion Veterans Job Corp bill which they supported 95-5 in the Senate several weeks ago but voted against last week, is spending [...]
October 28, 2012 at 2:41 pm, Sherry Purdy said:
S.3457 and S.3536 would only cover veterans after 9/11 and not cover other generations plus give a tax credit to the employer up to $9,600 for a limited time. This bill had no metric system to check if it was working. The bill would violate the budget control act. What passed was S.2239 as H.R. 4155 Veterans Skill Act which would allow all veterans with a certificate from the military to use this as entry into the work force without going back to college etc. This is the right bill not this other mess…we don't need a tempory fix that would not cover all veterans. We have many past and current veterans with the high level skill and experience that would be highly valued to any work force to hire…it is because the States and Government had before required them to go back to school to meet their standards…the colleges did not approve education from the military with the many college courses that must be met provided by the military to meet the military's standard…it is this way in the private sector too…if you have college credit from another state alot of times it is not transferable to a different state that you move to…this also should be changed…we are in America and the states should approve another states education.
October 28, 2012 at 4:58 pm, Lyndel Fryman said:
College apparently is obsolete!! According to the job sector there are millions of jobs available that people are not qualified to fill, seems like this should be addressed immediately!!
December 04, 2012 at 10:01 pm, Joe Woolsey said:
Jobs bills pay for themselves–people who are working pay taxes and are not on assistance–therefore they are an investment, not a cost.