Do You Agree with George Miller's Statement on 'Fiscal Cliff' Budget Deal?

El Cerrito's representative in the House called the deal a "solid agreement that paves the way for important, although, difficult decisions in the next few months ahead."

Congressman George Miller (D-Seventh District) issued the following statement Tuesday regarding the vote on the “Fiscal Cliff” budget deal:

"Tonight in Congress the important art of compromise was revived, an art that had been stifled since the Tea Party took over the House two years ago. I voted for the bi-partisan compromise fiscal cliff agreement to prevent a tax hike on the middle class, to increase tax rates on the wealthiest, and to continue unemployment insurance, tax credits for low-income families and small businesses, and investments in renewable energy. Not a perfect deal, clearly, but a solid agreement that paves the way for important, although, difficult decisions in the next few months ahead."

sherry January 03, 2013 at 01:06 AM
I commend Congressman Miller for his vote and position on the recent action taken by the House of Representatives and the Senate. I only wish that the $250K limit had been kept, but understand that a compromise had to be made.
Bobbie Dowling January 03, 2013 at 01:48 AM
House.gov shows all (or most -- I can't tell at this resolution) of El Cerrito (and Kensington) as being represented by John Garamendi....
bill January 03, 2013 at 03:02 AM
George Miller is a Party shill who mainly gives lip service to people in his district in order to remain in DC to do The Party's bidding. A very good example of why term limits are needed. Do I agree with his statement? Parts of it sound reasonable, I don't know if he's sincere or not given his history of statements vs actions. Parts of it are Party rhetoric and thus meaningless. I personally believe a "deal" was made months or years ago, and that the last few weeks have all been a show for the voters so members of either party can claim they tried to work in the best interest of their constituents; thus not hurting their chances to be re-elected.
Betty Buginas January 03, 2013 at 04:32 AM
That's outdated; the current district information is a bit clearer if you go to Miller's page: http://georgemiller.house.gov/
Mona Taplin January 03, 2013 at 04:38 AM
I hope we have a choice of candidates, republican and Democrats, next election so we can vote out every single incumbant. There is not one single excuse why compromises couldn't have been made much earlier than at the last minute.
Betty Buginas January 03, 2013 at 04:39 AM
There was also a Patch article: http://elcerrito.patch.com/articles/congressman-miller-state-senator-hancock-collect-signatures-in-bid-to-reclaim-el-cerrito . I think it isn't official until tomorrow (Jan. 3), though.
Bobbie Dowling January 03, 2013 at 05:01 AM
Thanks for explaining and the links. I guess if they can't do better than the brinksmanship we just witnessed this weekend, we can't really expect them to worry about things like updating official websites.
Jack Freethy January 03, 2013 at 05:16 AM
Mona is right on target. In addition all of Washington is totally out of tune with reality. Our political leaders and I use that term with lots of disrespect, should be focusing in cutting spending rather than the income side of the equation. Obama spends another 10 million flying to Hawaii again . This is his great example of how to save money in Washington. Miller is a politician who could not make it in the real world. I really can not understand the left coast voting these bums back in. I guess they like the gravy train that Washington gives them.
Christopher Kuhi January 03, 2013 at 04:33 PM
Nickle and diming the travel budget of our head of state is not going to get you much in savings. Especially if you consider the scale of the problem. It's sad that opinions such as yours always leave out boondoggles such as fighter jets even the military doesn't want. Just one such fighter jet easily costs more than all the presidential travel of Obama's several years put together.
Alex Gronke (Editor) January 03, 2013 at 04:42 PM
Interesting to note the guidelines for presidential travel were developed during the Reagan administration. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21835.pdf
Kathy A. January 03, 2013 at 05:26 PM
Multiple sources point out that Bush II ("W") spent by far the most time on vacation of any modern president, and that he racked up 77 trips (on military aircraft) to his ranch in Texas. Reagan himself frequently traveled to the "Western White House" in California. It is petty indeed to criticize the President for taking his family to the state where he was raised, for Christmas. You might have noticed that the President is never really off duty -- particularly this one, and Presidents Clinton and Carter. The nature of the office is 24/7 responsibility. In my lifetime, JFK was assassinated and Reagan was seriously injured in an attempt; and so security is extremely important to the nation. National security, and the need for the President to be ready to act at any moment, are reasons why flying commercial is not exactly viable. As Christopher points out, sure -- there are places to cut unnecessary costs. But no rational business would focus only on cost-cutting and not on collecting reasonable revenue. Taxes were cut to the point of record lows, particularly for the very wealthy and for corporate interests -- and even after we engaged in these long wars, taxes that would have brought needed revenue continued to be cut; that is actually the major reason we have deficits now.
Kathy A. January 03, 2013 at 05:41 PM
I also want to point out that a number of Republicans, particularly in the Senate but also in the House, voted to avoid the "fiscal cliff" because it was the ONLY rational thing to do. The measure passed overwhelmingly in both houses of congress. If they had not, virtually all ordinary citizens would have seen their tax rates spike immediately. Unemployment insurance would have run out for those seeking jobs. And the draconian "sequestration" measures would have become law immediately, with widespread consequences. The country would have been pitched into a real recession, and there would be a great deal of chaos. So, Rep. Miller's remarks are not exactly controversial. He assigns some blame for the difficulty in finding compromise these last two years; but that does not seem unfair criticism. In the end, enough representatives thought about the immediate impacts on ordinary citizens to come to an agreement.
Donna H. January 03, 2013 at 06:05 PM
No one should pat themselves on the back for this deal. It did nothing to solve our fiscal problems for the long term. Until the electorate lets Congress know that we want to adjust entitlements for today's world we are going to continue to erode our economic stability. Both parties are at fault. All are more concerned about re-election more than the good of the country.
EC Mom January 03, 2013 at 06:51 PM
A knee-jerk, blanket statement like this is counterproductive. Yes, some incumbents deserve to be voted out based on their own, individual record. Voting out all incumbents would be short-sighted. Incumbents have knowledge, experience and have developed relationships across the aisle over the years. Newcomers (e.g., Tea Party candidates) have no incentive to compromise and no history doing so. Term limits in California is a case in point--legislators begin to develop expertise, and then have to move on. Unelected staff are the experts. Term limits haven't produced effective government here.
David Britt January 03, 2013 at 08:57 PM
Pop quiz. The top of your monitor is zero. The bottom is 10 million (one presidential trip). Where is 16.5 trillion (the national debt)? Answer: If you have a 12 inch top-to-bottom monitor like me it's almost 313 miles under the Earth's surface. You are gonna need a better plan than cutting presidential travel to make a difference.
Matthew Kelleher January 04, 2013 at 05:49 AM
What are you thinking Jack ? The deficit is a carry over from Bush and you blame Obama for it; the largest cause of going broke for those over 65 yrs old is medical bills; we are the ONLY western democracy in the WORLD without universal health: considered a "right" like the "pursuit of happiness" everywhere else; we've successfully defunded our education system so we are 48 the in the world (from decades of # 2); have a higher infant mortality rate than most African nations; pay more per capita for health care than any Western democracy but have a much lower life expectancy; etc. Instead of lobbying for the very rich (Koch Bros , etc.); let's work together for a better plan. The only ones that benefit form term limits are the lobbyists. Now is the time for comprehensive gun control; how many people need an AR semi automatic weapon to kill varmits and deer ?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something