| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Tone-deaf Congress pushes budget that would torpedo Bush's tax cuts |
| 2008-03-14 |
| The Senate rejected calls from both parties' presidential candidates to take an election-year break from pork-barrel spending as a Democratic-run Congress passed budget plans that would torpedo hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts won by President Bush. John McCain, the GOP nominee-to-be, couldn't attract even a majority of Senate Republicans to vote with him Thursday night behind the earmark moratorium touted by party conservatives as a way to restore the GOP's credibility with voters. It failed on a 71-29 vote. Only three Democrats joined with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in voting for it. The underlying House and Senate Democratic federal budget plans for 2009, though nonbinding, drew blasts from Republicans for allowing some or all of Bush's tax cuts to die in about three years. The House passed its $3 trillion budget plan by a 212-207 vote. It would provide generous increases to domestic programs but bring the government's ledger back into the black, but only by letting all of Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled. The Senate passed a companion plan by a 51-44 vote. It endorsed extending $340 billion of Bush's tax cuts but balked at continuing all of them. The competing versions head to talks in which the House is all but certain to accept the Senate's position endorsing tax cuts for the working poor, married couples, people with children and for those inheriting large estates. All three major presidential candidates interrupted their campaigns for a Senate vote-o-rama that began before noon and included more than 40 roll calls. Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe crossed over to support the bill; Evan Bayh of Indiana was the sole Democrat to vote no. Budget plans are nonbinding, but they highlight the difficult choices on taxes and spending facing the next president and Congress. Binding votes on the expiring Bush tax cuts will be left to his successor and the Congress that's elected in November. The practice of inserting "earmarked" spending into legislation is seen by lawmakers in both parties a birthright power of the purse awarded to Congress by the Founding Fathers. Earmarks have exploded in number and cost in recent years, accompanied by charges of abuse and public outrage over egregious examples like the proposed "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, which would have cost more than $200 million to serve an island with a population of about 50. McCain, who has battled with members of both parties over them for years, blamed pork barrel spending for the Republicans losing control of Congress in the 2006 elections. "This may be the last bastion in America where they don't get it," he told reporters after Thursday night's vote. "Americans are sick and tired of the way we do business in Washington. As president, I promise the American people ... the first earmarked, pork-barrel bill that comes across my desk, I'll veto it." However, on taxes, the Arizona Republican voted to extend the full roster of Bush's tax cuts, which he opposed seven years ago as being tilted in favor of the wealthy. Democratic rivals Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois both voted to extend only some of Bush's tax cuts while allowing cuts in income tax rates and investments expire. They joined other Democrats in a 52-47 vote against extending $376 billion of them. Republicans hope to use the votes as fodder for the heated presidential campaign and for congressional races. "Democrats are quietly but very assuredly paving the way for a massive, economy-choking, tax increase," said Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La. Democrats said the plans would reverse years of deficits that have piled up during Bush's tenure. They said he squandered trillions of dollars in projected surpluses that he inherited in 2001. "The Democratic budget continues to move our nation in a new direction and to clean up the fiscal train wreck caused by failed Republican economic policies over the last seven years," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. Democrats argued that when the time comes, they'll renew tax cuts aimed at the middle class by closing billions of dollars worth of corporate and other tax loopholes. They also say billions more can be raised by cracking down on tax cheats. In the House, Democrats defeated a GOP plan that would have extended Bush's reductions. The Republican plan also would have eliminated the alternative minimum tax, which was originally designed years ago to make sure rich people pay at least some tax but now threatens more than 20 million additional taxpayers with increases averaging $2,000. Some 38 mostly moderate Republicans voted against their party's plan, which would have made cuts in popular programs like Medicare, housing, community development and the Medicaid health care program. Congress' annual budget debate involves a nonbinding resolution that sets the stage for later bills affecting taxes, benefit programs such as Medicare and the annual appropriations bills. Unless such follow-up legislation is passed, however, the budget debate has little real effect and is mostly about making statements about party priorities. This is such a year. Congress rarely tackles difficult budget issues as elections loom, and a standoff with Bush means that Democrats may even take a pass on advancing the 12 annual appropriations bills. The first year of an administration is typically when heavy lifting on the budget is done, but all the candidates' campaign plans seem to promise more than they can deliver. McCain's tax cuts would require applying a meat cleaver to spending, while the Democrats promise spending that would enlarge the deficit or require large tax increases. The White House forecasts the deficit for the current year at $410 billion, a near record. Democrats trumpeted their plan for putting the budget back in balance while also making investments in infrastructure, education, community development, clean energy and other programs. It also would avoid $196 billion worth of Bush-proposed cuts to Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #10 Apparently New York spends its tax money well. Its what I call the 'Cell Phone Number Theory'. Everyone I know who has a cell phone has lost the ability of 'number retention' to a degree, including myself. As the cell phone takes on more functions the user becomes more dependant - that is leaving messages for oneself, texting oneself a grocery list, important date scheduling whatever. Great and all, humans using technology as they always have. Until: bom bom bam - the cell phone breaks, stolen, lose recharge chord, etc. That person is helpless not even able to remember the number for their parents. Now, get people dependant on the government etc.."we know how to spend your money better" As it was said, we are just custodians of freedom, it is not our to give away." This 'congress' seems to be a procurement committee which I am not enthusiastic about. As the polls say, "Worst. Congress. Ever." |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-03-14 22:03 |
| #9 Do these idiots not know or not care that you don't really tax corporations? Corporations collect the higher "taxes" from consumers in the form of higher prices, and pass them along to the gummint. Idiots. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-03-14 18:18 |
| #8 APr for the course, the Speaker of our state Senate wants to add a 6% tax on oil refined in the state. I don't remember in my econ classes the model where the state can tax itself into prosperity. Is there a tutor out there? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2008-03-14 17:55 |
| #7 Democrats argued that when the time comes... They're Democrats. Believe me, the "time" will never come. Something will always be needed "for the children"... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-03-14 14:06 |
| #6 “Democrats argued that when the time comes, they'll renew tax cuts aimed at the middle class by closing billions of dollars worth of corporate and other tax loopholes. They also say billions more can be raised by cracking down on tax cheats.” The pathetic thing about this is there are millions of people that are all too willing to believe this load of crap. Most of whom won’t even take five minutes out of their lives to investigate the validity of such fantastic claims. Never mind that the Congressional Budget Office doesn’t figure such mythical projections such as closing “tax loopholes” or proposed amendments to existing tax law in order to “crack down on tax cheats” when figuring budgets. The CBO is bound by law to use “real” figures. (Or as real as it gets anyway.) The other, a more sad, aspect is they don’t understand that these mythical dollars do nothing to pay down the debt or tackle the looming entitlement crisis. These new “revenue streams” (Dont’cha just love that little euphemism?) are already spent on new programs as well as expansion of existing ones. And of course, more earmarks to make things more palatable for those politicians who may be on the fence. I don’t know if it meets the threshold of being “Orwellian” but raising taxes by over $2K on 43 million families doesn’t sound like a “middle class tax cut” to me. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2008-03-14 12:58 |
| #5 Maliciously destroy the economy to usher in their socialist dream. The most sorry congress in all of history. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-03-14 12:12 |
| #4 Just what we need - a HUGE chunk of money taken out of middle income taxpayers pockets. Will knock us deep into a recession. $2000 increase in taxes above and beyond current, for an average family. Marriage penalty returns. Then there is the business impact. Have to start tax planning NOW to anticipate the loss of certain business help that the cuts put in - meaning less money to hire workers or expand business with. All kinds of bad stuff. And these idiots in Congress are just going to continue to demolish the economy. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-03-14 12:01 |
| #3 Until the Republicans develop internal party discipline, in which the leadership can and does reward and punish members for their behavior, it will be ineffectual. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-03-14 10:17 |
| #2 John McCain, the GOP nominee-to-be, couldn't attract even a majority of Senate Republicans to vote with him Thursday night behind the earmark moratorium Do the Senatorial Republicans then think Mr. McCain will not become president, or if he does, that John McCain will not remember exactly what they did? The man is known for holding a grudge for a very long time, from what I understand. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-03-14 08:53 |
| #1 As long as the RNC is manned by good o'boys who are not hungry [particularly given the depth of the self inflicted wound is on the opponent] does it make any difference? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-03-14 08:45 |