| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Moderate Democrats push to extend tax cuts |
| 2007-03-24 |
| WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats are striving to stay united during debate on a $2.9 trillion budget outline for 2008 that has tested their fragile majority. Striving to stay united == Figure out a way to get what they want and still keep their jobs next time around. Moderate Democrats favoring tax cuts have forced a rewrite of the plan, pushing through an amendment Wednesday that would pave the way to extend a variety of popular tax cuts that are to expire at the end of the decade. Worried about losing their overpaid positions? Well, I guess if morals fail, we can still control them by taking away their incomes and priveleges. Across the Capitol, House Budget Committee Democrats held ranks in resisting a GOP-led drive to keep alive tax cuts enacted during President Bush's first term but scheduled to expire in 2010. The Democratic-led budget panel worked into the night and approved the budget after midnight on a 22-17 vote. Debate by the full House next week promised to be a sterner test. I hope so. Maybe logic will kick in by then. Both House and Senate Democrats acknowledged that it was likely many of the tax cuts would be extended -- particularly those aimed at the middle class. Soak the In the Senate, the changes to the Democrats' $2.9 trillion budget outline would cover close to half the cost of extending the expiring tax cuts and were aimed at sealing support from moderates for the nonbinding but symbolically significant blueprint. Stop paying for illegal immigrants and pet projects and watch what happens. The plan, however, also would erase a $132 billion surplus predicted to appear in five years. Quite a plan The Senate tax cut amendment, approved 97-1, won the support of every Republican. Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator voting against it. One with 'morals', I guess? The vote came on a plan by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, to devote $180 billion in 2011-12 to preserve tax cuts aimed at the middle class. That included relief for married couples, people with children and people inheriting large estates. Where have I heard these priorities before? Hmm. After Baucus' plan passed, Democrats united to kill a bid by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, to extend further cuts on taxes on estates as well as cuts on capital gains and dividend income that Republicans credit for jump-starting the economy when the cuts were passed in 2003. Soak the old folks. Even after death. They don't know any better. In any event, the Democratic-controlled Congress, like its GOP predecessors, is not expected this year to follow up with binding legislation that would extend the expiring tax cuts. They don't seem to be aware that many count inaction as a choice. It is commonly assumed that lawmakers will re-examine the tax cuts after the 2008 presidential election, with the outcome depending on the balance of power in Washington and on the fiscal outlook at that time. More taxes bad, in either case. Learning to prioritize and live within your means and not microbudget everything is good. Like the Senate measure, the companion House Democratic plan would award big spending increases to domestic programs, including homeland security, veterans' health care and aid to local schools. What? Take care of veterans? Decided they're important, have we? Since when did you guys start caring about what I care about? It assumes Bush's tax cuts indeed disappear and, as a result, would produce a $153 billion surplus in five years through more money coming into the Treasury. More money coming in directly, and even more money leaving indirectly. But since when have US politicos ever looked beyond the end of their noses? Republicans condemned the Democratic budget plan for its spending increases and its assumption that the lower taxes on income, married couples, inheritances and investments would expire. I guess that makes me a Republican. "The best way to balance the budget is to control spending, not raise taxes," said the House committee's top Republican, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Learned that in Home Economics 101, he did! Despite much debate over taxes, the immediate effect of the House and Senate budget blueprints for next year is to award increases above inflation to domestic agencies for the portion of their budgets passed each year by Congress. Ahh! I was wondering what they were going to do with the extra money! The Senate's plan would give nondefense programs an $18 billion increase, about 4 percent. The House measure proposes a $25 billion increase, almost 6 percent. Spend spend spend! I can't be overdrawn, I still have checks! Even so, Democrats are eager to pass a budget, regarding it as an important test of their ability to govern. Republicans failed to pass a budget last year and action on critical spending bills stalled. Control freaks. At the same time, the budget plans would cement promises by Democrats to require legislation cutting taxes or increasing spending on Medicare or a children's health insurance program to be "paid for" with new taxes or spending cuts elsewhere to avoid adding to the deficit. Spending cuts - Well, we knew that wouldn't happen. I wonder what that leaves. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #2 These past elections showed exactly what I had predicted as far as the cyclical nature of political parties in the US. That is, the democrat party is just in the opening stage of its recovery from hitting rock bottom. This happens with the rise of the "moderate" democrats, who make alliances with the generally majority republicans for many years. By being on the winning side, the more "moderate" members of both parties hold sway for quite a long time. Eventually, the republicans will then start to decline, along with a rising populism on the democrat side--them finally embracing issues that resonate with the public. But this is perhaps more than 20 or 30 years from now. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-03-24 10:57 |
| #1 Frankly, I couldn't care less about the marriage and child credits. They don't help those who don't qualify. Far more important are the taxes that will be raised: the top income rates, dividends, and capital gains. Those are what fueled the recovery from the Clinton recession and 9/11. A couple weeks ago, several east Asians countries discussed doubling the CapGains tax. You saw the results in the markets. If the liberals have their way, ours would roughly double, too. You think that might be a cause for the market's recent problems? |
| Posted by: Jackal 2007-03-24 10:08 |