You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Tax, Spending Issues Frustrate Democrats
2007-12-08
ButtCracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues.
Maybe if they tried something a bit more centrist? Nahhhh!
The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues.
You mean my representatives might be ... representing me?
Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.
So who pays the oil/fund companies taxes? Does it come out of the CEOs' bonuses or something? And who says they are unpopular? I like the oil companies' products. And what would the world look like without hedge funds? If you want something that is unpopular, try jamming a knitting needle through your skull, or better yet, try being a member of Congress.
After 11 months of insisting that all major programs be paid for with tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere, Senate Democratic leaders acknowledged Thursday they cannot persuade enough Republicans to join them. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reluctantly allowed a vote on a long-debated middle-class tax cut that would add billions of dollars to the deficit because it is not offset elsewhere.
Does that include any taxes on the money that is recycled more often? Hmm?
The measure, which the Senate approved 88-5, would prevent the alternative minimum tax from hitting about 25 million more taxpayers, at a cost of about $50 billion to the U.S. treasury next year. Reid's decision puts the Senate at odds with the House with two weeks left before the holiday recess.
The AMT shouldn't be there. Neither should my rep if he votes in a way that I get hit with it. It's called "p-r-i-n-c-i-p-l-e".
House Democratic leaders still insist on a pay-as-you-go policy, or "pay-go," which they made a centerpiece of their governing principles in January.
Why not? It worked so well for Social Security after all.
Reid told reporters Thursday that Senate Republicans have used their filibuster powers to block Democratic efforts to change Iraq policy, move a farm bill and pay for the proposed one-year "fix" to the alternative minimum tax. He especially complained about Republican demands to offer farm bill amendments dealing with state drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.

"We've tried everything we can to address these issues," Reid said, citing 57 GOP filibuster threats this year.

"We have lived by pay-go," Reid said regarding the tax bill. "But what we want everyone to know is that we have tried every alternative possible."
Except the Republicans'.
He acknowledged handing a political dilemma to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. The House earlier passed an AMT bill that would raise $80 billion in new taxes, largely on investors and hedge fund managers.

"I admire the speaker" for adhering to the pay-as-you-go principle, Reid said. He added, however, she "has a little more flexibility from a procedural perspective than I do."
"Please don't hit me!"
Reid's decision will force a pivotal decision by House Democrats: Should they infuriate millions of voters by leaving the AMT unchanged (and hope Republicans get blamed), or abandon the pay-go promise and possibly rely heavily on Republican votes to pass a bill that splits Democrats.
I'd say pi$$ off the voters and see what happens.
"If we waive pay-go on this, I think it opens the door" to further actions that would raise the deficit and "border on criminal irresponsibility," said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn.
Pay-go has been de-facto waived. More so with each earmark. It's called deficit spending.
Meanwhile Thursday, congressional Democrats said they face an uphill battle in trying to overcome Senate GOP objections to a House-passed energy bill. Republicans particularly oppose the proposed rollback of $13.5 billion in tax breaks for major oil companies.

"You can't tax your way to energy independence," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters.
But somehow earmarks are OK?
If the Senate cannot overcome the GOP-led resistance, Democratic senators said they may have to jettison provisions important to many House Democrats: the tax provisions and requirements for greater use of renewable energy such as wind, solar and biofuels.
Try nuclear. And give up those earmarks.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said such a move would be difficult for the House to swallow. "The tax part is just as important as any other part" of the energy bill, he said.
You mean the part about maximizing tax revenue by boosting the economy through lower taxes? Don't go too low, and don't go too high. Give it a shot and see what happens. You will end up with more money to spend! :-)
As for the Iraq war, congressional Democrats on Thursday sent their strongest signal yet that they are resigned to providing additional funds without forcing President Bush to alter his policies. The plan is virtually certain to divide House Democrats. Like the AMT legislation, it may require significant Republican support to pass.
Someone had to play devil's advocate by championing common sense, I guess. And if you keep bluffing all the time, you'll pay dearly in the long run.
Democrats, who sometimes seem incredulous at their inability to budge the GOP on tax, spending and war issues, say Republicans will pay dearly at the polls. "There is a sense they are digging their own grave," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said.
Why the long face then, Donk? Bada bing! :-)
Some Republicans agree there is a risk in repeatedly blocking Democratic-crafted bills, especially if the chief beneficiaries appear to be big oil companies or wealthy investors.
If they can make it appear that way and you can't figure out a way from your bully pulpit to shed some light on the deception, fine. But at least 52% of the voters have that line figured out by last count. If that's the best you can do, you should be looking around for the truth.
"The strategy is to lay low and then blame them for not getting anything done," Republican Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois said in an interview. "The truth is, we all lose."
No, the truth is all we lose.
"We trash each other and end up making the institution look bad," LaHood said. "That's why Congress' approval ratings are so low."
That's only part of the reason. Try working honestly for your constituents' and country's best interests without hurting your neighbors more than necessary and see what happens. The founding fathers didn't think you guys would be dumb enough to try writing your own paychecks and building your own power bases over your country's best interests.
Posted by:gorb

#7  The measure, which the Senate approved 88-5

I never cease to be amazed at how the press acts like little lap dogs for the democrats! This article is written in such a way as to act like the Democrats just tried so hard, but the mean ol' Republicans stopped them. But the vote was 88-5! ONLY 5 voted against it and 7 cowards didn't have the guts to put their vote on the record.

So basically, the entire article is based on an entirely bogus principle that the democrats were for the AMT. Well, that's not how they voted, so this article is total BS crap. The correct headline should be, Democrats and Republicans rejectd AMT

It was a fun read with the inline though.
Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611   2007-12-08 17:49  

#6  You're too kind. I don't think I'll ever develop the depth understanding of many here, but I know stoopid/hypocritical/subversive when I see it. Usually. Thanks for the compliments, though!
Posted by: gorb   2007-12-08 16:37  

#5  Agreed with DD, I couldn't tell from the first para, who it was. I thought it was Tu, this has happened several times now.
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-12-08 16:27  

#4  Gorb's getting damn good at that inline snarkology thing. Tu3031's still the All-Time Grandmaster of the art, but IMO he'd better watch his back. Fred, too.
Posted by: Dave D.   2007-12-08 16:07  

#3  ButtCracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity....

ROFLMAO! Gorb.....loved your snark and logic in your comments. A job well done, suh.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2007-12-08 13:30  

#2  The only governmental program that the Donk enjoy cutting is Defense [less, of course, the district pork they jam in there]. They've already figured that they can't pull that one off just right now. But you wait. As soon as our attention is diverted, they'll be there with a vengeance like they did after Vietnam.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-12-08 08:25  

#1  Once again the Democrats are learning the painful lesson that the American people are essentially centrist. Yes, they expressed dissatisfaction with President Bush's leadership on Iraq and other issues but they never endorsed the agenda of San Francisco socialists or anti-war moonbats either.
Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723   2007-12-08 03:09  

00:00