House Panel Back Bush on Further Tax Cuts

[LiviaOlivia]

March 17, 2004
House Panel Back Bush on Further Tax Cuts
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, March 17 — The House Budget Committee handed President Bush a victory today when it endorsed his push for further tax cuts. The committee's action was a setback for Democrats, who have argued that the White House-inspired tax cuts are the real reason for the ballooning federal budget deficits.

<snip>

With the House Budget Committee action today, Mr. Bush's program is back on track, at least in one chamber and at least for the moment. But a spirited debate was likely for much of the afternoon and evening before a final House vote on the $2.4 trillion spending package.

President Bush has said dozens of times in recent months that one of the keys to prosperity is holding taxes down so that the American people have more of their own money to spend.

<snip>

But Representative Ron Kind, Democrat of Wisconsin, sharply disagreed. Today's Republican-backed vote is "a veiled, cynical attempt of trying to pretend like you're being fiscally responsible, but without having to make the hard choices," he told The A.P.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/politics/17CND-BUDG.html?hp

[Homer12]

1. The plan to destroy the New Deal is getting even more ground

I hope the congressional republicans karma comes and knocks on their doors when the election comes.

[skippysmom]

2. Sigh

"President Bush has said dozens of times in recent months that one of the keys to prosperity is holding taxes down so that the American people have more of their own money to spend."

Like most Americans, *'s tax cuts haven't given me more money to spend -- because they've been more than offset by increases in insurance premiums, increases in state and local taxes, etc.

Just another Trojan Horse to make sure the rich don't pay any taxes at all.

[proud patriot]

3. STUPID GREEDY PEOPLE

arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

short-sighted illiterate Criminals are
embezzeling my sons FUTURE ...This pisses
me off :grr:

[74dodgedart]

4. Don't they know we are in a war ?

I wonder how many chicken hawks would support the war if they actually had to pay for it.

[Dr Fate]

5. Tax cuts for the very wealthiest AND expensive War(s)????

I'm no mathmatical genius, but this does not add up....

[RedEarth]

6. These people(house repubs, and repubs in general) are f.......... insane

God help us if Bush is re-elected.

[ZR2]

7. Tax cuts did not cause the deficit

Stupid assholes in congress spending money on pet pork ass projects are to blame.

[wabeewoman]

9. Uhhhhmmmmm

Pork projects have been there since the beginning of time and republicans control both houses so whose pork projects are they?? Or maybe these are just new special pork projects under the bush administration??? Sorry but that may contribute but billions of dollars in tax cuts is why the deficit is high. You could argue the deficit is good....

[mac56]

13. Republican pork, of course.

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001414.shtml

"Historically, Congress funded grant programs and then asked federal agencies, governors, and mayors to competitively award the grants to the most capable applicants. But over the past few years, Congress has aggressively begun bypassing these agencies, governors, and mayors and selecting the grant recipients themselves...Predictably, an entire lobbying industry has emerged to secure pork projects for those willing to pay for their services. Organizations and local governments seeking federal money can choose between dozens of powerful lobbying firms who effectively trade campaign contributions for earmarks...The number of pork projects skyrocketed from under 2,000 five years ago to 9,362 in the 2003 budget. Total spending on pork projects has correspondingly increased to over $23 billion."

[salin]

11. of course "pet pork" only accounts for a fraction of the deficit

Did you know that 5/6 of the budget are in the following three areas:

1) Defense Spending.

2) Debt payments (e.g., paying the financing fees on all of the previous deficits... watch this go way up in coming years)

3) Social Security/Medicare (of course there is a surplus in this area - with more money coming in, for the timebeing, than going out - the surplus is spent by the administration... )

Ergo - to make up the difference by "cutting spending" - get rid of pork (will make the deficit a little smaller.)

And cut from...

Defense? While in a War? Perhaps cracking down on contractors... and maybe scaling back some futuristic weapons program might be possible.. and certainly there is pork... but I doubt the public including military, vets and families ... would think this is a good place, during war, to do the massive cuts to offset the tax cuts.

Debt Payments... imagine the economic implications domestically and internationally if the US started defaulting on its payments.

Social Security - try cutting this - without those of us paying in taking notice that what is being cut is ALREADY RUNNING A SURPLUS. This truley would be stealing from us to give tax breaks and since our tax breaks, for the most part, are quite small... it would be a reverse robin hood move.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiviaOlivia]

10. I won't pay taxes

because I am unemployed and am no longer eligible for benefits. My
trickle down opportunity from Bush's cronies hasn't manifested it's self yet. Even Reagan didn't do this much damage(because of a Demo- Congress).

These Republicans in Congress have to be voted out. They are terrorists.

[UpInArms]

12. we need to call the NYT on their shoddy journalism

you can contact them at:

[e-mail]

here's my letter:

Editor:

Today in your newspaper this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/politics/17CND-BUDG.html?hp

has this paragraph:

The committee's action was a setback for Democrats, who have argued that the White House-inspired tax cuts are the real reason for the ballooning federal budget deficits.

and this article in yesterday's paper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/politics/16BUDG.html?ex=1080018000&en=b89d4797e1cd621b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

has this paragraph:

But a report released on Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that economic weakness would account for only 6 percent of a budget shortfall that could reach a record $500 billion this year.

<snip>

The new numbers confirm what many analysts have predicted for some time: that budget deficits in the decade ahead will stem less from the lingering effects of the downturn and much more from rising government spending and progressively deeper tax cuts.

Excuse me - but why in the world is your reporter - DAVID STOUT - playing fast and loose with the facts?

Why is he playing "partisan politics" with the budget and the deficit numbers?

If you cannot do a better job of clear and clean journalism, you need to find new jobs.

[54anickel]

14. Great catch UIA! I'll get that letter out - pronto!

[54anickel]

16. kick it to 'em

[Bonhomme Richard]

15. By their logic things would be perfect if..................

we didn't pay any taxes.