Dems Plan to Load Vets Bill With Pork - Fails

[red states rule]

I thought Dems promised to put an end to pork. Here we have a Veterans bill loaded with needless spending.

While at the same time, Dems scream we need a $1 trillion tax increase to fund the government

Go figure


A Failed Congressional Ploy
By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON -- The ploy had been hatched behind closed doors by Democratic leaders of both houses. A pork-laden appropriations bill filled with $1 billion in earmarks would combine with veto-proof spending for veterans. Instead, the two measures were decoupled in a Senate party-line vote last Tuesday.

The Democratic scheme to present President George W. Bush with a bill that he could not veto seemed a clever strategy, but it was based on presumption of Republican ignorance and cowardice. As late as last Monday, savvy GOP Senate staffers predicted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's decoupling motion would fail. In fact, she did not lose a Republican senator, as Democrats fell far short of the 60 votes needed to keep the two bills together.

During a confusing week on Capitol Hill, lawmakers engaged in games difficult for insiders to understand and incomprehensible for ordinary voters. As the first Congress controlled by Democrats since 1994 nears the end of its first year, the desire to bring home the bacon trumped concern over the falling dollar, the crisis in Pakistan and the continuing conflict in Iraq.

The reason that not one of 13 appropriations bills had reached the president's desk was Bush's threat to veto at least 10 of them. Doubting their ability to override these vetoes, Democratic leaders conjured up combined packages that Bush would dare not veto. The earmark-heavy appropriations bill for the Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments would be joined with the Defense bill, which funds Iraq, and with Military Construction, which contains money for veterans.

The Defense component was quickly removed after protests by Rep. John Murtha, influential chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee. But plans for a Labor-HHS merger with Military Construction went forward. A stand-alone bill containing veterans money had passed the House, 409 to 2, on June 15, and a similar measure got Senate approval, 92 to 1, on Sept. 6 -- measures Bush would sign. But Democrats held off final passage so they could meld it with Labor-HHS, which they did in last week's Senate-House conference report.

At the same time, the pork content of Labor-HHS grew. Citizens Against Government Waste found 2,274 earmarks in the bill worth $1 billion. They include $1.5 million for the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute and $2.2 million for the AFL-CIO Appalachian Council. Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, North Dakota's two professed budget balancers, got $1 million for Bismarck State College. Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations subcommittee's ranking Republican, procured $882,025 for "abstinence education" in his home state of Pennsylvania.

The conference report's "compromise" Labor-HHS bill at $151 billion was actually more expensive than either the House or Senate version. It contains a $1 million earmark for a Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy at South Dakota State University to honor the former Senate majority leader who was defeated for re-election in 2004. Sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Robert Byrd and Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Daschle Center was one of nine earmarks "airdropped" into the final version by the Senate-House conference without being passed by either the Senate or House. Silently removed from the bill by the conference report was the prohibition, passed by the Senate in a rare defeat for earmarkers, against spending $1 million for the Woodstock "hippies" museum in Bethel, N.Y.

In the past, if a point of order against an appropriations bill was affirmed, the whole bill would die. But a new rule pressed by Democrats this year made it possible to split veterans spending away from Labor-HHS without killing the bill. All 46 Republican senators present voted to sustain the point of order, so that the Senate fell 13 votes short of the 60 votes needed to keep the two bills together.

Consequently, the Senate last Tuesday again had to pass the bloated Labor-HHS bill. It did, but by a 56 to 37 margin, short of a veto-proof majority, as 19 Republican senators changed their affirmative vote from the last time they considered this bill. In an extraordinary outburst against the 19 switchers, Majority Leader Reid called them "sheep and chickens" who had "chosen to defend a failed president." In truth, he had just lost an audacious ploy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/a_failed_congressional_ploy.html

[Classact]

I thought Dems promised to put an end to pork. Here we have a Veterans bill loaded with needless spending.

While at the same time, Dems scream we need a $1 trillion tax increase to fund the government

Go figure


A Failed Congressional Ploy
By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON -- The ploy had been hatched behind closed doors by Democratic leaders of both houses. A pork-laden appropriations bill filled with $1 billion in earmarks would combine with veto-proof spending for veterans. Instead, the two measures were decoupled in a Senate party-line vote last Tuesday.

The Democratic scheme to present President George W. Bush with a bill that he could not veto seemed a clever strategy, but it was based on presumption of Republican ignorance and cowardice. As late as last Monday, savvy GOP Senate staffers predicted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's decoupling motion would fail. In fact, she did not lose a Republican senator, as Democrats fell far short of the 60 votes needed to keep the two bills together.

During a confusing week on Capitol Hill, lawmakers engaged in games difficult for insiders to understand and incomprehensible for ordinary voters. As the first Congress controlled by Democrats since 1994 nears the end of its first year, the desire to bring home the bacon trumped concern over the falling dollar, the crisis in Pakistan and the continuing conflict in Iraq.

The reason that not one of 13 appropriations bills had reached the president's desk was Bush's threat to veto at least 10 of them. Doubting their ability to override these vetoes, Democratic leaders conjured up combined packages that Bush would dare not veto. The earmark-heavy appropriations bill for the Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS) departments would be joined with the Defense bill, which funds Iraq, and with Military Construction, which contains money for veterans.

The Defense component was quickly removed after protests by Rep. John Murtha, influential chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee. But plans for a Labor-HHS merger with Military Construction went forward. A stand-alone bill containing veterans money had passed the House, 409 to 2, on June 15, and a similar measure got Senate approval, 92 to 1, on Sept. 6 -- measures Bush would sign. But Democrats held off final passage so they could meld it with Labor-HHS, which they did in last week's Senate-House conference report.

At the same time, the pork content of Labor-HHS grew. Citizens Against Government Waste found 2,274 earmarks in the bill worth $1 billion. They include $1.5 million for the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute and $2.2 million for the AFL-CIO Appalachian Council. Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, North Dakota's two professed budget balancers, got $1 million for Bismarck State College. Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations subcommittee's ranking Republican, procured $882,025 for "abstinence education" in his home state of Pennsylvania.

The conference report's "compromise" Labor-HHS bill at $151 billion was actually more expensive than either the House or Senate version. It contains a $1 million earmark for a Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy at South Dakota State University to honor the former Senate majority leader who was defeated for re-election in 2004. Sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Robert Byrd and Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Daschle Center was one of nine earmarks "airdropped" into the final version by the Senate-House conference without being passed by either the Senate or House. Silently removed from the bill by the conference report was the prohibition, passed by the Senate in a rare defeat for earmarkers, against spending $1 million for the Woodstock "hippies" museum in Bethel, N.Y.

In the past, if a point of order against an appropriations bill was affirmed, the whole bill would die. But a new rule pressed by Democrats this year made it possible to split veterans spending away from Labor-HHS without killing the bill. All 46 Republican senators present voted to sustain the point of order, so that the Senate fell 13 votes short of the 60 votes needed to keep the two bills together.

Consequently, the Senate last Tuesday again had to pass the bloated Labor-HHS bill. It did, but by a 56 to 37 margin, short of a veto-proof majority, as 19 Republican senators changed their affirmative vote from the last time they considered this bill. In an extraordinary outburst against the 19 switchers, Majority Leader Reid called them "sheep and chickens" who had "chosen to defend a failed president." In truth, he had just lost an audacious ploy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/a_failed_congressional_ploy.htmlI watched this on CSPAN and it was masterful... the Democratic Party is dieing on the vine with nothing to show for tons of effort... It will get worse for them before it gets better... There is pressure building for them to send the VA bill to the president since they brag and take credit for making it better for veterans... they passed it over two months ago and Veterans Day has passed ... they can't blame the Republicans and if they try to load it with pork the president will veto it too.

I think the government will be shut down if someone doesn't give... the only way at this point for the government not to shut down is for the president to veto an omnibus bill full of pork for both parties and then have the congress to override it.

[red states rule]

I watched this on CSPAN and it was masterful... the Democratic Party is dieing on the vine with nothing to show for tons of effort... It will get worse for them before it gets better... There is pressure building for them to send the VA bill to the president since they brag and take credit for making it better for veterans... they passed it over two months ago and Veterans Day has passed ... they can't blame the Republicans and if they try to load it with pork the president will veto it too.

I think the government will be shut down if someone doesn't give... the only way at this point for the government not to shut down is for the president to veto an omnibus bill full of pork for both parties and then have the congress to override it.

Dems are showing why they can never be trusted with the power the currently have

They have broken every promise they made to get elected, they are spending money faster then the Republicans did in the last Congress, and now they have the nerve to tell us we need to pay more in taxes to fund their pork

[Classact]

Dems are showing why they can never be trusted with the power the currently have

They have broken every promise they made to get elected, they are spending money faster then the Republicans did in the last Congress, and now they have the nerve to tell us we need to pay more in taxes to fund their porkThe Democratic budget is based on Pay Go or pay as you go within the means of the tax base but they make an assumption based on current projected tax revenues that included the Alternative Minimum Tax... Last week they passed a bill in the House that would end the AMT but raise another tax equal to replace this tax. The tax increase has absolutely no possibility of becoming law... the Senate will not allow that to happen nor will the president.

The AMT tax revenue projections is $55 billion and the Democrats have this money spent in all their appropriations bills. One of two things can happen... the AMT will hit millions of Americans that will blame the Democrats for the tax increase... or the Senate will end the AMT and not fund the shortfall leaving the Democrats with $55 billion short to meet their Pay Go budget.

There will be an omnibus and it will be vetoed... Congress is too scared to load it full of pork (I hope!) so there is a possibility that the government will be ran for an entire year on a continuing resolution extending the 2006 budget which wouldn't be a bad thing if the 06 pork was removed.

[red states rule]

Hang on to your wallets


House Democrats Unveil $1Trillion Tax Relief Plan
Lawmakers Plan To Repeal Alternative Minimum Tax
CBS News Interactive: U.S. Taxes
(AP) WASHINGTON The House's top Democratic tax writer on Thursday unveiled a $1 trillion plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax and lower the tax burden of most lower- and middle-income people.

The proposal would be paid for by requiring the wealthy and some corporations and investors to pay more.

In laying out the plan that would effectively rewrite many of the tax policies put in place under Republican control of Congress, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York said the changes would bring a net tax reduction to almost all families with incomes under $500,000 and that some 91 million families would receive tax relief.

"We have attempted to restore equity and fairness to the system," Rangel said.

The package, introduced by the Ways and Means Committee chairman at a news conference, includes a one-year temporary fix to shield middle-income families who might get hit by the alternative minimum tax and several dozen extensions of specific tax credits now available to teachers, veterans, those with education expenses and others.

The more far-reaching changes in the tax code will probably not come up for a vote in the House until next year, but Democratic leaders have indicated they will move quickly on the stopgap AMT measure and the extensions. Rangel acknowledged difference with the Senate on finding ways to pay for the fix, but he said that 23 million people - one estimate of taxpayers who may be affected by AMT this year - are "going to drive us to provide relief, that's for sure."

Republicans quickly voiced strong opposition to the long-term plan. "This is the largest individual income tax increase in history," Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, Rangel's low-key GOP counterpart on the committee, wrote fellow Republicans. Rangel, he said, "is selling pure snake oil."

Republicans in recent days have prodded Democrats to act on the AMT issue. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Tuesday warned in a letter to Congress that failure to pass an AMT fix soon would expose 21 million taxpayers to the tax, with an average tax increase of $2,000.

The AMT was created in 1969 to ensure that a very small number of wealthy people couldn't use tax breaks or deductions to eliminate their entire tax liability. But the tax was not indexed to inflation, and every year more people are exposed to it. Nearly 4 million taxpayers were subject to the AMT in 2006, and the number is expected to multiply in 2007.

The Rangel proposal would extend for one year the current-law AMT relief for nonrefundable personal credits, at an estimated cost of $47 billion over 10 years.

The permanent repeal of the tax would cost nearly $800 billion over 10 years. That would be offset by applying a replacement tax of 4 percent of married couple income above a certain level, not to be less than $200,000. The tax would be 4.6 percent on income in excess of $500,000, or $250,000 in the case of a single taxpayer. High-income individuals would see a limitation on itemized deductions and a phase-out of deductions for personal exemptions, raising $29 billion over 10 years.

In anticipation of Rangel's plan, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and other GOP conservatives wrote their colleagues Wednesday urging them to oppose any proposal to raise taxes to pay for the elimination of the AMT. "The correction of tax mistakes should never be offset with tax increases," they wrote.

Democrats are committed to pay-as-you-go rules requiring that ways be found to pay for any spending increases or tax cuts so as not to add to the federal deficit.

The bill also reduces the top corporate marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent, at a cost of $364 billion over 10 years. This would be paid for in part through such measures as repealing the domestic production activities deduction and requiring that U.S. corporations that defer income through controlled foreign corporations also defer the deductions that are associated with this income. The last-in-first-out accounting method would also be eliminated, saving $106 billion over 10 years.

Under the Rangel plan (with costs and new revenues over a 10-year period):

• Married couples filing jointly would be entitled to take an additional $850 as a standard deduction, at a cost of $48 billion.

• The number of lower-income taxpayers qualifying for earned income credit would grow, at a cost of $29 billion.

• The refundable child credit would be increased, at a cost of $9 billion.

• Investment fund managers would be prevented from paying taxes at capital gains rates, raising $26 billion.

• Hedge fund managers would be prevented from using offshore tax haven corporations to defer taxes on compensation received for providing investment services, raising $23 billion.

• There would be mandatory cost basis reporting by brokers for transactions involving publicly traded securities, raising $4 billion
http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstories_story_298104146.html

[JohnDoe]

Hang on to your wallets


House Democrats Unveil $1Trillion Tax Relief Plan
Lawmakers Plan To Repeal Alternative Minimum Tax
CBS News Interactive: U.S. Taxes
(AP) WASHINGTON The House's top Democratic tax writer on Thursday unveiled a $1 trillion plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax and lower the tax burden of most lower- and middle-income people.

The proposal would be paid for by requiring the wealthy and some corporations and investors to pay more.

In laying out the plan that would effectively rewrite many of the tax policies put in place under Republican control of Congress, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York said the changes would bring a net tax reduction to almost all families with incomes under $500,000 and that some 91 million families would receive tax relief.

"We have attempted to restore equity and fairness to the system," Rangel said.

The package, introduced by the Ways and Means Committee chairman at a news conference, includes a one-year temporary fix to shield middle-income families who might get hit by the alternative minimum tax and several dozen extensions of specific tax credits now available to teachers, veterans, those with education expenses and others.

The more far-reaching changes in the tax code will probably not come up for a vote in the House until next year, but Democratic leaders have indicated they will move quickly on the stopgap AMT measure and the extensions. Rangel acknowledged difference with the Senate on finding ways to pay for the fix, but he said that 23 million people - one estimate of taxpayers who may be affected by AMT this year - are "going to drive us to provide relief, that's for sure."

Republicans quickly voiced strong opposition to the long-term plan. "This is the largest individual income tax increase in history," Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, Rangel's low-key GOP counterpart on the committee, wrote fellow Republicans. Rangel, he said, "is selling pure snake oil."

Republicans in recent days have prodded Democrats to act on the AMT issue. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Tuesday warned in a letter to Congress that failure to pass an AMT fix soon would expose 21 million taxpayers to the tax, with an average tax increase of $2,000.

The AMT was created in 1969 to ensure that a very small number of wealthy people couldn't use tax breaks or deductions to eliminate their entire tax liability. But the tax was not indexed to inflation, and every year more people are exposed to it. Nearly 4 million taxpayers were subject to the AMT in 2006, and the number is expected to multiply in 2007.

The Rangel proposal would extend for one year the current-law AMT relief for nonrefundable personal credits, at an estimated cost of $47 billion over 10 years.

The permanent repeal of the tax would cost nearly $800 billion over 10 years. That would be offset by applying a replacement tax of 4 percent of married couple income above a certain level, not to be less than $200,000. The tax would be 4.6 percent on income in excess of $500,000, or $250,000 in the case of a single taxpayer. High-income individuals would see a limitation on itemized deductions and a phase-out of deductions for personal exemptions, raising $29 billion over 10 years.

In anticipation of Rangel's plan, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and other GOP conservatives wrote their colleagues Wednesday urging them to oppose any proposal to raise taxes to pay for the elimination of the AMT. "The correction of tax mistakes should never be offset with tax increases," they wrote.

Democrats are committed to pay-as-you-go rules requiring that ways be found to pay for any spending increases or tax cuts so as not to add to the federal deficit.

The bill also reduces the top corporate marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent, at a cost of $364 billion over 10 years. This would be paid for in part through such measures as repealing the domestic production activities deduction and requiring that U.S. corporations that defer income through controlled foreign corporations also defer the deductions that are associated with this income. The last-in-first-out accounting method would also be eliminated, saving $106 billion over 10 years.

Under the Rangel plan (with costs and new revenues over a 10-year period):

• Married couples filing jointly would be entitled to take an additional $850 as a standard deduction, at a cost of $48 billion.

• The number of lower-income taxpayers qualifying for earned income credit would grow, at a cost of $29 billion.

• The refundable child credit would be increased, at a cost of $9 billion.

• Investment fund managers would be prevented from paying taxes at capital gains rates, raising $26 billion.

• Hedge fund managers would be prevented from using offshore tax haven corporations to defer taxes on compensation received for providing investment services, raising $23 billion.

• There would be mandatory cost basis reporting by brokers for transactions involving publicly traded securities, raising $4 billion
http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstories_story_298104146.html

Good morning Rsr, this tax cut plan of Rangle's sounds perfectly logical, I would support all the measures proposed in this article! Sounds like he is closing some tax loopholes that are long past due also!!! What is it that you don't agree with...in this plan?

jd

[red states rule]

Good morning Rsr, this tax cut plan of Rangle's sounds perfectly logical, I would support all the measures proposed in this article! Sounds like he is closing some tax loopholes that are long past due also!!! What is it that you don't agree with...in this plan?

jd

Again JD - so you feel the top 1% paying 36% of all Federal income taxes is not enough?

and the the top 50% who are paying 96% of all Federal incomes taxes need to pay more?

from the link

That would be offset by applying a replacement tax of 4 percent of married couple income above a certain level, not to be less than $200,000. The tax would be 4.6 percent on income in excess of $500,000, or $250,000 in the case of a single taxpayer. High-income individuals would see a limitation on itemized deductions and a phase-out of deductions for personal exemptions, raising $29 billion over 10 years.

When is enough enough for you JD?

[red states rule]

JD if yuand your husband make $50,000 get ready to fork over more money to the Feds

They also want to repeal all the Bush tax cuts

From the Washington Post

If Congress does not act to prevent these hikes, the impact will be dramatic. According to an analysis by the Treasury Department, for a family of four earning $50,000, it will be, an average tax hike of $2,100. Five million taxpayers currently paying no federal income tax will be brought onto the tax rolls. Marginal tax rates would rise for most taxpayers. The tax on dividend income would more than double and capital gains tax rate would jump from 15 percent to 20 percent. In a time when the tax on capital has been declining in other countries to encourage investment and attract capital, the U.S. tax code is scheduled to head in the opposite direction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp....110901790.html

[Classact]

Good morning Rsr, this tax cut plan of Rangle's sounds perfectly logical, I would support all the measures proposed in this article! Sounds like he is closing some tax loopholes that are long past due also!!! What is it that you don't agree with...in this plan?

jdIt is not a tax cut plan it is a tax increase plan. The Democratic Party established their budget based on the AMT to continue, which is a tax increase on all of those citizens that will hit the AMT limit this year. Had they set their budget $55 billion less and ended the AMT and then later entered into an idea of working on a tax increase to increase the federal tax revenue that would be something different but they didn't they planned on spending the AMT tax from the git go... they know full well that the tax increase will never go into effect under the current administration and congressional atmosphere.

[red states rule]

It is not a tax cut plan it is a tax increase plan. The Democratic Party established their budget based on the AMT to continue, which is a tax increase on all of those citizens that will hit the AMT limit this year. Had they set their budget $55 billion less and ended the AMT and then later entered into an idea of working on a tax increase to increase the federal tax revenue that would be something different but they didn't they planned on spending the AMT tax from the git go... they know full well that the tax increase will never go into effect under the current administration and congressional atmosphere.

JD has to take her blinders off and actually read what the Eems want to do. For some reason, Dems have this obsession with taking more of the moeny we earn, and feel good when they stick to the "rich"

What libs will not admit is, the rich are paying more then their fair share right now, they finance their social handouts, they are the reason the economy is growing, they provide the investments needed in the free market, and yet they are smeared by the Dems


A couple of observations on that topic...........

Before Democrats start redecorating the oval office, they might want to listen up.

Your smooth waltz to the White House just hit a bump. Because your central theme just hit an even bigger bump.

In scores of ballot initiatives voted on yesterday across the country, Americans —pretty much across the country— said no to more taxes and more government.

In Oregon, no to a new cigarette tax.

In New Jersey, no to an extension for stem cell funding.

Different issues. Different causes. But this common theme: more taxpayer funding.

And taxpayers said, "We ain't funding."

Think about that. Taxpayers of all stripes are just saying no to tapping their wallets to un-tap new government initiatives.

Rich ones, poor ones, in-between ones.

No new taxes.

I don't think Americans much distinguish who's paying those taxes. Just that they don't want them now, which could prove a big issue a year from now.

Unless, you redecorate your strategy and fashion it to something Americans want and not what you think they want.

Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309317,00.html


Why Raise Taxes Now?
Tuesday, November 06, 2007

By Neil Cavuto

Citigroup tanking — its CEO walking.

The Federal Reserve frantically cutting rates one day — adding a ton of cash to calm nerves the next day.

Amidst all that, this: Talk of tax hikes.

Serious talk in serious times.

Never mind the fact I don't believe the mortgage mess is remotely the "meltdown" it's been portrayed in Washington.

Washington says it is. And congressional Democrats and more than a few presidential candidates insist it is.

So let's assume they're right — it's a crisis.

Again, I don't buy that. They do.

So what do they do? What do they "want" to do?

Raise taxes.

Under the guise of fixing the alternative minimum tax, top Democrats are considering one heck of a hike of a tax. And not just on the super rich. But on those who wouldn't consider themselves remotely rich.

Now "if" you think the economy's slowing and "if" you think more brokerage houses and banks are hiccupping and "if" you think more mortgages are swooning, do you really want to be raising taxes on anyone?

Apparently some do.

Ignorant of the fact the ox you gore today will be the economy you bloody tomorrow.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308341,00.html

[April15]

The Bush pork program for the rich needs to be repealed. Those who benefit the most from the freedoms given them in this nation should be willing to pay for that right. They didn't die fighting for the freedom and I seriously doubt many if any even saw combat in war. And a veterans deduction is a good idea.

[red states rule]

The Bush pork program for the rich needs to be repealed. Those who benefit the most from the freedoms given them in this nation should be willing to pay for that right. They didn't die fighting for the freedom and I seriously doubt many if any even saw combat in war. And a veterans deduction is a good idea.

Only a lib would call allowing people to keep more of the money they earn pork

Meanwhile, libs are spending our money like drunken sailors and they say we need to fork more of our money to pay for it

The top 50% pay 96% of all federal income taxes April - how much more do you want them to pay?

You only have 3 numbers to choose from so it is not a hard question to answer