Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Taxes: Drawing the battle lines in Congress
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, January 04, 2007

In a conference call today with bloggers, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, while discussing cooperation with the Democrats, put two things on the non-negotiable list. One was staying on the offense in the War on Terror. And the other was tax increases - as in no new taxes.

Today in the House, Rep. Dreier (R-CA) offered the Republican motion to "commit on the rule". The Republican motion would prohibit the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee from waiving two House Rules put in place during the Contract with America. Those rules:

(1) Ban retroactive tax increases; and

(2) Require a three-fifths 'supermajority' vote in the House before any tax increase can be approved.

They're voting on that motion now.

John Boehner, House Republican leader said:
"One of the most important reforms adopted 12 years ago when House Republicans began to fulfill the Contract with America was the adoption of House rules protecting American families against unfair tax hikes by Washington politicians. In the Contract, House Republicans had pledged that as one of our first actions, we would vote on reforms prohibiting unfair retroactive tax increases and requiring a three-fifths 'supermajority' vote in the House before any tax increase could be approved. On the opening day of the 104th Congress in 1995, we fulfilled our pledge, voting to enact both measures.

"The Contract's barriers against unfair tax hikes have stood to this day. But with Democrats proposing significant new spending on items such as higher education programs, there is growing anxiety across America that the Democrat majority will resort to tax increases to fund these initiatives. In the coming months, the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee will be pressured to repeal or waive the Contract with America's barriers against unfair tax increases to make it easier for the Democrat majority in Congress to raise taxes. Legislators on both sides of the aisle should take action today, on the opening day of the new Congress, to assure families and small businesses this will not happen.
Roy Blunt was even more blunt:
"The rules designed to protect taxpayers against onerous, job-killing tax increases must remain in place.

Republicans will insist that sixty percent of the House vote in favor of a tax hike before it can be implemented. Without this important rule, we are all but insuring job-killing tax increases that will hurt families, businesses, and the economy."
The point? They're both good rules. And both need to be retained.

Why? Well if, the ranking Republican on the House Budget committee, Rep. Ryan, is correct the PAYGO scheme that Democrats plan on passing is heavily biased toward increasing taxation.

So before your eyes roll back in your head from trying to contemplate House rules and the inside-baseball nature of the point, consider this as a good first test of a) the Democratic majority, b) their real commitment to fiscal responsibility and c) the Republican minority.

It should tell us a lot about a lot of things.

And, more importantly, if it passes, it will mean that Democrats will have to reassess their PAYGO proposal and perhaps be forced, horror of horrors, into considering spending cuts.

Ah wouldn't that be a fine outcome?

If not ... Katie bar the door.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I wonder how long a Dem majority can survive after working families see their first retroactive tax increase? I wonder how the Dems would even sell it (It’s to pay for FREE healthcare!!!)

Let the Dems be Dems....

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The working families of America won’t see a retroactive tax increase, Shark, the rapacious Robber Barons that have unjustly enriched themselves lo these last 6 years will feel the righteous smiting that they so deserving will receive. We shall smite them hip and thigh, like the blood gorged ticks they shall be squeezed!

The Peace Dividend from our redeployment from Iraq will make a fine down payment on Universal Health Care.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"I wonder how long a Dem majority can survive after working families see their first retroactive tax increase?"

It is the haves and have mores that will eventually have the shameful tax giveaways they got under the Republicans revoked, not working families. What the working families are going to get are government programs that will benefit them, like greater assistance in paying college tuition and better health insurance.
 
Written By: CaptainVideo
URL: http://
"Today in the House, Rep. Dreier (R-CA) offered the Republican motion to "commit on the rule". The Republican motion would prohibit the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee from waiving two House Rules put in place during the Contract with America."

I will bet that this motion was defeated, and rightfully so.

"Those rules:... 2. Require a three-fifths ’supermajority’ vote in the House before any tax increase can be approved."

Note that the rule does not require a three-fifth supermajority to vote in the House before any tax cut can be approved. This is simply unfairly stacking the deck in favor or the right wing economic agenda and deserves to be defeated. If congress wants to cut a tax, it should have to pay for it by either increasing another tax or cutting SPECIFIC expenditure. Those people whose ox is to be gored will obvously oppose such a tax cut.
 
Written By: CaptainVideo
URL: http://
"there is growing anxiety across America that the Democrat majority will resort to tax increases to fund these initiatives."

The anxiety is not accross America, only among the haves and have mores. Unduing the tax givaways to the rich to pay for better medical care for ordinary Americans and to make college more affordable to families with limited income is right, and moral, and just.
 
Written By: CaptainVideo
URL: http://
The anxiety is not accross America, only among the haves and have mores. Unduing the tax givaways to the rich to pay for better medical care for ordinary Americans and to make college more affordable to families with limited income is right, and moral, and just.
Hey, Captain Video, why not venture into the "Free Market Economics" DVD section and away from "Socialist Farce"? You might learn something, like for instance 75K or so earns the typical working family the title of "Rich", yet that sounds kind of "ordinary" to me. And I love how lefties confuse "moral" and "theft." So tell me, CV, what is so right, moral and just about laying claim to another’s wealth?

Or let me put it another way: May I come into your house and loot when I’m feeling needy?
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Or let me put it another way: May I come into your house and loot when I’m feeling needy?
Lol. Beat me to it. It appears that Captain Video has been watching too many Michael Moore movies.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Will someone please define "working families"?
 
Written By: frossca
URL: http://
"Unduing the tax givaways to the rich to pay for better medical care for ordinary Americans and to make college more affordable to families with limited income is right, and moral, and just."

Does this come under the heading of legislating morality? Well, I guess that’s okay, as long as it isn’t Christian morality.

************************

"Will someone please define "working families"?"

Why, Democratic voters, of course.


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Will someone please define "working families"?
That would be - the families that aren’t the have’s and have-mores.
Glittering generalities are a wonderful thing.
make college more affordable to families with limited income is right, and moral, and just.
We can therefore expect Harvard, Yale, Cornell, etc, etc, etc, to dramatically lower their tuition rates to make this even more moral, and right, and just, and further help the ’working’ families by ensuring they have Ivy League diplomas rather than state college diplomas. After all, Goldman Sachs, Price Waterhouse, Baker & McKenzie, White & Chase, etc, don’t take many interns from places like Collin County Community College.
And we can’t expect the children of working families to ALL get scholarships now can we - the playing field ought to be level and I see no reason to make monetary qualification the only area that needs leveling. Too many overachievers getting 4.0 GPAs and wrecking it for the 2.5 GPA students, denying them of their opportunities by setting the curve to high.

But, seriously, you’ll find the actual definition for ’working families’ several entries below the entry for ’free moon ponies’ in the Dictionary of Vague Justifications.
And if you don’t have one of those available, Timactual’s answer is very much spot on.




 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
like greater assistance in paying college tuition . . .and to make college more affordable to families with limited income is right, and moral, and just.
Heh, "right, moral, and just". So what do you call it, then, when parents spend more on eating out at restaurants, going on vacations, or buying consumer electronics than they do saving for their own children’s education. What’s right, moral, or just about taking money from the rich so the middle class can subsidize their dinners at Olive Garden, trips to Disneyworld, or purchases of Playstations and plasma TVs?

Of those who intend to fund at least some of their children’s higher education, most have spent more money on entertainment and/or discretionary purchases in the past year than they have saved for their children’s college costs. Specifically:
• 58% have spent more on eating out or ordering take-out;
• 49% have spent more on vacations;
• 38% have spent more on consumer electronics.
Thirty-one percent of parents who plan to contribute to their children’s education have put more money toward their children’s allowance in the past year than they have put in their college savings fund.
Almost three-quarters of parents (74%) admit they could be saving significantly more for their children’s education if they limited money spent on traveling, entertainment, electronics and impulse purchases. Two-thirds acknowledge that by reducing their discretionary spending on items such as toys, clothes and entertainment for their children, they would be able to save much more for their college educations.


The survey comprised about the top 75% of household incomes so spare us your morality pleas, please.
 
Written By: m.jed
URL: http://
College costs are one of my pet peeves. Every time I look through a schedule of classes and see some of the courses offered(some of which you will not find in the catalog, for obvious reasons), my teeth grind. Paying mandatory student activity fees to subsidize political and religious activities is also, in my humble opinion, inappropriate. And the price of textbooks? Gaahhh!

I shall quit now, while I have some measure of control left.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider