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

 
Tax and spend Democrats are back
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, March 29, 2007

Robert Novak, speaking of the Democrat sponsored tax bill due to be voted on:
The bill set to reach the House floor today (resembling the Senate version) would raise taxes an average of $1,795 on 115 million taxpayers in 2011. Some 26 million small-business owners would pay an average of $3,960 more. The decreased number of Americans subject to income taxes would all pay higher taxes, and 5 million low-income Americans would be returned to the rolls.
Make sense? After telling us how abysmal the Bush economy has been their answer is to add $4,000 dollars a year to the tax burden of small business. After telling us all about income inequality, their answer is to return 5 million low income Americans to the tax rolls. And after telling us how they were only interested in getting the "rich" to pay their "fair share" in taxes, 115 million American taxpayers will see their taxes raised an average of $1,800 when the tax cuts expire in 2011.

Some political tendencies cannot, apparently, be overcome. Yet they'll try to tell us this is the fiscally responsible thing to do. When they do, ask them how much is on the block for spending cuts. Don't hold you'll breath waiting for an answer. They still think Social Security is solvent and ever fiscal ill can be fixed by raising taxes even more.

And Republicans don't get off scot-free either:
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the fifth-termer who is the House Budget Committee's new ranking Republican, has proposed an alternative resolution. It not only retains Bush tax cuts but also proposes deep reductions in spending, protects Social Security payments and runs down the national debt.

Why was no such resolution advanced during the 12 years the GOP was in the majority?
Why weren't a lot of things done when they were in the majority for 12 years?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This and your previous post put together, do tend to put some serious light on the idea that for all the complaints about Republians on spending while they held the reins, the Democrats are as was repeatedly predicted, far, far worse.
Why weren’t a lot of things done when they were in the majority for 12 years?
Because there wasn’t nearly enough of a majority to get such through RINO politics plus the Democrats.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Good thing we voted in Pelosi to teach Hastert and the Republicans a lesson....Down with Hastert he’s not Michael Badnarik, give us Pelosi!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
you are aware that the only thing the Democrats are doing this time is nothing?

The earlier tax cuts are expiring because then-existing budget rules didn’t allow for making them permanent without matching spending cuts, which never came.

at least under a tax-and-spend regime current taxpayers feel the pain of current spending priorities. On a purely libertarian basis, it beats the borrow-and-spend of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
you are aware that the only thing the Democrats are doing this time is nothing?
I’m aware that the Democrats have added 145B in new spending in the Senate version and 213B in the House version over the next 5 years.
The earlier tax cuts are expiring because then-existing budget rules didn’t allow for making them permanent without matching spending cuts, which never came.
And of course, now that Democrats are in, it’s absolutely impossible to cut spending, isn’t it?
at least under a tax-and-spend regime current taxpayers feel the pain of current spending priorities.
Not necessarily. The unfunded liabilities found in mandatory spending continue to grow and to badly outstrip revenue. So that has to be something for which they compensate (or fix, or abandon). Current (and future) spending priorities are simply heaped upon that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
You ask (and I know you know the answer) why didn’t Republicans ask for more spending cuts and debt reduction the last 12 years?

The answer is simple. The party NOT in power is the contrarian party, the populist party. That party (Dems or Reps, doesn’t matter) tries to regain power by saying politically popular things (like cutting spending and budget deficits) all the while NEVER really intending to do that once they have gained the upper hand. Exception: Reagan.

The Dems had either the House or the Senate for 40 years and the Republicans gained a reputation for being deficit hawks. Then in 1994, the Reps took control of both houses of Congress and proceeded to devolve into pork barrel spending freaks.

I have concluded that NEITHER party REALLY cares about balancing the budget or husbanding the taxpayer’s money responsibly. I believe both parties will say and do ANYTHING to gain and consolidate power for their own ends. The loser in all of this is the American Taxpayer. We get nothing (or very, very little) for our return on "investment".
 
Written By: Dale
URL: http://
I am really asking this not because I want a partisan debate but because I don’t understand how you can describe this budget this way.

If the Republicans passed the law changing the tax rates, and the Democrats did nothing, how can you say the Democrats are raising taxes? If the Democrats do nothing to repeal Bush’s estate tax plan in 2010, would you praise them saying, "The Democrats are eliminating the estate tax this year"? They all voted against that.

I’m not saying taxes aren’t going up. I’m saying that the Republicans wrote the tax increase into the law in 2001 and 2003. Therefore it makes no sense to blame the Democrats for it. I don’t see this as a partisan issue, I really don’t. There’s only one way to see this!
 
Written By: Noumenon
URL: http://
If taxes go up on your watch, you are aware of the fact that will happen and you do nothing to stop that when it is in you power to do so, then the responsibility for increased taxes lays with you.

To the guy who has his money taken in extra taxation, it’s a tax increase and the responsible party is the party in power, especially if they did nothing to stop or prevent it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
If the Democrats pass some trillion-dollar-a-year national healthcare program and the Republicans take over in 2008, I’m still going to blame the Democrats for expanding the government, even though the Republicans could theoretically cancel it any time. They wrote the law.

I guess I don’t think of laws as something Congress can just throw out every new term and rewrite at will. It takes a lot of effort and prioritizing to redo a law and they tend to defer to the way earlier Congresses set things up. Which is the way it should be, otherwise you couldn’t count on anything. But it means I blame, say, LBJ for my Medicare taxes, not last year’s Congress.
 
Written By: Noumenon
URL: http://
If the Democrats pass some trillion-dollar-a-year national healthcare program and the Republicans take over in 2008, I’m still going to blame the Democrats for expanding the government, even though the Republicans could theoretically cancel it any time. They wrote the law.
That’s pretty much the reverse of what I just laid out isn’t it? Health care will mean higher taxes.

Not renewing the tax cuts, which takes an act of Congress, means higher taxes.

In both cases the same party will be responsible for more money coming out of my pockets.

In the first case it’s because the Dems wrote a law that cost me.

In the second it is because they didn’t write a law which ended up costing me.

In both cases it was Democrats who were responsible for each of those things costing me money coming into being. Why would I blame Reps? The were the one’s who cut taxes.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I guess I don’t think of laws as something Congress can just throw out every new term and rewrite at will.
Oh but they can, and in many cases should. The fact that they generally don’t is a function of laziness and the mentality that infects every congressman when they get to Washington. Once they get there most politicians cease to be Republicans or Democrats and simply become elected bureaucrats, happy to be a part of the machine (and well compensated for it).
It takes a lot of effort and prioritizing to redo a law and they tend to defer to the way earlier Congresses set things up. Which is the way it should be, otherwise you couldn’t count on anything. But it means I blame, say, LBJ for my Medicare taxes, not last year’s Congress.
The way it should be? In what demented world? The only thing I "count on" from the federal government is that they will take more of money every year, and so far that has been the case. That’s not something I want to "count on".

If the choice is between bad laws or inconsistent laws I’ll take inconsistent every time. If (or should I say when?) the congress does something stupid it is not just a good idea for the next congress to undo it, it is their obligation. Who says things like "man my taxes are way too high but at least they don’t change every year?" Seriously, who thinks like that?

The idea that once a bad law is put in place it has to stay there forever is contrary to the very concept of electing congressmen, senators and presidents on a periodic basis. If they aren’t being sent there to fix the mixtakes of their predecessors then why even send them at all (hmmm, maybe I’m on to something....)? The vast majority of the so-called "new problems" that congressmen are trying to fix are usually caused by something previous politicians did. Instead of trying to undo the past mistakes they simply add new ones on top of the old ones.

They are all to blame, every congressman, senator and president who leaves bad government in place is to blame. The Republicans who passed the original tax cuts are to blame for not making them permanent, the Democrats who stood in their way are to blame as well. When taxes go up in a couple of years the Democrats will be to blame but so will the Republicans because if they hadn’t squandered their majority they could have made some real progress towards the goals of small government. They are all to blame, past, present and future.
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
That’s pretty much the reverse of what I just laid out isn’t it? Health care will mean higher taxes.

Right. But say the Democrats pass the health care and say "A 10% tax to pay for this program starts in 2010 after the Republicans take over." In 2010 I am not going to blame the Republicans for the tax increase or the health care program. I can see how I might do like you’re doing and blame them for allowing it to continue to exist. But I’m not gonna say "Darn this Republican health care system and this Republican tax increase!"

Not renewing the tax cuts, which takes an act of Congress, means higher taxes.

Does it take an act of Congress? I thought they sunset in 2010, so that they would expire unless there was an act of Congress. The whole point of sunset is so you’ll only go to the bother of having an act of Congress if you’re really getting good results and need it to continue.

The only thing I "count on" from the federal government is that they will take more of money every year, and so far that has been the case. That’s not something I want to "count on".

I count on the government to not suddenly declare all my 401(k) money taxable, to not suddenly cut off all our open trade treaties with Europe and Japan, to not suddenly criminalize travel between states — a ton of things.

A stable federal government that doesn’t throw out old policies every time a new party takes office makes long-term planning possible. It’s good for the economy. Inconsistent policy like Latin America has is just as bad as bad policy — in fact, it leads to bad policy, since it makes "the rule of law" look more like "the rule of whoever has power this year."

Remember, when the government goes to overhaul an old policy, sometimes it cuts an overburdening tax, and sometimes it throws out your employer-provided health insurance and taxes you for single payer. It cuts both ways.
 
Written By: Noumenon
URL: http://
Does it take an act of Congress?
Yes. It does. That’s the point.

Additionally, the Dem’s budget plans for ignoring the tax cuts and letting them expire in order to increase tax revenue.

Now, given that, and wearing your hat as an American taxpayer, what would you call the result as it impacts your wallet?

And, assuming Democrats hold Congress long enough to see their budget voted on at that time, who is to blame for that tax increase?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
What would the act of Congress say? "Remember the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003? Whatever that said... do that, okay?" Am I incorrect about the whole sunset concept, which I’ve been reading about in the press for the last five years?

Did you remember to complain about the Bush tax increase of 2005, when the accelerated business depreciation tax cut enacted in 2002 expired? Corporations paid $51 billion more that year because of that. (I just looked that up... it looks like a talking point I got from somebody, but this is just me thinking through this.) The way I see it, Bush never increased taxes by doing that. Sure, Congress could have prevented it, and sure, it felt like a tax increase compared to the year before, but it wasn’t. It was a temporary decrease and then a return to the prior level, and it was never scheduled to be permanent. Just like the rest of the tax cuts.
 
Written By: Noumenon
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