Senate Passes One-Year AMT Fix, Drops PAYGO
Posted December 8th, 2007 by Da King
The Senate, in an 88-5 vote, passed a one year temporary fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax, resulting in a $50 billion tax cut, since it was not offset by spending cuts or other tax increases, as the Democrat PAYGO rules were suspended. PAYGO, passed by the incoming 2006 Democratic congress, mandates that tax cuts or spending increases are paid for so as not to add more to the federal deficit. Under PAYGO, either $50 billion of spending cuts or $50 billion in other tax increases would have had to be made to offset the 'cost' of the AMT fix.
Okay, so what was the point of PAYGO if, when they need to implement it, Congress just says 'ah, never mind' ? Answer - no point at all. Now, nobody is for tax cuts and shrinking the federal government more than I am, but firstly, I'm for fiscal conservatism. Driving up the debt is NOT fiscal conservatism. The Associated Press article states the situation this way:
The Senate bill, passed 88-5, provides a one-year fix for the alternative minimum tax but without matching the cost of the tax relief with new tax revenues. Without the fix, an estimated 25 million people would be subject to the higher AMT tax, up from 4 million in 2006.
The Senate vote puts it at odds with the House, where Democratic leaders, under a principle of not adding to the national debt, demanded that the AMT fix be paid for. Last month, the House passed legislation matching the AMT fix and other tax cuts with about $80 billion in new tax revenues.
Notice that the AP only talks about raising taxes elsewhere to offset the AMT. Apparently, cutting spending to pay for the AMT fix doesn't occur to them. Not that they are part of the liberal media or anything. Gosh no. Notice also that the Democratic-led House wanted to add $80 billion in tax increases to offset $50 billion in tax reductions, thus running through a large tax increase, which is what the Republicans feared the Democrats would use PAYGO for in the first place, endless tax increases. When was the last time Democrats ever cut spending, besides never ?
But Republicans aren't getting any nods of approval here either. Listen to this most decidedly non-fiscally conservative statement about the AMT and PAYGO from a GOP guy:
The Finance Committee's top Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa, said it was time for Democrats to abandon their "PayGo obsession," referring to the "pay-as-you-go" principle that tax cuts or spending increases should be paid for so as not to add to the federal deficit. With the "clean" AMT bill, "the Senate Democratic leadership seems to realize that the AMT should not be offset," he said.
Say what ? Democrat's "obsession" with PAYGO ? You mean the obsession to balance the budget ? I think that's an obsession of which we need a whole lot more. With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats ? I'd like to tell Mr. Grassley that the only thing WORSE than the Democrats tax and spend policies is a policy of reduce taxes but still spend. Mathematics tells us that. You'd think a US Senator on the Finance Committee would be able to do math, but I guess not. Maybe Senators should have to pass a test to qualify for their positions.
Judging from the bipartisan support of this Senate bill, fiscal responsibility still doesn't mean much in the halls of Congress. Pay as you go is a sham. Subtract it from the meager list of accomplishments of this Congress. We have one party who will increase taxes and spending forever, and a 2nd party who says one thing and does another.
A pox on you both.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Da King puts a pox on both the GOP and the Dims — and rightly so.
Congress has grown to be as much as a national disgrace as has the public schools. This is why polls estimate that the approval rating for this particular Democratic-controlled congress is only about 11%. This is the lowest on record.
But the problem goes beyond this current dysfunctional congress. The fact of the matter is that elected representatives from both parties are beholding more to narrow special interest groups than the people who elected them.
People feel estranged from their government — even at the state level. Can you find anybody who actually trusts politicitians or the opolitical system? Not many.
I mean, look at the recent faciso with the attempt by both the GOP and the Dims to grant amnesty to 12 to 20 million Third World illegal aliens in our country. It was defeated, but the politicians are still trying to get amnesty for these illegals in a piecemeal fashion. And the political class still refuses to seal the border across which flows illegal aliens, drugs, and terrorists. Why is this happening?
And constantly, Washington dilutes national soverignty by this treaty or that agreement. And it's all done without much input from the people.
As this trend continues and grows, and there is no reason why it won't, there will be, as the political scientists say, a crisis of legitimacy. That is, the government will no longer be viewed as legitimate in the eyes of the public. Then what?
King says a pox on both Dims and Republicans. Yes, but what does that mean, third party politics? To paraphrase talk-radio's Bob Grant, "It's messy out there and getting messier."
December 8th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
The Dems didn't want to add to the deficit by fixing the AMT. They suggested eliminating loopholes for big monied groups who avoid paying taxes. The GOP can't have any of that. They would rather add to the deficit than be fiscally responsible….it would disappoint their monied interests base.
The Republican Party has NEVER been fiscally responsible.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are the ones who have pushed for pay as you go…..and have been more fiscally conservative than deficit loving GOP'ers. It's just the way it is.
Republicans TALK a fiscally conservative game…..but they can't WALK it.
Dems spend, yes, but they also don't run up the deficit while they're spending like the GOP'ers do. Big difference.
The modern Republican Party has NOTHING to offer the American people. They can't or won't govern. They only want to start wars and raid the treasury for the sake of their cronies.
Who needs any of that?
December 9th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Yeah, Vince, third party politics. Read on the Gingrich website American Solutions and see what he suggests. He has said that it would be great to see Congress operate for the first three months of 2009 on a non-partisan basis. Then they could go back to their partisan operation the rest of the year. Can you imagine what they could accomplish in three months by really trying and doing what is best for the people and not what seems best for their parties.
People need to read some Gingrich these days and think about what we are doing to ourselves with all the partisan politics all the time.
Red, you need to read some Gingrich sometime so that you can find out something about non-partisan politics. Try it Red, as you might even understand some of what he says.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Reverend, as always, your comments are wholly partisan, one-eye blind, and defy credibility. Your apologist comments for the Dems are sad indeed.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Vince, your example of immigration is a great one for how the government doesn't represent the people. At least on that issue, the GOP has many who do understand the issue. Way too many Dumbocrats act like border enforcement is some kind of hate crime against Mexicans or something. Insane.
Roy, I'm trying to imagine Congress operating in a non-partisan way, and I just can't picture it. It won't come into focus. If the Reids, Kennedys, and Pelosis couldn't be partisan, I don't think they'd know what to say. They'd just stand there silently (HEY ! This IS a good idea !).
December 10th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Budget cutting:
1. Cut the SDI/missile defense budget back to only a research program. The Bush edict to deploy the current system is a sham. It has not passed any meaningful tests. The program is just gravy for the defense contractors.
2. Cut the budget for surveillance/spy satellites. This program is also a sop for defense contractors. Note that the Congressional funders get paid back handsomely in the form of campaign contributions. We could get better intelligence for much cheaper through economic and demographic analysis and by putting people in the field as observers and agents.
3. F-22 supersonic attack jet. We don't need this Cold War pipe dream with a price of a quarter billion dollars each. Missiles and unmanned bombers will be better for the modern threats.
4. Leave Iraq. Bush blundered into trying "democracy", but the results of the "election" were that the majority Shiites took the government and proceeded to pound the crap out of everybody else. No matter what the Bush and the prowar Congressional members do now, there will always be a satellite of Shiite Iran in what used to be Iraq. Time to leave.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
King, I find reading at Gingrich's website for Solutions to be very exciting stuff to think about. The biggest problem is that we can't get rid of our partisan politics without forming a 3rd party and that can be very hard to do. I am sure that Nancy Pelosi isn't going to allow a third party to elect any representatives and if somehow it happened they wouldn't be anything but chair warmers for her.
Somehow the people have to take control of the Congress back from the two settled parties. It won't be easy, but it could happen.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Roy: I like you alright…..Gingrich? Not so much.
Quite interesting to hear old Newtie is all over bipartisanship now that his rotted party is disintegrating before his very eyes. Under his leadership and that of the great statesman, Tom Delay, bipartisanship was known as date rape….but now because the GOP will be in permanent minority mode….now….Newtie is all about cooperation.
For some reason….I can't put my middle finger on it…..I don't trust anything Gingrich says.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:00 am
Roy, one area in which Dems and Repubs will work together is in a bipartisan effort to keep out third parties. The two majors like their duopoly, and they take steps to keep it that way.
I think there might be a better chance at transforming one of the major parties than forming a third party, though I'd love to see a legitimate third challenge the current structure. I think the Republicans are the ones that are best positioned for transformation, because the left has a stranglehold on the Democratic party and has corrupted them beyond recognition. All the Republicans need to do is to remember what their core principles are supposed to be and act on them.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Da King,
The Ohio Constitution directs the management of elections. Between the constitution and the supporting legislation, policy is that the two parties manage the elections. It will never be to the advantage of any "major party candidate" to allow third party candidates to succeed. Hence, the laws on election discourage third parties and independents.
All,
Newt Gingerich is an American Enterprise Institute neocon. He might as well have "INVADE IRAQ" tattoed across his forehead. The media is being polite to him by allowing this Republican adulterer/hypocrite to bury that unsavory part of his resume.
http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.20,filter.all/scholar.asp