Yeap, it sure did. It was a statement on the poor quality of his posts. You strike me more as the willfully ignorant hyper partisan than someone who is dumb though.
Yeap, it sure did. It was a statement on the poor quality of his posts. You strike me more as the willfully ignorant hyper partisan than someone who is dumb though.
Where is the news flash? The war itself may not be compatible with PayGo, as just about anyone here most likely already understands, so it's a good thing I am not talking about the war. Iraq and Afghanistan have absolutely nothing to do with the non-war related legislation they have passed in the past couple years.
That's irrelevant as well since the fact of the matter is PayGo died the day we had a budget surplus about 10 years ago, and never came back.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
A little article about paygo
July 15, 2008
Lost in Translation: PAYGO Treatment
of Spending versus Tax Cuts
Want a More Regressive Tax Code:
Adopt the Democrats? BudgetOR
Democrat?s Budget Raises
Taxes on the Middle Class
Executive Summary
? PAYGO is prejudiced against extending current tax law because the baseline treats
existing tax cuts differently from existing mandatory entitlement programs.
? The baseline assumes that nearly all mandatory spending proposals that are scheduled to
expire don?t actually expire but instead continue forever. Conversely, any tax reduction
requires a PAYGO offset to be extended.
? The practical effect of this difference is that current tax laws must be paid for again and
again simply to keep rates where they are, while existing entitlement programs are
allowed to continue indefinitely without needing offsets.
o During this current Congress, this bias creates an additional and unfair roadblock
for extending a host of popular bipartisan tax provisions, routinely referred to as
?tax extenders.?
? While most would argue that the mandatory programs assumed to continue are worthy
programs, it is not clear why they should be treated as more important, necessary, or
beneficial than the expiring tax extender provisions.
? Senate Republicans have publicly discussed an alternative to end the stalemate on the
extenders, one that pays for the extenders but in the form of decreased spending, not
increased taxes.
? Even with the disparate treatment of tax and spending programs under PAYGO, the
Democratic Congress still has been unable to abide by their own rules and has chosen to
effectively waive PAYGO again and again to increase spending without insisting on
offsets.
o In the instances where Democrats have attempted to abide by their PAYGO rule,
increased taxes have been heavily preferred to offset increased spending.
? Lawmakers should stop using PAYGO as a mask of fiscal responsibility, ignoring
increases in spending, and holding continuations in spending programs and current tax
law to different standards.
2
The Democrats? Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) rule embraces a bias toward a tax-and-spend
philosophy while masquerading as fiscal responsibility. Rules only require offsets for new or
expanded spending programs relative to the baseline and do not apply to the extension of
existing mandatory programs, even those scheduled to expire. Conversely, any tax reduction
requires a PAYGO offset to be extended. Therefore, PAYGO does not require a reexamination
of past spending policy decisions, only past revenue policy decisions that are set to expire.
PAYGO is prejudiced against extending current tax law because the baseline treats existing tax
cuts differently from existing mandatory entitlement programs. The baseline assumes that nearly
all mandatory spending proposals that are scheduled to expire don?t actually expire but instead
continue forever. Budget precedent requires that all direct spending programs created before
1997, and that have annual outlays of more than $50 million, are assumed to continue even if
they expire under current law. This encompasses a variety of very expensive programs,
including (costs over ten years 2009-2018):
? Food Stamps ($445 billion);
? Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($134 billion);
? Commodity Credit Corporation ($119 billion);
? SCHIP ($45 billion);
? Veterans? Compensation Cost Of Living Adjustment ($55 billion); and
? Child Care Entitlements to States ($23 billion).
All told, the baseline assumes that nearly $1.3 trillion in mandatory programs that are set to
expire will continue and won?t have to be paid for under PAYGO rules.
In contrast, most revenue provisions that are scheduled to expire under the baseline are assumed
to in fact expire. The practical effect of this difference is that current tax laws must be paid for
again and again simply to keep rates where they are, while existing entitlement programs are
allowed to continue indefinitely without needing offsets. Under this disparate and biased
treatment, Congress must find savings to keep tax rates at current levels, yet does not have to pay
for extension of many expiring mandatory programs.
During this current Congress, this bias creates an additional and unfair roadblock for extending a
host of popular bipartisan tax provisions, routinely referred to as ?tax extenders.? These widely
popular tax breaks include, but are not limited to:
? The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, which if left un-patched would raise taxes
on 25 million families;
? The research and development credit, a vital component to success, competitiveness, and
innovation of American businesses;
? The college tuition deduction, a deduction on which families struggling with the soaring
costs of education depend;
? The state and local sales tax deduction option; and
? The teacher classroom expenses deduction, which many teachers rely on in order to
provide their classrooms with needed materials throughout the year.
3
Also included in the extenders package are numerous tax cuts for renewable energy sources.
Renewing preferable tax treatment for sources of renewable energy represents a commitment to
diversified energy sources, as well as support for research, development, and utilization of a
renewable energy future.
Looking ahead to the next Congress, continued application of these biased PAYGO rules will
make it much more difficult to continue current tax policy such as marriage penalty relief, lower
rates on capital gains and dividends, lower marginal rates, estate tax relief, and the child tax
credit, all set to expire on December 31, 2010.
While most would argue that the mandatory programs assumed to continue are worthy programs,
it is not clear why they should be treated as more important, necessary, or beneficial than the
expiring tax extender provisions. For instance, mandatory spending for the Veterans?
Compensation Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is automatically assumed to continue and is
not subject to PAYGO rules, but the military tax extender provision, the Combat Pay in Earned
Income for Refundable Credit, is assumed to expire and must be offset. Additionally, spending
for Child Care Entitlements to States is automatically assumed to continue, but educational tax
extenders for Qualified Education Expenses and Teacher Classroom Expenses are assumed to
expire and must be offset. These tax provisions are every bit as important to the soldiers,
teachers, and families who benefit from them as the spending programs are, and the provisions
should not be subject to different offset requirements simply to fulfill a particular spending
agenda.
Extenders: A lesson in appropriate offsets
Recently, the tax extenders bill has garnered debate from both sides on the need for offsets due to
the Democrats? insistence on complying with PAYGO. Republicans have always held the belief
that increasing taxes to pay for extensions of current law does not make for sound economic
policy. However, Democrats? insistence on using tax increases as offsets has led to a stalemate
over the future of the extenders.
Erroneously, Republicans have come under attack for being against all offsets, yet this assertion
has no merit. Senate Republicans have publicly discussed an alternative to end the stalemate on
the extenders, one that pays for the extenders but in the form of decreased spending, not
increased taxes. To further illustrate the Republican position and in an attempt to break the
impasse on the time-sensitive tax extenders, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell wrote a
letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. According to the letter
dated July 3, 2008:
?The Senate Republican Conference will agree to offset the revenue lost from new
tax relief policy with spending reductions or revenue raised from appropriate tax
policy proposals. In exchange, the House and Senate Democratic Leadership
would revise the desired new non-defense discretionary spending in the 2009
Congressional budget downward to a level sufficient to offset the cost (relative to
the Congressional Budget Office baseline) of extending expiring tax relief. If
agreed to, extension of expiring tax relief, including extension of the AMT patch
and expiring energy tax incentives, could be accomplished in a way that achieves
4
your stated goal of being deficit neutral, but without the unstated and unwarranted
result of increasing the size of the federal government.?
Thus, appropriate offsets, such as cuts in non-defense discretionary spending, are clearly on the
table and to assert otherwise is disingenuous.
At a time when the economy is fragile, enacting tax increases in order to offset the extenders to
satisfy a biased PAYGO rule would only exacerbate the current economic hardships. According
to an editorial from the Wall Street Journal by two well-known economic experts, ?A good rule
of thumb is that a $1 tax cut includes $1 to $2 of additional economic growth. Conversely, tax
increases are bad because they impair economic growth, making people worse off by several
multiples of the extra amount of tax revenue the government collects. Generally speaking, each
additional $1 of tax revenue cost the economy not only the $1 of tax but an additional $1 to $2 in
lost income.?1 [Emphasis added]
Democrats pick and choose when to ignore their own PAYGO rules
Even with the disparate treatment of tax and spending programs under PAYGO, the Democratic
Congress still has been unable to abide by their own rules and has chosen to effectively waive
PAYGO again and again to increase spending without insisting on offsets. Yet it should be
noted that these similar waivers from the majority are much more difficult to come by with
regard to tax policy.
This year and last year alone, the Senate considered $355 billion in new legislation (excluding
the 2007 AMT patch) without paying for it by using budget gimmicks and violations to
circumvent PAYGO. Of the $355 billion of PAYGO avoidance, $66 billion was the result of
blatant PAYGO violations. Additionally, Democrats have repeatedly used the emergency
designation to exempt spending from being subject to PAYGO, totaling $201 billion, and they
used a series of budget gimmicks to avoid PAYGO for legislation totaling $88 billion.
Because emergency spending is not subject to PAYGO rules, the emergency designation was
used to avoid PAYGO violations for increased mandatory spending in several instances in 2007
and 2008.
Notable instances where PAYGO was ignored or waived under the Democratic-controlled
Senate include (costs over ten years):
? 2008 Emergency Supplemental (H.R. 2642)
o Unemployment insurance extension ? $8.2 billion
o Veterans education benefits ? $62.8 billion
? 2008 Stimulus rebate checks (H.R. 5140) ? $125.5 billion
? Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (H.R. 3221, as passed by the Senate 4/10/08) ?
$26.4 billion
1 Ernest S. Christian and William E. Frenzel, ?The Fiscal Bottom Line,? Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2007.
5
? 2007 Emergency Supplemental (H.R. 1591)
o Extended county payments and Payments in Lieu of Taxes, declared ?emergency?
? $4.1 billion
? Immigration Reform (S. 1348, Democrats? substitute amendment) ? $30.3 billion
? Energy Act of 2007 (H.R. 6, Democrats? substitute amendment) ? $4.2 billion
? Mental Health Parity (S. 558) ? $2.8 billion
Even in the instances where Democrats have attempted to abide by their PAYGO rule, increased
taxes have been heavily preferred to offset increased spending?cutting spending is frequently
not an option for the Democratic majority. For instance, recently when a $63 billion increase in
veterans education benefits was considered as part of the 2008 Emergency Supplemental (H.R.
2642), House Blue Dogs insisted that the increased spending be offset. However, instead of
considering a cut in existing or future spending to pay for the new program, they included a new
marginal tax rate increase of 0.47 percent on individuals earning more than $500,000 a year
(which they dubbed the ?patriot tax?).
A further illustration of the Democrats? tax and spend mantra is magnified in the Democrats?
proposed energy bill, S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008. S. 3044 established a
punitive windfall profits tax on major integrated oil companies. Instead of using the proposed
increased revenues for deficit reduction, the money collected from taxing these oil and gas
companies was immediately designated to fund an Energy Independence and Security Trust
Fund. The ?Fund? would be available to spend with only minimal direction on new spending
programs.
In addition, it is important to remember that PAYGO only applies to mandatory spending?it
does not apply to the more than $1 trillion that Congress will appropriate for discretionary
spending for 2009, or the $316 billion increase in non-defense discretionary spending that the
Democrats? budget resolution assumes over the next ten years. The Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) baseline already assumes an increase in non-defense discretionary spending at the rate of
inflation after 2008, but the Democratic budget resolution which was recently passed assumes an
additional $316 billion in increased spending on top of inflation. Because this spending is
discretionary, these spending increases also will be allowed to occur without being subject to
PAYGO rules, and without requiring any offsets.
Although the future discretionary increases are not specified for particular programs, this year?s
increases provide some guidance for how the money may be spent over the next ten years. In FY
2009 alone, the Democrats? budget assumes $5.4 billion in increased non-defense discretionary
spending over the baseline. Senator Kent Conrad indicated that the spending increase was
intended to increase such things as weatherization assistance ($450 million), the Great Lakes
Legacy Act ($175 million), and the Health Professions program ($369 million), all of which
were either significantly cut or eliminated in the President?s budget.
It is clear that some citizens will find these programs valuable. However, it is unclear why these
programs should be funded as part of an un-offset $316 billion increase in discretionary
spending, while equally valuable tax provisions face expiration if they aren?t paid for.
6
Conclusion
At a time when businesses and individual taxpayers are relying on Congress to pass an extenders
bill in a timely manner, Democrats? insistence on abiding by PAYGO has put a virtual hold on
quick passage. As Senator Charles Grassley wrote in a memorandum to reporters and editors on
June 10, 2008:
?The Democratic leadership?s notion of proper budgeting is that expiring spending
and appropriations get a free pass, but current law levels of taxation must go up.
This double standard is like a game of billiards. In this billiard game, the taxpayer
sits in the path of the pay-go ?8 ball? and the big spenders hold the cue stick. The
position of the Democratic Leadership is that this double-standard favoring
spending and disfavoring the American taxpayer must be enforced with this year?s
expired and expiring tax relief provisions.?
Lawmakers should stop using PAYGO as a mask of fiscal responsibility, ignoring increases in
spending, and holding continuations in spending programs and current tax law to different
standards.
July 15, 2008
Lost in Translation: PAYGO Treatment
of Spending versus Tax Cuts
Want a More Regressive Tax Code:
Adopt the Democrats? BudgetOR
Democrat?s Budget Raises
Taxes on the Middle Class
Executive Summary
? PAYGO is prejudiced against extending current tax law because the baseline treats
existing tax cuts differently from existing mandatory entitlement programs.
? The baseline assumes that nearly all mandatory spending proposals that are scheduled to
expire don?t actually expire but instead continue forever. Conversely, any tax reduction
requires a PAYGO offset to be extended.
? The practical effect of this difference is that current tax laws must be paid for again and
again simply to keep rates where they are, while existing entitlement programs are
allowed to continue indefinitely without needing offsets.
o During this current Congress, this bias creates an additional and unfair roadblock
for extending a host of popular bipartisan tax provisions, routinely referred to as
?tax extenders.?
? While most would argue that the mandatory programs assumed to continue are worthy
programs, it is not clear why they should be treated as more important, necessary, or
beneficial than the expiring tax extender provisions.
? Senate Republicans have publicly discussed an alternative to end the stalemate on the
extenders, one that pays for the extenders but in the form of decreased spending, not
increased taxes.
? Even with the disparate treatment of tax and spending programs under PAYGO, the
Democratic Congress still has been unable to abide by their own rules and has chosen to
effectively waive PAYGO again and again to increase spending without insisting on
offsets.
o In the instances where Democrats have attempted to abide by their PAYGO rule,
increased taxes have been heavily preferred to offset increased spending.
? Lawmakers should stop using PAYGO as a mask of fiscal responsibility, ignoring
increases in spending, and holding continuations in spending programs and current tax
law to different standards.
2
The Democrats? Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) rule embraces a bias toward a tax-and-spend
philosophy while masquerading as fiscal responsibility. Rules only require offsets for new or
expanded spending programs relative to the baseline and do not apply to the extension of
existing mandatory programs, even those scheduled to expire. Conversely, any tax reduction
requires a PAYGO offset to be extended. Therefore, PAYGO does not require a reexamination
of past spending policy decisions, only past revenue policy decisions that are set to expire.
PAYGO is prejudiced against extending current tax law because the baseline treats existing tax
cuts differently from existing mandatory entitlement programs. The baseline assumes that nearly
all mandatory spending proposals that are scheduled to expire don?t actually expire but instead
continue forever. Budget precedent requires that all direct spending programs created before
1997, and that have annual outlays of more than $50 million, are assumed to continue even if
they expire under current law. This encompasses a variety of very expensive programs,
including (costs over ten years 2009-2018):
? Food Stamps ($445 billion);
? Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($134 billion);
? Commodity Credit Corporation ($119 billion);
? SCHIP ($45 billion);
? Veterans? Compensation Cost Of Living Adjustment ($55 billion); and
? Child Care Entitlements to States ($23 billion).
All told, the baseline assumes that nearly $1.3 trillion in mandatory programs that are set to
expire will continue and won?t have to be paid for under PAYGO rules.
In contrast, most revenue provisions that are scheduled to expire under the baseline are assumed
to in fact expire. The practical effect of this difference is that current tax laws must be paid for
again and again simply to keep rates where they are, while existing entitlement programs are
allowed to continue indefinitely without needing offsets. Under this disparate and biased
treatment, Congress must find savings to keep tax rates at current levels, yet does not have to pay
for extension of many expiring mandatory programs.
During this current Congress, this bias creates an additional and unfair roadblock for extending a
host of popular bipartisan tax provisions, routinely referred to as ?tax extenders.? These widely
popular tax breaks include, but are not limited to:
? The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, which if left un-patched would raise taxes
on 25 million families;
? The research and development credit, a vital component to success, competitiveness, and
innovation of American businesses;
? The college tuition deduction, a deduction on which families struggling with the soaring
costs of education depend;
? The state and local sales tax deduction option; and
? The teacher classroom expenses deduction, which many teachers rely on in order to
provide their classrooms with needed materials throughout the year.
3
Also included in the extenders package are numerous tax cuts for renewable energy sources.
Renewing preferable tax treatment for sources of renewable energy represents a commitment to
diversified energy sources, as well as support for research, development, and utilization of a
renewable energy future.
Looking ahead to the next Congress, continued application of these biased PAYGO rules will
make it much more difficult to continue current tax policy such as marriage penalty relief, lower
rates on capital gains and dividends, lower marginal rates, estate tax relief, and the child tax
credit, all set to expire on December 31, 2010.
While most would argue that the mandatory programs assumed to continue are worthy programs,
it is not clear why they should be treated as more important, necessary, or beneficial than the
expiring tax extender provisions. For instance, mandatory spending for the Veterans?
Compensation Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is automatically assumed to continue and is
not subject to PAYGO rules, but the military tax extender provision, the Combat Pay in Earned
Income for Refundable Credit, is assumed to expire and must be offset. Additionally, spending
for Child Care Entitlements to States is automatically assumed to continue, but educational tax
extenders for Qualified Education Expenses and Teacher Classroom Expenses are assumed to
expire and must be offset. These tax provisions are every bit as important to the soldiers,
teachers, and families who benefit from them as the spending programs are, and the provisions
should not be subject to different offset requirements simply to fulfill a particular spending
agenda.
Extenders: A lesson in appropriate offsets
Recently, the tax extenders bill has garnered debate from both sides on the need for offsets due to
the Democrats? insistence on complying with PAYGO. Republicans have always held the belief
that increasing taxes to pay for extensions of current law does not make for sound economic
policy. However, Democrats? insistence on using tax increases as offsets has led to a stalemate
over the future of the extenders.
Erroneously, Republicans have come under attack for being against all offsets, yet this assertion
has no merit. Senate Republicans have publicly discussed an alternative to end the stalemate on
the extenders, one that pays for the extenders but in the form of decreased spending, not
increased taxes. To further illustrate the Republican position and in an attempt to break the
impasse on the time-sensitive tax extenders, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell wrote a
letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. According to the letter
dated July 3, 2008:
?The Senate Republican Conference will agree to offset the revenue lost from new
tax relief policy with spending reductions or revenue raised from appropriate tax
policy proposals. In exchange, the House and Senate Democratic Leadership
would revise the desired new non-defense discretionary spending in the 2009
Congressional budget downward to a level sufficient to offset the cost (relative to
the Congressional Budget Office baseline) of extending expiring tax relief. If
agreed to, extension of expiring tax relief, including extension of the AMT patch
and expiring energy tax incentives, could be accomplished in a way that achieves
4
your stated goal of being deficit neutral, but without the unstated and unwarranted
result of increasing the size of the federal government.?
Thus, appropriate offsets, such as cuts in non-defense discretionary spending, are clearly on the
table and to assert otherwise is disingenuous.
At a time when the economy is fragile, enacting tax increases in order to offset the extenders to
satisfy a biased PAYGO rule would only exacerbate the current economic hardships. According
to an editorial from the Wall Street Journal by two well-known economic experts, ?A good rule
of thumb is that a $1 tax cut includes $1 to $2 of additional economic growth. Conversely, tax
increases are bad because they impair economic growth, making people worse off by several
multiples of the extra amount of tax revenue the government collects. Generally speaking, each
additional $1 of tax revenue cost the economy not only the $1 of tax but an additional $1 to $2 in
lost income.?1 [Emphasis added]
Democrats pick and choose when to ignore their own PAYGO rules
Even with the disparate treatment of tax and spending programs under PAYGO, the Democratic
Congress still has been unable to abide by their own rules and has chosen to effectively waive
PAYGO again and again to increase spending without insisting on offsets. Yet it should be
noted that these similar waivers from the majority are much more difficult to come by with
regard to tax policy.
This year and last year alone, the Senate considered $355 billion in new legislation (excluding
the 2007 AMT patch) without paying for it by using budget gimmicks and violations to
circumvent PAYGO. Of the $355 billion of PAYGO avoidance, $66 billion was the result of
blatant PAYGO violations. Additionally, Democrats have repeatedly used the emergency
designation to exempt spending from being subject to PAYGO, totaling $201 billion, and they
used a series of budget gimmicks to avoid PAYGO for legislation totaling $88 billion.
Because emergency spending is not subject to PAYGO rules, the emergency designation was
used to avoid PAYGO violations for increased mandatory spending in several instances in 2007
and 2008.
Notable instances where PAYGO was ignored or waived under the Democratic-controlled
Senate include (costs over ten years):
? 2008 Emergency Supplemental (H.R. 2642)
o Unemployment insurance extension ? $8.2 billion
o Veterans education benefits ? $62.8 billion
? 2008 Stimulus rebate checks (H.R. 5140) ? $125.5 billion
? Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (H.R. 3221, as passed by the Senate 4/10/08) ?
$26.4 billion
1 Ernest S. Christian and William E. Frenzel, ?The Fiscal Bottom Line,? Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2007.
5
? 2007 Emergency Supplemental (H.R. 1591)
o Extended county payments and Payments in Lieu of Taxes, declared ?emergency?
? $4.1 billion
? Immigration Reform (S. 1348, Democrats? substitute amendment) ? $30.3 billion
? Energy Act of 2007 (H.R. 6, Democrats? substitute amendment) ? $4.2 billion
? Mental Health Parity (S. 558) ? $2.8 billion
Even in the instances where Democrats have attempted to abide by their PAYGO rule, increased
taxes have been heavily preferred to offset increased spending?cutting spending is frequently
not an option for the Democratic majority. For instance, recently when a $63 billion increase in
veterans education benefits was considered as part of the 2008 Emergency Supplemental (H.R.
2642), House Blue Dogs insisted that the increased spending be offset. However, instead of
considering a cut in existing or future spending to pay for the new program, they included a new
marginal tax rate increase of 0.47 percent on individuals earning more than $500,000 a year
(which they dubbed the ?patriot tax?).
A further illustration of the Democrats? tax and spend mantra is magnified in the Democrats?
proposed energy bill, S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008. S. 3044 established a
punitive windfall profits tax on major integrated oil companies. Instead of using the proposed
increased revenues for deficit reduction, the money collected from taxing these oil and gas
companies was immediately designated to fund an Energy Independence and Security Trust
Fund. The ?Fund? would be available to spend with only minimal direction on new spending
programs.
In addition, it is important to remember that PAYGO only applies to mandatory spending?it
does not apply to the more than $1 trillion that Congress will appropriate for discretionary
spending for 2009, or the $316 billion increase in non-defense discretionary spending that the
Democrats? budget resolution assumes over the next ten years. The Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) baseline already assumes an increase in non-defense discretionary spending at the rate of
inflation after 2008, but the Democratic budget resolution which was recently passed assumes an
additional $316 billion in increased spending on top of inflation. Because this spending is
discretionary, these spending increases also will be allowed to occur without being subject to
PAYGO rules, and without requiring any offsets.
Although the future discretionary increases are not specified for particular programs, this year?s
increases provide some guidance for how the money may be spent over the next ten years. In FY
2009 alone, the Democrats? budget assumes $5.4 billion in increased non-defense discretionary
spending over the baseline. Senator Kent Conrad indicated that the spending increase was
intended to increase such things as weatherization assistance ($450 million), the Great Lakes
Legacy Act ($175 million), and the Health Professions program ($369 million), all of which
were either significantly cut or eliminated in the President?s budget.
It is clear that some citizens will find these programs valuable. However, it is unclear why these
programs should be funded as part of an un-offset $316 billion increase in discretionary
spending, while equally valuable tax provisions face expiration if they aren?t paid for.
6
Conclusion
At a time when businesses and individual taxpayers are relying on Congress to pass an extenders
bill in a timely manner, Democrats? insistence on abiding by PAYGO has put a virtual hold on
quick passage. As Senator Charles Grassley wrote in a memorandum to reporters and editors on
June 10, 2008:
?The Democratic leadership?s notion of proper budgeting is that expiring spending
and appropriations get a free pass, but current law levels of taxation must go up.
This double standard is like a game of billiards. In this billiard game, the taxpayer
sits in the path of the pay-go ?8 ball? and the big spenders hold the cue stick. The
position of the Democratic Leadership is that this double-standard favoring
spending and disfavoring the American taxpayer must be enforced with this year?s
expired and expiring tax relief provisions.?
Lawmakers should stop using PAYGO as a mask of fiscal responsibility, ignoring increases in
spending, and holding continuations in spending programs and current tax law to different
standards.
Welcome to the rightwing echo chamber, now with extra obfuscational raving and projecting.
Shucks, if Dems use FY 2009 as a baseline, PayGo will be a snap. We'll likely see an increase in federal indebtedness of ~$1.5T for a single year, after the record increase of over $1T for FY2008... GWB can veto any bill not to his liking, right? The only expenditure bill he ever vetoed was one that attempted to cut spending by forcing a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq... and he did that by basically declaring the troops to be his hostages, that bad things would happen if congress didn't meet his extortion demands. Congressional repubs have done the same wrt Dems' programs in general- give us what we want, or we'll make people go hungry, not get medical care, not get funding for infrastructure.
The national debt will have more than doubled in 8 years, thanks to the smaller govt/ fiscal conservative/ stay at home foreign policy team voted in 8 years ago. What? They promised one thing and did entirely the opposite, but it's not their fault? Did they forget to tell you that they didn't really cut taxes at all, just put off paying them and shifted the burden down the scale?
So, uhh, whose idea was it to have this bailout, anyway? and why do we need it? Why, it couldn't be because the ideology of the Rightwing utterly failed, making it necessary? Couldn't Be!
It must be a whole lot more comfortable to point fingers at those not yet in charge than to engage in anything like self- examination, to engage in raving denial rather than to admit to having ever been wrong at all. If the supporters of the Right did that, they'd have to admit they've been duped, led down the primrose path- blued, screwed and tattooed by the very people they trusted.
Repub power players faced a choice when they controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches- fulfill their promises, govern conservatively yet effectively, or... go on a looting spree, hide it behind fearmongering, taxcuts and deficits... What they chose should be completely obvious to anybody with more than a few non-diseased grey cells to rub together...
We, the middle class, have been completely screwed over for the last 8 years, mostly because many of us were deceived, blinded, enraptured. What's it gonna take, guys, to come out of the trance, to see the truth, that what you've believed in so fervently has all been lies?
Shucks, if Dems use FY 2009 as a baseline, PayGo will be a snap. We'll likely see an increase in federal indebtedness of ~$1.5T for a single year, after the record increase of over $1T for FY2008... GWB can veto any bill not to his liking, right? The only expenditure bill he ever vetoed was one that attempted to cut spending by forcing a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq... and he did that by basically declaring the troops to be his hostages, that bad things would happen if congress didn't meet his extortion demands. Congressional repubs have done the same wrt Dems' programs in general- give us what we want, or we'll make people go hungry, not get medical care, not get funding for infrastructure.
The national debt will have more than doubled in 8 years, thanks to the smaller govt/ fiscal conservative/ stay at home foreign policy team voted in 8 years ago. What? They promised one thing and did entirely the opposite, but it's not their fault? Did they forget to tell you that they didn't really cut taxes at all, just put off paying them and shifted the burden down the scale?
So, uhh, whose idea was it to have this bailout, anyway? and why do we need it? Why, it couldn't be because the ideology of the Rightwing utterly failed, making it necessary? Couldn't Be!
It must be a whole lot more comfortable to point fingers at those not yet in charge than to engage in anything like self- examination, to engage in raving denial rather than to admit to having ever been wrong at all. If the supporters of the Right did that, they'd have to admit they've been duped, led down the primrose path- blued, screwed and tattooed by the very people they trusted.
Repub power players faced a choice when they controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches- fulfill their promises, govern conservatively yet effectively, or... go on a looting spree, hide it behind fearmongering, taxcuts and deficits... What they chose should be completely obvious to anybody with more than a few non-diseased grey cells to rub together...
We, the middle class, have been completely screwed over for the last 8 years, mostly because many of us were deceived, blinded, enraptured. What's it gonna take, guys, to come out of the trance, to see the truth, that what you've believed in so fervently has all been lies?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter