Posted on 07/19/2004 12:17:15 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of senators wants Republican leaders to consider extending three of President Bush (news - web sites)'s most popular tax cuts without forcing the federal budget deeper into red ink.
The group plans to propose extending tax cuts for wage earners, married couples and parents for a year. They would cover the $30 billion cost of preserving those tax cuts by ending abusive tax shelters and extending customs service fees, aides to the senators said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the senators planned to announce their proposal later Monday.
President Bush asked Congress to push through an extension this week before the Democratic and Republican parties hold their presidential nominating conventions. If lawmakers don't act this year to preserve those tax cuts, taxpayers can expect to pay $50 more in income taxes and lose up to $300 in a child tax benefit next year.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., told reporters last week that the president wants the Republican-led Congress to preserve his tax cuts without cutting spending or increasing taxes to cover the cost.
Republican leaders have considered extending the tax cuts for as long as 5 years, which would cost roughly $120 billion.
The senators urging lawmakers to back a shorter extension without worsening deficits include Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Olympia Snowe, R-Maine; Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.; John McCain, R-Ariz; and John Breaux, D-La. Most Democrats want to cover the cost of future tax cuts and minimize budget deficits.
They propose keeping for one year tax cuts that widened the bottom, 10 percent tax bracket; increased the child tax credit to $1,000; and reduced taxes for some married couples who pay more than they would as two single individuals.
The senators also want Republican leaders to consider smaller changes that would allow low-income and military families to get a bigger child tax credit this year, and to replace the five definitions of a child in tax laws with a single definition.
The government's deficit ballooned to $326.6 billion in the first nine months of the 2004 budget year. That was more than 20 percent larger than the $269.7 billion shortfall for the corresponding period last year.
Ah yes, Republicans, truly the party of smaller government. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
What a shocker. This is the block that created the 60 vote requirement for anything.
Oh, to get back the momentum and dedication of the conservatives in Congress of the mid-90s...
They all spend too much...bottom line is, let the one's who earn, keep it. Even Clinton's balanced budget would have been in the red after 9-11, the dot.com bust, etc.
LOL. Those dedicated conservatives are all part of the pork-barrel big gov't system now.
True, I agree. But they didn't act like that back then.
We could save a lot of tax cuts by stopping the tax exempt status of the Rainbow Coalition, Black Churches used for Dem politicians speeches ,The Tides Foundation, The NAACP, need I go on?
"WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of senators wants ..."
Of course tax cuts are repeatedly referred to as costs in the article.
Check history. Lower taxes always mean more revenues to the gov't.
So you are in opposition to reducing government spending?
That's what you said. I was just pointing out the fallacy - increasing taxes means lower revenue to the gov't. And higher deficits.
I'd recommend that you read some books about basic economics - Thomas Sowell has some very good ones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.