Posted on 03/15/2008 6:41:48 AM PDT by fweingart
The Senate rejected calls from both parties' presidential candidates to take an election-year break from pork-barrel spending as a Democratic-run Congress passed budget plans that would torpedo hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts won by President Bush.
John McCain, the GOP nominee-to-be, couldn't attract even a majority of Senate Republicans to vote with him Thursday night behind the earmark moratorium touted by party conservatives as a way to restore the GOP's credibility with voters.
It failed on a 71-29 vote. Only three Democrats joined with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in voting for it.
The underlying House and Senate Democratic federal budget plans for 2009, though nonbinding, drew blasts from Republicans for allowing some or all of Bush's tax cuts to die in about three years.
The House passed its $3 trillion budget plan by a 212-207 vote. It would provide generous increases to domestic programs but bring the government's ledger back into the black, but only by letting all of Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled.
The Senate passed a companion plan by a 51-44 vote. It endorsed extending $340 billion of Bush's tax cuts but balked at continuing all of them. The competing versions head to talks in which the House is all but certain to accept the Senate's position endorsing tax cuts for the working poor, married couples, people with children and for those inheriting large estates.
All three major presidential candidates interrupted their campaigns for a Senate vote-o-rama that began before noon and included more than 40 roll calls. Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe crossed over to support the bill; Evan Bayh of Indiana was the sole Democrat to vote no.
Budget plans are nonbinding, but they highlight the difficult choices on taxes and spending facing the next president and Congress. Binding votes on the expiring Bush tax cuts will be left to his successor and the Congress that's elected in November.
The practice of inserting "earmarked" spending into legislation is seen by lawmakers in both parties a birthright power of the purse awarded to Congress by the Founding Fathers.
Earmarks have exploded in number and cost in recent years, accompanied by charges of abuse and public outrage over egregious examples like the proposed "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, which would have cost more than $200 million to serve an island with a population of about 50.
McCain, who has battled with members of both parties over them for years, blamed pork barrel spending for the Republicans losing control of Congress in the 2006 elections.
"This may be the last bastion in America where they don't get it," he told reporters after Thursday night's vote. "Americans are sick and tired of the way we do business in Washington. As president, I promise the American people ... the first earmarked, pork-barrel bill that comes across my desk, I'll veto it."
However, on taxes, the Arizona Republican voted to extend the full roster of Bush's tax cuts, which he opposed seven years ago as being tilted in favor of the wealthy.
Democratic rivals Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois both voted to extend only some of Bush's tax cuts while allowing cuts in income tax rates and investments expire. They joined other Democrats in a 52-47 vote against extending $376 billion of them.
Republicans hope to use the votes as fodder for the heated presidential campaign and for congressional races. "Democrats are quietly but very assuredly paving the way for a massive, economy-choking, tax increase," said Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La.
Democrats said the plans would reverse years of deficits that have piled up during Bush's tenure. They said he squandered trillions of dollars in projected surpluses that he inherited in 2001.
"The Democratic budget continues to move our nation in a new direction and to clean up the fiscal train wreck caused by failed Republican economic policies over the last seven years," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
Democrats argued that when the time comes, they'll renew tax cuts aimed at the middle class by closing billions of dollars worth of corporate and other tax loopholes. They also say billions more can be raised by cracking down on tax cheats.
In the House, Democrats defeated a GOP plan that would have extended Bush's reductions. The Republican plan also would have eliminated the alternative minimum tax, which was originally designed years ago to make sure rich people pay at least some tax but now threatens more than 20 million additional taxpayers with increases averaging $2,000.
Some 38 mostly moderate Republicans voted against their party's plan, which would have made cuts in popular programs like Medicare, housing, community development and the Medicaid health care program.
Congress' annual budget debate involves a nonbinding resolution that sets the stage for later bills affecting taxes, benefit programs such as Medicare and the annual appropriations bills. Unless such follow-up legislation is passed, however, the budget debate has little real effect and is mostly about making statements about party priorities.
This is such a year. Congress rarely tackles difficult budget issues as elections loom, and a standoff with Bush means that Democrats may even take a pass on advancing the 12 annual appropriations bills.
The first year of an administration is typically when heavy lifting on the budget is done, but all the candidates' campaign plans seem to promise more than they can deliver. McCain's tax cuts would require applying a meat cleaver to spending, while the Democrats promise spending that would enlarge the deficit or require large tax increases.
The White House forecasts the deficit for the current year at $410 billion, a near record.
Democrats trumpeted their plan for putting the budget back in balance while also making investments in infrastructure, education, community development, clean energy and other programs. It also would avoid $196 billion worth of Bush-proposed cuts to Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled.
___
The bills are H. Con. Res. 312 and S. Con. Res. 70.
___
With RINOs like these, who needs Democrats?
Two strong reasons (I could give you 20 more) to stop contributing to the NRP.
Throw the Ba$tard$ out...all of them!
Does America deserve to be punished so harshly? Don't ask a democrat if you want a "good" answer.
So the Dhimmi strategy of Cut and Run and Tax and Spend is alive an well.
I’m shocked, shocked I say!
They’ll throw us into a deeper recession and blame it on the 8 years of the Bush Administration. There is a method to their madness.
Calm down!
The current oil and gas prices have nothing to do with the Democrats, other than a few isolated taxes. The current prices are due to a commodities buying frenzy world wide, plus a weakened Dollar.
The Democrats will run the country about the same as the current RINO Republicans have. This is still a two party system and they both take the blame for how things have developed. Trade deficits are mostly to blame for the weak Dollar, and the Bush Administration is to blame for that, as well as American industry for being forced to move off shore.
Statistically, we are due for a new Democrat administration. Historically as well as technically, this country changes parties in the White House with predictable regularity.
Like it or not, we will have another Democrat President. If McCain wins, we will have one anyway but the GOP will take even more blame than before. Like it or not, it would be better if the Democrats win and take the blame like Carter did. After all, it gave us 8 wonderful and very productive years of Reagan, whose policies effected our economy from the ‘80’s, well into the ‘90’s.
We will do that again if we are smart and don’t vote out of fear or the “Lesser of 3 Evils”.
Let’s count the many ways... oil $110 per barrel.
Trade deficit in billions. Rising inflation, job losses, real estate busts and rising cost of living expenses squeezing the American citizens. Federal $$ bailouts of financial institutions.
Billions spent on Iraq. Federal budget tops 3 trillion $ and these overbloated, pig-feeding, selfish blowhard, blind-deaf DC politicians want to increase our taxes? Tasbards! The time to REVOLT is near....
You could have fooled me.
America needs a third party, or....a revolution.
It's not near...it's here!
Hey, it's an election year. This time it's the rat's turn to bleed and after all of the spit and vinegar they've hurled at us? Payback, even if it's just election year rhetoric, is a b@tch.
However I will submit that if domestic drilling had been permitted and encouraged, the increase in potential future supply would have helped supplies commodity futures with regards to oil prices. Democrats do bear a major responsibility in inhibiting domestic production.
Calm down? I'll take that advice over a nice bottle of wine tonight. : )
Cheers!
"the increase in potential future supply would have helped suppress commodity futures with regards to oil prices.
Drilling World wide, has increased about 20% over the last year. Domestic supplies has little to no effect on prices.
We refine about 70% of our oil from foreign sources. This is not because we don’t have enough effort here, it is simply because it is cheaper to buy it from other sources.
Canada is our largest supplier, followed by Mexico and Venezuela. They can produce it much cheaper than we can. It is mostly our heavy labor costs here, due to extreme safety requirements and measures imposed by the Federal Government. (Both parties are to blame, but most came during the Bush admin.)
The current oil market has very little to do with politics. It is primarily driven by refinery capacity or availability. In fact, the World supply of crude is quite plentiful and stable. The recent price increases are due mostly to the weak Dollar and private investors, buying up heavy lots of crude from the open market and holding on to them to sell at a later profit. (A.K.A.,Speculation)
John McCain, the GOP nominee-to-be, couldn't attract even a majority of Senate Republicans to vote with him Thursday night behind the earmark moratorium touted by party conservatives as a way to restore the GOP's credibility with voters. It failed on a 71-29 vote. Only three Democrats joined with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in voting for it.
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.