Posted on 01/05/2007 6:07:26 PM PST by xzins
House Approves Changes to Budget Rules By ANDREW TAYLOR (Associated Press Writer) From Associated Press
January 05, 2007 7:15 PM EST
WASHINGTON - Resurgent House Democrats voted Friday, their second day back in control, to block future tax cuts or benefit increases from being financed with dollars that swell the national deficit.
Republicans protested the change would imperil GOP-sponsored tax cuts that expire in four years. The new rule also could make it more difficult for the Democrats to fulfill campaign promises to cut student loan rates and extend tax cuts for the middle class.
The drive to restore the "pay-as-you-go" rule has long been a priority for moderate-to-conservative Democrats, whose House ranks swelled on Election Day. Adopted 280-152, the measure also requires legislation that contains pet projects and narrowly targeted tax breaks - "earmarks" to Washington insiders - to include the names of the lawmakers who requested them.
The idea is that openness will help prevent abuses like the earmark bribery scandal that forced former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., out of Congress and into prison. The new rules replace slightly weaker ones on earmarks approved last September by Republicans.
In the Senate, both parties held private strategy meetings. The chamber's first moves next week will largely mirror House steps to ban lawmakers from accepting gifts and free trips from lobbyists. The bipartisan Senate ethics and lobbying reform bill, the first legislation to reach floor debate under Democratic control, also requires disclosure of senators' earmarks.
Also Friday:
- House opponents of oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge introduced a bill to make an oft-challenged drilling ban permanent by designating. The bill would designate an oil-rich 1.2 million-acre strip along Alaska's north coast a permanently protected wilderness area.
- Senate Democrats said they are willing to consider tax cuts aimed for small businesses as part of a minimum wage increase. Democrats in the House plan a vote next Wednesday on a bill that would raise the federal wage floor from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years but without any tax relief for small businesses to help them meet higher payroll costs. Senate Democrats said they will need several "yes" votes from Republicans to pass a bill. "We're not going to go butting our heads against the wall because, first of all, it doesn't feel good, and number two it doesn't accomplish anything," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Democrats have promised to eliminate earmarks in a catchall spending bill that will clear away budget work left over from last year - and say that the upcoming round of appropriations bills will contain far fewer home-state projects, criticized as wasteful "pork" by taxpayer advocates.
Earmarks such as the "bridge to nowhere," a much-mocked proposal to build a $223 million span in Alaska to link Ketchikan and lightly populated Gravina Island, have captured the attention of voters, and Republicans say they're one of the reasons the party fared so badly in November.
The pay-as-you-go rule - if strictly enforced - promises to have a far bigger impact on the deficit. It would make it difficult for Democrats to pass increases in federal benefit programs such as Medicare or the Medicaid health care program for the poor or disabled.
The rule requires that tax cuts have corresponding cuts in government spending or increases in taxes elsewhere to pay for them. Likewise, any increase in entitlement programs such as Medicare would have to have corresponding tax increases, or equal cuts in other government programs.
In the near term, the rule, also known as PAYGO, means the Democrats' bill to cut student loan rates will be less generous than they'd like. The rule would also threaten efforts to extend Bush's tax cuts, most of which expire at the end of 2010.
"This is putting the American taxpayer on a collision course with higher taxes," said Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, top Republican on the Budget Committee.
And it gives lawmakers such as Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, an enormous headache as he tries to stop the alternative minimum tax from hitting more and more middle-class taxpayers. Fixing the AMT so that it doesn't engulf an additional 20 million tax filers next year would require almost $50 billion in tax increases or spending savings.
"It's not good for me, but it's good for the American people," Rangel said.
"Today, we are cutting our national credit card," said Heath Shuler, D-N.C., during floor debate Friday. To underscore the point, Shuler cut a credit card in half at a news conference held by moderate-to-conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats.
Democratic budget hawks say that restoring the PAYGO rule is crucial to curbing the budget deficit. Various forms of the rule were in place from 1990-2002, however, and Congress often found ways around it.
The version adopted Friday can be waived. But Democrats say to try to do so would invite criticism - and a revolt by the conservative Blue Dogs so crucial to the Democratic majority.
Another rule change, adopted 430-0, would curb past abuses in which GOP leaders held votes open for hours and excluded Democratic lawmakers from House-Senate negotiations on the language of final bills sent to the White House for enactment.
I agree. I think the Pres. has done a stellar job with the economy and with unemployment and home ownership. He's the best in 50 years.
His party put him in a sticky position. Apparently, he's too nice to veto his own team bringing him too much budget in an election year. They were stupid; he was indulgent.
They can't bind future Congresses. They can purport to bind them, but if the voters elect representatives who want to cut, they will cut.
I think there is a 33 seat margin.
They have to change the rules first. (Which might be easier or harder than in the Senate. I don't know.)
Will he veto THIS?
Tax cuts are not "financed." That is assinine.
If Clinton had been in charge on 9/11, he would have sent the FBI to arrest Osama bin Laden. Period. We'd still be waiting.
To handle the economic disaster of 9/11 he would have instituted massive tax increases that would have killed the economy, since it was already in that recession he handed over to Pres. Bush at the start of the term.
It could easily have gone into depression.
Islamofascism would have been emboldened. They would now own Afghanistan and, most significantly, Pakistan....a nuclear power. Their idea of a caliphate stretching from Algeria to Indonesia would be a real possibility.
Bush has no veto over House rules.
The president cannot veto House Rules. The constitution allows each legislative branch to make their own rules.
This is significant because ALL revenue bills MUST originate in the House according to the constitution.
That's why this is the democrat way of saying that tax cuts are not an acceptable way to stimulate the economy.
Caught that after posting. It's a House rule, not a bill. Which means, theoretically, a new GOP Congress in '08 COULD easily change it, right?
There were 50 Republicans who voted for this. I wouldn't count on Rinos to help out.
I don't care for some of the spending that has gone on but if you look at what President Bush has had to deal with since he took office, and look at the economy today, I'd say he did a damn fine job.
"This is putting the American taxpayer on a collision course with higher taxes," said Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, top Republican on the Budget Committee."
Were these words spoken by the esteemed Congressman from Wisconsin during the free pills for granny medicare bill? Inquiring minds want to know.
I don't know much about Congressman Ryan, but I agree with his point.
The version of "pay as you go" is a cover for raising taxes.
Unfortunately, the tax increase in a few years is a done deal. We have no power to stop it any more than we can stop amnesty. So I would rather have some restraint on the dems. They will have a very hard time selling tax increases before then or in addition to the coming tax increases when the Bush stimulus package expires.
"It's the tax cuts that have caused the economy to expand. Is it possible after all this time that there are still Rockefeller Republicans who don't understand what Reagan was all about?"
I think it's the increase in government spending that he was complaining about, not the tax cuts.
Think how the economy would grow if you coupled tax cuts with decreased government spending......
Fixing the AMT so that it doesn't engulf an additional 20 million tax filers next year would require almost $50 billion in tax increases or spending savings.
-----
lol, these politicians... cut taxes one area and raise them somewhere else.... whats the point?
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.