That undemocratic Senate . . . again

Washington Times ^ | Friday, June 21, 2002 | Martin Gross

[JohnHuang2]

Last week, the U.S. Senate showed its undemocratic stripes once again. A vote to make the elimination of the estate tax permanent lost by vote of 54-44. Does that mean a majority of the senators voted against it?

Absolutely not. A strong majority of 54, including almost all Republicans and nine Democrats, voted to do the sensible thing, which is to make the tax cut permanent and spare people the agony of knowing exactly when to die. Under the present tax law, passed last June, if one dies in 2010, all their estate will be passed on to their heirs. But if one has the audacity to live another year (or even a few months more) into 2011, the tax law reverts back to its 2001 proprotions and the government confiscates a good hunk of the money.

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, June 21, 2002

Quote of the Day by Snuffington

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I don't agree with this decision but I like the idea of requiring a supermajority before congress can impose new laws. It makes it just a little harder to expand government, although it would be nice if a simple majority could shrink government as with this vote.

[Demosthenes]

We're all slaves here, and we always will be.

[Gil4]

...the Senate can set a 60-vote cutoff as necessary whenever it appears there will be a loss of revenue to the nation

It appears that a tax increase would NOT require the supermajority

[billybudd]

The Senate had no problem expanding the government with the farm bill (64 to 35), but when it comes to cutting taxes, the Senate gets cold feet.

[The Raven]

>>First, eliminate the supermajority on any and all bills.

Wouldn't it get worse? They'd go on a spending spree.

[olliemb]

John, explain to me, what is a libertarian? I am quite confused b/c you read some of what socalled libertarians say and they imply they are democrats but do they not believe that no government is the way to go. Do you know the straight talk?