Bush's policies will add 1.82 trillion to the deficit (already over its previous designated limit of more than $6 trillion). So much for fiscal "conservativism".
News report:
By Andrew Clark
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress appears set this week to hand President Bush (news - web sites) a major, and possibly decisive, victory on his domestic tax cut agenda, even as a war rages in Iraq (news - web sites), analysts said on Monday.
House of Representatives Republicans, rallied by calls to back the president at a time of war, narrowly cleared a 2004 budget on Friday that included all of Bush's $726 billion tax cut plan, as well as deep spending cuts to pay for it.
And in the Senate, which is due to complete action on its budget blueprint on Wednesday, Bush's tax package survived a challenge last week from moderates who wanted to shrink it by more than half in the face of ballooning federal deficits.
Republicans say Bush's plan -- which would speed up scheduled income tax cuts and eliminate taxes on corporate dividends -- will jolt the anemic economy, boost government revenues and eventually shrink budget shortfalls.
Democrats argue it was his last round of tax cuts in 2001 that started the steep slide in the U.S. fiscal position. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) forecasts Bush's policies will put the government in the red every year for the next decade and run up a total deficit of $1.82 trillion.
Congress' budget lays out the framework for its tax and spending decisions later in the year. The tax package will still have to be debated separately, but making room for it in the budget means it is more likely to be passed, analysts say.
"When the House and the Senate have approved essentially identical tax cuts ... the game is up at that point," said Richard Kogan, senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning research group.
The Senate did vote on Friday to set aside $100 billion from Bush's tax plan to help pay for the war with Iraq. But Republican leaders plan to reverse the move when the House and Senate reconcile the differences in their budgets, aides said.
Democrats had accused the White House of trying to delay an emergency war spending request, expected to top $75 billion, until the budget debate was over. Congressional leaders are now due to be briefed on the cost of the war later on Monday.
While opponents of Bush's full $726 billion tax cut appear to command a narrow majority in the Senate, they have not been able to unite to defeat it. Some in both parties refuse to vote for any new tax cuts at all, while others have instead focused simply on reducing their size.
In the House, Republican leaders had to work hard to win a 215 to 212 vote on Friday on their budget plan -- after facing a revolt from moderates in their own ranks.
The plan initially called for nearly $500 billion in spending cuts to government programs over the next decade to pay for the tax package while fighting rising deficits. But many of the cuts were dropped amid lawmakers' concerns about the political cost of targeting popular federal benefits.
"It is an absolute classic confirmation of why tax cuts are easy and spending cuts are hard," said Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group. "Congress will vote for the tax cut and will talk a good game on controlling spending, but they won't actually do it."
Opinion: By William H. Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins
Tuesday, March 25, 2003; Page A09
Last week we saw something unprecedented in American history: a push for tax cuts targeted to the wealthy in a time of war. As U.S. jets prepared to bomb Baghdad, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) offered an amendment to the federal budget legislation accelerating the repeal of the estate tax. It is a provision that would benefit less than 2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers. It passed by a narrow vote of 51 to 48.
There is something unseemly about Congress's obsession with repealing the estate tax, the nation's most equitable tax on accumulated wealth, at a time when life and death are at stake. The American history of estate and inheritance taxes is wound together with mobilizations for war. The first federal tax on wealth was levied in 1797, as our country was faced with the escalating costs of responding to French attacks on American shipping.
During the 19th century, federal revenue came primarily from excise taxes and tariffs. Income and estate taxes were imposed only in revenue emergencies, during the Civil War and the Spanish-American War. Wartime taxation, or the "conscription of wealth," was perceived as equitable at a time when many citizens were sacrificing their lives, sometimes as soldier proxies for wealthier citizens.
The 1916 estate tax was a fundamentally American response to the excessive inequalities of the Gilded Age and reflected the country's need to move beyond reliance on the regressive tariff and excise taxes as primary sources of government revenue. Yet it was given a tremendous push by the U.S. entry into World War I and the need for wartime funds. Even after the war, businessman Harlan E. Read argued in his book "The Abolition of Inheritance" that war debts should be paid off with heavy taxes on inherited wealth.
In order to pay for World War II, the income tax was broadened to many lower-income households. In 1942 Irving Berlin wrote a patriotic song called "I Paid My Income Tax Today" to mark the unprecedented tax collections. One verse went: "You see those bombers in the sky, Rockefeller helped to build them, so did I." President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that national unity against Hitler depended on a sense of shared sacrifice, by both Rockefeller and Rosie the Riveter.
Top income rates were boosted, and the estate tax was increased so that fortunes exceeding $50 million would be taxed at 70 percent. FDR spoke out boldly against war profiteering, saying, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster."
Today the lives of some of our citizens are at risk. Others are feeling the pain of the recession, losing their jobs, savings and security. State and local governments, facing the worst budget cuts since World War II, are laying off workers and cutting education spending, children's health care and basic human services.
Rather than facing these problems and appropriating the money to resolve them, congressional leaders are using the diversion of war to pass a tax cut for the wealthy that would exacerbate budget shortfalls at all levels. While the public's attention is riveted on Iraq, the Senate acts to accelerate the repeal of the progressive estate tax.
At a time when states need $70 billion in federal aid to close their deficits, federal priorities seem to be very different. Will the costs of war be paid by reductions in spending, mostly affecting our most vulnerable citizens? Will there be clear domestic economic winners and losers in the conduct of this war?
Political scientist Michael Lipsky observed a year ago that this war "will evidently exacerbate the divide between rich and poor." Wars have had this effect on the United States before, but absolutely without precedent is a push for a windfall tax cut for the wealthy as wartime expenses mount.
William H. Gates Sr. is co-chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Chuck Collins is co-founder of Responsible Wealth. They are the authors of "Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes."
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
EchoVortex 
z@z.com 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
Ellis Dee
Innvertigo
Rono
Macey Howard
carbonhoots
Senor_Doobie
delian