Skip to comments.Democrats promise budget surpluses (by 2012 by allowing President Bush's tax cuts to expire)
Posted on 03/05/2008 8:38:30 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - House Democrats neared initial approval of an election-year budget blueprint late Wednesday that would produce sizable surpluses by 2012 by allowing President Bush's tax cuts to expire as scheduled.
The $3 trillion budget plan for 2009, expected to pass the House Budget Committee on a party-line vote, would award greater-than-inflation increases to domestic programs. That immediately earned a promise from the White House that Bush would veto subsequent spending bills funding agency budgets.
The Senate Budget Committee planned a vote Thursday on a largely similar plan. At issue is the annual congressional budget resolution, a nonbinding document that sets guidelines for later legislation to put in place tax and spending goals for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.
The Senate's measure is $18 billion, or 4 percent, more than Bush's budget for non-defense programs funded each year by Congress, such as education, health research, housing and health care for veterans. The House version offers an increase of $22 billion, almost 5 percent.
Both plans ratify Bush's $36 billion, or 7 percent, increase for the core Pentagon budget.
Bush claimed victory in last year's budget fight and is eager to bring lawmakers to heel again. As a result, Democrats are signaling they do not intend to send him many spending bills this year; they prefer to deal with his successor, who they hope will be a Democrat. Bush leaves office Jan. 20.
As for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the budget plans leave their fate to the next Congress and the new president. Majority Democrats say they will likely allow income tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers to expire, but extend tax cuts for lower- and middle-income people.
At least so far, however, the current Democratic plans assume the expirations of tax cuts on income, investments, married couples and people with children, as well as people inheriting large estates. Republicans are strongly opposed.
"We're not just talking about hurting the rich," said Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, top Republican on the House Budget Committee. "We're talking about raising taxes on every single American taxpayer."
The Senate Budget Committee chairman, Kent Conrad, said the Senate Finance Committee chairman, Max Baucus, would seek to renew tax cuts aimed at the middle class. That includes the $1,000 per child credit, relief from the marriage penalty, estate tax cuts and the 10 percent tax rate on the first $7,825 of income for individuals.
Conrad, D-N.D., said the budget still would produce a small surplus in 2012 and 2013, assuming the Senate approves the proposal by Baucus, D-Mont., during debate next week.
The Democratic plans do not to take on the exploding growth of Medicare, Social Security and other benefit programs. Doing so would be a painful exercise in an election year.
"Our budget ... is no grand solution, but it moves us in the right direction," said Democratic Rep. John Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, the House Budget Committee chairman.
Democrats have criticized Bush's $3.1 trillion budget plan as unrealistic. They note it does not include the cost of the Iraq war or any provisions after this year for keeping the alternative minimum tax originally aimed at the wealthy from hitting millions of middle-class taxpayers.
But the Democratic plans only cover Bush's request of $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009, and nothing after that.
House and Senate Democrats differ on how to address the alternative minimum tax problem. The Senate assumes a one-year, $62 billion fix; the House wants a permanent solution that would be offset by increasing taxes on wealthier taxpayers.
In the House committee, Democrats rejected a GOP attempt to put in place a one-year freeze on lawmakers' pet projects for their districts and states, as well as amendments designed to extend the Bush tax cuts.
The Senate plan assumes $35 billion for an additional economic aid measure to follow the two-year, $168 billion plan enacted last month. Democrats want to extend unemployment benefits, increase heating aid for the poor and assistance to states to purchase and refurbish foreclosed homes.
The budget plan Bush submitted last month would reach near-balance in 2012, according to congressional estimates. But it only does so by politically impossible cuts to veterans' health care and other popular programs.
That, plus the fact that revenue will decrease to it’s pre-tax cut levels. Oh, yeah I forgot ... Congress will step up IRS audits, and tax business heavily and .......
So Democrats might get a short term increase in tax revenues the net impact is going to be a slowing economy at the same time Congress will be spending more which will result in bigger deficits, not a surplus. Which of course will be the base of the argument from Democrats that they have to raise taxes, thus slowing economic growth, thus generating higher deficits.
The Feds don't have a revenue collecting problem, they have a spending problem and until they reign that in, nothing they do will reign in the deficit.
They don’t have to worry about delivering on their promise as we all know, Mayan Calender ENDS in 2012.
Supply side...that’s what we need
We need to nail the democrats on how much income they consider to be “middle class”.
Thanks to a freespending Republican Congress and Senate, along with a President who never learned to say No until it was too late, they don't have to. They can say what they want and we have no response because when we got the chance we spent as much as any Democratic administration and more. Now we have to sit back and reap what we have sown because any attempt to paint the Dems as big spenders will be met with derision.
pelosi and reid have approved 276 BILLION in new spending... above the increase Bush has approved.
Oh, well that settles it then. If the Dems are promising surpluses, let’s vote Dimocrat
democrat logic: if I sell apples for $1000 an apple, I’ll be rich!
And by wealthy, the Democrats mean anyone who actually goes out and works for a paycheck. The truly wealthy (liberals with actual money) will remain exempt, because some citizens are more equal than others.
Democrats are so stupid and uneducated they don’t understand you increase revenues by LOWERING taxes. Like you say, raising taxes will depress economic acivity and reduce tax revenues. That’s how the Laffer Curve works, proved by President Reagan.
Heck, even JFK knew that.
Only because they can rely upon their tame mouthpieces among the "pseudo Conservatives" who will ignore what ever the Democrats are planning or doing now so they can continue to whine and scream about what the Republicans did not do back when.
Going to be a great election year for us when 20% of our side would rather continually snipe our own in the back for their minor short comings then ever have to quit whining and fight the Democrats on anything.
Demo’Rats still stuck on stupid. But their voters are voting for change....which is about all they will have left in the pockets after the greedy pols extort all their $$ for socialist nirvana land.
This is the larget tax increase in American history. YIKES.
I think it is important to understand that these statements and beliefs were directed towards the uneducated masses of the liberal realm as well as the left leaning philosophical elite types that would probably faint in orgasmic joy at the "sound" of these statements. No thought is ever given to the meaning or repercussions of such acts.
They have no understanding of logical economics.
Thanks to a freespending DEMOCRAT Congress and Senate.
Whining about the GOP Congress is *so* 2006.
Some people are hard of hearing.
Like libs really care about balancing the budget - it’s just a talking point to them.
When are these idiots going to take “econ 101” and get their heads on straight ..??
YOU NEVER GET SURPLUSES WITH TAXES - IN FACT, YOU GET THE OPPOSITE.
AND .. IF THEY WANT THE PRICE OF GAS TO COME DOWN .. ALL WE NEED TO DO IS SAY WE’RE GOING TO DRILL IN ALASKA .. AND THAT SHOULD DO IT. Or .. why not write an EO - AND START DRILLING ..????????????????
These stupid liberals .. they just hate for anybody but them to be rich or living a good life!!
In case you forgot we did fight, and we won. And what we got for our efforts was a bunch of bindelstiffs who spent their way right back into the minority.
Unfortunately, because of the dumbing down of America over the past few decades, the average "Joe Schmo" doesn't take into consideration who is in charge of the House and Senate. All they know is that "Bush" is in charge and that everything that happens in the known universe is Bush's fault. To them, the vice president "Dick Cheney" is the guy that runs around shooting people with an horrible big gun and that they must be afraid, Very Afraid of anything Republican. Republicans are the purveyors of EVIL.
At least that is what I hear working in the belly of the beast, Hollywood.
Surpluses are the result of not spending more than you collect in tax revenues. Democrats aren't known for restraint in spending. I call BS on the whole article.
Maybe if we get a Republican President and a Republican Congress, this time it will be different. /s/
Better idea: REDUCE SPENDING!
In case you forgot we did fight, and we won. And what we got for our efforts was a bunch of bindelstiffs who spent their way right back into the minority.”
Yep.........re-elect no one.
Thanks a lot for throwing Newt’s congressional
Thank you my FRiend. Deaf ain’t the word for it!
But it is time to reclaim it! The Dems have given us an EXCELLENT Opportunity! The TAX INCREASES they proposed WILL AFFECT EVERY AMERICAN! Simply show how much they will AFFECT SINGLES and FAMILIES in dollars and it will Blow away the Dem Majority in the House and possibly the Senate.
Time to NAIL THEIR BUTTS TO THE WALL
Too late! My mom already taught me how to bake bread! LOL!