Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

4 Senate moderates vow limit on tax cuts
Associated Press | 03.14.03 | Alan Fram

Posted on 03/14/2003 6:38:20 AM PST by kcvl

4 Senate moderates vow limit on tax cuts

2003-03-14 By Alan Fram Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON -- Four moderate senators signed a letter Thursday stating that any tax-cutting economic growth plan must be limited to a 10-year price tag of $350 billion, dealing a major blow to President Bush's plan for a package twice that size. The stance by the bipartisan group -- which includes two Republicans, Olympia Snowe of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio -- could be decisive in a Senate the GOP controls by just 51-48, plus a Democratic-leaning independent.

Republicans pushed a plan for cutting spending and erasing federal deficits by 2013 toward passage by the Senate Budget Committee on Thursday despite Democratic objections that it would cut taxes too deeply.

Led by chairman Sen. Don Nickles, R- Ponca City, the panel swatted down Democratic amendments aimed at reducing the $1.3 trillion in tax reductions that the fiscal blueprint would accommodate. In one vote, the committee by a 11-9 margin rejected a proposal to block most new tax cuts and spending until President Bush clarifies the estimated costs of a war with Iraq.

In January, Bush proposed a $726 billion plan whose centerpiece was the elimination of taxes on corporate dividends. The White House has cast the package as a crucial step to jump-starting the economy, creating jobs and nurturing long-term economic growth.

Citing "international uncertainties and debt and deficit projections," the letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said any tax reduction passed this year "must be limited to $350 billion." Anything over that amount must be paid for by savings from elsewhere in the budget, the lawmakers wrote.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: democrats; georgevoinovich; olympiasnowe; taxcuts
They don't think we deserve any tax-cuts!!!
1 posted on 03/14/2003 6:38:20 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kcvl
They don't think we deserve any tax-cuts!!!

Unless we demand spending cuts, maybe we don't.

2 posted on 03/14/2003 6:41:15 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
any tax reduction passed this year "must be limited to $350 billion." Anything over that amount must be paid for by savings from elsewhere in the budget

As if the GOP would grow some spine and cut spending...

3 posted on 03/14/2003 6:42:24 AM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Politicians, like diapers should be changed often. Stop re-electing these 'good' people!
4 posted on 03/14/2003 6:43:05 AM PST by B4Ranch (Politicians, like diapers should be changed often. Stop re-electing these 'good' people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
What about Zell Miller. He is on our side. That cancels one of the moderate Republicans out.
5 posted on 03/14/2003 6:53:16 AM PST by ConservativeMan55 (Liberate Iraq! Lets Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Well, well, well.

Mr. Voinivich is running for re-election in a debt-ridden state run by Republicans, whose Governor is taxing the hell out of 'em.

He better think again.

I shall give him a call.
6 posted on 03/14/2003 6:53:47 AM PST by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
"Mr. Voinivich is running for re-election in a debt-ridden state run by Republicans, whose Governor is taxing the hell out of 'em."


Someone should convince Congressman Rob Portman to take on Voinovich in the Republican primary. With his Cincinnati-area base and unabashedly conservative credentials, the energetic Portman should be an easy choice over Voinovich among Ohio Republicans. Sure, Voinovich will whip Portman in the Cleveland area, but how many Republican primary voters live there? And Portman will beat Eric Fingerhut or whomever the Democrats run in November, since Ohio keeps getting more Republican and since President Bush will be at the top of the GOP ticket.

For those who may worry about the Dems picking up Portman's seat if he doesn't run for re-election, don't. It's one of the most heavily Republican districts in the state.
7 posted on 03/14/2003 7:31:33 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Ohio republicans have ever been rockefellar republicans. I live in the state. They are fiscal/budget conservatives and social liberals on anything they can get away with.

Governor Taft's first act was a call to raise taxes.
8 posted on 03/14/2003 7:31:51 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Tax cuts are not a 'cost', and do not carry a 'price tag', G-dammit! The Republicans need to fight this concept everytime it is said.
9 posted on 03/14/2003 7:35:32 AM PST by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Anything over that amount must be paid for by savings from elsewhere in the budget, the lawmakers wrote.

I can wholeheartedly agree with this. Now start cutting!!!

10 posted on 03/14/2003 8:06:16 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
You've pointed out the real problem here.
11 posted on 03/14/2003 8:10:27 AM PST by Stage Fright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: The Old Hoosier
Anything over that amount must be paid for by savings from elsewhere in the budget, the lawmakers wrote.

Works for me. I want the tax cuts but if we can get tax cuts and spending cuts, that's even better.

13 posted on 03/14/2003 8:32:58 AM PST by Wphile (I'M SO SICK OF THE IRAQ DEBATE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
we want the whole damn thing
14 posted on 03/14/2003 8:34:17 AM PST by The Wizard (Demonrats are enemies of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Wizard
http://www.senate.gov/~voinovich/webform.htm
15 posted on 03/14/2003 10:05:26 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
Honorable George V. Voinovich
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3353
TDD: (202) 224-6997


http://www.senate.gov/~voinovich/webform.htm
16 posted on 03/14/2003 10:10:15 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
We have the Dem Votes to offset Snowe, and Voinovich.
17 posted on 03/14/2003 12:05:04 PM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1; kcvl; ConservativeMan55
What the article doesn't tell you is that McCain and Chafee have taken a position that there should be no tax cuts in time of war and that Collins said on Wednesday that a tax cut decision should be deferred until after we know what the war will cost.

You should also know that the GOP budget that the Senate will consider next week does not include all of Bush proposed tax cuts. For example, it does not include any of the Bush savings incentives (lifetime savings accounts, retirement savings accounts, and employer retirement savings accounts). It doesn't include expanding medical savings accounts and making them permanent. And it doesn't protect individuals from the alternative minimum tax after 2005.

As far as I can tell, Miller is the only Dem who will vote for big tax cuts.

18 posted on 03/14/2003 12:13:36 PM PST by mdwakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
Love your response!!!
19 posted on 03/14/2003 12:16:03 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mdwakeup
Breaux was on cnbc LAST NITE pretty much supporting the package.

Don't forget there are others that will be up for re-election, in several months....

Bottom Line, the Presdient gets 75-85 % of what he wants.

20 posted on 03/14/2003 12:17:03 PM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

rather..campaigning For reelection
21 posted on 03/14/2003 12:20:16 PM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mdwakeup
John McCain
241 Russell Senate Ofc. Bldg.
United States Senate
Washington D.C., Washington DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2235
Fax: (202) 228-2862

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home
22 posted on 03/14/2003 12:24:03 PM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
One of the problems with selling tax cuts is that they are mislabled. What we want is a cut in the marginal tax rates. But the media incorrectly portrays this as "tax cuts." As Reagan showed, cuts in marginal tax rates actually increase the amount of tax revenues the government collects.
23 posted on 03/14/2003 12:24:20 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
Tax cuts are not a 'cost', and do not carry a 'price tag', G-dammit! The Republicans need to fight this concept everytime it is said.

Actually, as long as we don't cut spending, tax cuts do have a cost. This is because they result in the government having to borrow, either from the Social Security surplus or from the public (i.e., bonds). Add the interest associated with that borrowing and they have quite a cost.

24 posted on 03/14/2003 12:27:15 PM PST by mdwakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
Breaux does not support the President's dividend proposal. He signed a letter dated yesterday that committed himself and the other three signers to support no more (and no less) than $350 billion in tax cuts for consideration under the reconciliation (think fast track) process. When you look at the scores that the Senate works with, that means that they will be supporting accelerating the upper-bracket rate cuts, accelerating the marriage penalty relief, accelerating the increase in the child credit, accelerating the widening of the 10-percent brakcet, and increasing the amount of small business investment that would qualify for immediate write-off.
25 posted on 03/14/2003 1:12:00 PM PST by mdwakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Republican" Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia also set about seeking to raise taxes. Albeit 'sin' taxes, only tobacco and liquor, and he did some budget cutting, BUT there is room for more.

Now where are the people who say that there are major differences between Republicrats and Democrans?

26 posted on 03/14/2003 5:38:58 PM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Those disgusting scumbags Snowe and Voinovich better be made to pay dearly by the Republican leadership.
27 posted on 03/14/2003 5:45:43 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdwakeup
Actually, as long as we don't cut spending, tax cuts do have a cost.

Sure, in a crazy, perverse, roundabout, silly kind of way.
Nah.... Actually, tax cuts do not have a cost.
It is still the spending that "necessitates" the borrowing, which increases interest on the debt. Plus, it has been demonstarted time and again that tax cuts INCREASE total revenues to the government. So no, not even in a crazy, perverse, roundabout, silly kind of way do tax cuts have a "cost".

28 posted on 03/14/2003 6:01:43 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Plus, it has been demonstarted time and again that tax cuts INCREASE total revenues to the government.

Really? Just where was this demonstrated? Some seem to think this is what happened in the 1980s, but William Niskanen, David Stockman, Stephen Moore, and Bruce Bartlett would all disagree. The Heritage Foundation has the most generous dynamic scoring model I've seen, and even they conclude that the Bush growth plan (which would cost $726 billion by Bush's own estimate) would still reduce revenues over the next 10 years by $275 billion. And neither Bush nor Heritage takes increased interest payments by the government into account.

29 posted on 03/16/2003 1:36:54 AM PST by mdwakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mdwakeup
William Niskanen, David Stockman, Stephen Moore, and Bruce Bartlett would all disagree.

Well, let me go check out the credentials of these fine, non-partisan economists, and I'll get back to you. (I know who Stockman is, and if Bartlett is from 'Bartlett and Steele', I'll know what you are and I can just laugh and move on.)

30 posted on 03/16/2003 7:53:15 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Let me save you a little work. Stephen Moore is head of the Club for Growth. Bruce Bartlett is not the Bartlett you're thinking of. He's been in either the Reagan or Bush41 Administration or both. You can find his work at townhall.com or at National Review. And Niskanen was one of the intellectual godfathers of the supply-siders. You can find his work at Cato.
31 posted on 03/16/2003 10:56:42 AM PST by mdwakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
I vow limit on "moderates".
32 posted on 03/16/2003 10:57:59 AM PST by Libertina (God Bless our Commander In Chief and our Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdwakeup
Thanks for the information about those people.
But they are playing with themselves if they oppose tax cuts.

Regards,
LH
33 posted on 03/16/2003 11:39:19 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
lol!
34 posted on 03/16/2003 12:32:28 PM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Do you always read way more into things than is actually there? I never suggested they were against tax cuts. I never suggested I was against tax cuts. The point is that the tax cuts ain't free if they don't cut spending, too.
35 posted on 03/16/2003 5:50:36 PM PST by mdwakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mdwakeup
The point is that the tax cuts ain't free if they don't cut spending, too.

Point taken.
However, tax cuts must never be contingent on spending cuts or we would NEVER have any tax cuts. Cut taxes, starve the beast, and thereby FORCE spending cuts. It's the only way spending cuts happen. The only way.

Regards,
LH

36 posted on 03/16/2003 7:37:57 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Cut taxes, starve the beast, and thereby FORCE spending cuts. It's the only way spending cuts happen. The only way.

I agree in principle, but it never seems to work out that way. Reagan's cuts certainly resulted in much greater total revenue, but political reality forced him to submit ever increasing budgets that more than ate up the revenue increases. Then Tip O'Neil and George Mitchell tacked on a couple of hundred billion more each year and deficits ran out of sight by the time Reagan had to leave.

As long as a majority of voters pay little or no taxes there is no hope of ever starving the beast IMHO. We need a flat tax for EVERYONE with no exemptions for low income earners, and we need it NOW.

37 posted on 03/16/2003 7:54:55 PM PST by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Now we get into the hard part. Where would you cut? If you have ideas, a lot of people would love to know.
38 posted on 03/17/2003 6:45:03 AM PST by mdwakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Maybe we should start emailing them the message 'one at a time'.
39 posted on 03/17/2003 6:48:49 AM PST by gulfcoast6 (START PRAYERS NOW FOR OUR PRESIDENT AND TROOPS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson