Daschle floats option to Bush plan - income tax cuts of $300 a person, aid to states, jobless

Associated Press ^ | January 25, 2003 | Associated Press Staff

[AppyPappy]

I think he was guessing. Everyone that I know spent it.

[MeekOneGOP]

Socialist has-been.

http://sp-usa.org/



http://socialist.org/base.html

[Joshua]

"First, many states are in dire financial shape. We can all say, "screw them" because the legislators in those states increased spending bills when times were good, but the fact remains that California is facing a $35 billion shortfall, and $10 billion in Texas. Nebraska, my state, is facing a $650 million shortfall over 2 years. "

Why should a dime of my money go to bail out states that elect politicians that promise them the moon. They elected the idiots that made the mess, live with it

[Howlin]

Well, I sure spent mine, but he did quote some study. Didn't catch the name.

[cinFLA]

They try again to get some federal aid to bail out Davis in California.

[AppyPappy]

I bet it was the DNC study.

[Howlin]

No doubt.

[bybybill]

The Only thing that might save us is that states MUST balance their budgets. If the feds bail them out, the states will just spend more. If Nebraska is $650 mil in the whole, cut your spending, don`t ask Uncle Sam to pick up the tab.

[ggekko]

What a pathetic, neo-Keynesian joke.

[irish_lad]

If Nebraska is $650 mil in the whole, cut your spending, don`t ask Uncle Sam to pick up the tab.

All of us can pontificate about cutting spending, that's the easy part. What to cut is the hard part. I agree that some cuts must occur and some tax increases must occur. But what has happended in Washington over the last 20 years is a shift of responsibility and cost from the Feds to the state.

It's easy to mandate that the states are now tasked with specific programs, and many should be at the state level. The problem occurs when no assistance in funding happens. The Feds should pay for some portion of a program that is shifted. Take Medicaid dollars. Medicaid is not only for the poor of a state but those who are mentally and physically disabled. If you cut Medicaid dollars, sure, some of the poor who sit on their lazy asses and collect welfare are impacted, but so are those mentally handicapped. Do you want to cut their dollars too when they have no other means of support?

This is not an easy issue. The Feds provide a percentage of dollars to each state to assist with Medicaid. Mississippi is the highest match of Medicaid dollars, with a match of 75 cents of Federal dollars for each 25 cents paid by the state. So for every $1 cut of Medicaid by Mississippi, they also lose $3 of a Federal match. So what happens? More Medicaid recipients lose funding which creates other problems such as higher crime, homelessness, etc.

States should cut spending and probably raise taxes before asking the Feds for any assistance, agreed. But one must consider the impact of deep cuts that actually hurt the vunerable. Difficult issues are not solved with rhetoric, but with careful understanding of the impact of one's decisions.

[irish_lad]

Why should a dime of my money go to bail out states that elect politicians that promise them the moon. They elected the idiots that made the mess, live with it

Because if we don't bail them out in the short term (and that's only what I'm speaking about), then the economy will stagnate because of negative growth and debt default. Again, it's easy to say "live with the mess" but these are difficult problems that impact millions of people across our nation.

I suggest that the Feds, before any loans to states, establish spending agreements not only to repay Washington, but also to force states to get their fiscal house in order. Sadly, this makes too much sense for politicians to implement.

[Jorge]

Fred Barnes said last night that the studies done on the last "rebate" showed that most people SAVED it and did NOT spend it, so it was not a stimulus at all.

Well then, that explains why Daschle favors a rebate.
Last thing he wants to see is the economy improve.

[Joshua]

"I suggest that the Feds, before any loans to states, establish spending agreements not only to repay Washington, but also to force states to get their fiscal house in order. Sadly, this makes too much sense for politicians to implement. "

You're right, but Daschle is proposing a-no strings attached- loan to the states

[Arpege92]

LOL...Is Daschle serious? Keep talking Daschle and the road to the White House will become too long to reach. These liberals never learn....they are so myoptic!

[Doe Eyes]

The part that bugs me is that under Daschle's plan, you get a rebate even if you don't pay taxes...just take a little MORE of my money & give it to someone else?

Works a lot like school vouchers.

[Mike Darancette]

I want my cheese!!!

[bybybill]

Not starting a war, but are you a public employee? The reason I ask is that here in Oregon on the 28th of this month, we are voting on a increase on state income tax. If it is defeated, 50/50 chance, life as we know it is over. No more cops, schools will close, killers let out of jail, and the end of state "Services". [oh, to be freed of being serviced by the state] Most of these fear mongers are state employees, leadb by the teachers. It is all a sham and even the new rat Govenor has admitted it.

CUT SPENDING

[irish_lad]

Not starting a war, but are you a public employee?

No, I'm a CPA and head of accounting for an international not-for-profit agency. Again, I agree that states must cut spending, but if Oregon is a state that mandates a balanced budget, it's almost impossible for a state to cut spending enough to balance a budget, if the deficit is too large. Unfortunately, a tax increase may be necessary.

The scare tactics of "if we don't raise taxes, then we can't pay for anything" do nothing to further the debate and harm it. Unions (aka liberals) are typically notorious scaring old people and the most vunerable among us.

[Principled]

Difficult issues are not solved with rhetoric...nor by government.

As long as government is in charge, there will be the same problems.

[bybybill]

I`ll bet you that the operating budget of ANY large bureaucracy has at the very least, 5% or more bloat that could be cut IF management is modivated with little or no loss in production.