Traveler
11-10-2005, 05:35 AM
Even pro Bush institutions are now joining the critics corner. I look for an impeachment action within the next 6 months. Sad.
John M. Berry is a columnist for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.
Blame Bush, Congress for Busted Federal Budget: John M. Berry
Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) --
The federal budget process is badly broken and neither President George W. Bush nor congressional leaders, all focused on gaining partisan advantage, are making any real attempt to fix it.
With that absence of presidential leadership, we have unrestrained partisanship and near chaos.
Even with the budget deeply in the red, the administration continues to press for more tax cuts, while members of Congress of both parties keep voting for higher spending. Given the weakened state of the Bush presidency, it isn't clear that the president would have the clout to pursue a more rational fiscal policy should he choose to do so. He certainly hasn't done so by exercising his veto power, since he hasn't rejected a single piece of legislation.
None of the pressure to spend more money, whether for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, relief and reconstruction following several hurricanes, rising health-care costs or preparation for a flu pandemic seems to affect Bush's determination to cut taxes.
The Senate Finance Committee is set to vote today on a set of tax measures that would reduce revenues by an estimated $69 billion over the next five years. Most of the changes involve extending expiring provisions of current law.
House Vote
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote today on a package of proposals that are supposed to trim the deficit by $54 billion over the next five years. The action is more of an attempt by Republicans to be able to brag that they are tough on spending than to actually make much difference in the cumulative $14 trillion in projected spending during the same period.
House Democrats, hoping to deny the Republicans such bragging rights, are likely to vote unanimously against the package. Never mind that about $15 billion, more than a fourth of the total, would come from reducing excessive fees paid to student-loan lenders, something one would think the Democrats would favor.
The Democrats have spent much more time talking about proposed cuts in spending for Medicare, Medicaid and child support services.
That way they can portray the Republicans as cutting spending for the poor and elderly while cutting taxes for the rich -- a charge with a substantial element of truth.
Reconciliation Bill
Another $10 billion of the deficit reduction is supposed to come not from spending cuts but from the sale of another piece of the radio spectrum to private companies.
Why are such disparate items being lumped together in one piece of legislation? Because Congress, as is often the case, was unable to pass all the required appropriation bills before the fiscal year began Oct. 1.
Instead, everything is being bundled into a so-called reconciliation bill, an action that in itself represents a failure of the budget process. Among other things, the nature of such a bill makes it almost impossible to get an up or down vote on its individual components.
Over in the Senate Finance Committee, Democrats also appear united against the legislation proposed by committee chairman Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican. Earlier, the Republican-controlled Senate passed its own $35 billion worth of deficit reduction measures, including some Medicare and Medicaid spending cuts. So again, the Democrats are highlighting spending cuts for the poor and tax cuts for the rich.
The Democrats
As with the pending House bill, it's hardly clear that Democrats on the Finance Committee actually are opposed to all the provisions in Grassley's package. For instance, the biggest single item -- $27 billion in lost revenue -- is an extension for 2006 of partial relief from the impact of the Alternative Minimum Tax on individuals' income tax liabilities. Many Democrats earlier supported exactly the same legislation covering the 2005 year.
In addition, $7 billion of the $69 billion total involves various business and personal losses related to the hurricanes.
On the other hand, there is no need at this point to extend the maximum 15 percent tax rates for dividends and capital gains that expires at the end of 2008. Grassley wants to extend it to 2009, at a cost of $10 billion.
Not Just Tax Reform
One would hope that before the end of 2008, Bush and congressional leaders of both parties would have begun to tackle the country's long-term budget problems.
Bush's Tax Reform Commission has reported its ideas, some of which make pretty good sense. Their marching orders were to consider changes that would be revenue neutral, which strictly from a reform perspective might have been reasonable.
Unfortunately, the country needs not just reform of its tax laws with far fewer provisions dedicated to encourage individuals and businesses to behave in certain ways. The country needs a revenue system that would raise the amount of money a president and Congress insist on spending.
John M. Berry is a columnist for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.
Blame Bush, Congress for Busted Federal Budget: John M. Berry
Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) --
The federal budget process is badly broken and neither President George W. Bush nor congressional leaders, all focused on gaining partisan advantage, are making any real attempt to fix it.
With that absence of presidential leadership, we have unrestrained partisanship and near chaos.
Even with the budget deeply in the red, the administration continues to press for more tax cuts, while members of Congress of both parties keep voting for higher spending. Given the weakened state of the Bush presidency, it isn't clear that the president would have the clout to pursue a more rational fiscal policy should he choose to do so. He certainly hasn't done so by exercising his veto power, since he hasn't rejected a single piece of legislation.
None of the pressure to spend more money, whether for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, relief and reconstruction following several hurricanes, rising health-care costs or preparation for a flu pandemic seems to affect Bush's determination to cut taxes.
The Senate Finance Committee is set to vote today on a set of tax measures that would reduce revenues by an estimated $69 billion over the next five years. Most of the changes involve extending expiring provisions of current law.
House Vote
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote today on a package of proposals that are supposed to trim the deficit by $54 billion over the next five years. The action is more of an attempt by Republicans to be able to brag that they are tough on spending than to actually make much difference in the cumulative $14 trillion in projected spending during the same period.
House Democrats, hoping to deny the Republicans such bragging rights, are likely to vote unanimously against the package. Never mind that about $15 billion, more than a fourth of the total, would come from reducing excessive fees paid to student-loan lenders, something one would think the Democrats would favor.
The Democrats have spent much more time talking about proposed cuts in spending for Medicare, Medicaid and child support services.
That way they can portray the Republicans as cutting spending for the poor and elderly while cutting taxes for the rich -- a charge with a substantial element of truth.
Reconciliation Bill
Another $10 billion of the deficit reduction is supposed to come not from spending cuts but from the sale of another piece of the radio spectrum to private companies.
Why are such disparate items being lumped together in one piece of legislation? Because Congress, as is often the case, was unable to pass all the required appropriation bills before the fiscal year began Oct. 1.
Instead, everything is being bundled into a so-called reconciliation bill, an action that in itself represents a failure of the budget process. Among other things, the nature of such a bill makes it almost impossible to get an up or down vote on its individual components.
Over in the Senate Finance Committee, Democrats also appear united against the legislation proposed by committee chairman Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican. Earlier, the Republican-controlled Senate passed its own $35 billion worth of deficit reduction measures, including some Medicare and Medicaid spending cuts. So again, the Democrats are highlighting spending cuts for the poor and tax cuts for the rich.
The Democrats
As with the pending House bill, it's hardly clear that Democrats on the Finance Committee actually are opposed to all the provisions in Grassley's package. For instance, the biggest single item -- $27 billion in lost revenue -- is an extension for 2006 of partial relief from the impact of the Alternative Minimum Tax on individuals' income tax liabilities. Many Democrats earlier supported exactly the same legislation covering the 2005 year.
In addition, $7 billion of the $69 billion total involves various business and personal losses related to the hurricanes.
On the other hand, there is no need at this point to extend the maximum 15 percent tax rates for dividends and capital gains that expires at the end of 2008. Grassley wants to extend it to 2009, at a cost of $10 billion.
Not Just Tax Reform
One would hope that before the end of 2008, Bush and congressional leaders of both parties would have begun to tackle the country's long-term budget problems.
Bush's Tax Reform Commission has reported its ideas, some of which make pretty good sense. Their marching orders were to consider changes that would be revenue neutral, which strictly from a reform perspective might have been reasonable.
Unfortunately, the country needs not just reform of its tax laws with far fewer provisions dedicated to encourage individuals and businesses to behave in certain ways. The country needs a revenue system that would raise the amount of money a president and Congress insist on spending.