House Budget Debate – Then and Now

Posted on 5/9/2007 by Al Swearengen

In the current installment we have Republicans railing against tax increases, with numbers that lack context, and if you listen carefully, what they’re talking about is the fact that Bush’s tax cuts aren’t yet permanent. They expire in 2010. Also factoring into all this is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which has been a problem on the horizon for a number of years, and suddenly now that Republicans aren’t in charge of Congress, they’re appalled that it hasn’t been reinstated for the middle class families who need it. What is missing from this budget of course, are the tax cuts for estates, dividends, golf tees and cigars…all of which have been replaced with full funding for things like veterans’ benefits and even some left over for paying off the federal debt. A first clip here is from yesterday, and then I have two others from 2006.

Rep. Andrews explains it very well (2007)
Why Is This Man Smiling? (2006)

Frank: It’s Nice to Have Predictable Friends – “Moderate Republicans” (2006)

This entry was posted in Al Swearengen, History, Politics, Video. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to House Budget Debate – Then and Now

  1. caveat bettor says:
    5/9/2007 at 11:21 am

    Hey, check this out http://caveatbettor.blogspot.com/2007/05/state-of-us-economy-strong.html

    Economic growth, greater employment, and greater wages have all increased since the 2002 tax cuts.

  2. Al Swearengen says:
    5/12/2007 at 9:34 pm

    caveat – I’m cross-posting my response to your post over at your site here, so it doesn’t look like I ducked you on this:

    deadissue: First off, I don’t think the futures contract for a recession necessarily pertains to the matter you posted on here. What you’re highlighting is an increase in tax revenue, and I read it the day it came out…the WSJournal runs some dubious numbers up the flagpole to give the reader an impression that all is well in the US treasury.

    It is intellectually dishonest to take an upswing in tax receipts and then peg the greater meaning of it selectively like they have here. The budget deficit is something that shouldn’t even exist in the first place, especially considering that our spending for Iraq is not factored into that total.

    A trick I’ve learned over the years, when reading the WSJ, IBD or other economics spin, is to focus on what they DON’T say…what they leave out.

    Already I’ve pointed out a glaring hole in their analysis by the fact that they chose such a low level measure to highlight within the big picture (the federal budget minus Iraq spending).

    I’d measure progress in regards to the US treasury off of the federal debt and specifically the daily interest payment on that debt. Because without doing that, the WSJournal has basically made an argument here that they’d have chided “tax-and-spend liberals” for in the past…by choosing to frame the issue as a matter of the budget deficit, simply because it is the one figure that will even allow this type of an argument to be made.

    Nevermind the fact that there is a budget deficit BECAUSE of the more elitist-favoring tax cuts…the cut on taxes taken from dividends being a good example.

    I don’t necessarily think that the answer to increasing tax revenue in the long run has to be raising taxes – and certainly doesn’t have to involve raising taxes across the board. The fundamental issue with the right-wing, and the Journal’s editorial section, is that ANY tax cut is a good thing…and I think this assertion is false.

    And to highlight how this is REALLY only a case of the WSJ shilling for the wealthy – – – in the last year I can’t recall them criticizing the inaction in Congress these past four years in regards to the AMT (alternative minimum tax)…why? Why do they focus on defending the cut on dividends and not stand up for the AMT being taken care of?

    Because they’re not looking out for the interests of the middle class, and they never will be. I have no problem w/ this…it is what they do. But when it is read like a gospel at mass, I have to speak up.

Comments are closed.