Allergic To Spending Cuts, Dems Plot To Bring Back Their Favorite Gimmicky Tax Hikes
Washington Update - Feb 8, 2013
The Senate is not in session today and will reconvene at 2 PM on Monday when it will resume consideration of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Act. Votes are scheduled that evening on 6 amendments and final passage of the bill. Yesterday, the Senate voted down a substitute amendment to S. 47 from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) 34-65.
The House was not in session yesterday and met for less than 5 minutes today. The next meeting of the House is scheduled for 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb 12th.
Multiple news reports this morning show that Democrats seem to be unable to part with so much as a dime of out-of-control Washington spending. They’ve reportedly spent the week trying to come up with ways to stave off the sequester, most of which, of course, involve tax hikes.
The Hill writes today, “Senate Democrats are struggling to come up with a replacement for the $85 billion spending-cut sequester set to begin on March 1. Key Democrats huddled Thursday in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) office to discuss options for preventing the looming cuts after returning from a retreat in Annapolis where they discussed strategy with President Obama. . . . [Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max] Baucus said Finance is looking at specific tax provisions that would be used as part of a package to replace the sequester. The committee had an informal meeting on Thursday where no decisions were taken, members said. ‘Wait and see what’s introduced,’ Baucus [D-MT] advised. . . . Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for example, said Thursday he soon will offer legislation language to replace the sequester with savings from the tax code.
Politico reports, “Senate Democrats are digging in against Republican calls for deeper spending cuts by bringing out some of their favorite punching bags: corporate jets, Wall Street and Big Oil. With the automatic budget cuts in the sequester coming up next month, Democrats hope to vote on an alternative plan to raise taxes on some of their favorite boogeymen in hopes of shifting the blame . . . .”
Just how averse are Democrats to cutting spending? This quote from Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), chair of the Appropriations Committee is telling: “‘I’m not identifying replacement cuts — I’m working on a balanced solution,’ Mikulski told POLITICO on Thursday. ‘We’ve already taken those cuts. … I think there’s consensus that we need revenue and there’s also an understanding that we’ve already worked to substantially cut domestic spending.’” The federal government has spent around $3.5 trillion each year for the last three years and has run deficits exceeding $1 trillion for four years straight, and Sen. Mikulski thinks “we’ve already worked to substantially cut domestic spending.”
Meanwhile, Democrats’ appetite for tax increases remains insatiable. According to Politico, “Democrats are considering a proposal to raise taxes by nearly $14 billion on so-called carried interest, a tax break that benefits private-equity executives and venture capitalists. They want to raise taxes by about $4 billion on corporate jet owners, in addition to the new tax increases on oil and gas companies. And they are looking at raising taxes on wealthy individuals whose S corporations help shield them from higher payroll taxes. . . . At a closed-door retreat in Annapolis, Md., this week, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) circulated a plan to increase taxes by $1 trillion, a proposal sources said was favorably received by the caucus. Whitehouse’s plan would set a minimum tax rate for millionaires, known as the Buffett rule; increase taxes on oil companies and end a provision in the Tax Code that allows multinational firms to avoid paying taxes on profits generated in other countries when they keep that cash offshore. Elements of that proposal are likely to end up in the Democratic plan, sources said.”
Tags: Allergic To Spending Cuts, Democrats, Gimmicky Tax Hikes To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Senate is not in session today and will reconvene at 2 PM on Monday when it will resume consideration of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Act. Votes are scheduled that evening on 6 amendments and final passage of the bill. Yesterday, the Senate voted down a substitute amendment to S. 47 from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) 34-65.
The House was not in session yesterday and met for less than 5 minutes today. The next meeting of the House is scheduled for 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb 12th.
Multiple news reports this morning show that Democrats seem to be unable to part with so much as a dime of out-of-control Washington spending. They’ve reportedly spent the week trying to come up with ways to stave off the sequester, most of which, of course, involve tax hikes.
The Hill writes today, “Senate Democrats are struggling to come up with a replacement for the $85 billion spending-cut sequester set to begin on March 1. Key Democrats huddled Thursday in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) office to discuss options for preventing the looming cuts after returning from a retreat in Annapolis where they discussed strategy with President Obama. . . . [Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max] Baucus said Finance is looking at specific tax provisions that would be used as part of a package to replace the sequester. The committee had an informal meeting on Thursday where no decisions were taken, members said. ‘Wait and see what’s introduced,’ Baucus [D-MT] advised. . . . Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for example, said Thursday he soon will offer legislation language to replace the sequester with savings from the tax code.
Politico reports, “Senate Democrats are digging in against Republican calls for deeper spending cuts by bringing out some of their favorite punching bags: corporate jets, Wall Street and Big Oil. With the automatic budget cuts in the sequester coming up next month, Democrats hope to vote on an alternative plan to raise taxes on some of their favorite boogeymen in hopes of shifting the blame . . . .”
Just how averse are Democrats to cutting spending? This quote from Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), chair of the Appropriations Committee is telling: “‘I’m not identifying replacement cuts — I’m working on a balanced solution,’ Mikulski told POLITICO on Thursday. ‘We’ve already taken those cuts. … I think there’s consensus that we need revenue and there’s also an understanding that we’ve already worked to substantially cut domestic spending.’” The federal government has spent around $3.5 trillion each year for the last three years and has run deficits exceeding $1 trillion for four years straight, and Sen. Mikulski thinks “we’ve already worked to substantially cut domestic spending.”
Meanwhile, Democrats’ appetite for tax increases remains insatiable. According to Politico, “Democrats are considering a proposal to raise taxes by nearly $14 billion on so-called carried interest, a tax break that benefits private-equity executives and venture capitalists. They want to raise taxes by about $4 billion on corporate jet owners, in addition to the new tax increases on oil and gas companies. And they are looking at raising taxes on wealthy individuals whose S corporations help shield them from higher payroll taxes. . . . At a closed-door retreat in Annapolis, Md., this week, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) circulated a plan to increase taxes by $1 trillion, a proposal sources said was favorably received by the caucus. Whitehouse’s plan would set a minimum tax rate for millionaires, known as the Buffett rule; increase taxes on oil companies and end a provision in the Tax Code that allows multinational firms to avoid paying taxes on profits generated in other countries when they keep that cash offshore. Elements of that proposal are likely to end up in the Democratic plan, sources said.”
Tags: Allergic To Spending Cuts, Democrats, Gimmicky Tax Hikes To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 3:49 PM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home