PDA

View Full Version : House rules change clears way for tax increases


sukie
January 7th, 2007, 11:51:08 AM
House rules change clears way for tax increases

By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 7, 2007

One of the first key procedural votes in the Democrat-controlled House last week established legislative rules that Republicans say will make it easier to raise taxes by a simple majority vote.
The straight party-line vote received little attention Thursday as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, was elected speaker of the House. But Republican leaders and conservative tax-cut advocates said it opened up a huge loophole in a Republican-imposed rule drawn from the Republicans' 1994 Contract with America, which requires a supermajority, or three-fifths vote, to raise taxes.
Democrats unanimously voted down a motion offered by Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio that would have prevented them from waiving the rule, a move that tax-cutters said signaled the Democrats' intention to raise taxes between now and the 2008 elections.
"American taxpayers need to hold on to their wallets because the new House rules concerning taxes are not worth the paper they're written on," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR).
"After spending an entire year on the campaign trail claiming she will not raise taxes, the first vote Nancy Pelosi brings to the floor for a vote as speaker will open the door to billions and billions of dollars of tax increases over the next two years," Mr. Norquist said.
Many liberal Democrats vowed in the midterm election campaigns to repeal the Bush tax cuts for those in the top income-tax brackets, and party leaders already have scheduled a vote to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies, which would effectively raise taxes on the nation's energy-producing corporations.
"The Democrats have a more established record of wanting to raise taxes than Republicans do. So to have them reject making the rule unwaivable indicates they want to preserve the option to raise taxes," said Jo Maney, spokeswoman for the Rules Committee, through which all legislation must pass.
"The Democrats were smart in crafting the new rules," said Dan Clifton, ATR's chief economist. "They did not change them but made additions to them. Now the three-fifths rule can be waived by a simple majority," or 218 votes.
"President Clinton got a bare majority 218 votes for his tax increases in 1993. So all the Democrats have to do is vote to waive the three-fifths rule, and they've got a tax increase," Mr. Clifton said.
Democratic officials saw Mr. Boehner's motion as a move to tie their hands on future tax policy, and the majority leadership effectively held all of its troops in line to oppose it, even though some of its members ran on pledges not to raise taxes.


...more...
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070106-115506-5182r.htm

TheGoodShepherd
January 7th, 2007, 12:01:19 PM
Good.

uppy
January 7th, 2007, 12:02:28 PM
Thay still need 60 votes in the Senate.

Green Lantern
January 7th, 2007, 12:06:51 PM
Doesn't anyone care that the biggest spenders of the era of big government has been Republican presidents? How is it that they can still get away with the tired old rhetoric of "low-taxes"?

Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II get by "no-tax and spend"ing because they use "defense" as a club against any democrat who would consider voting against a spending bill. We spend 51% of the world's money on weapons, we have troops in 86 countries and still the world is a scary and threatening place.

Can someone explain this to me. Adequately?

sukie
January 7th, 2007, 12:28:13 PM
Not in this thread... This is about pending tax increases

Green Lantern
January 7th, 2007, 12:33:39 PM
Not in this thread... This is about pending tax increases

that is not what the article says. There is no pending tax increase. The article begins with this: "Republicans say will make it easier to raise taxes by a simple majority vote."

It is a claim that it will be easier. It is a CLAIM. It is a claim that it will be EASIER.

It holds no water. Pelosi is using a lesson she learned from watching Gingrich. Just as Gingrich got alot of mileage out of a Contract with America. Almost nothing the House passed from the Contract made it into law. It was media coverage and ineffectual, just like Pelosi's "hundred hours" crap. There is nothing the House can do that will MAKE their procedural preferences pass the Senate.

This is scare tactics to motivate conservatives.

TheGoodShepherd
January 7th, 2007, 12:35:55 PM
Not in this thread... This is about pending tax increases

On what?

shiva2999
January 7th, 2007, 6:34:13 PM
Soak the dosimetrist bastards.

JLB
January 7th, 2007, 6:42:42 PM
http://www.taxproblemsolver.com/images/Larry_Heinkel_3.jpg



Hang on to your money!

Meathead
January 7th, 2007, 8:42:22 PM
Not in this thread... This is about pending tax increases
grossly irresponsible choice of emphasis

unless youre just joking i often cant tell

but if one chooses to point a finger at a democrat for considering tax increases while ignoring the republican controlled government who spent future money like a drunken sailor, well i would prefer not to have that kind of person as a countryman

JLB
January 7th, 2007, 8:58:40 PM
grossly irresponsible choice of emphasis

unless youre just joking i often cant tell

but if one chooses to point a finger at a democrat for considering tax increases while ignoring the republican controlled government who spent future money like a drunken sailor, well i would prefer not to have that kind of person as a countryman

We had some drunken sailors alright but your boats loaded lol.

35Pete
January 7th, 2007, 10:00:17 PM
Democrats suck and ought to all be hanged in the puiblic square. Not just the pols either. LOL

Meathead
January 7th, 2007, 10:40:18 PM
but your boats loaded
what do you mean by your

and please dont say dems because that would be offensive to me

after all the words ive offered here to be associated exclusively with either party would be insulting

another reason that would be offensive is it would be an attempt to deflect blame from those that absolutely deserve it. regardless of how bad the dems or any other poltical party sucks, has ever sucked, and definitely will suck again, these republicans have been horrible and especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility. no amount of "but they" will ever minimize the utter failure of these republicans and that should be acknowledged

JLB
January 7th, 2007, 10:48:10 PM
what do you mean by your

and please dont say dems because that would be offensive to me

after all the words ive offered here to be associated exclusively with either party would be insulting

another reason that would be offensive is it would be an attempt to deflect blame from those that absolutely deserve it. regardless of how bad the dems or any other poltical party sucks, has ever sucked, and definitely will suck again, these republicans have been horrible and especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility. no amount of "but they" will ever minimize the utter failure of these republicans and that should be acknowledged

Independent interesting.

Obviously everybody answers exclusively for their own errors.