Speaker looking for way to pay for tax cuts for middle-class

[Marnie]

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.--Jeremiah 13:23

I always get nervous when a politician of any party starts talking about "paying for tax cuts." Didn't take the Dems long, though.

_______________________________________

Democrats are not ruling out raising taxes for the wealthiest people to help pay for tax cuts for middle-income families, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

She spoke of pursuing an estimated $300 billion that people owe in back taxes, eliminating deficit spending and reducing wasteful federal spending.

“As we review what we get from ... collecting our taxes a reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the treasury, it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year, might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview aired Sunday.

A budget rule, known as the pay-as-you-go rule, that was approved by the Democratic-run House on Friday requires that tax cuts have corresponding cuts in government spending or tax increases elsewhere to pay for them.

“What we're saying is Democrats propose tax cuts for middle-income families. And we want to have 'pay-go,' no new deficit spending. We're not going to start with repealing tax cuts, but they certainly are not off the table for people making over half a million dollars a year,” Pelosi said.

The Senate's top Republican said most GOP senators oppose this budget rule because “it almost guarantees that the majority, if it enacts it, will try to raise taxes.”

“The last thing we need to do is to be raising taxes in this country, and 'pay-go' is the first step toward raising taxes,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “I think there will be very few, if any, Republicans who will support raising taxes.

Last week, the president challenged Democrats to join him in balancing the budget within five years and urged them to cut thousands of pet projects from future spending bills.

“If the president's willing to join with us to fight waste, fraud, and abuse, collecting the taxes, closing the loopholes, we can start there,” Pelosi said. “What we'd like to do is come to the table as I say, put all our priorities on the table.”

Bush's spending decisions also came under fire from the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis.

“How can you ever expect to get to a balanced budget if you're spending $100 billion a year on Iraq borrowing the money to do it, if you're giving $50 billion a year in tax cuts to people who make over a million bucks a year and paying for that with borrowed money?” Obey said.

Elsewhere on the legislative agenda, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is getting ready to investigate suspected government fraud, particularly in federal contracts in Iraq and the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina struck. But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is not preparing to hand out subpoenas at first.

“I don't think you issue a subpoena first. You negotiate, and you try to get the information you need,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the new chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, is seeking GOP cooperation in making inroads on bloated tax laws.

“We have to look at all of the deductions, all of the credits, and to come up with what we think we can do,” he said. “Is it going to be difficult? You bet your life.”

Pelosi appeared on CBS' “Face the Nation.” Rangel, Waxman and Obey were on “This Week” on ABC while McConnell spoke on “Fox News Sunday.”

From SignOnSanDiego.com

[kat8585]

Are we surprised? No, we knew that a long time ago. It's just what Democrats do, tho they always act like they won't, to get elected. Almost everything they say eventually translates into sorry but we have to raise your taxes, and it's usually one of the first things they do. Do the bad things first so people will forget about it by the next election. And people always fall for it. I've been around long enuff to know better. We know they aren't going to cut spending, so....

When they say to raise taxes on the rich, they mean everyone. If they give us a tax cut in one hand, they'll take it out of the other, plus, some way or another.

Pelosi makes me sick, trying to come across as a caring Christian mother and grandmother.

[Akabu]

Funny how only in Washington D.C. can a reduction in the planned increase be a cut to a program. Oh the wonders of base line bugeting!

[forrestkc]

What is wrong with Pay As You Go? That is what brought us the surpluses of the ninties, and its what Greenspan tried to get the Republicans to return to before he retired. Sounds like a good idea to me. When politicians actually have to account for the money the spend, they tend to spend less of it.

[kat8585]

What is wrong with Pay As You Go? That is what brought us the surpluses of the ninties, and its what Greenspan tried to get the Republicans to return to before he retired. Sounds like a good idea to me. When politicians actually have to account for the money the spend, they tend to spend less of it.

There is nothing wrong with it, but when Democrats say it, it translates into raising our taxes, and not just on the rich.

[forrestkc]

What is wrong with Pay As You Go? That is what brought us the surpluses of the ninties, and its what Greenspan tried to get the Republicans to return to before he retired. Sounds like a good idea to me. When politicians actually have to account for the money the spend, they tend to spend less of it.

There is nothing wrong with it, but when Democrats say it, it translates into raising our taxes, and not just on the rich.

I will just go ahead and say that my wife and I income wise would be in the upper middle class so we pay our share of taxes. I have been working since I was 16 years old back in 1992. The 1993 tax increase did not affect my rate, and if they were to roll back the tax cut on the top bracket to the 1990s levels, that would not affect our taxes either. As a percentage of our income, the middle and upper middle class gets taxed more than any other group, including the top 1%. Yes, in dollar amounts they pay more, but that has more to do with the distribution of wealth in this country than any unfairness in the tax code. I know that our family is taxed to death as is. If there had to be a tax increase to pay for this war and reduce the deficit, it had better not be on me because I am already paying more than my fair share.

[Marnie]

I am all for Pay-as-you-go, except that in liberal-speak it generally means me paying while everybody else goes ahead and spends my money. This is real Pay-as-you-go: eliminate 90% of the federally funded money pits (programs), give that money money back to the people and let them pay-as-they-go,.ie., if a program had any merit in the first place (doubtful) then the private sector would offer it to the public in a more effective, efficient, cost effective manner.

Paying for a tax cut is simple: you cut the tax, you cut the spending. Simple. It's simple everywhere except in DC, where they feel they have a right to your money.

[kat8585]

Right on, Butero and Marnie.

You two always express exactly what I am thinking. I too noticed I had more money after Bush's tax cuts. I am for a flat rate for everyone, also. And cutting spending about 90%, to only what government should do. But we know none of this will never happen, especially with Democrats in control. We'd better pray that the Republicans don't cause us to get a Democrat president!!