Daily News Roundup, 12/12/07: D.C. Thunderdome: Obey Takes On Bush
Wed, 12/12/2007 - 10:36am
There's an all-out war erupting between Congress and the White House over the appropriations bills which are to fund government for the next year.
After earlier budgets that allocated $150 billion more than the President's requests for domestic spending such as health and social programs were killed due to veto threats, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey was livid when the White House sent down yet another veto threat, sight unseen, over a new spending bill that had in total only $11 billion over the President's $511 billion in recommendations. The new bill had broad bipartisan support, including a surprise endorsement by the House Minority Leader, John Boehner, of the $7.4 billion the bill allowed for emergency spending.
Chairman Obey responded by threatening to pull the bill and replace it with one that would meet Bush's $509 billion budget recommendations, but only by slashing all earmarks from it and gutting key Republican priorities to make that figure. Items speculated to be on the chopping block are funding for abstinence education, nuclear weapons research in the Energy Department, and technological border security efforts.
This, unsurprisingly, caused a substantial amount of consternation among lawmakers on both sides, who count on those earmarks to show their constituency that they are indeed working for their best interests. What's more surprising is how many in Congress support Obey's push. The White House was dismissive, as they always are, but not only have Pelosi and Reid both stated that they were open to the idea, so have a number of Republicans, like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Ted Stevens, who is called a "legendary earmarker" by the article in The Hill. Others seem either concerned or skeptical that this is a real effort the Democrats are willing to make and not some bluff.
My feeling is that whether this does or doesn't come to fruition, it's most definitely not some bluff. Congress has seen the products of their efforts for bipartisan legislation consistently fall prey to Bush's overactive veto pen time and time again this session; I can only imagine how sick of that they must be, and I believe that Obey is very likely to be frustrated enough to go ahead and push hard on this. Perhaps that's partly wishful thinking — I'd love to have the tables turned on Bush like that — but I think it's a definite possibility nevertheless.
This week is a portentious one for debate watchers: tonight is the final Republican debate before the Iowa caucuses, with the final Democratic debate before the caucuses being tomorrow. MSNBC's First Read notes that Gov. Huckabee is going to be targeted at tonight's debate in light of his unprecedented recent poll jumps both in individual states and nationally, and the media attention he's gotten from it — some good, some bad, as with his plan to replace the income tax with a national sales tax which would effectively put the screws to the lower and middle class.
This might be particularly salient in an election where it looks like the primary issue may once again be "the economy, stupid." That possibility doesn't bode well for Huckabee, considering that most people don't compare him favorably to Democrats even now, when the effects of his tax plan are not as well known by the general populace. Heck, even his fellow Republicans are attacking him, like Mitt Romney, who's officially put out the first intra-party negative campaign ad in this election cycle. If I've said it once, I've said it a million times: I love seeing Republicans skewer their own, and they're really getting into the swing of things with that now. Tonight's debate should be very entertaining.
We'll cover the situation for the Democratic candidates in more detail tomorrow, prior to the Democratic debates.
Senator Chris Dodd made an appearance at Google earlier this week that made some news. He is by no means the first candidate to speak at Google's forum — indeed, seven other presidential candidates have already attended — but he brought a very different message than most of the other candidates. In a bold move, Dodd called on Google to stand up to the Chinese government and provide uncensored information in web searches originating in China. Google has come under repeated criticism for folding under pressure and providing a "customized" search engine to Chinese users which censors or ranks down sites with anti-government leanings after a threat by the Chinese government that they would be prohibited from operating in China otherwise. You've got to give it to him — it's pretty gutsy for Senator Dodd to openly criticize a company and call for change while presenting in their midst.
Finally today, the Statesman reports that a settlement has been reached in the investigation that a student loan consolidation company had basically paid colleges and their sports departments for the right to market loans directly to their students. The company, Student Financial Services Inc., agreed to end their agreements with the the colleges involved, including six Texas schools. Furthermore, they are obligated to stop using cash-based incentives for enrollment and must launch an ad campaign warning students about the possible dangers faced when looking for loans. This is only a first step in cleaning up the rampant collusion that has been reported on over the course of this year between student loan lenders and Texas universities, but it's a good first step.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
FAIRTAX - BETTER Today, BEST Tomorrow!
By Ian
Wed, 12/12/2007 - 8:15pm
Beg to differ with you on the regressivity of the FairTax plan which is central in the platforms of Mike Gravel and Mike Huckabee.
The effective tax rate percentages, that different income groups would pay under the FairTax, are calculated by crediting the monthly "prebate" (advance rebate of projected tax on necessities) against total monthly spending of citizen families (1 member and greater, Dept. of Commerce poverty-level data; a single person receiving ~$200/mo, a family of four, ~$500/mo, in addition to working earners receiving paychecks with no Federal deductions) Prof.'s Kotlikoff and Rapson (10/06) concluded,
Further, per Jokischa and Kotlikoff (circa 2006?) ...
Under FairTax, prices would fall, due to removal of embedded business tax-related costs. Concurrently, wages may rise due to a mix of factors, including reversion of withheld pay (or some portion thereof) to employees, advancement opportunities due to business expansion resulting from retained earnings, and/or increased demand for labor accompanying increased competition (from that expansion). Where profits (or wages) appear lucrative, competition will move into the market space, driving out excesses (immediately present after FairTax is enacted), arriving at new "market-adjusted" prices.
There is no reasonable equity of distribution under the current income tax system. What's more, the Tax Code has become a "tinkerer's paradise" for 53% of the lobbyists who game it in Washington DC - a lucrative business, and the U.S. taxpayer pays for all of it in higher prices. This is a hidden tax which is not only incomprehensible to the average working person, but acts to hinder public outrage and feedback on federal legislators' spending. The latter situation is held by some to be responsible for the country's growning debt and threat of economic chaos.
We must seriously consider getting active in order to scrap the tax code and pay for government the way that America's working men and women are paid - when something is sold
I sense a high-text
By Josh Berthume
Thu, 12/13/2007 - 11:28am
I sense a high-text challenge coming on
Government Is Not Retail
By Patrick M McLeod
Fri, 12/14/2007 - 12:17pm
Government is not retail. Government exists in part because there are a whole class of social services that simply cannot be provided via retail. Just because those social services cannot be provided in a retail format doesn't relieve us from the moral obligation to those in need.
Our tax problems can be solved with a complete overhaul of our tax code with an eye toward a return to corporate tax levels and wealthy tax levels as they were before LBJ first cut them 42 years ago next February. Let those who profit pay their fair share. And yes, if you profit more, you bear a greater piece of that fair share.
Corporations and the wealthy profit immensely from the stabilizing influence of government. Without government and the meager excuses that pass for social programs these days, corporations and the wealthy would have to spend a great deal more than they currently pay (and yet more than they ought to pay) in taxes in order to operate and live in a heavily-armed country without the benefit of public education and all the other things tax dollars pay for, a country where there was no longer any reason for the poor to not rebel.