Surprise; Democrats target tax cuts

Despite the fact that tax cuts have played a huge part in strengthening our post-9/11 economy (just try to imagine the growth of the economy over the last six years if we hadn’t had to fight terrorists), Democrats are coming for our earnings.

Steven Dinan in the Washington Times tells us;

Democrats said President Bush’s new budget is a “missed opportunity” to find common ground, but they are left with few good alternatives other than tax increases if they hope to boost spending and match the president’s goal of balancing the budget by 2012.

Some economists (like Larry Kudlow) think that the budget will be balanced by 2009 if the economy continues at it’s current rate because of increased revenues. Even the Congressional Budget Office projects a decrease in budget shortfall;

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office yesterday said if Congress passes the new war-spending bill for 2007, but does not otherwise increase spending before October, the deficit will drop to about $200 billion this fiscal year. That’s down from the actual 2006 deficit of $248 billion, and lower than the administration’s $244 billion projection for this year.

Of course, the Washington Post sees children starving and the elderly living on the street;

The $2.9 trillion budget blueprint contains little to appeal to, but much to infuriate, the Democratic majority, Democrats said. In a series of hearings, they rattled off a list of their objections: More than $100 billion to be sliced from projected Medicare and Medicaid spending. Further restrictions on the federal food-stamp program. Insufficient cash to maintain health coverage for millions of children. And deep cuts proposed for a range of programs that help communities put police on the street and fund community projects.

And Charlie Rangel, always the poster child for bipartisanship;

“They’re playing politics at a time that I’m trying to be bipartisan,” Rangel said later. “I don’t think that I can tell the president what to put on the table and not to put on the table. But I can tell him: Don’t pick a . . . fight.”

And from the WashTimes story;

“It sounds to me like this is pre-campaign talk,” Mr. Rangel said of Mr. Bush’s call to make the tax cuts permanent. “I just want someone at the White House to know that Democrats won and we want to work with Republicans.”

We’ll do so much better with this year’s budget because there are no earmarks;

Stepping out from behind the lectern and hefting a foot-thick stack of congressional reports, which Congress uses to attach add-ons to spending bills, Mr. Bush challenged lawmakers to drop most pork-barrel spending projects called earmarks. 

And Joe Lieberman thinks that we should all do our part in the War Against Terror by paying higher taxes;

 “People keep saying that we’re not asking sacrifice of anybody but our military in this war, and some civilians who are working on it,” said Mr. Lieberman, a former Democrat who supports the war in Iraq. “When you put together the [Department of Defense] budgets with Homeland Security budgets, we need to ask people to help us in a way that they know when they pay more it will go for their security.” 

That’s just specious. If the CBO says we’re coming in $200 billion under budget, why are Democrats scrambling to raise taxes? Because they want more porkbarrel spending to solidify their hold on their ample, straining seats. Just once I’d like to see a Democrat find a way to balance the budget without taking money out of my dusty pockets. Just once. Why do they think that “fiscal responsibility” means curtailing my personal spending and increasing theirs?

And we already know how Pelosi stands on budget restraint since she’s still pushing for her own private government-sponsored jet.
 

Category: Politics