Reuters: House Republican rules ease way for tax cuts

[alexey]

Looks like my hopes of GOP taking a principled stance on deficit reduction are not materializing. :mad:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70465220110105

(Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers in the House of Representatives will have an easier time cutting taxes and a harder time approving new spending programs under rules adopted by the Republican-led chamber on Wednesday.

The new rules, which passed 240 to 191, reflect the strong anti-tax sentiment and appetite for sharp spending cuts that helped Republicans win control of the House in the November congressional elections.

Democrats say they could worsen the country's fiscal picture by allowing lawmakers to cut taxes without finding ways to make up for the lost revenue.

The new rules replace the "pay as you go" rules that had been in place when Democrats controlled the House between 2007 and 2010, which required new tax cuts or permanent spending programs to be offset with corresponding tax hikes or spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.

The new Republican-backed rules, by contrast, specify that tax cuts would not need to be offset. Furthermore, tax hikes could not be used to cover the cost of new permanent spending programs.

The new Republican-backed rules, by contrast, specify that tax cuts would not need to be offset.

Repealing health care reform and cutting taxes. to making hard choices, you ****ing **** suckers.

[JMS]

Yeah the hypocracy is in full blume. Every new spending bill must be matched with spending cuts, sounds pretty good right? Only problem is the Republicans wrote into their new laws exceptions for their pet projects. Healthcare reform for instance is actually slated to reduce the deficite by hundreds of billions over the next ten years by the non partisan CBO. The republicans wrote into their rules that they can repeal that without accounting for the deficite increase; or the expense the repeal would incur. No offsetting revenue or cuts needed if it's a Republican project.

So basically the GOP's tax policy amounts to slashing democratic programs while continuing to grow their own pet projects out of control. Which is exactly how Bush got us into this mess.

[Kilmer17]

Yeah the hypocracy is in full blume. Every new spending bill must be matched with spending cuts, sounds pretty good right? Only problem is the Republicans wrote into their new laws exceptions for their pet projects. Healthcare reform for instance is actually slated to reduce the deficite by hundreds of billions over the next ten years by the non partisan CBO. The republicans wrote into their rules that they can repeal that without accounting for the deficite increase; or the expense the repeal would incur. No offsetting revenue or cuts needed if it's a Republican project.

So basically the GOP's tax policy amounts to slashing democratic programs while continuing to grow their own pet projects out of control. Which is exactly how Bush got us into this mess.

Nobody believes the Democrat lie that the HC bill will reduce deficits.

The GOP is taking a principalled fiscally conservative stance. Exactly what they said they would do if elected, and one they are actually doing.

It's why the people voted them in in landslide fashion.

[alexey]

Yeah the hypocracy is in full blume. Every new spending bill must be matched with spending cuts, sounds pretty good right? Only problem is the Republicans wrote into their new laws exceptions for their pet projects. Healthcare reform for instance is actually slated to reduce the deficite by hundreds of billions over the next ten years by the non partisan CBO. The republicans wrote into their rules that they can repeal that without accounting for the deficite increase; or the expense the repeal would incur. No offsetting revenue or cuts needed if it's a Republican project.

So basically the GOP's tax policy amounts to slashing democratic programs while continuing to grow their own pet projects out of control. Which is exactly how Bush got us into this mess.

And let's not worry about the impact of tax cuts on the deficit because:

"It's often been said that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem," Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), the new chairman of the Rules Committee, said during debate on the House floor. "These new rules will make it easier to reduce spending rather than increase it."

(and btw "it's been often said" means GOP said that a lot during the debate about Bush tax cuts)

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 09:27 AM ----------

The GOP is taking a principalled fiscally conservative stance. Exactly what they said they would do if elected, and one they are actually doing.

Their stance is more principalled on the issue of tax cuts than the issue of reducing deficits.

What's your position on exempting tax cuts from deficit impact evaluation? Are you for it? Why? Cmon Kilmer I would love you see you repeat some of that bull****.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Actually, I think even Eric Cantor admitted that the health bill reduces the deficit. I think his response was "we just have to repeal it anyway."

So other than that, same old same old. Republicans want to lower taxes, but not pay for it... this is always based on some guise of lowering taxes will increase revenue.

[karmacop]

this is always based on some guise of lowering taxes will increase revenue.

This is the biggest lie in politics, and has been demonstrably and repeatedly disproved by numerous studies (see Reagan era deficit increases). But somehow, the press lets the GOP get away with this whopper. Reducing taxes clearly INCREASES the deficit, and anyone who says something different is straight up lying.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This is the biggest lie in politics, and has been demonstrably and repeatedly disproved by numerous studies (see Reagan era deficit increases). But somehow, the press lets the GOP get away with this whopper. Reducing taxes clearly INCREASES the deficit, and anyone who says something different is straight up lying.

I think it comes from the pretty well-accepted theory that "lowering capital gains taxes will increase captial gains revenue in the short term." Somehow, this has been applied to all kinds of taxes, including income tax, for both the short term and long term.

But, I'm not an economist at all, so who knows where it comes from. Or, to quote the great Michael Scott "who knows how words are formed?"

[Kilmer17]

Where did Cantor say that?

Todays WaPost says-

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., disputed the CBO estimate this week, but Republicans have yet to produce one of their own.

Cantor asserted in a nationally broadcast interview Thursday that the health care overhaul has spurred a host of new federal regulations that have had the effect of impeding private-sector hiring.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010601700.html

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Where did Cantor say that?

Todays WaPost says-

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., disputed the CBO estimate this week, but Republicans have yet to produce one of their own.

Cantor asserted in a nationally broadcast interview Thursday that the health care overhaul has spurred a host of new federal regulations that have had the effect of impeding private-sector hiring.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010601700.html

I didn't read the whole article you linked, but do you see how the line you quoted does not contradict what I wrote? Impeding private sector hiring v. increasing the deficit. Not really the same thing.

Without combing the internet, I thought I saw him say that on the WaPo a couple days ago.

[Kilmer17]

Quick ?

Does the Defecit Evaluation include the projected rise in revenue generated from the tax cuts? If so, what do they base that on?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Quick ?

Does the Defecit Evaluation include the projected rise in revenue generated from the tax cuts? If so, what do they base that on?

Are you going to ever cite to the CBO for anything again? Or, is the CBO total BS all of a sudden? Quick.

[Kilmer17]

Im asking an honest and serious question.

[alexey]

Revenue increases from tax cuts, eh? I'd like to see a honest and serious projection of that.

[Thiebear]

Alexey: to beleive the premise of this topic is to believe you are telling the truth? And you are not.

You have never, and will never have any faith in the Republican party... (history being your rudder).

I have no problem with tax cuts as long as there is a direct cause/effect on our current situation whether it be real or numbers.

We should be taxed at exactly the amount history has shown we should be during tough economic crisis'. Beit 55% for everyone over 80k or 33%....

Do it and then show results.

The CBO has always been crap as they have to base it on the "word" of Congress to actually follow through on their promises.

[Kilmer17]

The CBO, and anyone else who has done one.

[NavyDave]

The biggest lie is reducing tax rates does not create revenue. Government spending more than it takes in is the problem.

Hidden mandates and moratoriums on things like Oil drilling in the Gulf results in tens of thousands of US jobs to be lost in that area while a certain person predicting those oil rigs relocating to Brazil or Mexico was right back in October.

[Larry]

I have no problem with tax cuts as long as there is a direct cause/effect on our current situation whether it be real or numbers.

We should be taxed at exactly the amount history has shown we should be during tough economic crisis'. Beit 55% for everyone over 80k or 33%....

Do it and then show results.

Having trouble following you, there.

The CBO has always been crap as they have to base it on the "word" of Congress to actually follow through on their promises.

Meaning, They are required, by law, to base their projections on laws that have actually been passed, rather than on somebody's claims?

[alexey]

Alexey: to beleive the premise of this topic is to believe you are telling the truth? And you are not.

You have never, and will never have any faith in the Republican party... (history being your rudder).

You are right, I never had faith in the GOP, for a number of reasons.

That, however, did not prevent me from being hopeful that they will try to seriously tackle the issue of the deficit.

Optimism is weird that way. You can hope for the best while having little faith that it will actually happen.

The CBO has always been crap as they have to base it on the "word" of Congress to actually follow through on their promises.

If not CBO, then where you gonna go?

[Larry]

The biggest lie is reducing tax rates does not create revenue.

Suggest you learn the difference between fact and myth.

Government spending more than it takes in is the problem.

Correct. Note that there are two numbers involved in that statement. Not just one.

[alexey]

The CBO, and anyone else who has done one.

Batman did projections as well...

Would you happen to have a link to a CBO projection of tax cuts increasing revenue?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The CBO has always been crap as they have to base it on the "word" of Congress to actually follow through on their promises.

The "always" part of your statement is just false. In reality, until the health care bill was submitted, the CBO was something both parties agreed was non-partisan and reliable.

[Kilmer17]

Batman did projections as well...

Would you happen to have a link to a CBO projection of tax cuts increasing revenue?

Is it really this hard to get an answer to an honest question?

I'll have to assume that the gymnastics being performed to avoid the question means that increased revenues are not part of any defecit evaluation?

So my next question would be- Why not?

On a personal level, if I want to have more money in my pocket, I need to Spend less or Earn more. Shouldnt that also apply to Govt? If Govt earns 30 percent of X and we lower that to 20 percent, but X becomes XX, we have earned more.

[karmacop]

The biggest lie is reducing tax rates does not create revenue. Government spending more than it takes in is the problem.

Cutting tax rates may produce some minor increased revenue, but it is a small fraction of the lost revenue the government gives up by cutting the taxes in the first place. As a result, the deficit sees a net increase every time an income tax is cut. Once again, this truism simply cannot be disputed by anyone who is sane and rational.

Any serious attempt to address the deficit must use some combination of spending cuts AND tax increases.

[alexey]

Is it really this hard to get an answer to an honest question?

I'll have to assume that the gymnastics being performed to avoid the question means that increased revenues are not part of any defecit evaluation?

So my next question would be- Why not?

On a personal level, if I want to have more money in my pocket, I need to Spend less or Earn more. Shouldnt that also apply to Govt? If Govt earns 30 percent of X and we lower that to 20 percent, but X becomes XX, we have earned more.

Tax cuts are exempt from the rules. Their impact does not have to be offset.

Feel free to start a separate thread on supply side economics... whether tax cuts increase or reduce revenues, etc... but without a doubt tax cuts have some kind of an impact on the deficit. Exempting them is irresponsible, and I am angry about that.

[Popeman38]

BLAH BLAH BLAH....

There are only TWO ways to increase "revenue" for the federal govt:

1) Raise taxes

2) Cut spending

That is it, and that is all. Anything else is hyperbole. By EITHER side.

Now, how do we fix the deficit? Easy, base spending off your income. Cut spending to below your income level, and apply savings to deficit. It really is that simple. The problem is, neither party has the balls to look John Q Public's eyes and tells him, "This is going to hurt, but will stabilize the long term health of this country" because the public would accuse them of lieing and vote them out. And the public would be right because the fed govt has earned the public's distrust. BOTH PARTIES.

It will take years to repair the distrust, and I can't say whether this Congress will move the needle in that direction. No one does, because you can't predict the future. To say they won't is more partisan hyperbole. Nothing will get accomplished as long as we have this poisonous 2 party system where the goal of both party is to gain power, not govern and maintain the countries health. Reading this thread, I can literally see the heads of both parties nodding in agreement to both sides, noting with pleasure how deep the divide between both sides and how dogmatic the responses are. Dems think Reps are evil, pro-business anti-middle class, racist, selfish ****s. Reps think the Dems are socialist, elitist, holier-than-thou, we know better than you, over-educated snobs. Congrats, the other side is evil and wrong. Your side is good and right. Meantime, this country continues to suffer because you BOTH only care about what is best for your interests. If you can't see that, then the Dems and Reps have accomplished exactly what they set out to do. The tennis match will continue.....