GovernmentExecutive.com

Defeating Republican efforts to preserve President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and impose a moratorium on earmarks, Democrats pushed a $3 trillion fiscal 2009 spending plan through the House Budget Committee shortly after midnight. On a straight party-line 22-16 vote, Democrats adopted the budget after defeating numerous Republican amendments aimed at stopping what they thought were inevitable tax increases as Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010.

Meanwhile, the Senate Budget Committee Thursday afternoon approved its budget resolution on 12-10 party-line vote, after adopting amendments dealing with transparent budgeting, reserve funds for pediatric dental care and health information technology, and caps on farm commodity payments.

The House budget resolution also contains reconciliation protection for a one-year fix of the alternative minimum tax to prevent it from affecting an increasing number of middle-class households. Republicans unsuccessfully offered amendments to set aside $330 billion to accommodate the proposed healthcare plan of presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. Republicans joined Democrats in voting against it. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., then offered an amendment allotting $195 billion for the proposed healthcare plan of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., which also was defeated.

The House bill would boost domestic spending while rejecting President Bush's fiscal 2009 budget proposals to slash spending for Medicare and Medicaid by more than $150 billion and make deep cuts in an array of other programs, including education, alternative energy, the environment, economic development and infrastructure improvement and low-income heating assistance. The biggest spending increase would be a $50 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The measure would also boost spending on veterans' health care by $3.6 billion and education by $3.8 billion. The bill authorizes the $573 billion in fiscal 2009 defense funds sought by the president but would not earmark money for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., noted that Bush had not requested specific allocations for the conflicts next year.

Reprising their stance in last year's budget debate, Republicans argued that the Democratic measure would trigger "the largest tax increase in American history" by failing to provide for the extension of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts when they lapse next year. Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., charged that the increased domestic spending in the bill would be financed with $683 billion a year in savings "assumed" from the expiration of the tax cuts. The committee defeated Republican attempts to target specific taxes that they argued would return to pre-2001 levels if allowed to expire. Democrats also voted down an amendment from Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, that would have preserved the elimination of the "marriage tax," an amendment by Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, that would have set aside $180.5 billion for estate tax relief and an effort by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., to prevent the child tax credit from being reduced from $1,000 to $500.

COMMENTS

• I'm a fed and as all other feds we already pay more into the government than anyone else. Let's see, We're mostly in the 25% tax bracket and make only enough to NOT be able to hide any of it. Then on top of that we contribute another 26% of our salary (on average) that we have never seen, which is what we're not paid in comparison with the private sector. Gee that's 51% of my should-be-paid wages and I don't need to pay any more taxes on top of it. Let's just have the non-governmental people or even just the registered democrats pay any higher taxes. dfes2000 Posted March 12, 2008 12:09 PM
• “It is a little difficult to understand how Mr. Lynch, or any Federal employee (civilian or military) for that matter, can complain about tax levels. Has it occurred to him that taxes actually pay his salary and benefits package? ” While agreeing in the sentiment, dear Grateful, I must disagree in the content. With the current crop of feds, no one is paying for anything; hence the debts we pass on to our kids. Mr Lynch, while I too dislike more taxes, when you worry about the $1,000 child tax credit, did you consider what that tax credit will cost your children when they start raising their own? I see many more grasshoppers fiddling away our children’s futures than I do ants, preparing for the inevitable payback. The legacy of this administration will be a hole 2 miles wide and 10 miles deep that our kids will have to fill with a child’s sand shovel. So many folks are looking down at the ground they stand upon that they don’t see the chasm we are rapidly approaching. Any true planner must have two views, both short and long term. That vantage point was one that made Mr Greenspan both so controversial and successful. And once more “The next time a federal employee wants to complain about higher taxes---they really need to stop and think about it.” Excellent note, I could only add that the customer, those tax payers out there, should also look to the number of services they demand if they wish to pay less. All these Shrubers need to think “Who’s going to pay for all this?” Or as Bill Cosby once posed as Moses speaking to the Almighty (and the Blue Dogs are asking) “Who going to clean up that mess down there?” As for Skeeter, he keeps forgetting that Dubya was the true Big Dog courting and counting on the immigrant vote; which left the Party Pacaderm when they discounted their leader’s vision and voted against the new immigration control package. Just look at the recent results from Texas. Sorry, Charlie … er Dan, that was your guy in the ten-gallon hat. Tip off Posted March 10, 2008 8:08 AM
• RTAC, what party is in charge of Congress ?? dan m ketter Posted March 8, 2008 6:19 PM