Obama’s trying to campaign against a do-nothing Congress. But he doesn’t mind at all if the Senate does nothing. Even if it fails to pass a budget for, what, the fourth year in a row?… Originally posted here: Carney: White House Has Absolutely No Opinion On Whether Senate Should Do Its Job And Pass a Budget
Excerpt from:
Carney: White House Has Absolutely No Opinion On Whether Senate Should Do Its Job And Pass a Budget
We’ve directed a lot of attention to the deficiencies of the House version of the highway bill ( here and here ). We must also work to defeat the Senate version, which is even worse. The 2-year $109 billion Senate bill ( S.1813 ) offers no reform to mass transit and continues to mandate that states use 10% of their funding for wasteful “enhancement projects.” As bad as the House bill is for conservatives, the Senate bill is absolutely indefensible. Yet, amazingly, it was reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with unanimous support from Republican members last year. Last night, it was approved by the Finance Committee. The Senate bill will spawn even larger deficits in the long-run. Even for the two-year authorization period of the bill, there will be a $35 billion deficit between trust fund outlays and gas tax revenue. Both the House and Senate versions rely on drawing down all existing funds in the trust fund to cover some of the gap ( to the extent that those funds really exist outside of an accounting gimmick). However, there will still be a $13 billion shortfall over the next two years (and much more in the long-term). The House bill relies on new royalties from oil exploration (that will never be approved by Democrats), but the Senate bill relies on phantom savings (from revenues that are already used to offset other expenditures) plus…you guessed it; tax increases. After the EPW committee approved the underlying provisions of the bill, the Senate Finance Committee voted last night to approve $7 billion in sundry tax increases to fund this terrible bill. One of those provisions includes a tax hike on inherited “stretched” IRAs and 401(k)s. Here are the details from the horse’s mouth ( Baucus Chairman’s Mark ). Require Distributions of Inherited IRAs within 5 years . Under current law, holders of IRAs and 401(k)-type accounts are required to begin taking taxable distributions from those accounts once they reach age 70-1/2. However, they can stretch those distributions over many years if they leave their account to a very young beneficiary. When the account holder dies, the taxation of the account is then spread over the life of the beneficiary. The Chairman’s Modification would require the retirement savings accounts to be treated, for tax purposes, as distributed within five years of the death of the account holder, unless the beneficiary is the account holder’s age, a child with special needs or older than 70. This provision is estimated to raise $4.648 billion over ten years. Hence, if someone bequeaths a retirement savings account to his grandchild, the beneficiary will have to liquidate the fund within 5 years and pay full taxes on the distributions. This applies irrespective of how young the grandchild would be at the time of the grandparent’s death. This ridiculous bill also transfers some revenue on tariffs from imported cars to plug the hole in the trust fund. The problem is that this revenue is already accounted for and is used for other purposes. This bill merely spread the same money around and uses the savings for multiple expenditures; not unlike the effort to use “war savings” as pay-fors. The committee report passed with 17 ayes, 6 nays, and 1 present vote . Here is the breakdown of the vote: Ayes: Baucus, Rockefeller, Conrad (proxy), Bingaman, Kerry (proxy), Wyden, Schumer, Stabenow, Cantwell, Nelson, Menendez, Carper, Cardin, Snowe, Crapo (proxy), Roberts (proxy), Thune Nays: Hatch, Grassley (proxy), Enzi, Cornyn (proxy), Coburn (proxy), Burr (proxy) Present : Kyl (proxy) Snowe, Crap, Roberts, and Thune were the 4 Republicans who voted for this travesty. The full Senate will vote for cloture on the tax hiking, deficit-spending highway bill on Thursday afternoon. We must defeat both bills, especially the Senate version. Nevertheless, the House bill is almost as offensive. Once we agree to the premise that we must overspend the level of gas tax revenue purveying the trust fund, we will always be exposed to future tax increases and bailouts to bridge the gap. Call your Senators and tell them to vote no on cloture for S.1813 – the highway bill with tax increases. Cross-posted from The Madison Project [ Follow @RMConservative ]
View original post here:
Alert: Senate Republicans Vote to Raise Taxes With Highway Bill
Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) learned a valuable lession today about member’s desire to go back to the practice of earmarking pet projects. Toomey and McCaskill offered an Amendment to the STOCK Act that would have created a new Senate point of order against earmarks in bills. They were met with bipartisan opposition to this common sense idea. The Earmark Elimination Act of 2011 offered by Toomey and McCaskill in the form of an amendment creats a point of order against language in a bill or report that was specifically requested by a Senator or House member for either a tax provision, narrow eligibility criteria benefitting a specific entity or a targeted tarriff that would fit the below definition. Providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process. Basically, if a Senator or Representative sends a letter to request a new bridge or highway in the district, they would need 67 votes to move forward with this project. Toomey and McCaskill lost this vote 40-59 with thirteen Republicans siding with porkers to reinstate the practice that allows members to funnel projects to the home state. Brian Baker, President of Ending Spending said today thhat we was disappointed in this vote. I am disappointed that the Senate has failed to pass a permanent earmark ban. We appreciate the efforts by Senators McCaskilland Toomey to end earmarks. The American people are frustrated that their elected officials can’t stop spending their hard-earned tax dollars on boondoggles, such as a bridge to nowhere. With the current earmark moratorium expiring at the end of 2012, if Congress does not end this destructive practice once and for all, the earmark favor factory will re-open for business. These inside the beltway elites just don’t understand that earmarks are the gateway drug to overspending. When will they prove to the American people that they can control their appetite for spending borrowed cash on projects that are not necessary for the future of America? The Tea Party may need to send another strong message to the members of both parties in Washington that they will not tolerate members who refuse to cut the size and scope of the federal government.
Read more:
Senate Porkers Defeat Earmark Ban
She also trots out the hilariously absurd Obama “saved or created” 3 million jobs line. Via Daily Caller: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has attributed the nation’s sluggish economy to the “failed” policies of President George W. Bush. The Daily Caller asked Pelosi whether or not she, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should take “ownership” of the current state
Read the original post:
Pelosi Challenged: Should You, Reid And Obama Take Ownership of The Economy? Shockingly, She Says It’s Still Bush’s Fault…
Here we go again. Republicans talk incessantly about the need to cut the deficit, yet they are once again proposing a policy that will actually augment the deficit. On March 31, authorization for transportation spending, along with its accompanying revenue source – the federal gasoline tax – is set to expire. Republicans in the House and a bipartisan group in the Senate have introduced dueling proposals to fund long-term transportation projects, in lieu of the short-term bills that have been enacted since 2007. Unfortunately, the Republican House bill is not much better than the Senate bill. One need not be a staunch conservative to appreciate how inane it is to collect gasoline taxes from all 50 states into one pool, only to be doled out randomly for every state’s personal transportation project. Ever since the Interstate Highway System was completed almost 20 years ago, there has been no rational purpose for the current top-down federal control over transportation. Successive congresses have diverted as much as 38% of the gas tax revenue to mass transit projects and wasteful endeavors for specific states. The net result is that some states are donors (contribute more), while other states are recipients (receive more in funding than they contribute). We need to abolish the federal gas tax, and devolve all responsibility and taxes for transportation projects to the states. The two bills percolating through Congress will double down on failed policies, add to the debt, perpetuate inefficiencies in highway construction, continue to encumber traffic, and preclude any devolution of responsibility to the states. The Senate bill, S. 1813 , funds transportation at $109 billion over two-years, $54.5 billion per year. The House bill, despite accolades from Republican leadership, is only slightly smaller than the Senate version. The House bill, HR 7 , will authorize $260 billion over 5 years, $52 billion per year. Both bills continue to divert about 20% of the gas tax revenue to fund liberal mass transit projects. But here’s the kicker: according to CBO, the Highway Trust Fund will only take in $187 billion in revenue over 5 years. Both bills rely on using all unspent funds in the trust fund, totaling about $20 billion. We will still incur a $30-50 billion deficit over 5 years, and at least $136 billion over 10 years. Remember we already bailout out the trust fund in 2008 with general fund revenues to the tune of $35 billion. But, fear not, Republicans plan to attach three bills authorizing drilling in ANWR, offshore, and in the western states. They pledge to use the revenue from the royalties to offset the deficit engendered by general fund transfers to the Highway Trust Fund. The problem is that these proposals are dead on arrival with the Democrats. Once we agree to the premise of higher transportation spending, and the Democrats jettison the drilling royalties, we will be left with a deficit once again. This position mirrors the cycle of capitulation with the budget bills. Democrats propose some profligate legislative budget bill. Conservatives advocate that we uproot the entire premise by drawing a line in the sand on the principles that got us elected. Republican leaders eschew conservative principles and acquiesce to the premise that the Democrat budget is a priority too big to fail. They telegraph the message to Democrats that they will never let the budget bill fail, but promise to make them pay for it with reforms or other spending offsets. Democrats balk at the offsets. Finally, we are left agreeing to the spending without the offsets. Moreover, if we run a perennial deficit in the trust fund, we will be permanently exposed to future hikes in the gas tax. The Chamber of Commerce and Big Labor are already joining in an unholy alliance to support a gas tax hike. We must defeat the 847-page highway bill , and call upon Congress to devolve transportation authority to the states . At the very least, they should stick with the original House proposal to peg the cost of transportation spending to revenues from the gas tax. Why are we negotiating with ourselves again? Cross-posted from The Madison Project
The rest is here:
Defeat The Highway Bill
