Wash. Post covered moderate Republicans' alternative budget, ignored Democratic substitute
SUMMARY: The Washington Post reported on House Republicans' passage of a $2.8 trillion budget proposal, the GOP divide over the spending plan, and an alternative budget blueprint put forward by moderate Republicans. But the Post ignored entirely an alternative budget proposed by House Democrats, which would have restored GOP-proposed cuts to social services and reinstated the pay-as-you-go rule that Republicans let expire in 2002.
In a May 19 Washington Post article on House Republicans' passage of a $2.8 trillion budget proposal, staff writer Shailagh Murray reported on the dissent among GOP lawmakers over the spending plan and detailed an alternative budget blueprint put forward by moderate Republicans. But Murray ignored entirely an alternative budget proposed by House Democrats, which would have restored GOP-proposed cuts to social services and reinstated the pay-as-you-go rule that Republicans let expire in 2002.
The House approved the GOP-sponsored Fiscal Year 2007 budget resolution on May 18 by a vote of 218-210. House Democrats voted unanimously to reject the bill, while all but 12 Republicans voted in favor. The budget plan included $167 billion in cuts to domestic discretionary programs over five years. As the progressive Center for Budget and Policy Priorities noted in a report on the House budget plan, despite these spending restrictions, the tax cuts it included would result in increased deficits:
The savings from these program reductions would not, however, be used for deficit reduction. They would instead be used to offset a portion of the cost of the budget plan's $228 billion in tax cuts, as well as its defense spending increases. The net result would be significant further increases in the deficit. The plan would increase the deficit over the next five years by $254 billion above what deficits would be if current policy was left unchanged.
While Murray briefly noted Democrats' opposition to the bill's spending cuts in her May 19 article, she largely focused on the debate among Republicans in Congress, including differences among House Republicans and the upcoming debate "between House conservatives ... and Senate GOP moderates" to reconcile the budgets passed by the two chambers. On the GOP divide in the House, Murray reported:
Throughout the spring, GOP leaders had struggled to reconcile two warring factions in the House Republican Conference. Conservatives believe federal spending has spiraled out of control, and want to impose strict fiscal discipline. But moderates and other Republicans facing tough election campaigns this fall believe that too much belt-tightening could prove politically disastrous in November.
In March, 17 Republicans -- many of them viewed as top midterm targets by Democrats -- signed a letter seeking a 2 percent increase in non-security, non-emergency discretionary appropriations over fiscal 2006 levels. Several in the group offered a substitute budget that would have increased Bush's budget request for education and health accounts by $7.16 billion -- equal to the funding enacted in the fiscal 2006 appropriations bill for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education departments, plus a 2 percent inflationary increase.
While she highlighted these two Republican budget proposals, Murray failed to note the alternative budget introduced by House Democrats on May 18 and unanimously defeated by the GOP caucus prior to the final vote on the bill. The Democratic alternative, sponsored by Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-SC), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, would have restored funding for education, veterans' care, and public health, which the GOP budget cut sharply. Moreover, Spratt's substitute would have reinstated the "pay-as-you-go" (PAYGO) budget rule that the Republican leadership allowed to expire in 2002. The PAYGO rule ensured deficit-neutral budgets by requiring tax cuts and increases in direct spending to be offset either by equivalent budget cuts or revenue generators. Republicans unanimously opposed Spratt's amendment, which failed by a vote of 184-241.
paygo is not a good idea anyway. the 60 vote majority was often waived when it came to a check on increasing spending but it would very difficult to get it to sustain the tax cuts necessary for an improving economy. and it does nothing with entitlement programs. all it would do is raise taxes again and make it very hard to cut them in the future. we need fiscal responsibility, something this administration in their borrow and spend mentality doesn't care about. but this is not the answer.
If we had a huge tax burden I'd buy this idea [crap] but really there is not an unreasonable tax burden on the people in the USA. I don't like paying taxes either, but the truth is we are lucky. The economic growth we are seeing is because of deficit spending on the part of the government and consumers (mostly not upper class, therefore not likely to benefit greatly from any Bush tax break). This can only end badly as the deficits rack up, we (government and people) continue to borrow, and gain nothing as for example with the Iraq Conflict. The only thing we have done is neglect our own infrastructure and ability to create wealth, while waging a ceaseless war and destorying another country to have or create wealth. So, sound fiscal policy is impossible as we will soon have more debt than imaginable and no way to pay for it, even if we dismantle the government and sit stagnant.
You want proof the country is in trouble despite the tax cuts, look at the 50-year mortgage. Always variable and very popular. Recent changes in interest have blown up many peoples payment on these type of loans. Just wait a the rate of default will start to hamper, maybe cripple the economy. Also given the "recent" bankruptcy law overhaul I'd expect the hit will happen in the middle-class hardest widening the wealth gap. But the rich will not have to worry as their tax burden will not increase that much with the new tax breaks. Although, if the dollar buckles, what will rich mean anyway? Will wealth increase, maybe for a few, but the general welfare of our society is looking to sustain a major hit -- probably very near term, just look at that panic-stricken stock market.