Making the Way for Higher Taxes

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070106-115506-5182r.htm
from JoeUser Forums

Here it comes!

One of the first key procedural votes in the Democrat-controlled House last week established legislative rules that Republicans say will make it easier to raise taxes by a simple majority vote.

The straight party-line vote received little attention Thursday as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, was elected speaker of the House. But Republican leaders and conservative tax-cut advocates said it opened up a huge loophole in a Republican-imposed rule drawn from the Republicans' 1994 Contract with America, which requires a supermajority, or three-fifths vote, to raise taxes.

Democrats unanimously voted down a motion offered by Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio that would have prevented them from waiving the rule, a move that tax-cutters said signaled the Democrats' intention to raise taxes between now and the 2008 elections. "American taxpayers need to hold on to their wallets because the new House rules concerning taxes are not worth the paper they're written on," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR).

"After spending an entire year on the campaign trail claiming she will not raise taxes, the first vote Nancy Pelosi brings to the floor for a vote as speaker will open the door to billions and billions of dollars of tax increases over the next two years," Mr. Norquist said.

2,361 views 3 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

You can add this gem from the NY Times :

 

"During four decades of Democratic rule ending in 1994, committee chairmen amassed almost unchallenged authority, often becoming more feared and influential than the elected leadership. They were nearly impossible to budge from their perches, and the concept of term limits was unimaginable. In a move that caught some new Democratic chairmen by surprise, House rules pushed through by the Democrats this week retained the six-year limit on chairmen imposed by Republicans, but the leadership reassured lawmakers they would revisit the restrictions when there was less attention focused on the dawn of the Democratic era."

 

These are the New Democrats, same as the Old Democrats.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/us/politics/07chairmen.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1168146000&en=cc07c7bedfddecf3&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

but the leadership reassured lawmakers they would revisit the restrictions when there was less attention focused on the dawn of the Democratic era."

They are also learning.  OUr illustrious governor, Ted Matthews - aka Tim Kaine, tried to ram through a billion dollar tax increase last year (only to be thwarted) on top of what was then a billion dollar surplus.

So this year, he is not trying to ram through a tax increase.  No, just fee increases - that is the same package!

Moral: Dont call them taxes, just screw the taxpayer with gibberish.

Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Saw all of this over the weekend, but foresaw all of this long before the election took place.

While the Clueless Old Liberals of the world rejoice at the new leadership taking control and ramming their policies down the throats of everyone, intelligent individuals knew that the Democrats would set themselves up to take away more money from those with it, and give more handouts to those without.

The Dems are apparently still promising to fix the AMT (eliminate it, so they say), which I actually support.  That's fine, but then they'll be on the lookout to "pay as they go" and find the revenue elsewhere.  Hmmm, where else would that be?  From anyone they deem is in the richest 1%, or 2% of the citizens of the U.S.A.  Once they figure out that they can't get enough from there, they'll dip down to the top 5%, and then 10%, etc.   Eventually it'll be about what we all thought -- make more than say $70,000 per year - give most of it the government.

The AMT is just one place they're gonna be on the hook to fix things -- Social Security will be shored up by taking away benefits from those below an every increasing retirement age.  Again, while Clueless Ones tell us that we can't entertain the idea of privatizing even a small portion of it for those who should get benefits in the future, it's perfectly acceptable to tell those that had been promised retirement at age 65 that they have to keep working until age 70 instead.  That's not a cut in benefits (b.s.!!!), it's just a tweaking of the system.  Just like privatizing even a portion would be raiding social security and gambling it all away (my arse!).

I hope that the Clueless One suffers a massive (and very painful) M.I. and leaves the bulk of what S.S. hasn't been eaten up there for future generations -- the ones that he keeps saying we can't be leaving debts to.