Fun with the federal budget
The debate over the war funding bill has wrapped up and Democrats are on board despite the fact that the provision for setting a date to withdraw troops from Iraq was removed from the bill. On Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi was still adamant that she wouldn't vote for it without the troop withdrawal provisions, but it passed on Thursday with or without her.
As is the case with all legislation, a bunch of unrelated stuff got tacked on in the end, some in hopes of wooing votes, some in hopes of sneaking through legislation that might not pass if it weren't attached to something viewed as "must pass" legislation. One of the additions that brought Democrats across the aisle was the minimum wage increase (which was countered by tax breaks for businesses). Republicans criticized this addition as a sneaky way to get something past them as though both parties don't frequently tack on stuff they couldn't otherwise pass to bills they know the other side wants to get through. They didn't seem to have a problem with the tax breaks for businesses, in fact they were only willing to let the minimum wage increase go through because of the business tax breaks. That sort of makes sense to me, and it's kind of a wash tax wise, I mean if a whole bunch of people start making $2.10 more per hour than they used to, the tax revenue (from personal incomes) goes up which allows for giving tax breaks to businesses (which is good since they have to pay their employees more money now).
What I don't get is why the White House would oppose other domestic spending provisions, but according the NY Times they did and, "Republicans managed to remove some of them shortly before the bill reached the floor, including $660 million to stockpile medicine for a flu pandemic and $400 million for energy assistance for low-income families". Normally I'm what they call "fiscally conservative", i.e. the kind of person who sees the logic behind tax breaks for businesses as a counter balance to raising the minimum wage, but sometimes the things Republicans are and aren't willing to spend money on boggle my mind.
I've said before, and will probably say many more times, that I don't believe pulling out of Iraq is a responsible thing to do. I mean I'm all for having a plan for how, and maybe even a goal date for when, we will pull out, but the time isn't now and the plan can't just be that we'll be done with Iraq in 6 months or a year or on X date. However, the complete abandonment of any kind of domestic policy is also irresponsible. It shouldn't be an either or question. Either we fund our international policy issues or our domestic policy issues? I know it's a balancing act, budget wise, but no one ever said legislating was an easy job; they need to find a way to fund both international and domestic issues.
And the NY Times needs to find a way to use more elegant phrasing. May I suggest: $400 million IN energy assistance for low income families or, $400 million for energy assistance TO low income families. That's right I just started a sentence with a conjunction and went on to criticize the inelegant phrasing of another. I'm a rebel, and, as previously noted, hold myself to a lower standard than the Times.
As is the case with all legislation, a bunch of unrelated stuff got tacked on in the end, some in hopes of wooing votes, some in hopes of sneaking through legislation that might not pass if it weren't attached to something viewed as "must pass" legislation. One of the additions that brought Democrats across the aisle was the minimum wage increase (which was countered by tax breaks for businesses). Republicans criticized this addition as a sneaky way to get something past them as though both parties don't frequently tack on stuff they couldn't otherwise pass to bills they know the other side wants to get through. They didn't seem to have a problem with the tax breaks for businesses, in fact they were only willing to let the minimum wage increase go through because of the business tax breaks. That sort of makes sense to me, and it's kind of a wash tax wise, I mean if a whole bunch of people start making $2.10 more per hour than they used to, the tax revenue (from personal incomes) goes up which allows for giving tax breaks to businesses (which is good since they have to pay their employees more money now).
What I don't get is why the White House would oppose other domestic spending provisions, but according the NY Times they did and, "Republicans managed to remove some of them shortly before the bill reached the floor, including $660 million to stockpile medicine for a flu pandemic and $400 million for energy assistance for low-income families". Normally I'm what they call "fiscally conservative", i.e. the kind of person who sees the logic behind tax breaks for businesses as a counter balance to raising the minimum wage, but sometimes the things Republicans are and aren't willing to spend money on boggle my mind.
I've said before, and will probably say many more times, that I don't believe pulling out of Iraq is a responsible thing to do. I mean I'm all for having a plan for how, and maybe even a goal date for when, we will pull out, but the time isn't now and the plan can't just be that we'll be done with Iraq in 6 months or a year or on X date. However, the complete abandonment of any kind of domestic policy is also irresponsible. It shouldn't be an either or question. Either we fund our international policy issues or our domestic policy issues? I know it's a balancing act, budget wise, but no one ever said legislating was an easy job; they need to find a way to fund both international and domestic issues.
And the NY Times needs to find a way to use more elegant phrasing. May I suggest: $400 million IN energy assistance for low income families or, $400 million for energy assistance TO low income families. That's right I just started a sentence with a conjunction and went on to criticize the inelegant phrasing of another. I'm a rebel, and, as previously noted, hold myself to a lower standard than the Times.
posted by Beth at
11:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home