Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) was seriously thinking about getting a budget on the table, but according to The Hill, he “bowed to pressure from fellow Democrats on Tuesday and postponed a committee vote on a 2013 budget resolution, most likely until after the November elections
the last time Senate Democrats passed a budget, a gallon of gas cost about half what it does now, the debt was $4.5 trillion dollars less than it is today, and ObamaCare was just a twinkle in the president’s eye,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Meanwhile, Katherine Revello over at Conservative Ntaews Daily, shared a picture from 4/18/12 from the Twitter account of the GOP Senate Budget Committee (@BudgetGOP) . The empty chairs at that meeting belong to the Democrat members of the Committee. Hard to get much done, I would think.
So, as of Sunday, April 29th, we will be officially 1096 days without a budget. 3 full years. Trillions more in debt.
First we had Energy Secretary Chu admit that high gas prices are a good thing. Now, we have the EPA — a darling agency of the Obama Administration — describe on video that the
EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.
The video is below.
Senator Inhofe went on to remark that
the video provides Americans with “a glimpse of the Obama administration’s true agenda.”
That agenda, Inhofe said, is to “incite fear” in the public with unsubstantiated claims and “intimidate” oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties – then, quietly backtrack once the public’s perception has been firmly jaded against oil and natural gas.
This is actually a pretty decent article coming out the the New York Times. It describes Obama’s increasing use of executive powers to bypass Congress, Republicans, or anyone else he deems in the way.
It outlines many of the ways and the times when Obama has chosen to act unilaterally. Of course, presidents in the past have done so, but none so blatantly as Obama — going so far to declare a formal “We Can’t Wait” initiative from the White House last fall to move forward on items he for which he doesn’t want to wait for Congress to oppose act.
The things that strikes me about Obama’s actions is the hypocrisy of his executive activism in light of his chastisement of the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare. Just a month ago, Obama accused SCOTUS of “judicial activism” when the White House arguments appeared not to go so well during the 3 day case. I wrote about that hypocrisy here . And yet, Obama continues to wage his war his way, regardless of the constitutionality of his actions.
Even though it’s crunch time for tax season, it’s worth it to mention that the Buffett rule vote failed today in the Democrat-led Senate.
Interestingly, in Reuter’s coverage, it mentions that the vote ” failed to garner the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to move to a full debate and vote on the bill aimed at getting more tax revenues out of the wealthy. However, I had to read through the article twice to find the actual vote tally. Reuter’s spelled out some of the number words, making it difficult to readily see just how little support the measure had:
Fifty-one senators voted for the bill, while 45 senators voted no, effectively killing it. Republican Senator Susan Collins voted for the tax hike, while Democratic Senator Mark Pryor voted against it.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said after the vote,
“The wealthiest one percent takes home the highest share of the nation’s income since the early ’20s, the roaring ’20s. Times are tough for many middle class American families. Millionaires and billionaires aren’t sharing the pain or the sacrifice, not one bit. Last year there were 7,000 millionaires who didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes.”
Republican Sen. Jon Kyl said in response,
“You’ve got the top 10 percent of taxpayers paying 70 percent of all the taxes, earning 45 percent of the income. Those are certainly the wealthy, and they’re certainly paying a big share. How about less wealthy? The bottom 95 percent — in other words, everybody but the top 5 percent — pays 41.3 percent of income taxes, earns 65 percent of the money, of the income. Is this fair? The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 51 percent of all households, which includes both filers and nonfilers, had either zero or negative income tax liability in 2009. People who do not share in the sacrifice of paying taxes have little direct incentive to care whether the government is spending and taxing too much. Maybe that’s why the president has no problem with even more Americans getting a free ride.”
What I find most interesting, however, is that while everyone explains that the Buffett rule seeks to ensure that Americans who make more than $1 million pay 30% in taxes no matter the source of income, generally two crucial things are missing in the discussion.
1) The actual name of the “Buffet Rule” bill is the “Paying a Fair Share Act”. According to the Library of Congress,
The “Paying a Fair Share Act,” introduced by Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, would apply to anyone whose adjustable gross income exceeds $1 million. Those who itemize their deductions would get a credit equal to the value of their charitable contribution deductions, so as not to discourage charitable giving. To measure whether a millionaire is paying at least 30% of his income in taxes, the bill would take into account what the individual paid in federal income and payroll taxes plus the new 3.8 Medicare surtax set to take effect in 2013.The minimum effective tax rate would be phased in for those with incomes between $1 million and $2 million.
2) The mandated 30% rule is a direct attack and typical government lie-speak to undo capital gains and qualified dividends rate, both of which are currently 15%. As a tax advisor to higher income earners, no one generally pays under 30%, unless the majority of their income is from long term capital gains and/or qualified dividends. Obama probably figures that most people do not/will not realize this, which is why it is never mentioned by him or the press.
So, there you have it. At least for the time being, this odious bill, the Buffett Rule, cannot advance even past the Dems. It will be worthwhile to keep an eye on it during the election season to see how it is used to foment class warfare between the haves- and have-nots.
