dems' early accomplishments

[bishop]

i was quite pleased to read what the dems have done in their newfound position of power with respect to the deficit/spending. first, they reenact the PAYGO rule. second, the politicians who support individual earmarks will be listed in all spending bills. the increase in this public knowledge is hoped to lessen the likelihood of frivilous earmarks being attached to spending bills.

as far as reenacting the PAYGO rule, the republicans were furious. so much for being the party that supposedly represents small government and fiscal responsibility. (we've all known that's a complete farce, this is just further evidence of what we've already known to be true.)

the PAYGO rule will also make things difficult for the dems, solely because they'll have to be able to match spending increases with tax revenue increases, just as tax cuts would have to be matched with spending cuts. nevertheless, this is excellent news for the country - and while it isn't everything, it's at least nice to see some good news/decisions for a change.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House, in its second day of Democratic reign, changed budget rules that have allowed deficits to swell with lawmakers' pet projects and President Bush's tax cuts. The rule changes voted Friday could bedevil efforts later to appease middle-class voters. One rule requires that tax cuts have corresponding cuts in government spending or tax increases elsewhere to pay for them. Likewise, any increase in entitlement programs like Medicare would have to have corresponding tax increases, or equal cuts in other government programs, under the pay-as-you-go rule reinstated Friday. It was adopted 280-154. (Interactive: The Democrats '100 Hour' agenda) If strictly enforced, the PAYGO rule would make it difficult for Democrats to pass increases in federal benefit programs such as Medicare or the Medicaid health care program for the poor or disabled. In the near term, it would mean Democrats' bill to cut student loan rates will be less generous than they'd like. The rule would also threaten efforts to extend Bush's tax cuts, most of which expire at the end of 2010. "This is putting the American taxpayer on a collision course with higher taxes," said Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, top Republican on the Budget Committee. "Today, we are cutting our national credit card," countered Heath Shuler, D-North Carolina, during floor debate Friday. To underscore the point, Shuler cut a credit card in half at a news conference populated by moderate-to-conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats who are most responsible for implementing the rule. At the same time, House lawmakers passed a Democratic proposal to require lawmakers to disclose publicly the pet projects -- referred to as earmarks in legislative terms -- they want for their districts or states, such as Alaska's bridge to nowhere in the last Congress. Republicans had made a similar move last year, and GOP critics of pet projects applauded Democrats' efforts to require greater disclosure. Still, only about a fourth of the Republicans voted for the earmark disclosures because it was linked to the PAYGO rule that will make it harder to extend the tax cuts set to expire in four years. The emphasis on earmark reform came in the wake of the Randy "Duke" Cunningham scandal, in which the former California GOP congressman pleaded guilty to corruption charges for channeling earmarks to defense contractors in exchange for $2.4 million in bribes. Lesser scandals have hit other lawmakers. The PAYGO and earmark proposals come a day after Democrats seized control of Congress for the first time in 12 years, with a jubilant Nancy Pelosi becoming the first woman ever to rise to speaker of the House.

[Cephus]

You don't think for one second that it'll make a difference, do you? They'll continue to tax and spend like they always have, just like the recent Republicans have been borrowing and spending. It's just one more thing that looks good on paper that they can point to and then ignore entirely.

I'll believe it when I start seeing massive spending cuts.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Keep most of the tax cuts of bush( be much harder on the rich) extend them to the poor, and cut spending dramatically.

[bishop]

PAYGO made a difference when clinton was president, so it should make a difference now..

it is entirely reasonable that if government spending is to increase, then taxes should increase. likewise, if taxes are to be cut, then government spending should be cut. it is a simple matter of common sense - and is in line with normal "kitchen table" budgeting.

if the dems want to increase spending on certain items, they'll need to sell tax hikes to the public. if the public doesn't feel that higher taxes justify these spending programs, they'll let the dems know - just as they did during the "republican revolution" under gingrich..

also, as far as i understand, the rule will apply to all new appropriations.

[bishop]

*bump*

nobody thinks that reenacting PAYGO is a good thing? the rule puts us on a path of fiscal responsibility - something essential to the long-term health of our country.

[The Decider]

PAYGO is a brilliant idea. Republicans will lose their government credit card and now must declare publically the programs it wants to cut. Considering the fact that most government spending is related to entitlement and military programs, that will be politically hazardous. For example, I'd like to see a Republican presidential candidate go down to Florida's retirement communities and advocate deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. That would be fun to watch. Republicans who want massive defense spending increases will now have to couple them with similar spending cuts.

The Democrats also face difficulties in getting new taxes. But that has been the case for some time now. A better strategy is to find new revenues in rescinding the tax cuts for the rich and target new taxes on the oil industry and other similar enterprises. Average Americans would not object.

All in all, the Republicans find themselves on the defensive. They can't curry favor with the Democratic Party's traditional constituencies by sending the bill to future generations of Americans. It's about time we learn just what Republicans want average Americans to live without.