Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[mheslep]

And of course control spending. What are the chances Republicans will actually do that instead of betraying those of us who voted for them?

That is the question. It depends I think on whether they can do away with earmark bribery, and so far, based on the actions of the Speaker to be it looks good.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...6/john-boehner/rep-john-boehner-earmark-free/

 

[Al68]

Upon consideration I'm retracting this. Approve the tax deal (they did) with the spending, and take out the spending next month when Pelosi gives up the gavel.

But they can't do that. As soon as Obama signs the bill, the money has been appropriated, and Obama needs no further authorization to cut the checks.

The only way to stop spending already appropriated is to pass another law, which Obama can veto.

 

[Al68]

That is the question. It depends I think on whether they can do away with earmark bribery, and so far, based on the actions of the Speaker to be it looks good.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...6/john-boehner/rep-john-boehner-earmark-free/

I'm not so sure. According to that same article, Boehner said he didn't oppose all earmarks.

But maybe there's a good chance of eliminating most of them.

As a side note, can you believe the stunt Reid actually tried to pull? Did he really think he could pass a monstrous pork-fest now? What was he thinking?

 

[mheslep]

As a side note, can you believe the stunt Reid actually tried to pull? Did he really think he could pass a monstrous pork-fest now? What was he thinking?

He was thinking he could get away with it, and almost did. I dislike Reid more than any other political figure out of prison that I can think of in modern US history.

 

[mheslep]

But they can't do that. As soon as Obama signs the bill, the money has been appropriated, and Obama needs no further authorization to cut the checks.

The only way to stop spending already appropriated is to pass another law, which Obama can veto.

All the spending for next year has to start in the House. Obama can veto, but he can't force them to put anything in there either. Hence the possibility of a standoff and a government shutdown. The House can also rescind money. As we saw from the Stimulus, the fed govt. doesn't move that fast.

 

[WhoWee]

As a side note, can you believe the stunt Reid actually tried to pull? Did he really think he could pass a monstrous pork-fest now? What was he thinking?

Why would you expect anything less of Reid? Btw - how is his train project coming along - anybody have an update?

 

[WhoWee]

During the signing, did President Obama indicate he inherited these tax credits (from Bush) - did he use the Bush name this time?

It's a good thing he didn't have to pay an inheritance tax.(sorry)

 

[Al68]

All the spending for next year has to start in the House. Obama can veto, but he can't force them to put anything in there either.

Perhaps I misread your post. I thought you were referring to spending that was already appropriated.

Sure, Republicans are under no obligation to continue any Democratic Party promise or agenda item, despite their predictable screaming of bloody murder. And I hope this time, Republicans don't agree to bloated spending like they did last time they got the house. They should realize that Democrats will scream the same exact "message" they have for decades no matter what Republicans do, unless of course they do the unthinkable and capitulate to every unreasonable demand.

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps I misread your post. I thought you were referring to spending that was already appropriated.

Both new and old. Through new appropriation they can net out to zero that which was just done, and as I understand it they can also rescind spending for that which hasn't actually been executed by the executive. As I said, having Congress appropriate doesn't mean the government turns on a dime to spend it all in two months.