Entries in the Category "Spending"
Deficit shrinking on pace to meet and exceed Bush's reduction goals
The deficit is shrinking. During Bush’s campaign for president, he promised to half the deficit to 260 Billion by 2009. It is 2006, and the deficit is at 296 Billion from 520 Billion. The deficit is dropping like crazy. At this rate, Bush will meet his goal well ahead of schedule. This is great news for the US economy. If we can convince congress to cut spending on government programs, that number could be $0 by 2009. I would also like to point out that this number would be much lower if Katrina had not occurred. This reduction in the deficit was able to occur with the high costs of Katrina cleanup and the war in Iraq. Our economy is absolutely roaring.
People have claimed that lower taxes cannot produce greater revenues. This concept is actually widely accepted by economists as The Laffer Curve. Basically, this says that there is a point where more taxes will decrease revenue and lower taxes will increase revenues.
Congress to revisit line item veto
FINALLY congress is doing something to control itself. For years... little tacked on earmarks to laws have caused irresponsible spending because the president could not veto an entire law in most cases if he felt those earmarks were irresponsible. Congress now has a plan to follow through with one of the main issue in "The Contract With America," the line item veto. Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan has figuired out a way to make it work. If this passes, this will lead to much more responsible spending in Congress. The President will be able to hold the Congress accountable for the little earmarks they continue to sneak into bills.
Today the House is scheduled to revisit the line-item veto, which Congress first passed in 1996 pursuant to its "Contract With America" commitment. (Two years later the Supreme Court struck it down on constitutional grounds because it "impermissibly upsets the balance of powers [between Congress and the president] so carefully prescribed by its Framers.") Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, the sponsor of the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, insists it is constitutionally "airtight" because Congress would retain the final say on the relevant legislation. With the support of four Democrats, it passed the House Budget Committee earlier this month on a bipartisan 24-9 vote. Under Mr. Ryan's bill, after signing appropriations acts and tax and entitlement legislation, a president would have 45 days to propose canceling various line items in the bills. For each bill, the president could establish up to five veto packages (or 10 packages for an omnibus reconciliation bill). Congress could not amend the packages or divide them into subsets. Nor could the Senate filibuster the consideration of a package. Congress would have to vote on each package of cancellations within 14 legislative days after the president submitted it. Whereas the 1996 line-item veto required each body of Congress to override the president's line-item vetoes with two-thirds majority votes, the new law requires only a simple majority vote to reject a package of cancellations proposed by the president. There is a six-year sunset provision for the bill.