lily
01-06-2007, 04:07 PM
We are all going to have to sacrifice if we want to get this spending under control (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010500681.html?referrer=email)
House Adopts Pay-as-You-Go Rules
Changes Aim to Curb Deficit Spending, Shed Light on Earmarks
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 6, 2007; Page A04
On its second day under Democratic management, the House yesterday
overwhelmingly approved new rules aimed at reining in deficit spending and
shedding more light on the murky world of special-interest projects known as
earmarks.
Under the new provisions, the House will for the first time in years be
required to pay for any proposal to cut taxes or increase spending on the
most expensive federal programs by raising taxes or cutting spending
elsewhere. And lawmakers will be required to disclose the sponsors of
earmarks, which are attached in virtual secrecy to legislation to direct
money to favored interests or home-district projects.
In recent months, with revelations that lawmakers had earmarked funds for
projects with little public benefit, earmarks had became a political
embarrassment and a symbol of fiscal profligacy.
The House voted 280 to 152 to approve the rules, which drew the support of
48 Republicans. Democratic leaders, in control of the House for the first
time in 12 years, hailed the vote as a sign of their commitment to restore
accountability to federal spending and to reduce a budget deficit and
national debt that they say have been swollen by Republican tax cuts and
military spending.
But even as they celebrated one of their first exercises of legislative
power, key Democrats acknowledged that it will be difficult to abide by the
new pay-as-you-go spending rules -- known on Capitol Hill as "pay-go"
measures -- while keeping their promises to fund health-care, education and
homeland-security initiatives. The rule change also jeopardizes President
Bush's efforts to extend his tax cuts, most of which will expire in 2010.
And it will complicate Democratic efforts to repeal the alternative minimum
tax, a set of provisions in the tax code that could force millions of
households to pay more this year.
"It's important that they passed a pay-go rule because they're setting a
standard for themselves. This is a way of saying 'There's a new sheriff in
town' and 'We're going to be fiscally responsible,' " said Robert L. Bixby,
executive director of the Concord Coalition, an advocacy group dedicated to
deficit reduction. "But, now, they're going to have to figure out how to
live up to that standard. And that's going to be pretty tough."
Yesterday's vote completed work on a series of rule changes proposed by
Democrats to regulate operations in the House during the 110th Congress. On
Thursday, the House adopted stringent new controls on the lobbying of House
members, banning gifts from lobbyists and severely restricting privately
funded travel. Yesterday, in addition to the rules affecting spending, the
House adopted "civility" measures that grant Republican lawmakers more
opportunities to offer their views and to participate in legislative debate
than Democrats say they received under Republican control.
But the rules on spending drew the most animated debate, as Democrats
accused the president and congressional Republicans of frittering away the
large budget surpluses they inherited after the 2000 elections and of
running up record budget deficits. Last year, the deficit was a relatively
modest $248 billion, but the national debt is approaching $9 trillion.
"The one thing we can say about George Bush and his economic policy is: 'We
are forever in your debt,' " Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) told his colleagues
on the House floor. "On day number two, Democrats have said, 'Enough is
enough with running up the debt of this country. We're going to put our
fiscal house in order.' "
Republicans fired back, criticizing the new spending rules as a weakened,
"paper-tiger" version of an expired pay-as-you-go law, which triggered
across-the-board spending cuts whenever legislation increasing the deficit
was passed. House leaders have promised to pursue such legislation in the
coming weeks, but they note that it could not take effect without the
support of the Senate and the White House. In the meantime, House Democrats
say, the more limited rule, which makes budget-busting legislation subject
to a parliamentary rule of order, is the best they can do.
Budget experts note that House rules are easily waived, and some predict
that Democrats will be forced to abandon the new rules, at least for certain
expenditures, to meet their campaign promises. For example, House Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and other Democratic
leaders have vowed to halt the expansion of the alternative minimum tax,
which would cost about $50 billion this year alone. Repealing the tax, as
Rangel and others advocate, would cost close to $1 trillion over the next
decade.
Coming up with that kind of cash is possible, budget experts say, but doing
so is probably going to be politically unpalatable. For example, Leonard E.
Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban
Institute and the Brookings Institution, is working on options for covering
the cost of a repeal. Among them: Allowing the president's tax cuts to
expire and eliminating the federal deduction for state and local income
taxes.
That combination would raise more than enough money to pay for repeal,
Burman said, but "for somebody like Rangel in a high-tax city and high-tax
state, it's going to be hard to swallow. There's no free lunch."
Democrats are already having trouble reconciling their pledge to reduce the
deficit with policy changes that they promised to pursue during the first
100 hours of the new Congress. This week, for instance, senior House
Democratic aides said the promise to cut in half interest rates on student
loans will have to be phased in over five years instead of being passed
immediately.
So far, fiscal restraint appears to be gaining the upper hand. As he left
the House chamber yesterday, Rangel said he is scouring the tax code for tax
breaks that benefit special interests. If the beneficiaries "don't put their
hands up, it's out," he said, suggesting that the money saved could go
toward paying for the repeal of the alternative minimum tax.
"It's not good for me to have pay-go, but it's good for the country," Rangel
said. "At this point, nobody . . . has convinced me that there should be
exemptions from pay-go."
House Adopts Pay-as-You-Go Rules
Changes Aim to Curb Deficit Spending, Shed Light on Earmarks
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 6, 2007; Page A04
On its second day under Democratic management, the House yesterday
overwhelmingly approved new rules aimed at reining in deficit spending and
shedding more light on the murky world of special-interest projects known as
earmarks.
Under the new provisions, the House will for the first time in years be
required to pay for any proposal to cut taxes or increase spending on the
most expensive federal programs by raising taxes or cutting spending
elsewhere. And lawmakers will be required to disclose the sponsors of
earmarks, which are attached in virtual secrecy to legislation to direct
money to favored interests or home-district projects.
In recent months, with revelations that lawmakers had earmarked funds for
projects with little public benefit, earmarks had became a political
embarrassment and a symbol of fiscal profligacy.
The House voted 280 to 152 to approve the rules, which drew the support of
48 Republicans. Democratic leaders, in control of the House for the first
time in 12 years, hailed the vote as a sign of their commitment to restore
accountability to federal spending and to reduce a budget deficit and
national debt that they say have been swollen by Republican tax cuts and
military spending.
But even as they celebrated one of their first exercises of legislative
power, key Democrats acknowledged that it will be difficult to abide by the
new pay-as-you-go spending rules -- known on Capitol Hill as "pay-go"
measures -- while keeping their promises to fund health-care, education and
homeland-security initiatives. The rule change also jeopardizes President
Bush's efforts to extend his tax cuts, most of which will expire in 2010.
And it will complicate Democratic efforts to repeal the alternative minimum
tax, a set of provisions in the tax code that could force millions of
households to pay more this year.
"It's important that they passed a pay-go rule because they're setting a
standard for themselves. This is a way of saying 'There's a new sheriff in
town' and 'We're going to be fiscally responsible,' " said Robert L. Bixby,
executive director of the Concord Coalition, an advocacy group dedicated to
deficit reduction. "But, now, they're going to have to figure out how to
live up to that standard. And that's going to be pretty tough."
Yesterday's vote completed work on a series of rule changes proposed by
Democrats to regulate operations in the House during the 110th Congress. On
Thursday, the House adopted stringent new controls on the lobbying of House
members, banning gifts from lobbyists and severely restricting privately
funded travel. Yesterday, in addition to the rules affecting spending, the
House adopted "civility" measures that grant Republican lawmakers more
opportunities to offer their views and to participate in legislative debate
than Democrats say they received under Republican control.
But the rules on spending drew the most animated debate, as Democrats
accused the president and congressional Republicans of frittering away the
large budget surpluses they inherited after the 2000 elections and of
running up record budget deficits. Last year, the deficit was a relatively
modest $248 billion, but the national debt is approaching $9 trillion.
"The one thing we can say about George Bush and his economic policy is: 'We
are forever in your debt,' " Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) told his colleagues
on the House floor. "On day number two, Democrats have said, 'Enough is
enough with running up the debt of this country. We're going to put our
fiscal house in order.' "
Republicans fired back, criticizing the new spending rules as a weakened,
"paper-tiger" version of an expired pay-as-you-go law, which triggered
across-the-board spending cuts whenever legislation increasing the deficit
was passed. House leaders have promised to pursue such legislation in the
coming weeks, but they note that it could not take effect without the
support of the Senate and the White House. In the meantime, House Democrats
say, the more limited rule, which makes budget-busting legislation subject
to a parliamentary rule of order, is the best they can do.
Budget experts note that House rules are easily waived, and some predict
that Democrats will be forced to abandon the new rules, at least for certain
expenditures, to meet their campaign promises. For example, House Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and other Democratic
leaders have vowed to halt the expansion of the alternative minimum tax,
which would cost about $50 billion this year alone. Repealing the tax, as
Rangel and others advocate, would cost close to $1 trillion over the next
decade.
Coming up with that kind of cash is possible, budget experts say, but doing
so is probably going to be politically unpalatable. For example, Leonard E.
Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban
Institute and the Brookings Institution, is working on options for covering
the cost of a repeal. Among them: Allowing the president's tax cuts to
expire and eliminating the federal deduction for state and local income
taxes.
That combination would raise more than enough money to pay for repeal,
Burman said, but "for somebody like Rangel in a high-tax city and high-tax
state, it's going to be hard to swallow. There's no free lunch."
Democrats are already having trouble reconciling their pledge to reduce the
deficit with policy changes that they promised to pursue during the first
100 hours of the new Congress. This week, for instance, senior House
Democratic aides said the promise to cut in half interest rates on student
loans will have to be phased in over five years instead of being passed
immediately.
So far, fiscal restraint appears to be gaining the upper hand. As he left
the House chamber yesterday, Rangel said he is scouring the tax code for tax
breaks that benefit special interests. If the beneficiaries "don't put their
hands up, it's out," he said, suggesting that the money saved could go
toward paying for the repeal of the alternative minimum tax.
"It's not good for me to have pay-go, but it's good for the country," Rangel
said. "At this point, nobody . . . has convinced me that there should be
exemptions from pay-go."