"House Republicans believe in letting Americans keep more of their hard-earned money, and this legislation does just that. Absent today's action by House Republicans, taxpayers would have been hit with an automatic tax increase totaling more than $35 billion over the next five years." --House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican, last-night (Washington Times,a rag)WASHINGTON--I watched Fox News this morning (I know, pity me), and they were whining about the fact that the tax-breaks for the wealthiest weren't being extended in this House bill (H.R. 6111)--anyone else see this? It was around 10-10:30 am Central. Seriously, if you did, let me know, someone probably already has it posted on Youtube, and we can string a link to it. Yet, I read the Reuters and AP stories--both are extremely vague. Correct, they aren't just going to tell us the actual-story, or if these tax-cuts that have created one of the biggest deficits in American history have been renewed. That would be too easy, and editors have to kiss ownership's you-know-what. That's what editors do, they seek the approval of owners by skewing anything that would jeopardize their lifestyles and mortgages to the right. This generally favors the richest...like H.R. 6111? Even the Bill that was passed last-night is cloudy in the language, a sprawling 269-page document of flibber-flabber and bloviating.
And there were some dissenters with the GOP who didn't even want this bill to pass. Amazing, no? What a country! Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (NH) : 'You must have to ask yourself how we as a party got to this point when we have a leadership that is going to ram down our throats of our party the biggest budget buster in the history of this Congress, under Republican leadership.' Easy, your greed and tunnel-vision allowed the original 2000 tax-cuts to be extended during a very-expensive war. This is unprecedented in almost all of Western politics! This aspect is never reported. Ask an accountant, they'll just laugh...
Were Bush's original 2000 tax-cuts for the wealthiest extended? That is the 1 Trillion dollar question. Whether it is nobler to take up arms against a sea of legalese--or capitulate, and read the funny-papers? Decisions, I know. It's unclear from this rambling-document whether the rich can build that Villa, so let's get-to-work on it, do some deciphering here. My feeling is they've (the GOP and their Democratic allies) hidden it within the text's language somehow, and certain (right-wing) Democrats had no-problem with this approach. The vote reflects this possibility. It gives them an 'out', like with Iraq: 'I didn't knooowww!' But you did know, and we know that you know this was a possibility. You've had your noses rubbed-in-it for twelve-years. Time for payback? Nah, just follow the letter of the already-existing laws, and convict the guilty. Ooops! That might mean some Democrats, too. The dilemmas behind 'winning', I tell ya. The notion of winning has been changed in the American-lexicon, it's just that the rednecks are slow here.
My feeling is that Bush's income-tax cuts, which upended New Deal progressive taxation, have been extended, but not made-permanent as an insurance-policy. They've virtually bankrupted this country with the war in Iraq, conjoined with their absurd tax-cuts during wartime, which is reckless in every-respect. So, a little restraint and sneakiness here is based on theirs and Democratic readings of the outcome of the November elections. The media also lends-a-hand here, as they usually do, by not reporting all the pertinent-details. It wasn't simply the war, it was the corruption, nepotism and crony-handouts too. It was the weekly-scandals, and the feeling that we're constantly being lied-to.
They're scared, and we need to keep them all that way ad-infinitum. Congressional incumbents should be made to feel that they will be gone shortly if they don't deliver to the public what the public needs to survive and prosper. If they continue to push us, we'll keep pushing-back like we did in the midterms of 2006, only harder. When both parties are fighting, American democracy hums-with-contentment. They aren't supposed to 'get-along', that isn't a democracy, folks. Their job is to convince you this is bad, and they are liars for doing-so. Why do I think they hid it under 'Other Tax Relief Provisions'? If what you're doing is so obviously correct and good for America, why do you have to hide it from the public? The answers should be obvious.
H.R. 6111's Text:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/ResourceKits.asp?section=2544
The Washington Times' Peculiar-Take:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061209-121512-4620r.htm
AP's Cagey & Peculiar-Take (Shhh! No talk of tax-cuts for the richest):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061209/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp
The Reuters Touch (Ditto on Tax-cuts for the richest):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061209/pl_nm/usa_congress_dc_7
No comments:
Post a Comment