The House has passed a bill cutting taxes by $70 billion over the next five years.

[Suzie]

Yahoo! Alerts
Breaking News Wednesday, May 10, 2006, 3:19 PM PDT

WASHINGTON (AP) The House has passed a bill cutting taxes by $70 billion over the next five years.

Breaking News Alerts may be sent before a story is available on Yahoo! News. A story should be published shortly. Search for related news on Yahoo! News Search.

[Suzie]

House passes tax-cut plan (http://rds.yahoo.com/S=53720272/K=Tax/v=2/SID=e/l=NSR/R=1/;_ylt=A9htfMJQamJEgjUA3ArQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHZkMj ZyBHBvcwMxBHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=13e1g5tai/EXP=1147386832/*-http%3A//www.cnn.com/rssclick/2006/POLITICS/05/10/house.tax.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest) CNN.com - 5 minutes ago
The House passed the measure by a 244-185 vote. The Senate is expected to clear the bill Thursday. The bill provides a two-year extension of the reduced 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, currently set to expire at the end of 2008.

[Rhino]

It's not a cut. It's just a delay of a scheduled increase.

[dPrasse]

It's not a cut. It's just a delay of a scheduled increase.

Good Political move , but , any cut with a Sunset Clause is just that politics ...

[DoctorDoom]

The RATs are of course whining and condemning it. Denying them vote-buying money is unthinkable.

$70B in 5 years sounds like a big deal, until it's compared to the budget. The 2007 budget is $2.8 trillion. If the $70B is spread evenly over 5 years, and the next five budgets don't increase, the tax "break" each year will equal what Washington spends in 43.8 hours.

It's crumbs from the master's table. And the RATs don't even want the crumbs given to the dogs.

[cerberus]

Super. They didn't happen to pass any concurrent budget cuts while they were at it did they? Any pork trimming? No? What a sham.

[Borgia]

Super. They didn't happen to pass any concurrent budget cuts while they were at it did they? Any pork trimming? No? What a sham.

No, that would be far too responsible. Far easier to cut taxes to make the voters happy than to actually roll up their sleeves and do work that their constituents might have to think about.

Tax cutting without budgets cuts is political pandering.

[Rhino]

Tax cutting without budgets cuts is political pandering.Not necessarily. If the result of the cuts generates more revenue than the tax cut itself, then no budget cut is necessary. Of course we all know that opinions differ on whether or not that happens, and I don't intend to reopen that debate here. On a principle level I have to agree though. I would like to see some budget cuts, even if they aren't needed to offset a tax cut. I also agree somewhat with the 'pandering' label, though not for the same reasons. This measure is being touted as a cut, when it is nothing of the sort. All it is is an extension of the current tax scenario for another two years. Masquerading it as a cut is indeed pandering.

[MichaelS]

Budget cuts? Are you kidding me? Instead, the House is readying to raise the debt limit for the fifth time in four years and the second time in the last few months to almost $10 trillion.

[DesertFox]

* Y a w n *

Yeah, they're kidding, Schiavo. Go back to sleep.

[MichaelS]

You following me around, DF? You're getting as bad as Doomie boy.