.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Cracker Squire


My Photo
Location: Douglas, Coffee Co., The Other Georgia, United States

Sid in his law office where he sits when meeting with clients. Observant eyes will notice the statuette of one of Sid's favorite Democrats.

Thursday, September 23, 2004

2, 4, 6, 8, who do we appreciate? Not Congress, not today; not the GOP; not Demo's -- Bush to get 4th tax cut in 4 years. Sorry kids and grandkids.

The headline of a 4-23-04 N.Y. Times article tells the sad story: "Deal in Congress to Keep Tax Cuts, Widening Deficit."

Putting aside efforts to control the federal deficit before the elections, Republican and Democratic leaders agreed Wednesday to extend $145 billion worth of tax cuts sought by President without trying to pay for them, representing the fourth tax cut in as many years.

Approval of the tax cut package is a significant victory for Mr. Bush, who champions the extension of the cuts at every campaign stop but whose wishes had been thwarted by Democrats and a handful of Republican moderates in the Senate.

As recently as July, the Republican moderates demanded that such tax cuts be paid for either with budget cuts or with higher taxes in other areas.

By teaming up with Democrats, the Republican moderates prevented their own party leaders and the Bush administration from getting their way.

Do you recall a 9-15-04 post about the caucus known as the Republican Study Committee, or the RSC, made up of more than 90 conservative House Republicans, who were working about curbing federal spending that has soared under Republican control of Congress and the White House?

This is the group that I identified as being the ones I described on my website as "trying to convince the President’s advisors that you can’t spend yourself out of debt."

But with the election nearing, Congressional Democrats said they would not let themselves be branded as supporters of tax increases, which would occur if the expiring provisions were not renewed.

With Democrats capitulating to the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, the handful of Republican holdouts quietly surrendered as well.

The Republican rebels, including, Sen. John McCain, who had infuriated Mr. Bush and many Republican leaders, saw their ability to block action evaporate without the votes of Democrats.

This whole thing sort of reminds me of something that happened in 1991 when the Vice President was Secretary of Defense, and is a pet theory of mine of providing at least part of the answer as to why Cheney was so bound and determined to invade Iraq and get Hussein, with or without supporting evidence, and with or without the coalition we had when we went in Kuwait.

After American troops and U.S. led forces liberated Kuwait and then stopped at Iraq's southern border, Bush I encouraged Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south to take matters into their own hands and get rid of Suddam.

Such groups, and especially the Kurds, did just that, rising in revolt against Suddam. But no help was forthcoming from America, as Bush I withheld American military support when their uprisings drew savage retribution from Baghdad.

It is something that I wish I could forget but cannot. I have never blamed Bush I for this per se; rather it is something I regard as America as a country getting blood on its hands.

For abandoning the Republican moderates, I say thanks a lot for nothing Sen. Kerry, including passing up a chance to show a little leadership.

And thank you Sen. Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader, for announcing earlier this week that he would support a five-year extension of the cuts even if they were not paid for.


Blogger Mae said...

i don't like the inconsistency...can i say that and be a party loyalist?

9:10 PM  
Blogger Sid Cottingham said...

You dern tuten you can Mae.

5:06 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home