Kerry voting record factoid of the day

[asheris]

This $87 billion bill that the Republicans keep harping on, that Kerry voted for the first time through, and against the second time? Here's a couple of rather important facts about those versions of the bill:

Version 1: (The one Kerry supported, and Bush opposed.) $87 billion for troops, with an amendment that specified a source for the money. (A one-year elimination of Bush's new tax breaks to the top 1%, which would cover nearly all of that $87 billion.)

After Kerry voted FOR this version (a fiscally responsible move), many Republicans turned around and voted AGAINST it.

In other words, remember that every time you hear a Republican going on about how Kerry voted "for the troops, then against them", remember that most of the Republican senators voted AGAINST that same bill before they voted for it!


Version 2: (The one Bush supported, and Kerry voted against.) $87 billion for troops, with NO indication at all where the money would come from. Guess we're just supposed to stick it on credit, and hope our reduced income can pay for it later.

Talk about irresponsible deficit spending... of the very kind that Bush claims he's trying to eliminate!

Mind you, this was on top of the original $79 billion that Congress approved, and another estimated $50 billion for rebuilding Iraq, not to mention any needed expenditures for Homeland Security.


And there's another rant or several for the future:

1. Funds for NYC that Bush promised and never delivered.


2. The reduction in federal funding for emergency responders (our first line of defense in case of terrorist attack).


3. Most of the National Guard is overseas, although their reason for being is to handle internal defense when our military is elsewhere.


4. The ongoing lie that Bush "inherited the recession". The economy was slowing in 2000, but it didn't take up cliff diving until Feb-March 2001.


5. The fact that Bush inherited a budget surplus and a decreasing national debt; in three years he turned that into a budget deficit, and a growing national debt.


6. Unemployment. Jobs being sent offshore. New jobs that are lower wage, part-time, with no benefits being called "replacements" for high-tech, salaried (with benefits) jobs. Poverty is increasing. The Bush administration's idea of "dealing" with these problems: stop publication of the mass layoff reports, and change how they count the number of people living below the poverty line.

Comments

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

"tax breaks to the top 1%" You know, that may sound unfair, but it can benefit everyone. In the UK, we had a tax revolution when Margaret Thatcher came to power. Cutting taxes for those in the higher tax bracket, usually representing the most innovative and entrepreneurial, provided a great incentive and stimulus for them to succeed and create even more jobs within the UK. For some years, the government ended up collecting even more taxes than ever, in spite of lower taxation, because employment grew so much.

[asheris.livejournal.com]

Well, the first tax break Bush pushed didn't have any positive effect at all.

Then he insisted on a second one- at a time when the economy was taking a downturn, when the budget was running deficits, at a time when he was planning a war, and the national debt was increasing by leaps and bounds, he decided to cut taxes- cutting off the income needed to deal with those issues.

In fact, he "marketed" them as tax cuts for the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office recently released a report showing that what these cuts really did was lower the tax rate for the top 10% (the top 1% went way down), mostly ignore the tax rate on those in the lowest 20%, and raised the effective tax rate on the middle quintile (the 40-60% group). (Those are the people making about $50,000-$80,000 per year.) (I have the link at home; still at work so I'll post it later.)

Turns out, these tax cuts he said were directed at the middle class were actually a disaster for them. The cuts were loaded in such a way as to benefit the extremely wealthy. (Cuts on capital gains taxes, etc.)

The majority of the people in this country who have IRA's or 401k's don't deposit to the IRS' tax deduction limit each year anyway; how would cutting taxes on anything they might invest beyond that do most Americans any good? They're not paying into those accounts fully in the first place because they don't have the income to do so.

It's kind of like telling someone you're "cutting the taxes on their car."
"But I don't own a car. I only ride my bike!"
"Yes, but you got a tax cut!"


As for the "incentive" of reducing taxes on the wealthy- the only thing the new tax laws have really done is minimize penalties for "offshoring"- "moving" your corporate headquarters to the Bahamas or some such, to avoid paying corporate taxes in the US- and "outsourcing"- laying off people here and sending their jobs to other countries, such as India. In other words, they have NOT encouraged investment in the economy or increased employment here in the US.

Bush's tax cuts seem to have had the exact opposite effect of what he said he wanted them for.


Our taxes are already the lowest (by percentage of income) of the industrialized nations. In addition, our top tax bracket is WAY below that of other industrialized nations. Cutting taxes on the wealthiest might help investment when their tax rates are in the 50-80% range, but when they're already down to an effective rate in the middle-20% range?

Our tax system has always had some problems with fairness, but when you add in the kinds of cuts Bush has pushed through Congress, it's worse than it used to be.