House, Senate Pass Big Obama Budget Plans
Acting in quick succession, the House and Senate approved budgets Thursday night drawn to President Obama's specifications and pointing the way toward major legislation later this year on health care, energy and education.
"It's going to take a lot of work to clean up the mess we inherited, and passing this budget is a critical step in the right direction," Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid said. "Staying true to these priorities will help turn around the economy for the many Americans who are underwater right now."
Republicans in both houses accused Democrats of drafting plans that would hurt the recession-ravaged economy in the long run, rather than help it, and saddle future generations with too much debt.
"The administration's budget simply taxes too much, spends too much and borrows too much at a moment when we can least afford it," said the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.
But a Republican alternative fared poorly in the House, where 38 Republican lawmakers voted against a plan supported by their own leadership.
On a long day and night, the House was first to vote, and approved its version of the budget on a 233-196 roll call that fell largely along party lines. It calls for spending of $3.6 trillion for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, and includes a deficit of $1.2 trillion.
The Senate acted a few hours later, voting 55-43 for a slightly different blueprint that calls for spending $3.5 trillion and forecasts a deficit of $1.2 trillion.
Both deficit forecasts are exceedingly high by historical standards. But they would represent an improvement over this year's projected total of $1.8 trillion, swollen by spending and tax cuts designed to rejuvenate the economy as well as steps to bail out the financial industry.
The day's events capped a busy three months for the Democratic-controlled Congress that took office in January.
Moving with unusual speed, lawmakers have enacted a $787 billion economic stimulus measure, cleared the way for release of $350 billion in financial industry bailout funds, approved an expansion of children's health care and sent Mr. Obama legislation setting aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as protected wilderness.
While the votes in both chambers represented victories for the administration, the budgets merely cleared the way for work later in the year on key presidential priorities - expansion and overhaul of the nation's health care system, creation of a new energy policy and sweeping changes in education.
Major battles lie ahead, particularly over health care and energy. And while Mr. Obama made a series of specific proposals to fund his initiatives, congressional budget-writers avoided taking a position on his recommended curtailing of Medicare spending, for example, or imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in new costs on the nation's polluters.
The budget plans do not require Mr. Obama's signature, but the House and Senate will have to reconcile the two versions before they can move onto the next phase of the presidential agenda.
Here's the full text of a White House statement issued after the House vote, hailing the results:
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. "It's going to take a lot of work to clean up the mess we inherited, and passing this budget is a critical step in the right direction," Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid said. "Staying true to these priorities will help turn around the economy for the many Americans who are underwater right now."
Republicans in both houses accused Democrats of drafting plans that would hurt the recession-ravaged economy in the long run, rather than help it, and saddle future generations with too much debt.
"The administration's budget simply taxes too much, spends too much and borrows too much at a moment when we can least afford it," said the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.
But a Republican alternative fared poorly in the House, where 38 Republican lawmakers voted against a plan supported by their own leadership.
On a long day and night, the House was first to vote, and approved its version of the budget on a 233-196 roll call that fell largely along party lines. It calls for spending of $3.6 trillion for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, and includes a deficit of $1.2 trillion.
The Senate acted a few hours later, voting 55-43 for a slightly different blueprint that calls for spending $3.5 trillion and forecasts a deficit of $1.2 trillion.
Both deficit forecasts are exceedingly high by historical standards. But they would represent an improvement over this year's projected total of $1.8 trillion, swollen by spending and tax cuts designed to rejuvenate the economy as well as steps to bail out the financial industry.
The day's events capped a busy three months for the Democratic-controlled Congress that took office in January.
Moving with unusual speed, lawmakers have enacted a $787 billion economic stimulus measure, cleared the way for release of $350 billion in financial industry bailout funds, approved an expansion of children's health care and sent Mr. Obama legislation setting aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as protected wilderness.
While the votes in both chambers represented victories for the administration, the budgets merely cleared the way for work later in the year on key presidential priorities - expansion and overhaul of the nation's health care system, creation of a new energy policy and sweeping changes in education.
Major battles lie ahead, particularly over health care and energy. And while Mr. Obama made a series of specific proposals to fund his initiatives, congressional budget-writers avoided taking a position on his recommended curtailing of Medicare spending, for example, or imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in new costs on the nation's polluters.
The budget plans do not require Mr. Obama's signature, but the House and Senate will have to reconcile the two versions before they can move onto the next phase of the presidential agenda.
Here's the full text of a White House statement issued after the House vote, hailing the results:
Tonight, the House of Representatives took another step toward rebuilding our struggling economy. This budget resolution embraces our most fundamental priorities: an energy plan that will end our dependence on foreign oil and spur a new clean energy economy; an education system that will ensure our children will be able to compete in the economy of the 21st century; and health care reform that finally confronts the back-breaking costs plaguing families, businesses and government alike. And by making hard choices and challenging the old ways of doing business, we will cut in half the budget deficit we inherited within four years. With this vote comes an obligation to pursue our efforts to go through the budget line-by-line, searching for additional savings. Like the families we serve, we must cut the things we don't need to invest in those we do.
Popular in Politics
- FBI: Surveillance info helped reveal subway, stock exchange bombings 203 Comments
- Jesse Jackson Jr. asks to serve jail sentence before wife
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows
- Obama: "Very easy to slip-slide" into deeper Syrian involvement 91 Comments
- IRS scandal: Is partisanship overshadowing facts? 172 Comments
- Obama on NSA programs: Americans "not getting the complete story"
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial
- Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voting law 934 Comments
Okay, let me try to use math to instill common sense into you:
Your business buys $1,000,000 a year in glass.
Your business buys $1,000,000 a year in steel.
Your business buys $1,000,000 a year in plastic.
The government raises YOUR tax rate from 35% to 39%.
How much is your steel, glass, and plastic now going to cost?
How much more are you going to charge your customers for the end products, because YOUR taxes went up?
--------------------------------
Incorrect, the only thing you are going to instill is more stupidity and simplistic thought. Go back to business school.
A: Business's don't tax each other. Sales back and forth from suppliers are not taxed.
B: The sales figures don't matter
C: What is taxed is the NET profit of your company
D: You could sell me all of the above, and have zero NET profit (see GM, Ford and others at the moment) and pay NO TAX
E: I could still pay myself out of the company, have a nice living and still have no NET profit to pay taxes on.
F: As a company, you add 4% to your product to cover tax, guess what? You may have 4% additional to add to your NET profit that you might have to pay tax on.
G: Unless that additional 4% is a flat increase you may not pay at 4% if it flows through all the brackets, you only pay on the amount OVER the last bracket.
I'll give you a true real life example:
I own 3 different types of business in 4 locations. This year I made on paper a very nice NET profit after paying myself from the company as the president. That NET would have been taxed.
But-- I decided to open location #5 before the end of the year, with equipment, training, real estate investment, up front costs, furniture, additional inventory and all the normal additional things in business on PAPER my corporation LOST money so the NET went away and I now show a loss for the year.
Result=No tax paid with a carryover loss for next year. Yet everyone gets paid, including myself. What I decide to take out for myself is within the same tax bracket as before. My personal net increase in tax? ZERO
And why would I hold my personal money out of the company down? So I can reinvest more of the business capital for location #6 in 2009.
Something else, in the 1950's tax rates were much higher (up to 90%) and America was what? The leader in almost every industry, personal income, consumption, health care, education, you name it we were #1 by huge margins.
Using the constant Republican tax reduction argument ,ask yourself how well has that really worked? Look around the middle class is smaller than it was in the 50's Ameican businesses are weak in the worlwide arena we have the most debt (BEFORE OBAMA by the way) How much does American business spen on R&D as a % of their business (I'll give you a hint, less)
Cutting taxes alone without won't do it. Try this raise corp taxes higher perhaps 45% but allow larger deductions for R&D modernization, training, education. With those deductions your effective tax rate could be lower and we'd get more bang for our buck. It would benefit corporations also with the benefits derived. Know why? They'd never want to pay the 45% tax rate.
Save the illegal immigration crap for another day..........
Noe one with a brain can refute that if I spend $45,000 on a new car, that the money I spend on that car goes to a myriad of other places. It goes to the workers who made it. it goes to the comapny that made the steel for it (which pays their workers). it goes to a lot of different places.
And the workers in all of those places use that money to buy products they want. And the money continues on out. That is how welath is created.
Why is it that liberals are so clueless about how the basics of life work? Or is that they dont want to know, and would rather vilify those that have worked ahd and gotten somewhere?
And in the meantime, they want the government to steal from others and give to them?
Posted by mortar29
Too many people want things the easy way. Not everyone is willing to take chances, work hard, get the necessary skills, and take responsibility for their actions. It is easier to complain about the wealthy than to create wealth for themselves. Each year millions of people come up with ideas. Only a few carry them to fruition.
Posted by ibzebin
So, the report says that Bush actually RAISED taxes on the wealthy.....the Republican machine will never stop trying to rewrite history.....
Posted by chitown639
Well of course it works better with some swirling effects reminiscent of a dream.
Posted by ibzebin
So, the report says that Bush actually RAISED taxes on the wealthy.....the Republican machine will never stop trying to rewrite history.....
For those that continue want to tear down the rich, why dont you use your head and get your own?? And leave what belongs to others to them. My wife and I did. We didnt ask for anyone's help. We worked hard and earned everything we have.
You could have it too. Afterall, you are Americans.
Posted by mortar29
Hah-hah, Hee-Hee, good one Morty. It is the height of naivety to assume our discussion of the rich include people that actually believe going to sit on a beach in NC is a "vacation". When you board your private jet for Dubai, then you may be on to something.
Posted by stimporksuks
The story I got was the justice department had nothing to hold/prosecute him with at that time. We are a nation of laws and what must be becoming apparent to even you now is that it is unconstitutional to incarcerate someone for what you think they might do.
And in the meantime, they want the government to steal from others and give to them?
Posted by mortar29
Well, that's nice of you to say, but you still haven't said just how Bush's tax cuts for billionaires has boosted the economy. Bush gave the tax cuts 8 years ago to the wealthy, when do you think we will start to feel that trickle??? I thought I felt a drop land on my forehead last week, but that turned out to be from a bird flying overhead....