Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (748456)	8/31/2006 12:21:08 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Securing Future Fiscal Health Monday, August 28, 2006; A15 Washington Post By Bob Kerrey and Warren Rudman The economic and moral case for long-term reform of fiscal policy is clear. Yet politicians refuse to act. If this stalemate persists, it could end in catastrophe. Over the next 30 years, spending on federal programs is on track to go up by 50 percent as a share of the economy. If revenue remain at their historical level, the resulting deficits will approach 20 percent of gross domestic product by 2036 -- almost 10 times the current size. The debt will surge to 200 percent of GDP -- twice what it was at the end of World War II. Political realities explain why nothing has been done about this. Changing course would require substantial spending cuts from projected levels or equivalent tax increases. Neither party wants to be the first to propose these tough choices out of fear that the other side would attack it. Similarly, neither side wants to discuss possible compromises of its own priorities, out of fear that the other side will take the concessions and run. Unfortunately, these fears are justified. Since the regular legislative process seems incapable of dealing with the impending crisis, some alternative has to be found. President Bush has suggested a commission. Having served on many commissions, we understand their potential value. We also understand how they can go wrong. In our view, a new commission could be very useful, but only if it recognizes fiscal and political realities. It needs five elements to succeed. First, it has to be truly bipartisan. Any perception that the commission's purpose is to facilitate swift enactment of a partisan agenda would doom it to failure. It must have bipartisan co-chairs and equal representation. Doing otherwise in the current partisan environment would be a waste of time and money. Second, it must have a broad mandate. While it is critical to control the growth of entitlements, particularly Medicare and Social Security, the commission should examine all aspects of fiscal policy. Third, all options must be on the table. If either side sets conditions, the other won't participate. Republicans cannot take tax increases off the table, and Democrats cannot take benefit reductions off the table. Fourth, the commission needs to engage the public in a genuine dialogue about the trade-offs inherent in realistic solutions. When people are armed with the facts and given the opportunity for honest dialogue, they are willing to set priorities and make hard choices. Fifth, the commission's recommendations should be given an up-or-down vote in Congress, allowing for amendments that would not reduce the total savings. Absent that, the report would likely join many others on a shelf. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) have put forward a proposal that satisfies most of these elements. They would create a bipartisan commission with a broad mandate to examine long-term fiscal challenges. All policy options would be on the table. The commission would solicit input from the public and develop legislation that Congress and the president would be required to act on. Its work would address four key concerns: the unsustainable gap between projected spending and revenue, the need to increase national savings, the implications of foreign ownership of U.S. government debt and the lack of emphasis on long-term planning in the budget process. A commission with these attributes could give all parties the political cover they need to tackle the tough choices and develop a bipartisan consensus for solutions. This would be invaluable regardless of who controls Congress or the White House. In the end, of course, elected representatives, not a commission, will have to make the hard decisions. But a commission that produced solutions with meaningful bipartisan support would provide a catalyst for action. If Congress were required to vote on the commission's recommendations, opponents would be challenged to produce solutions of their own. Advocates of extending tax cuts would be challenged to say how they would restrain spending enough to avoid cascading debt once the baby boomers begin to retire in large numbers. Those who oppose reductions in current entitlement promises would be challenged to say how they would fund those promises without squeezing out other priorities or raising taxes to unacceptable levels that could damage the economy. The Wolf-Voinovich proposal has been greeted with silence or outright hostility. It deserves better. This is a serious proposal by two leaders who regard the debt burden and draconian policy options we are leaving to future generations as a moral stain on our nation's character. To be sure, their proposal has shortcomings that must be corrected. Two improvements that are critical to the success of a commission are providing for bipartisan co-chairs and dividing the membership more evenly between parties than the current 9-6 split in favor of Republican appointments. These problems are not minor technicalities, but they could be fixed in negotiations with potential Democratic co-sponsors. Time is running out to enact reforms. Wolf and Voinovich have come up with a credible way to get the process started. Any takers? Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, and Warren B. Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire, are co-chairs of the Concord Coalition.

To: pompsander who wrote (748456)	8/31/2006 12:42:27 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Congressman aims to eliminate SUV tax breaks By Shawn Langlois, MarketWatch Last Update: 1:58 PM ET Aug 30, 2006 marketwatch.com SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) - Tax breaks benefiting buyers of sports-utility vehicles fly in the face of a good energy policy and are costing American taxpayers billions of dollars a year, according to a report from Rep. Edward Markey. "It is incredible that the Bush Administration and Republican Congress can be so blind as to leave these tax loopholes in place while our dependence on Middle East oil soars, the price of gasoline spikes, and our soldiers are mired a war in the Middle East," said Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts. The study, which includes estimates from the Joint Tax Committee of Congress and focuses on two policies favoring the purchase heavier vehicles over smaller models, showed that the tax breaks will cost $2.6 billion next year and $15.7 billion over the next 10 years. The first break is the exemption light trucks and minivans get from the Gas Guzzler Tax, a levy imposed on autos rated below 22.5 miles per gallon. As an example, the report said an Audi station wagon that gets 20.5 mpg incurs a $1,300 tax, while a 15.8 mpg Jeep incurs no penalty. Markey also criticized a policy that allows businesses to purchase SUVs and write off most or all of the cost of the vehicle on their income taxes in the first year. That amounts to a subsidy of almost $600 million a year, and $4.1 billion over the next 10 years, he said. "This makes no sense. Congress is using the tax code to generate artificial demand for inefficient vehicles in the automobile marketplace," said Markey, who introduced a bill aimed at eliminating both tax breaks for SUVs. "Regardless of whether we ever ramp up and modernize the minimum fuel economy standards, providing these out-of-date tax incentives that reward the purchase of inefficient vehicles just make things worse," he added.... Shawn Langlois is a reporter for MarketWatch, and the editor of its community message boards.