Senate rejects Democratic effort to hinder tax cuts, spending boosts

[Judi Lynn]

Senate rejects Democratic effort to hinder tax cuts, spending boosts

ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, March 9, 2004
(03-09) 12:13 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Senate rejected a Democratic effort Tuesday to make it harder for lawmakers to approve tax cuts or spending boosts as debate on a $2.36 trillion budget turned to the politically sensitive subject of protecting Social Security.

By 51-46, senators killed an amendment by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., requiring 60 Senate votes for any tax reduction or any increase in automatic benefits like Medicare that was not paid for with other budget savings. That margin can be tough to achieve in the narrowly divided 100-member Senate, where Republicans hold 51 seats.

The requirement would be waived if the government stops using cash collected by Social Security's trust funds for other programs. That probably won't happen for many years because of today's enormous federal deficits.

By law, the trust fund's huge surpluses are invested in Treasury bills. With few exceptions, the cash has been routinely used for other programs for many years.
(snip/...)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/09/national1513EST0670.DTL

[NewHampster]

1. So tell me why do they keep trying?

Oh yeah, Because they're stubborn ass Democrats and we don't give up.

But damn it must be frustrating to know you'll lose every vote to the repug nazis

[tom_paine]

2. Of course they do. That SS money is Bushevik Stealin' Money!

You don't mess with a man's Cash Cow!

[pinto]

3. Hey, Nickles (Rimjob from OK):

you can't "spur" the economy with tax cuts and have economic growth under an enormous deficit...

(from the article)

Republicans argued that their proposal would respond to the needs to defend the country, spur the economy and shrink blossoming federal shortfalls. They contend their budget would halve this year's projected $477 billion deficit -- a record in dollar terms -- by 2007. That assumes that federal revenue will expand through economic growth.

(end)

PS, your budget calls for a $7 billion cut in defense spending. Guess that makes you a traitor, no? Sorry, just asking.

[thexanman]

4. Saw it on C-Span

I watched this for hours on C-Span. Conrad defended his bill valiantly and made some awesome points and had some great graphics. Republican dildos weren't going to vote for it no matter what he said.

[Judi Lynn]

5. He's great. They have absolutely NO ONE of his quality on their side.

Not even close. He really outshines the Republicans, which probably isn't much of a complement. He would stand out, however, in a large body of intelligent men.

He totally knows his material. It's great watching him work, isn't it?

[salin]

6. any non-party votes (e.g., repubs supporting Conrad, and dems against)?