Friday, June 06, 2003
i want my two dollars!
well, well, well, it looks like senate republicans have hearts after all (excepting of course the honorable mr. nickles and mr. inhofe). now, the bill just needs to get through the house, which might be a bit trickier:
The bill, which would allow 6.5 million minimum-wage families to begin receiving checks of $400 per child, now goes to the House, where its prospects are uncertain. Two senior House Republican officials said today that House leaders would vote for the increased child credit only as part of a much broader tax bill that could cost the Treasury about $100 billion. That could cost the bill Senate support. The Senate bill is projected to pay for itself with increased customs fees and would not come at a cost to the Treasury.
but, what's this? it looks like the senate, in order to sweeten the deal, is now extending the child credit to families making up to $150,000 a year.
Anticipating objections from the House, the bill approved by the Senate today added several more provisions favored by Republicans to the original relief for the minimum-wage families. The most significant would extend the full $1,000 child credit — increased from $600 in the new tax law — in 2010 to married couples making $110,000 to $150,000. Under current law, the credit begins to phase out for couples making $110,000.
The new provision would allow some couples earning up to $200,000 to receive a portion of the tax credit, depending on how many children they have.
keep up the good work, boys. let's see, by my calculations then, the federal coffers should be completely dry by the time bush leaves office.
well, well, well, it looks like senate republicans have hearts after all (excepting of course the honorable mr. nickles and mr. inhofe). now, the bill just needs to get through the house, which might be a bit trickier:
The bill, which would allow 6.5 million minimum-wage families to begin receiving checks of $400 per child, now goes to the House, where its prospects are uncertain. Two senior House Republican officials said today that House leaders would vote for the increased child credit only as part of a much broader tax bill that could cost the Treasury about $100 billion. That could cost the bill Senate support. The Senate bill is projected to pay for itself with increased customs fees and would not come at a cost to the Treasury.
but, what's this? it looks like the senate, in order to sweeten the deal, is now extending the child credit to families making up to $150,000 a year.
Anticipating objections from the House, the bill approved by the Senate today added several more provisions favored by Republicans to the original relief for the minimum-wage families. The most significant would extend the full $1,000 child credit — increased from $600 in the new tax law — in 2010 to married couples making $110,000 to $150,000. Under current law, the credit begins to phase out for couples making $110,000.
The new provision would allow some couples earning up to $200,000 to receive a portion of the tax credit, depending on how many children they have.
keep up the good work, boys. let's see, by my calculations then, the federal coffers should be completely dry by the time bush leaves office.
Thursday, June 05, 2003
ahh, parting is such sweet sorrow
looks like that's it for howell raines. while i think much of the coverage was overblown--spurred as it was by a bunch of right wing screechers--it was definitely time for raines to step down. now, can we possibly get off this subject and worry about something else? like say, the fact that our soldiers continue to get sniped andTHERE'S STILL NO SIGN OF THOSE TERRIFYING WMDS
looks like that's it for howell raines. while i think much of the coverage was overblown--spurred as it was by a bunch of right wing screechers--it was definitely time for raines to step down. now, can we possibly get off this subject and worry about something else? like say, the fact that our soldiers continue to get sniped andTHERE'S STILL NO SIGN OF THOSE TERRIFYING WMDS
that vision thing
okay, i'll try to make this short. calpundit writes:
as much as I like Dean's message and his charisma, I keep reminding myself that his opposition to the war and his lack of credibility on national security make him unelectable.
but i say: credibility? dean don't need no stinkin' credibility. it seems to me that national security falls into two categories: domestic security and foreign policy. i'll try and tackle foreign policy first.
while dean admittedly has very little--if indeed any--"experience" in foreign policy matters, we should note that the same was said of bush during the 2000 election (sure he could pronounce "victor chernomyrdin" without stuttering badly, but that doesn't count). what candidate bush did have, however, was a vision of foreign policy that resonated with the american people--against nation building, for pressuring saddam through sanctions and inspections, and, most importantly, acting humbly on the world stage. now, it's open to debate whether his stated vision has been carried out in practice (after all, "9/11 changed everything"), but the fact remains that people were willing to overlook his paucity of experience because they liked his vision.
now, however, he has a record on which to run, and this can be both beneficial and potentially dangerous. on a number of issues--his penchant for unilateralism; his disdain for international bodies like nato and the u.n.; his radical neo-con influenced agenda in the middle east; the (current) lack of any wmd evidence in iraq; and, most importantly, the long and expensive "nation building" effort we now face in iraq--i believe bush is vulnerable. he is strong however, (and dean is admittedly weak) in his prosecution of the war. but if dean can successfully attack those issues where bush is weak while articulating a foreign policy vision that resonates with the large numbers of americans who are skeptical of to horrified by bush's actions, i think he can become a viable "foreign policy" candidate. of course, it comes down to winning the rhetorical battle, which history has proven is quite a bit easier said then done when running against bush.
next, i'll tackle the domestic security front, where i think bush is even MORE vulnerable.
okay, i'll try to make this short. calpundit writes:
as much as I like Dean's message and his charisma, I keep reminding myself that his opposition to the war and his lack of credibility on national security make him unelectable.
but i say: credibility? dean don't need no stinkin' credibility. it seems to me that national security falls into two categories: domestic security and foreign policy. i'll try and tackle foreign policy first.
while dean admittedly has very little--if indeed any--"experience" in foreign policy matters, we should note that the same was said of bush during the 2000 election (sure he could pronounce "victor chernomyrdin" without stuttering badly, but that doesn't count). what candidate bush did have, however, was a vision of foreign policy that resonated with the american people--against nation building, for pressuring saddam through sanctions and inspections, and, most importantly, acting humbly on the world stage. now, it's open to debate whether his stated vision has been carried out in practice (after all, "9/11 changed everything"), but the fact remains that people were willing to overlook his paucity of experience because they liked his vision.
now, however, he has a record on which to run, and this can be both beneficial and potentially dangerous. on a number of issues--his penchant for unilateralism; his disdain for international bodies like nato and the u.n.; his radical neo-con influenced agenda in the middle east; the (current) lack of any wmd evidence in iraq; and, most importantly, the long and expensive "nation building" effort we now face in iraq--i believe bush is vulnerable. he is strong however, (and dean is admittedly weak) in his prosecution of the war. but if dean can successfully attack those issues where bush is weak while articulating a foreign policy vision that resonates with the large numbers of americans who are skeptical of to horrified by bush's actions, i think he can become a viable "foreign policy" candidate. of course, it comes down to winning the rhetorical battle, which history has proven is quite a bit easier said then done when running against bush.
next, i'll tackle the domestic security front, where i think bush is even MORE vulnerable.
ding ding ding: dean comes out swinging
and it's about time, too. here's what the good doctor had to say about president (cut) tax and spend:
With the President’s proposed budget and the $350 billion tax cut package he is signing today, it has become clear what this President is attempting to do, and why we must repeal the entire package of cuts – both those signed today and those passed in 2001.
It is time to level with the American people. The economic plans put forth by President Bush and the Republican party are a fundamental assault on the basic American ideals that we all share -- an assault on our schools, our health care, our environment and our social security.
I will not go along with it.
The sooner we recognize that this isn't a fight over tax cuts, but a battle for our country's heart, soul and future - the sooner the American people will join our cause.
Let me be clear. The President’s tax cuts are part of a radical agenda to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and our public schools through financial starvation.
In Oregon last week, the state had to close schools three weeks early because there was no money. In New Hampshire this week, the sheriffs made it clear that, because there was no money, they couldn’t provide the basic law enforcement protection communities expect in this time of heightened alerts about terrorism. All across the country, hospitals and health care systems are cutting back – and cities are cutting services because there is no money.
What America needs now is a Democratic Party with the backbone to stand up for fiscal responsibility and against this President's recklessness with the facts, and our future.
No Republican president has balanced the budget in 34 years – and if this president succeeds, no future American president from either party will be able to do so without massive tax increases that will break the backs of the American people – or without destroying Medicare, social security, our schools and even our nation’s security.
My central commitment upon taking office will be to repeal these tax cuts to put our fiscal house in order, and save the very fabric that holds our American community together.
We will not be able to meet our fundamental obligations to teach our children, care for our parents, and defend our nation if we bankrupt our country.
If we fail to defeat this President and end his radical agenda, we will have lost the central ideal proclaimed from one American generation to the next throughout our history: “We are one nation, and we are all in this together.”
i especially like that last part about losing fundamental american ideals, not only because he's right, but because i think it's an area where president gordon gecko is vulnerable. (more on that to come, as well as a respectful difference of opinion with calpundit on dean's electability and lack of foreign policy creds)
and it's about time, too. here's what the good doctor had to say about president (cut) tax and spend:
With the President’s proposed budget and the $350 billion tax cut package he is signing today, it has become clear what this President is attempting to do, and why we must repeal the entire package of cuts – both those signed today and those passed in 2001.
It is time to level with the American people. The economic plans put forth by President Bush and the Republican party are a fundamental assault on the basic American ideals that we all share -- an assault on our schools, our health care, our environment and our social security.
I will not go along with it.
The sooner we recognize that this isn't a fight over tax cuts, but a battle for our country's heart, soul and future - the sooner the American people will join our cause.
Let me be clear. The President’s tax cuts are part of a radical agenda to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and our public schools through financial starvation.
In Oregon last week, the state had to close schools three weeks early because there was no money. In New Hampshire this week, the sheriffs made it clear that, because there was no money, they couldn’t provide the basic law enforcement protection communities expect in this time of heightened alerts about terrorism. All across the country, hospitals and health care systems are cutting back – and cities are cutting services because there is no money.
What America needs now is a Democratic Party with the backbone to stand up for fiscal responsibility and against this President's recklessness with the facts, and our future.
No Republican president has balanced the budget in 34 years – and if this president succeeds, no future American president from either party will be able to do so without massive tax increases that will break the backs of the American people – or without destroying Medicare, social security, our schools and even our nation’s security.
My central commitment upon taking office will be to repeal these tax cuts to put our fiscal house in order, and save the very fabric that holds our American community together.
We will not be able to meet our fundamental obligations to teach our children, care for our parents, and defend our nation if we bankrupt our country.
If we fail to defeat this President and end his radical agenda, we will have lost the central ideal proclaimed from one American generation to the next throughout our history: “We are one nation, and we are all in this together.”
i especially like that last part about losing fundamental american ideals, not only because he's right, but because i think it's an area where president gordon gecko is vulnerable. (more on that to come, as well as a respectful difference of opinion with calpundit on dean's electability and lack of foreign policy creds)
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
boy do those wingtips taste good
looks like hoof-in-mouth-disease ridden paul wolfowitz has done it again. south knox bubba has the goods from the guardian, but here's, as dandy andy would say, the money quote (is that anything like the money shot?):
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
okay, okay, so maybe the quote was taken slightly out of context, but what i want to know is whether wolfie was salivating noticeably when he said it.
looks like hoof-in-mouth-disease ridden paul wolfowitz has done it again. south knox bubba has the goods from the guardian, but here's, as dandy andy would say, the money quote (is that anything like the money shot?):
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
okay, okay, so maybe the quote was taken slightly out of context, but what i want to know is whether wolfie was salivating noticeably when he said it.
can't post...blogger refusing...is it a republican conspiracy?
doug feith, purveyor of truth
imagine that, doug feith saying the entire flap over echo-chamber intelligence analysis is, surprise surprise, completely unfounded.
The senior official, Douglas Feith, said he felt compelled to rebut inaccurate and "hyped" news accounts that were gaining "the status of urban legends," even though many of them amounted to "a goulash of inaccuracies."
(snip)
Mr. Feith said that, contrary to some suggestions by journalists, the Bush administration's evaluation of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was not markedly different from those of previous administrations. He cited a statement by former President Bill Clinton in 1998 that Iraq was concealing chemical and biological weapons, and a 1999 report by United Nations weapons inspectors that large stores of weapons in Iraq were unaccounted for.
excellent job, doug. you even managed to get a subtle clinton dig in. here's a cookie. but, riddle me this, my friend, if the intel was so good, then why the hell haven't we found any wmd's yet?????
imagine that, doug feith saying the entire flap over echo-chamber intelligence analysis is, surprise surprise, completely unfounded.
The senior official, Douglas Feith, said he felt compelled to rebut inaccurate and "hyped" news accounts that were gaining "the status of urban legends," even though many of them amounted to "a goulash of inaccuracies."
(snip)
Mr. Feith said that, contrary to some suggestions by journalists, the Bush administration's evaluation of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was not markedly different from those of previous administrations. He cited a statement by former President Bill Clinton in 1998 that Iraq was concealing chemical and biological weapons, and a 1999 report by United Nations weapons inspectors that large stores of weapons in Iraq were unaccounted for.
excellent job, doug. you even managed to get a subtle clinton dig in. here's a cookie. but, riddle me this, my friend, if the intel was so good, then why the hell haven't we found any wmd's yet?????
ahhh, blogger, i see you want to eff with me. well, so be it. i shall not be deterred.
"there is a great disturbance in the blogosphere..."
i have arrived. officer blog is here, broadcasting from the lighthouse to bring light and truth to the blogosphere. it is my job, nay my sacred duty, to rail against the excrement and filth that spewth forth from the foul orifices of conservative bloggers. too long have i lain silent, reading the unceasing mental vomit that these so-called conservative pundits put forth for their audience to lap up like rats. but no more! the battle has been joined, you're either with us or against us, and, make no mistake, WE SHALL BE VICTORIOUS.
so let's get down to it. looks like president judge and enforcer is working on getting everyone on board with his "roadmap." so what's the over-under on how fast the admin turns tail and runs when the shit inevitably hits the fan? a year? six months? a week?
i have arrived. officer blog is here, broadcasting from the lighthouse to bring light and truth to the blogosphere. it is my job, nay my sacred duty, to rail against the excrement and filth that spewth forth from the foul orifices of conservative bloggers. too long have i lain silent, reading the unceasing mental vomit that these so-called conservative pundits put forth for their audience to lap up like rats. but no more! the battle has been joined, you're either with us or against us, and, make no mistake, WE SHALL BE VICTORIOUS.
so let's get down to it. looks like president judge and enforcer is working on getting everyone on board with his "roadmap." so what's the over-under on how fast the admin turns tail and runs when the shit inevitably hits the fan? a year? six months? a week?
