posted on September 30, 2007 10:40:19 AM new
elected? One of their biggest promises/LIES has turned out to be that THEY'D stop the terrible, run away spending that went on during the previous congress' control.
So....just like their FALSE promise to get our troops out of Iraq, and their NEW position after being elected to congress.....now they WON'T promise we won't STILL be in Iraq when their first term would end. [2013]
Funny how they promise one thing and then when elected do just the OPPOSITE of what they promised.
===================
A transcript of President Bush's radio address on Sept. 29.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Good morning.
Today I am signing emergency legislation to fund the Federal government for the next seven weeks.
This legislation was necessary because Congress failed in its most basic responsibility: to pass the spending bills that fund the day-to-day operations of the government.
There are 12 of these bills this year, and Congress did not complete a single one of them, so Congress had to send me a stop-gap measure before the fiscal year ends this Sunday at midnight.
Congress's failure to pass these 12 spending bills is disappointing, but I do thank the Congress for passing this temporary measure, and for passing it without any new spending, new policies or new projects.
It would have been wrong to deny essential government services to the American people while Congress works through its annual spending bills.
I also appreciate the way this bill handles our disagreements over the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Congressional leaders have put forward an irresponsible plan that would dramatically expand this program beyond its original intent. And they know I will veto it.
But it is good that they kept the program running while they try to work out a more responsible approach.
Congress now has more time to complete its work on its annual spending bills.
Earlier this year congressional leaders promised to show that they could be responsible with the people's money.
Unfortunately they seem to have chosen the path of higher spending.
They have proposed spending increases that would add an extra $205 billion on top of my Administration's budget request over the next five years.
There's only one way to pay for such a large spending increase, and that is to raise taxes on the American people.
So it is no surprise that the same Members of Congress who are planning this big increase in Federal spending are also planning the biggest tax increase in American history.
If these members get their way, the tax relief my Administration delivered could be taken away from you. Let me explain what this would mean for an average taxpayer.
If you have children, your taxes would rise by $500 for each child. If you're a family of four making $60,000 a year, your taxes would be more than $1,800 higher.
If you're a single mother with two children, working to make ends meet, your taxes would go up by more than a $1,000. If you're a small business owner working to meet a payroll, your taxes would increase by almost $4,000.
And if Congress allows our tax relief to expire, more than 5 million low-income Americans who currently pay no income taxes would once again have to pay taxes.
These are not the only taxes Congress wants to raise.
They're proposing higher taxes on dividends and capital gains. They're proposing higher taxes on cigars and cigarettes.
They're proposing to raise taxes on domestic oil and natural gas production.
They're proposing new taxes on stock and bond transactions.
And they refuse to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent. If this tax ban expires, it would open the doors for State and local officials to impose new taxes on your access to the Internet.
At a time when many American families are dealing with rising mortgage rates, college costs, and health care expenses, it is wrong to take even more money out of your paychecks.
Washington's elected leaders can do better.
By working together, we can keep taxes low, help keep the economy growing, balance the Federal budget, and build on our record of fiscal discipline and greater economic opportunity for all Americans.
Thank you for listening.
===========================
So much for their phony 'we'll spend less'....'we'll use a paygo system'....LOL LOL LOL
They're FULL of promises...but rarely do they EVER come through on them. NOPE....their motto....RAISE TAXES...while whining about the poor. They're proposals would HURT the poor....and hurt those who have been contributors to our economy moving right along.
Another thing about this congress not being able to get the peoples business done.....it's because they're TOO busy finding every camera they can to bash President Bush. Might be better if they spent their time actually WORKING on what they're SUPPOSED to be doing for those of us who DO pay their paychecks.
Sep 30 12:18 PM US/Eastern
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional Democrats have chosen an unlikely source to pay for the bulk of their proposed $35 billion increase in children's health coverage: people with relatively little money and education.
The program expansion passed by the House and Senate last week would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue.
Democrats, who wrote the legislation and provided most of its votes, generally portray themselves as champions of the poor. They do not dispute that the tax plan would hit poor communities disproportionately, but they say it is worth it to provide health insurance to millions of modest-income children.
All the better, they say, if higher cigarette taxes discourage smoking.
"I'm very happy that we're paying for this," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in an interview Friday, noting that the plan would not add to the deficit. "The health of the children is extremely important," he said. "In the long run, maybe it'll stop people from smoking."
Congress probably will revisit the cigarette tax issue soon because President Bush has pledged to veto the proposed $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The decade-old program helps families buy medical coverage if their income is too high to qualify for Medicaid.
Bush has proposed a more modest growth for the program, and both political parties seem inclined to pay for it through a tax on an unpopular group, cigarette smokers.
By most measures, the average smoker is less privileged than the average nonsmoker. Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers, compared with 23.5 percent of those above the poverty level, according to government statistics.
The American Heart Association reports that 35 percent of people with no more than 11 years of schooling are smokers. Those with 16 or more years of formal education smoke at a 12 percent rate.
Non-Hispanic black men smoke at slightly higher rates than do non- Hispanic white men. But the reverse is true among women.
The demographics of smoking and taxation received scant attention during last week's House and Senate debates, perhaps because many Democrats and Republicans agree that cigarettes are the best target for tax increase if the insurance program were to grow. A few lawmakers, however, took a swing.
"I know there is very little sympathy for smokers these days," Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said during the House debate. "But it is still a tax increase on the backs of the smokers. And in order to get enough money to pay for this, it would require 22 million new smokers."
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., defended putting the burden of expanded medical care on smokers.
"The tobacco tax is a great way to pay for it," he said, "because if you tax people who are smoking and they smoke less, then we have less health problems."
Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., did not buy that logic. "To propose funding a growing program with a declining revenue source is, I would submit, irresponsible fiscal policy," he said.
If the federal cigarette tax nears $1 per pack, smokers in many states will pay hefty sums into government coffers unless they kick their habit. On top of the federal tax, New Jersey levies a $2.57 per pack tax on cigarettes, followed by Rhode Island at $2.46.
California is near the middle, at 87 cents a pack. Three states tax cigarettes at less than 30 cents per pack. South Carolina is the lowest at 7 cents.
Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris USA, based in Richmond, Va., said a steep federal tax increase could accelerate the national decline in smoking to the point that the insurance would have to find other revenue sources.
The average U.S. price of a pack of cigarettes has risen by 80 cents since 1999, Phelps said, largely because of state tax increases. State and federal governments received more than $21 billion in cigarette excise taxes in the 2006 budget year, he said, "so we think this trend is unfair to adults who smoke and to retailers who sell tobacco products."
In Congress, these groups receive little sympathy. But some lawmakers say voters should know the details of the insurance program's proposed funding structure.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who spoke against the bill in last week's debate, said: "The headline ought to read, 'Smokers in America to pay for middle-class welfare.'"
