On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:16 AM, John Williams wrote: > It's one of dozens of tax breaks benefiting Hollywood producers, > stock-car racetrack owners and Virgin Islands rum- makers included > in the broader legislation in an effort to win support from House > Republicans, whose defection contributed to a rejection of an > earlier version of the legislation two days ago on a 228-205 vote. > > ``This is how Washington works,'' said Keith Ashdown, chief > investigator at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington research > group. ``A big pot of pork is their recipe for final passage.''
I haven't read the bill (at 451 pages, I doubt that anyone but some poor staffers have), but as I hear reports about how it is crammed with tax cuts, I can't help but wonder about the logic of a three- quarters of a billion dollar _spending_ bill that if full of provisions that will make it harder to actually _pay_ for it. Yes, I understand that this is an oversimplification (anything short of reading the entire bill and responding point-by-point to each paragraph of each provision is simplification), and I understand that the bill may not end up being a _spending_ bill at all, if the "securities" that we buy can eventually be sold without a loss, but the logic of agreeing to pony up $700B while arranging to decrease the nation's income escapes me. Perhaps the provisions involving the AMT, which may put some more money in consumers' hands and perhaps have some stimulating effect, make sense, but the idea of further increasing the federal deficit and loading more debt on future generations rankles. Dave Hold Your Nose and Vote maru _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
