Boozman

From The Washington Times:

The Associated Press picks up on a story the House GOP has warned the American people about: a delay in tax returns for millions of Americans.

The culprit: a lack of an Alternative Minimum Tax patch.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Silena Davis had counted on an early tax refund to pay for getting her teeth fixed. Now, because Congress has dawdled all year on a tax bill, she and millions of other early filers could have to wait extra weeks for refunds that last year averaged $2,291.

The Internal Revenue Service is looking hard at delaying the start of its filing season, set to kick off on Jan. 14, if Congress fails to pass legislation in the next two weeks. At issue is how to handle what could be a dramatic increase in the number of people facing a higher alternative minimum tax.

If there is a delay and it extends into mid-February, it would slow nearly 32 million refunds worth a total of about $87 billion, the IRS Oversight Board predicts.

The House passed its own version of the temporary, one-year, patch of the AMT - paying for it with a $70 billion permanent tax increase. Rep. Boozman voted against the plan. The 130% tax increase is also DOA in the Senate, where even some Democrats have balked at it.

The alternative minimum tax was passed in 1969 and was aimed at about 155 very wealthy families who used deductions to avoid paying any federal income tax. The AMT disallows certain deductions and credits. It was not adjusted for inflation; as a result, over the years it has hit a growing number of middle-income taxpayers.

More than 4 million were subject to it in the 2006 tax year, and that could soar to 25 million this year without congressional action.

The House needs to pass a patch which doesn’t increase taxes and does not violate the PAYGO rules a bipartisan majority of members voted on in January.

Remember when there were promises of a five-day workweek?

We do.

Apparently a campaign promise is cramping the style of, uh well, the next campaign.

“We have a long list of meetings that can’t be scheduled because I’m never back in the district,” said freshman Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.). “Part of it is related to the campaign, and part is simply doing my job back at home.”

And now, the man who promised the five-day workweek has announced long weekends for the whole of October.

Last week, Hoyer appeared before a meeting of Democratic lawmakers and said there would be a minor respite in the schedule: The House would hold no votes on Fridays in October. And the announcement drew applause and laughter.

Some promises are apparently more important than others.

First, we thought “scoreboards never lie.” Turns out, that was incorrect.

Next we were found of the phrase “let the record show.”

Turns out the Congressional Record (the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress) doesn’t show it all.

On Friday, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said “enough is enough,” expressing frustration with a parliamentary move by Republicans. In other words, engaging in debate over the parliamentary effort attempting to be undertaken by the minority.

Or did he?

The Congressional Record doesn’t seem to record that quote.

b 2100
The SPEAKER pro tempore: The resolution constitutes a question of privilege.

MOTION TO TABLE
Mr. HOYER: Madam Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

POINT OF ORDER
Mr. BOEHNER: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order that the gentleman
from Maryland engaged in debate.

The SPEAKER pro tempore: The question is on the motion to table.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. BOEHNER: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.

Mr. BOEHNER: Madam Speaker, isn’t it correct that the gentleman from Maryland engaged in debate, which allows the House to then proceed with up to 1 hour of debate on this resolution?

The SPEAKER pro tempore: The gentleman was not recognized as the Chair had not yet ruled that the resolution constituted a question of privilege. The question is on the motion to table.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. BOEHNER: Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Let’s go to the video!!!

For those who missed it, we’ve generously provided a transcript of the video:

Speaker Pro Tem (Rep. Ellen Tauscher): For what purpose does the gentleman from Maryland rise?

Rep. Hoyer: Madam Speaker, enough is enough.

Rep. Tauscher: [to the Parliamentarian] Does the what?

Rep. Tauscher: Does the gentleman have an amendment?

Rep. Hoyer: Madam Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Rep. Tauscher: The resolution…

Rep. Boehner: Madam Speaker! [no answer] Madam Speaker! [no answer] Madam Speaker! [no answer] Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The gentleman from Maryland engaged in debate…

Rep. Tauscher: The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor say aye…

Rep. Boehner: Parliamentary inquiry! [no answer] Parliamentary inquiry! [no answer] Parliamentary inquiry! [no answer] Parliamentary inquiry! [no answer]

Rep. Tauscher: All those opposed say no. All those opposed say aye.

Rep. Boehner: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker! [no answer] Parliamentary inquiry! [no answer] Parliamentary inquiry! [no answer] Parliamentary inquiry!

Rep. Tauscher: The Leader will be heard.

Rep. Boehner: Madam Speaker, isn’t it correct that the gentleman from Maryland engaged in debate, which allows the House to then proceed for up to one hour of debate on this resolution?

Rep. Tauscher: The Chair did not yet rule that the question constitutes a question of privilege. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say no. In the opinion of chair, the ayes have it.

Rep. Boehner: Madam Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

So much for the “most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”

Remember, “We control this House. Not the Parliamentarian.”

BTW, style points to you if you know where the title quote came from.

Do-nothing Congress + Fiscal Irresponsibility + Increased Taxes + Broken Promises =

Interesting statistics just came across our desk…

Remember this quote?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “We will work together to lead the House of Representatives with a commitment to … fiscal responsibility.”

As of today, House Republicans have offered 14 amendments to reduce Democrat spending increases on the 6 appropriations bills considered so far this year. Of the 3,216 Democrat votes cast on those amendments, 3,097 were ‘NO’ votes.

That works to a whopping 96%.

Even Democrats Chafe Under Democrat Broken Promises

(And On the House Floor, No Less)

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), the longest-serving woman in the House: “Today I urge my colleagues to vote ‘no’ on the Andean trade agreement, H.R. 1830, which, strangely, will be brought up under suspension — which means no debate and no amendment. I thought voters put new Democratic leadership in charge of this House to stop deals such as this being done in this way.” (House floor remarks, 6/27/07)

Click the button below to watch Rep. Kaptur criticize her own leadership on the House floor, a leadership that promised “to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent…” (Rep. Steny Hoyer, Washington Times, 11/25/2006)

1:22 a.m. EDT.

Motion to Rise #7

Pork Rules

Roll Call Editorial
June 13, 2007

Under furious attack from editorial writers and Republicans, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) has come up with a new disclosure policy on earmarks. It’s better than his previous one — the “air-drop” policy — but it’s a far cry from full transparency.

In a remarkable press conference Monday in which he read nearly every word of a 14-page earmark policy declaration before taking questions, Obey pledged that Democrats would fully disclose every earmark and its sponsor by the end of July.

That kind of disclosure would be only partially in keeping with the earmark rules Republicans put into place in September — after they got into no end of political trouble for corrupt, opaque special-interest pork trading. But the GOP rule made it possible for earmarks to be individually challenged during debate on appropriations bills.

This year, despite promises to run the most open and honest House ever, Democrats began by making sure that no challenges would be in order if Obey certified that a bill was free of earmarks.

On top of that, late last month Obey announced that earmarks would not be included in House bills this year, but would be inserted (air-dropped) into House-Senate conference reports — which, of course, are not amendable. He blamed Republicans for making the policy necessary — specifically, their failure to pass appropriations bills last year, necessitating time-consuming work this year on a continuing resolution and the Iraq War supplemental.

Practically no one bought the excuse. It was denounced by Republicans and editorialists as a gross violation of Democratic promises, a “gutting” of GOP reforms, a retreat into secret dealings and a guarantee of fiscal and ethical abuse. As the House began processing four appropriations bills this week, Republicans promised to resort to obstructionist tactics to protest Obey’s lack of openness.

So, on Monday, he announced the new policy: Earmarks will be fully disclosed prior to the August recess, after House voting but before House-Senate conferences, and may be challenged by writing a letter to the Appropriations Committee. After considering defenses from their sponsors, Obey will decide whether to put earmarks into conference reports. There still will be no votes on the issue.

Obey reiterated this system was necessitated by time constraints that made it impossible to vet 32,000 earmark requests before upcoming votes on appropriations bills. Asked if he would revert to a policy of full and early disclosure next year, he said he wanted to but couldn’t rule out the possibility that specific circumstances would arise.

That simply isn’t good enough. Obey should not only be disclosing all earmarks before House voting, but all earmark requests. Earmarks should be open to public vetting, full debate and floor challenge.

Obey threatened that if Republicans continued to “demagogue” and “politicize” the earmark issue, “There will be no earmarks for anybody.” He asserted that Republicans truly were upset only that he was shrinking the volume of special-interest projects. Do we believe this? There’s one way to judge — fully disclose all earmark requests so everyone can see who wants what pork.