-Caveat Lector-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24169-2003Apr3.html
washingtonpost.com

Humpty on the House Floor

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Friday, April 4, 2003; Page A21

A strange thing happened in the House of Representatives on April Fools'
Day. Republicans repudiated their own budget. But in the fog of war, the
news was lost entirely.

The incident reveals much about what's wrong with passing radical
measures with so little debate. House Republican leaders figured that the
parliamentary maneuvers were so complicated and the focus on Iraq so
intense that the episode would get practically no media coverage. They
were right. That's why it's important to examine what happened.

On a nearly party-line vote, the House passed a budget that includes $1.4
trillion in tax cuts, $726 billion of which are protected under Congress's
"reconciliation" process. To make a long story short, the protected tax
cuts will in principle be easier to pass because Democrats will not be able
to filibuster them in the Senate.

The GOP budget also includes $265 billion in cuts for veterans' programs,
Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, student loans and a slew of other
matters.

The Senate, on the other hand, reduced that $726 billion tax cut to $350
billion, and it did not include the House's deep budget cuts.

The Senate and House now need to work out their differences. On
Tuesday Rep. John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat and his party's leader
on budget issues, introduced a motion to "instruct" House conferees to
restore $212 billion of the proposed budget cuts and reduce the tax cut
by that amount. His motion further instructed the House to give way to
the Senate's smaller tax cut figure. As the Democrats read it, their motion
would reduce the tax cut by about $600 billion.

Rep. Jim Nussle, the Iowa Republican who chairs the House Budget
Committee, would have none of it. He gave a lengthy speech denouncing
Spratt and the Democrats for being unwilling to confront "waste and abuse
in this government."

Then the peculiar thing happened. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
walked onto the floor and decided that the Democratic proposal didn't say
what its authors said it said. The Texas Republican ignored the second half
of Spratt's instruction and insisted that it called for reducing the $726
billion House tax cut by only $212 billion. "The Democrats are suggesting
that we have a $514 billion tax relief package," DeLay said, "and I think we
could do a lot with that."

Over and over, Spratt insisted that DeLay was flat wrong about what the
motion meant. But Republicans embraced DeLay's magic words and were
free to vote for a proposal that repudiated their budget. Spratt's
instruction passed 399 to 22.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."

-- Lewis Carroll,

"Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"

Why did the shrewd DeLay rely on Humpty Dumpty's logic? Because Spratt
was on the verge of winning, DeLay had to pretend that a defeat was a
victory. "They no longer had the votes to defeat our motion," said Thomas
Kahn, the Democrats' staff director on the Budget Committee, "because
the cuts we were striking were so unpopular."

Republicans are especially sensitive to complaints from veterans' groups
during wartime. Last month the top commanders of the American Legion,
Veterans of Foreign Wars and Disabled American Veterans wrote House
leaders to complain that "cutting already underfunded veterans' programs
to offset the costs of tax cuts is indefensible and callous."

Parliamentary procedure may well allow Republicans to ignore this vote.
But even DeLay couldn't dispute the fact that the House went on the
record as abandoning almost all of the budget cuts that Nussle, with some
honesty, had pushed through. Faced with a clear tradeoff between
programs and tax cuts, Republicans voted for the programs. Which leads to
the question: Do they really mean what they say they mean?

These tax proposals represent not a short-term stimulus to the economy
but a radical change over time in the ability of government to finance
basic services. If the advocates of big tax cuts are unwilling to be candid
about how they would cut government, they should not be pushing
through a radical program on the basis of two- or three-vote margins in the
House and Senate. It was Jefferson who argued that you should not
undertake great departures on slender majorities.

Moderate Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can stop this. They
can hold the line on behalf of their still excessive but more modest tax
cut. They have to decide whether to stand with Jefferson -- or Humpty
Dumpty.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures.  Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.  Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sutra

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to