Friday, February 24, 2006
Tax Cuts and Mandatory Payouts
A couple of weeks ago, I suggested that everyone who blogs or comments on blogs should take the same time to write at least one MSM outlet about the administration's inflated aid claims. Also, said that I received at least an attentive response form Deborah Howell (the WAPO's ombudsman). I just noticed that Deborah Howell forwarded a response from a reprter on the story the same day--I rarely use that gmail account. Unlike yahoo or hotmail, gmail bundles together all responses to same mail, still can't believe I missed it-- so I just responded this afternoon. But am I missing something? I don't like posting emails without permission, especially since I didn't write as a blogger, but the following seems like it would be okay to post:
There is debate as the writer states over whether the administration ought
to be credited for money spent under a mandatory program like flood
insurance, which is owed to insurance holders regardless of congressional
action.
There is also debate over whether tax cuts should be counted as aid.
In both cases, however, the impact on taxpayers and the budget is real, in
a truth-in-budgeting sense.
A final wrinkle is, regarding the $17B in flood insurance borrowing
authority, that the administration has not yet disclosed if it plans to use
some of the $18B supplemental it has requested to pay off some of that
borrowing. If so, it's a stronger argument to count such dollars as new
aid, although the underlying argument the writer raises is not changed. An
explanation on this last point is expected next week
A couple of points. As I said I just replied to Ms. Howell to forward to Mr. Hsu this afternoon, so no response as of yet. The numbers seem to be off slightly--it was $67B+18B, not 68B+17B. I have to agree on the tax cuts, much as I hate to say it. The budget impact is the same with tax cuts as direct spending, although I would like to see the numbers get enough scrutiny that the Republicans actually had to acknowledge that. I've avoided the issue, even though I think it's the stupidest way to give the aid, because it is money out of the entire nation's budget.
Can someone explain to me how the flood insurance money is the same? Yes, it's money out of the federal budget just as the actual aid is, but as the reporter says:
which is owed to insurance holders regardless of congressional
action.
It's not an optional expense. So, yes, it is money out of the federal budget that goes to the Gulf South, but so is my mother's social security check. My tax refund will be also. I suspect that reporters often over analyze in the interest of balance, at least that's what I make of that last paragraph. It's been two weeks and I don't believe we've heard an explanation of the last point about the supplemental yet.
modified 2/27: names taken out, to avoid quoting without permission.
There is debate as the writer states over whether the administration ought
to be credited for money spent under a mandatory program like flood
insurance, which is owed to insurance holders regardless of congressional
action.
There is also debate over whether tax cuts should be counted as aid.
In both cases, however, the impact on taxpayers and the budget is real, in
a truth-in-budgeting sense.
A final wrinkle is, regarding the $17B in flood insurance borrowing
authority, that the administration has not yet disclosed if it plans to use
some of the $18B supplemental it has requested to pay off some of that
borrowing. If so, it's a stronger argument to count such dollars as new
aid, although the underlying argument the writer raises is not changed. An
explanation on this last point is expected next week
A couple of points. As I said I just replied to Ms. Howell to forward to Mr. Hsu this afternoon, so no response as of yet. The numbers seem to be off slightly--it was $67B+18B, not 68B+17B. I have to agree on the tax cuts, much as I hate to say it. The budget impact is the same with tax cuts as direct spending, although I would like to see the numbers get enough scrutiny that the Republicans actually had to acknowledge that. I've avoided the issue, even though I think it's the stupidest way to give the aid, because it is money out of the entire nation's budget.
Can someone explain to me how the flood insurance money is the same? Yes, it's money out of the federal budget just as the actual aid is, but as the reporter says:
which is owed to insurance holders regardless of congressional
action.
It's not an optional expense. So, yes, it is money out of the federal budget that goes to the Gulf South, but so is my mother's social security check. My tax refund will be also. I suspect that reporters often over analyze in the interest of balance, at least that's what I make of that last paragraph. It's been two weeks and I don't believe we've heard an explanation of the last point about the supplemental yet.
modified 2/27: names taken out, to avoid quoting without permission.
Comments:
<< Home
Just starting out and want to learn. Thanks for the help.
- www.blogger.com e
phentermine
Post a Comment
- www.blogger.com e
phentermine
# posted by 
: 11:19 AM
: 11:19 AM << Home
