 |
|
November
7, 2002 8:45 a.m.
Getting
to Sixty
Taxes
in the new Senate.
|
|
he new Senate
will be more definitively Republican than the one that existed for a few
months in 2001, and thus on paper Republicans may seem to be in a stronger
position than at any time since the early Eisenhower administration (the
last time they had this many senators, a House majority, and the presidency).
But that doesn't mean it will be easy to enact the Republicans' agenda
— even on the items that President Bush campaigned most insistently
this fall.
Republican candidates
were reasonably effective in advocating that Bush's 2001 tax cuts, which
are set to expire at the end of the decade, be made permanent. But making
them permanent will take more than 51 votes in the Senate. It will take
60. That's because current budget rules preclude any tax cut that lasts
longer than the period of a budget resolution. That's why the Bush tax
cut had to be time-limited in the first place. (Under the rules, permanent
tax hikes don't have to pass such a high bar.)
Pete Domenici, who
will be the Senate Budget Committee chairman, prefers budget resolutions
in the five-year range. Theoretically, however, says a Republican Senate
aide, the Congress could pass a budget, and thus a tax cut, for 20 years
— or 200 years. ("But in that case, Democrats would be able
to say that the tax cut would cost $98 trillion.")
One tax cut that
might get 60 votes in the new Senate is the proposal to make the repeal
of the estate tax permanent — a cause championed by Chris Cox in
the House and Jon Kyl in the Senate. The House passed that proposal this
year. In the Senate, it got 54 votes. Two other supporters of repeal in
the Senate missed the vote, making for 56 supporters in total. (It would
have been 57 if John McCain hadn't switched sides on the issue.)
Mark Pryor, the new
Democratic senator from Arkansas, says on his campaign website that he
supports permanent repeal, so his victory doesn't reduce that total. Max
Cleland, the Georgia Democrat, supported permanent repeal, too, so his
defeat by a Republican doesn't add to the total. Jim Talent and Norm Coleman,
however, represent two additional votes for repeal. Tim Johnson, the South
Dakota Democrat, has voted on both sides of the issue. So there are now
58 hard votes for repeal.
Can Republicans win
a few more votes from Democrats — perhaps those up for reelection
in farm states in 2004? Tom Daschle can presumably be ruled out.
A
SAFE PREDICTION
President Bush has so far vetoed no bills, partly because his advisers
did not see how Republican could win a political fight over a veto when
the legislation in question would have had to pass the Republican House.
It seems very likely that Republicans will continue to hold the Senate
and House for the rest of his term, and thus that President Bush will
not veto any legislation during this term.
The last president
to issue no vetoes was James Garfield, but he lasted only six months in
office before being assassinated. There were no vetoes during the Fillmore,
Taylor, or William Henry Harrison administrations, either. Van Buren had
one pocket veto. The last president to serve a full term without issuing
any vetoes was John Quincy Adams, who was also the last president's son
to serve in the office.
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
