The subject of this article is that Republicans value tax cuts over balanced budgets.

Of course, that's not what Carl Hulse thinks the subject is. Fucking process articles.

The Senate rejected on a 50-to-50 tie a proposal to restore what are known as "pay-go" rules, a requirement that tax cuts and some new spending be approved by 60 votes or offset by budget savings or revenue increases.
...
But Republicans said the push to add the rules to the budget was a back-door effort to make it harder to extend President Bush's tax cuts.

"The practical effect of this is to raise taxes," said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire and chairman of the Budget Committee.

There is no way to balance the budget through cuts in domestic discretionary spending alone. Can't happen. The article, though, just says that cutting spending is politically difficult, which implies that Republicans could do it, only they can't get it together.

Aware that Republican voters favor lower spending, Republicans want to appear responsive, and yet the leadership does not want to push too far and cause problems for lawmakers in difficult re-election fights. The leaders also want to give the administration what it seeks for its military operations. And, as the vote on the budget rules showed, they do not want to impair their ability to deliver popular tax cuts.

Double fucking process articles. "Republicans want to appear responsive?" Who said so? Does the leadership say it does not want to "push too far?" Somebody said this pap on background, but without knowing who, it's all pretty much meaningless. Hey Carl, how big is the deficit, in dollars? How big are the cuts proposed to domestic discretionary spending? How big are the tax cuts?


Tags: politics, budget, tax cuts, Carl Hulse, Judd Gregg, journalism