Even majority rule has it's failings

Remember when a Hastert spokesman said recently, "It's extremely difficult to govern when you control all three branches of government?"

Here's furthur proof. The New York Times reports that Republicans are pondering not passing a budget at all this year.

Embarrassing as that would be for the party that controls both houses of Congress, many Republicans are concluding they would be better off with no budget plan than with one that would require them to pay the cost of permanently extending last year's tax cuts.

What's the problem? Those darned Bush tax cuts, that's what. Democrats and four Republicans are demanding a rule stating a tax cut must be matched with a spending cut, something which would all but kill the attempts to make the tax cuts permanent. Unless the NEA is scheduled 1.7 trillion over the next ten years, and the Republicans can hold their majority, neither of which seem likely.

Or better yet, we can break the backs of the middle and lower class!

According to the study, by the Tax Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than three-quarters of all households would end up net losers if the government actually paid for the tax cuts by either spending cuts or other tax increases.

But the wealthiest one-fifth of families, who are by far the biggest beneficiaries of the tax cuts, would end up big winners.

"We should think of tax cuts as loans, not as grants, and in particular as loans that are not paid back by the same people who get them," said William G. Gale, a senior economist at the Tax Policy Center.

Maybe on top of the federal tax withheld each pay period, the government could take out around 25% for the wealthy, too. They probably know what's best for us anyway.