|
| “
|
If you're trying to figure out what you're reading, this is a summary
memo for a Steny Hoyer requested review of HR 2920 (the PAYGO budget
act). The response was sent to Rep. Hoyer's office yesterday, as a
followup to his request to review an amended version of the bill. I'm
not sure we've seen the 'amended version' released publicly yet.
Obviously the most disconcerting statement in this on page 1:
• The legislation would shift some control over the budget process from the Congress to the executive branch
in ways that could effectively require lawmakers to vote on legislation
without a clear indication of the potential impact of their decisions
on the triggering of a future sequestration.
For
those reaching for the dictionary...a 'sequestration' is basically a
property seizure, for the benefit of creditors, or THE STATE.
So in this case; asset seizure, taxes, etc are the sequestration being
discussed. And it would transfer the power to the executive branch, to
make requests for those sequestrations in such a vague way, that the
Congress may be 'forced' to vote on such without any clear
understanding of what is to be seized.
Abuse of power anyone?
Now on page 3 of the PDF is where it gets more interesting. Take a look at the CBO's 'Scoring to Reflect Current Policy':
Scoring to Reflect “Current Policy.” Both H.R. 2920 as introduced and
the amendment would specify unique scoring rules for legislation
affecting four areas of the budget: 1. Medicare’s “sustainable growth
rate” (SGR) mechanism for paying physicians; 2. The estate and gift
tax; 3. The alternative minimum tax for individuals; and 4. The income
tax cuts enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2003. (more)
|
” |
|
