Point well taken, Jim- but the way I read it, it seems that the overall reduction in rate that Bush is proposing is the carrot to help overcome the pressure that will inevitably push back against the closing of loopholes. Whether or not it works out that way will remain to be seen.

I will point out though, that if what you are saying is true, it also seems that Bush wants to close those loopholes that allow some corps to pay less. Making the tax code more transparent and less exploitable seems like a good thing on balance, if that’s what he’s proposing.

My understanding about the flaw in the Bush claims about how our corporations aren’t competitive because of taxes is that the claim is based on the official rate as opposed to what they actually pay once all of the tax breaks they get are accounted for. If the claims of being revenue neutral are based upon this same false claim then it is questionable whether it really will be revenue neutral or not.

He also proposed a much more modest increase in the SCHIP program than what Congress is putting forth. As far as I can tell, the objection to the huge increases makes a good bit of sense: first of all, it’s incorrect to say that the bills in Congress are to cover children when many of the new people added to the eligible group are adults. Second, what’s being proposed is that some states would extend eligibility to families of much higher incomes than before, due to higher cost of living in their states. It seems to me that a state with higher cost of living would also have a higher tax base among its own residents and should be able to fund additional families’ insurance with revenue from their own citizens rather than looking to other states to finance this. I’m not sure what the precedent is with other programs; does anyone know, for example, if TANF funding is indexed to varied cost of living in different states? If not, then why should this be different? If it is, then maybe the Democratic proposal is consistent and I will rethink my position on it. My gut feeling is that we should split the difference so that federal funds make up some of the shortfall for states with greater need but the states pick up half the bill as well.

If you read the stories linked by Joe, you’d see that even Republicans in Congress object to the President’s position on funding health care for those poor children.

No one has said we need to raise corporate taxes to pay for the childrens healthcare or that if it gets defeated its because we lowered corporate taxes and now couldn’t afford it. Thats not whats beind said.

Oh really? That’s not what is implied by the snarky headline of this story?

What IS being said is Bush doesn’t think 3.2 million children getting insured is important enough to warrant the gov’t doing something about it.

It’s just as bad or worse to frame Bush’s position in that way. I didn’t think it was right when his administration framed opponents of his Iraq War policy as being unserious about national defense, and I don’t think it’s right for those who want an immigration reform bill to pass to decry members of both parties as “not caring enough” about that issue when they’re unable to come to an agreement and pass legislation on it. Disagreeing with one particular approach to a problem DOES NOT prove a lack of caring about the problem itself, and that absurd breach of logic is one of the main problems in our political discussions and a major cause of bitter partisanship.

What IS being said is Bush doesn’t think 3.2 million children getting insured is important enough to warrant the gov’t doing something about it. At the same time he wants to make a change in corporate taxes thats “Revenue neutral”. If you believe that one I have a bridge to sell you. You call it a stereotype but dammit right now the Dems are trying to help children get insurance while Bush is backing big business instead. Its right there out in the open.

I am perfectly willing to let everyone reading this thread decide for themselves if I’ve been dishonest.

If one wants to argue that we need tax increases or tax restructuring that results in an overall revenue increase in order to afford expansion of programs, that is a different thing altogether.

Thus, my position is that honest discussions of priorities are fair game. The goal post shifting came in when the point was being stretched from the idea of not RAISING taxes to the idea that Bush waants to LOWER corporate taxes. And you can’t tell me that you don’t honestly see that people conflating those two things is a reinforcement of stereotypes- “Dems are trying to help the children while GOP only cares about big business interests!”

You can always connect dots as every budget decision is a matter of priorities. The way people choose to connect them reveals their underlying biases though. Funny I haven’t heard anyone crying about how the Dems chose to take money from senior citizens to fund the SCHIP expansion, or that it is diverting money that we need to fix our “crumbling infrastructure”. If you honestly think we need to expand the tax base and cover ALL of thoe things, then be upfront and say so. Personally I think that we could find a lot of waste in the budget to cover many needs, and if that’s not enough then a reasonable tax increase is in order- but not necessarily on corporations since we’re kidding ourselves if we think that those taxes don’t affect working class citizens.

The connection between the two of them is, as Chris says, a matter of what the President’s priorities are.

I don’t see how anyone is moving the goalposts by pointing that out.

Truflo: To paraphrase your comment: Why can’t we all agree that the Dems bill to increase healthcare coverage is good by default because Dems are the good guys, and Bush’s tax proposals are bad by default because everyone knows he’s evil? And since he’s now so unpopular that this is what the general public will believe anyway, why should we waste time talking about the details?

But again, this article is about priorities, and it’s clear to see where Bush’s priorities are.

Are you saying it’s not a tax cut proposal?

Subtleties aside, most voters will see this simply as big business first, kids last and everyone else can go kiss my….

I swear, the next eighteen months are going to feel like a goddamn lifetime.