Dig Deeper Texas

Reason #3
Because by cutting taxes he saved you an average of $20 in taxes.

109th Congress, 2nd session, House vote 135 | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com:

This bill extended the Bush administration’s previously passed tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, and spared about 15 million middle-income Americans from the alternative minimum tax.The Washington Post reported that “the tax agreement would cut revenue to the Treasury by $90 billion over the next five years, but other measures would raise about $21 billion — for a net loss to the Treasury of about $69 billion.”

Republican congressional leaders said the bill was essential to sustain economic growth, while Democrats and some Republicans argued the tax cuts would mainly benefit the wealthy and compound the nation’s long-term deficit and debt problems. The budget deficit was expected to exceed $300 billion in 2006. Opponents said the government could not afford the loss of $69 billion in tax revenue over five years.

The Washington Post reported that “middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of $20 from the agreement, according to the joint Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, while 0.02 percent of households with incomes over $1 million would receive average tax cuts of $42,000.”

Reason #4
Yet he’s still concerned about balancing the budget. And it all works out because of the economic stimulus generated by the tax cut will make up for any problems you might have sending your kids to college or paying for a nursing home for your parents.

109th Congress, 2nd session, House vote 4 | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com:

This bill cut nearly $40 billion over five years from the federal budget by imposing substantial changes on welfare, child support and student lending programs. The Washington Post reported that this bill represented “the first effort in nearly a decade to try to slow the growth of entitlement programs, one that will be felt by millions of Americans.”

Decided largely by party line in both the House and the Senate, the bill attempted to slow what Republicans called the runaway growth of entitlement programs. But Democrats objected that women on welfare would face longer hours of work, Medicaid recipients would face higher co-payments and deductibles, and more affluent seniors would find it more difficult to qualify for Medicaid-backed nursing care.

Reason #5
If you believe that market forces alone will sovle the problems of the individual but that corporations sometimes need government help, Bonilla voted your way on the following:

109th Congress, 1st session, House vote 445 | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com:

The Bush administration said this bill’s $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives would spur oil and gas companies to find innovative ways to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution. Supporters also said the bill would lead to the creation of more oil refineries, new oil drilling projects and new nuclear power plants — arguing that all were necessary to meet the nation’s energy needs and reduce importation of foreign oil.

Opponents said the measure amounted to a give-away to large energy companies already flush with cash due to rising oil and gas prices and that it would do little to solve the nation’s energy-related problems. Opponents further argued that the bill could lead to drilling in coastal and other sensitive areas and damage the environment.

Technorati Tags: Henry Bonilla, Bonilla, District 23, Texas Congressional District 23, Sanders amendment, corporate expatriates, Texas, Texas Politics, corporate welfare

Filed under: 2006 general election, Bonilla, Congressional District 23, Corporate Welfare, District 23, Henry Bonilla, San Antonio, bexar county, politics, texas politics