2003 Tax Cuts Fail in the Senate.

This probably doesn't change much, but suppose for the moment that the Democrats had one extra vote in the Senate in back in 2003. When the tax cuts proposed that year were placed before the Senate historically, the result was a tied vote. The legislation passed thanks to Cheney's tie breaking vote. But let's imagine that there had been one extra vote against the legislation. Instead of a 50/50 tie, it narrowly fails at a 51/49 margin. What, if anything, would be the outcome of that eventuality?
 
This probably doesn't change much, but suppose for the moment that the Democrats had one extra vote in the Senate in back in 2003. When the tax cuts proposed that year were placed before the Senate historically, the result was a tied vote. The legislation passed thanks to Cheney's tie breaking vote. But let's imagine that there had been one extra vote against the legislation. Instead of a 50/50 tie, it narrowly fails at a 51/49 margin. What, if anything, would be the outcome of that eventuality?

It becomes a (bigger) campaign issue in 2004 with minimal success, if any at all. This alone likely won't have significant butterflies for the recession or its aftermath.
 
Would the administration keep trying to pass the legislation? Given the margins, would they conclude that they could pass it on a second attempt? Or would they conclude that since the legislation didn't pass the Senate, it isn't going to pass period?
 
The deficit won't balloon so much.

(Why is it that people who believe in supply-side economics spend so much that any possible increase in tax revenue gets buried? Reagan had the arms buildup, which was justified given the situation, but Bush 2.0 had Iraq.)
 
The deficit won't balloon so much.

(Why is it that people who believe in supply-side economics spend so much that any possible increase in tax revenue gets buried? Reagan had the arms buildup, which was justified given the situation, but Bush 2.0 had Iraq.)

One wonders what the revenue affect of this will be, and conceivably, how much lower the deficit will be.
 
Would the administration keep trying to pass the legislation? Given the margins, would they conclude that they could pass it on a second attempt? Or would they conclude that since the legislation didn't pass the Senate, it isn't going to pass period?

The administration might try to get it passed later, but it won't be precisely the same bill; they will have to pay for it in some way.
 
How significant would this kind of legislative failure be for the administration and the narrative of the Bush Presidency?
 
How significant would this kind of legislative failure be for the administration and the narrative of the Bush Presidency?

Minimal at best. Losing on this issue might actually improve their reputation because the reckless spending won't be quite as severe.
 
Minimal at best. Losing on this issue might actually improve their reputation because the reckless spending won't be quite as severe.

unless not having those percentage point drop offs push those in the lower middle class to start not being able to make their mortgage payments earlier

not having the tax cut may slow down the mega inflation in housing as well
 
unless not having those percentage point drop offs push those in the lower middle class to start not being able to make their mortgage payments earlier

not having the tax cut may slow down the mega inflation in housing as well

Both points are likely true.
 
The United States is much better off economically, with a smaller housing bubble and a smaller debt.

The deficit won't balloon so much.

(Why is it that people who believe in supply-side economics spend so much that any possible increase in tax revenue gets buried? Reagan had the arms buildup, which was justified given the situation, but Bush 2.0 had Iraq.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
The Ryan Plan.
Killing social programs to balance a budget that can't be balanced any other way because defense contractors and the rich will have too much lobbying power by that point.

These are three masks of the same thing.
 
I'm with Wendell here. The deficits are smaller but by single-digit percentages. GWB had two wars, the biggest entitlement expansion since LBJ and a few other things.
 
Top