"Dave Burton" <webmaster@mooregop.org> wrote:

> > > > "Rep. John M. Blust" wrote:
> > > > > The fact is that Morgan did not "protect" the child credit or marriage
> > > > > penalty relief as he and his acolytes have claimed ... The marriage penalty
> > > > > relief and the child credit were already scheduled to go into effect without
> > > > > any action by the Morgan/Black tax-increasing budget. ... These two features
> > > > > of tax relief were already by law to take effect on July 1, 2003 without
> > > > > any action!!!  ....
> > > >
> > > > That is true, except that the Senate Democrats amended the
> > > > budget to delay both of these tiny tax cuts for two more years,
> > > > and also to restrict eligibility for the child tax credit to
> > > > kids 16 and under (down from then-current law, which was
> > > > 23-and-under for students, 18-and-under for non-students).
> > > >
> > > > The conferees reconciled the two versions by keeping the
> > > > Senate's child credit eligibility age reduction, but keeping
> > > > the House's implementation schedule.
> > > >
> > > > So the Morganistas' claim that Morgan protected the child
> > > > tax credit is simply false.  We did NOT get the child tax
> > > > credit that was enacted in 2001 for 2002, and then delayed
> > > > in 2002 by one more year.  We got a weaker one for which fewer
> > > > kids qualify, and that restriction in eligibility is a
> > > > PERMANENT change in the tax code.
> > > >
> > > > However, it is NOT a lie to claim that Morgan protected
> > > > the marriage penalty reduction.  Yes, it was already in law.
> > > > But the Senate wanted to delay it two years, and the House
> > > > refused to agree to that delay.  So I would admit that
> > > > it is at least plausible that Morgan is responsible for
> > > > "protecting" the marriage penalty reduction from being
> > > > delayed again by the Senate Democrats.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the Senate's version:
> > > > http://www.ncleg.net/html2003/bills/AllVersions/House/H397v7.html
> > > > (search for "105-151.24" or "credit for children")
> > > > Here's the House's version:
> > > > http://www.ncleg.net/html2003/bills/AllVersions/House/H397vc.html
> > > >
> > > > However, the scale of this victory is pretty pathetic.  The
> > > > tax difference (calculated using the 7% tax bracket, which
> > > > most taxpayers are in) between the House version (our great
> > > > Republican victory, ha ha) and the Senate version (the bad
> > > > Democrat version) is:
> > > >
> > > >   $17.50 per married person in tax year 2003
> > > >   $35.00 per married person in tax year 2004
> > > >   $17.50 per married person in tax year 2005
> > > >   and no difference after that.
> > > >
> > > > So Morgan blocked a tiny temporary tax hike on married people,
> > > > but accepted a similar-sized PERMANENT tax hike on children.
> > > >
> > > > Some victory.  :-(
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Rep. John M. Blust" wrote:
> > > > > Morgan/Black actually put the words "Family Tax" as part of the title of
> > > > > their tax increase/budget bill but the bill had absolutely zero mention of
> > > > > any tax relief provision.  I asked Miner to yield for a question during
> > > > > floor debate and asked him to kindly point out to me the page and line in
> > > > > the Morgan/Black tax increase budget that contained the "family tax cuts."
> > > > > He hemmed and hawed and tried to say something to the effect that the
> > > > > Morgan/Black tax increase/budget was so good that it allowed them not to
> > > > > have to change the law to block implementation of the already scheduled
> > > > > tax relief.
> > > >
> > > > Ha!  You're right!  They did stick "family tax cut" in the
> > > > title, even though there was absolutely NOTHING in that bill
> > > > that resembled a tax cut for families:
> > > > http://www.ncleg.net/html2003/bills/AllVersions/House/H397v3.html
> > > >
> > > > I missed that, thank you for pointing it out.
> > > >
> > > > I knew Morgan was a liar, but I didn't realize that he lies in
> > > > the titles of his bills!
> > > >
> > > > Keep up the great work, Rep. Blust!!
> > > >
> > > > -Dave


"Rep. John M. Blust" wrote:

> > > So if Morgan passes a budget with a billion dollar spending increase, and
> > > afterward, Basnight passes a budget with a two billion dollar increas, and
> > > the final version contains only a one billion dollar spending increase, you
> > > would accept Morgan's claims that he kept spending from going up by one
> > > billion dollars.


"Dave Burton" <webmaster@mooregop.org> wrote:

> > Well, in this case the original Morgan/House budget contained,
> > by my math, fully 77% of the tax increases that the Senate
> > Democrats wanted -- and that's before the Senate even started
> > work on it.  So Morgan & Black gave the Senate Democrats all
> > but 23% of the tax increases that they wanted WITHOUT the
> > Senate even having to negotiate for them.
> > Clarification: if both fiscal years are considered, then the final budget, which Morgan
> > helped push through (over the opposition of every Republican Senator), contained 89.8%
> > of the tax increases which the Senate Democrats had proposed. -DB (3/10/2004)
> > But [Morgan apologist Scott] Mooneyham would have us believe
> > that Morgan is an "anti-tax Republican?"  What a crock!
> >
> > But, yes, if the Senate adds a particular tax increase, which
> > isn't in the House version, and when the two versions go to
> > conference that particular tax increase is removed, then I
> > would not call someone a liar for claiming that either of the
> > House co-speakers blocked that particular tax increase.
> >
> > That doesn't mean that I believe that Morgan blocked it, it
> > just means that I don't know.
> >
> > I didn't see the conference negotiations, so I have no way of
> > knowing whether or not Morgan actually had anything at all to
> > do with it.  Morgan's flacks are claiming that he did, but
> > with his record of dishonesty I don't count that as evidence
> > one way or the other.
> >
> > Still, I won't call something a lie unless I'm sure it is a lie.
> > Not even from a proven liar like Morgan.
> >
> > -Dave


"Rep. John M. Blust" wrote:

> Those of us who fought any tax increases should get the credit that taxes
> didn't go even higher.  If we hadn't fought hard against what Morgan did,
> tax increases would have been even greater.  Morgan should get no credit.
> He backed the highest taxes he thought he could get away with politically.
> If he thought he could get away with more, he would have backed more
> increases.  The fact that the child credit and marriage penalty relief were
> in the bill wasn't because of Morgan's anti-tax principles.  It was included
> for the same reasons the Democrats put them in the tax increase bill in
> 2001.  It gave them political cover for their huge tax increase.  So I wish
> you would stop giving Morgan credit where credit is definitely not due!