Lohra Miller broke no law, prosecutors decide

By Leigh DethmanDeseret Morning News
The Republican candidate for Salt Lake County district attorney didn't break any laws by accepting third-hand campaign contributions from a property management company, a team of government prosecutors found.

Lohra Miller The prosecutors from the district attorney's and attorney general's offices ruled Wednesday that Lohra Miller did nothing illegal by accepting money from Wasatch Property Management employees even though there were accusations that the donations were forced. Former employee Shauna Hardy said she was one of 12 employees who allegedly received $2,000 bonuses and then were ordered to sign the cash over to Miller's campaign fund. Miller, who has claimed she was always open about contributions and did nothing illegal, said the ruling is vindication. "I hope that this is the end of the dirty campaigning, so now we can go back to focusing on the important issues of this race," Miller said. "I hope the voters can see this for what it is — it's just dirty campaigning just before the election." The investigation started after former University of Utah law professor John Flynn filed a complaint asking the district attorney to determine if the proxy contributions violated the law. County law says donors cannot make a contribution with someone else's funds. If elected officials knowingly accept the money from a contractor who works for the county, they could be charged with a class-B misdemeanor. After Flynn's complaint, the question of who should investigate seemed difficult. The problem was Attorney General Mark Shurtleff backs Miller, while District Attorney David Yocom is endorsing her Democratic opponent, Sim Gill. Both Shurtleff and Yocom declined to investigate, because of the obvious conflicts of interest, said Paul Murphy, spokesman for the Attorney General's Office. Instead, their respective staffs did the work.

The team of prosecutors said that since Miller is not an elected official and Wasatch Property Management does not have a contract with the county, no crime was committed. "Since the action complained of is not a crime, and further action would unnecessarily expend public funds investigating a matter that has no basis for prosecution, this concludes the matter for both prosecutors' offices," the attorneys wrote in a joint statement. Even so, Flynn said he still believes Miller and Wasatch Property Management violated the spirit of the law. "I think any voter would like to know who is paying for the campaign of the various candidates on the ballot," Flynn said. "If people hide contributions by playing games like this, I think that's inappropriate." To avoid problems like this in the future, Flynn said Utah campaigns should be publicly financed. Wednesday's ruling also clears Wasatch Property Management of any criminal liability, since the company does not have a contract with the county. Wasatch Property Management officials, including chief executive officer Dell Loy Hansen, did not return phone calls seeking comment. Matt Burbank, a political science professor at the University of Utah, said the incident illustrates why the district attorney's office should be nonpartisan. Both Miller and Gill agree. They said they believe a system needs to be set up to avoid the slightest appearance of political bias in cases requiring an investigation of elected officials or candidates. The two candidates, however, have different ideas on how to achieve that. Miller wants the Legislature to set a statutory procedure that district attorneys must follow in cases where political bias might come into play. She said the law should clearly spell out when a district attorney should be removed from a case, as well as what a conflict of interest is for the county's top prosecutor. Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi, sponsored a bill in the 2006 legislative session that would have done just that but withdrew the bill and instead sent it to an interim study committee. "We can make a change beforehand, before the issue comes up," Miller said. "We've got to remove politics out of the office entirely." Gill said he wouldn't wait for the Legislature to take action. He said that within 90 days of taking office, he would set up a bipartisan advisory board made up of former judges and lawyers "that I hope I will never have to call upon." The board would review evidence and recommend whether the district attorney should file charges against an elected official. "It would establish integrity and trust for that office," Gill said of the board. "Politics absolutely has no place at the district attorney's office — period."

What if Democrats Win? Spotlight on Telecommunications

By David Hatch, CongressDaily© National Journal Group Inc.Tuesday, Oct. 24, 2006
This is the seventh in a series of articles exploring the impact on key committees and issues if Democrats win control of the House and Senate in November’s elections.
For some insight into Congress’ approach to telecommunications policy under a Democratic House and Senate, look no further than FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s schedule. The nation’s top communications regulator, a Republican, is rarely summoned to Capitol Hill by the GOP, and when he is, the circumstances are never hostile.
The FCC's Kevin Martin should start bracing for regular trips to Congress -- and for Dingellgrams.

But that would change with Democratic control, congressional and industry sources said. The Senate Commerce Committee, under Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, under Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., would closely scrutinize the agency’s actions, they said. That means Martin should start bracing for regular trips to Congress and for Dingellgrams, the Michigan lawmaker’s legendary queries. There would also be major changes in pending telecom overhaul legislation, assuming it is not approved during the lame duck session, when Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and other Democrats will try to block it.
Whether Inouye and Dingell would pursue comprehensive telecom overhaul legislation or a series of smaller measures is unclear. Most sources think they would retain portions of the pending bills sponsored by Senate Commerce Chairman Stevens and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Barton. But it is uncertain whether nationwide video franchise relief for the Bells -- the central tenet of the GOP bills -- would survive. If it does, Democrats would seek to couple it with consumer protections. Nationwide agreements would make it easier for AT&T and Verizon to enter the video programming business and compete with cable. Complicating the picture is whether the Bell companies, the major driver behind the GOP legislation, will be at the table next year. They are hinting they won’t be because they have secured several statewide video franchises.
But some suggest the Bells will not be satisfied with a hodgepodge of state regulations and are bluffing to win passage of the pending legislation in the lame-duck session. One Democratic staffer said Dingell would keep close tabs on the FCC’s court-ordered review of its media ownership rules, promote broadband deployment and revamp the massive universal service fund, which lowers telecommunications costs for rural residents and those with lower incomes. Inouye’s office declined comment.
Democrats also are expected to ratchet up their demands for network neutrality safeguards designed to prevent telecom and cable giants from potentially dominating the flow of content on the Internet. Stevens has blamed a controversy over the issue for stalling his bill. But killing legislation lacking net neutrality might prove easier than passing a bill containing it. To that end, Democrats in both chambers must seek common ground with the opposition and industry to get anything done, observers say. That is particularly true in the Senate, where Democrats would face the same hurdle that Stevens faces: corralling 60 votes to fend off filibusters.
While Dingell historically has had strong ties with the Bells, he has been critical of Barton’s bill, which is considered favorable to the companies. The Michigan lawmaker is close friends with Stevens, but a Democratic aide said that would not affect his positions if the GOP holds the upper chamber and Stevens remains in charge of the Senate panel.

What if Democrats Win? Spotlight on the Judiciary

CONGRESSDAILY SPECIAL REPORT: WHAT IF DEMOCRATS WIN? Spotlight On The Judiciary
By Bill Swindell, CongressDaily© National Journal Group Inc.Monday, Oct. 23, 2006
This is the sixth in a series of articles exploring the impact on key committees and issues if Democrats win control of the House and Senate in November’s elections.
A decade-long push to overhaul the tort system to make it harder for consumers to sue businesses will likely come to an end if Democrats take control of the House or the Senate. Led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, business lobbyists have successfully pushed through an overhaul of class-action suits, changes in the bankruptcy system to make it harder for borrowers to escape paying debts, and limits on shareholder lawsuits. As a critical ally to the Democratic Party, the trial-lawyer lobby wants the “tort reform” campaign curbed. If the trial lawyers have their way, that campaign would be replaced by a greater focus on efforts to protect the rights of Americans to have their day in court, especially against mandatory arbitration clauses that restrict a consumer’s ability to sue such entities as a creditor, insurance company or loan provider.
The Chamber of Commerce would not view a Democratic takeover of Congress as an end to its effort to limit abusive lawsuits, a Chamber official says.

“Consumer groups, not just lawyers, are concerned about [this]. It is a fairly standard practice now to get consumers to sign away their legal rights through a mandated system of arbitration,” said Travis Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America.
Consumer groups and trial lawyers also are asking that Congress explore removing the antirust exemption for the insurance industry, which was established under the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act. Senate Judiciary ranking member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who would become Senate Judiciary chairman if his party rules the Senate, has previously sponsored legislation that would repeal the exemption for medical malpractice insurance. Leahy argued that under the antitrust exemption, insurers can collude to set rates and prevent free-market competition.
“Why not apply the competition statutes to the business of insurance,” said Linda Lipsen, senior vice president for public affairs at the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. “We saw the mess that emerged following Katrina. It is the only consumer product that when you need it, it might not be there.”
But the Chamber would not view a Democratic takeover of Congress as an end to its effort to limit abusive lawsuits that it says harm the U.S. business climate. Lisa Rickard, president of the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform, noted that Judiciary Committee Democrats including Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, and Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia, have backed previous efforts to curb plaintiff lawsuits. Rickard contends those lawmakers could work with moderate Republicans to craft measures that would have enough support to pass in a Democratic-controlled chamber.
In addition, Leahy has shown some flexibility for bipartisan compromise, working with Senate Judiciary Chairman Specter on legislation that would provide compensation to those who suffered health problems as a result of asbestos exposure. That measure died in the Senate earlier this year amid disputes between insurers, trial lawyers and labor unions. “[House Minority Leader] Pelosi’s been pretty vocal how she hopes to have an inclusive bipartisan approach to their agenda. We’re hopeful that we can take that at face value and that would include the areas in the litigation arena that need to be examined,” Rickard said.
She added that bipartisan support is emerging to nullify a recent Justice Department policy to seek waivers of attorney-client privilege from corporate executives in boardroom criminal investigations.
On another subject matter, Democrats are likely to push for an overhaul of the nation’s patent system to make it easier for high-tech and financial services firms to protect and obtain patents, though pharmaceutical companies are resisting such widespread changes. Leahy has sponsored legislation with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, that would streamline patent litigation by limiting the defense of a willful infringement or “inequitable conduct” cases, in which a patent is challenged because the holder did not operate in good faith in its application to the Patent and Trademark Office.
In the House, Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., would take over the chairmanship of the Judiciary Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee. He would look to protect his nearby Hollywood interests by cracking down on piracy and protecting against copyright infringement of TV, music and movie productions.

What if Democrats Win? Spotlight on Finance

By Bill Swindell, CongressDaily© National Journal Group Inc.Friday, Oct. 20, 2006
This is the fifth in a series of articles exploring the impact on key committees and issues if Democrats win control of the House and Senate in November’s elections.
If the Democrats win a Senate majority next month, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut will take the helm of the Banking Committee as Banking ranking member Paul Sarbanes of Maryland retires. The change will be noticeable: Sarbanes takes a cautious, almost scholarly approach to crafting bills and is not known as press friendly. By contrast, Dodd is one of the more quotable members of Congress, with a keen eye to looking out for his home state’s interest while willing, at times, to buck his party.
Dodd has sided against his party at times in favor of business interests -- but also has a populist streak in protecting consumers and investors.

A Dodd chairmanship would be a boon to the insurance industry as Connecticut is home to such companies as Aetna, The Hartford Financial Services Group and W.R. Berkley Corp. Dodd has been a leading proponent for the federal government’s terrorism risk insurance program, which expires at the end of 2007, and is expected to be an advocate for continuing the federal backstop despite opposition from the White House that favors a free-market approach.
Dodd also has sided against his party at times in favor of business interests. For example, he backed a 1995 law that restricted shareholder lawsuits against public companies, which cleared despite a veto from President Clinton. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce contends trial lawyers are attempting to skirt the law and that further changes are needed. Dodd has said the Banking panel should hold a hearing on the issue. But he also has a populist streak in protecting consumers and investors, such as introducing legislation prohibiting deceptive lending and credit card marketing practices.
“It would do away with a lot of most abusive practices that consumer groups have seen. He’s been clear that he’s been very concerned about credit card industry practices,” said Travis Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America.
In the House, Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts would become chairman of the Financial Services Committee. While Frank has burnished a reputation of a liberal who is eager to battle conservatives in debate on the House floor, on the panel he has worked in a mostly bipartisan fashion with Financial Services Chairman Oxley. Frank wants to continue such tradition, though with a focus on some issues that have not received as much attention under GOP control, specifically housing issues. Frank said he would work with Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who would take over the chairmanship of Ways and Means, to expand low-income tax credits and better coordinate federal programs to boost affordable housing units.
“Right now, if you want to do affordable housing, there is some production through the affordable housing tax credit and there are some other programs, but you really have to twist yourself into knots to make them work together,” Frank said. He also said Democrats would fight to preserve the number of federal housing vouchers, complaining that federal rules are often too punitive.
Frank also has expressed interest in bringing more oversight to the trillion-dollar hedge fund industry. He has sponsored legislation that would authorize the registration and monitoring of hedge funds, reversing a recent federal court decision that barred SEC efforts to regulate the industry through its own rulemaking. He also has been a leading proponent of reining in industrial loan companies, which are state-chartered banks that offer limited financial services but are not subject to Federal Reserve supervision. Critics complain that the growth of the industry, especially bids by Wal-Mart and Home Depot to acquire their own ILCs, poses a safety and soundness risk to the nation’s banking system.
On insurance matters, many lobbyists believe Frank will allow Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., to take the lead on the issue as he would assume chairmanship of the Capital Markets Subcommittee. Kanjorski has expressed some skepticism of legislative efforts to allow insurance companies to be regulated under a new federal agency rather than the current state-based system.

What if Democrats Win? Spotlight on Congressional Reform

CONGRESSDAILY SPECIAL REPORT: WHAT IF DEMOCRATS WIN? Spotlight On Congressional Reform
By Greta Wodele and Christian Bourge, CongressDaily© National Journal Group Inc.Thursday, Oct. 19, 2006
This is the fourth in a series of articles exploring the impact on key committees and issues if Democrats win control of the House and Senate in November’s elections.
House and Senate Democrats say they plan to stick to a pledge made earlier this year to change ethics and lobbying policies if their party controls one or both chambers next year. "It's an issue that Democrats have clearly articulated this election cycle," said one Senate Democratic aide, acknowledging the party would feel political pressure to follow through with promises to change House and Senate rules. In January, House and Senate Democrats gathered the media in the ornate Library of Congress and publicly pledged to "restore honest leadership and open government" in Congress. One by one, the lawmakers signed the oath, conjuring up images of Republicans' "Contract with America" in 1994.
After choosing the next House speaker, “the first vote ... will be on the rules package and that will be first on integrity, upholding the highest ethical standards," says House Minority Leader Pelosi.

Democrats unveiled a proposal at the signing ceremony that is likely to serve as an outline for reforms next year. It called for requiring lawmakers and lobbyists to disclose more information about their activities and relationships and set criminal penalties for failure to comply. Democrats said they would ban congressional travel funded by lobbyists as well as gifts and meals. They also proposed increasing the ban on lobbying by former members of Congress from one to two years after they leave office and prohibiting former lawmakers from lobbying on the House and Senate floor.
They would also extend the post-employment ban to senior congressional and executive branch staff. Democrats said they would require lawmakers and senior congressional and executive staff to disclose negotiations for private-sector jobs. Other transparency provisions include a 24-hour review period after a conference committee agrees on legislation; disclosure of government contracts and a ban on no-bid contracting. On changing rules for committee assignments and chairmanship slots, Senate Democrats said they would wait to make those decisions after taking the temperature of rank-and-file next year.
"There are no proposals for term limits," said Senate Minority Whip Durbin, adding that Democrats "have not been in power for so long, we haven't even thought about" rules for a potential majority party.
House Democrats have found much to fuel their “culture of corruption” platform -- with House GOP leaders currently embroiled in the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley of Florida, Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio refusing to step down from office despite pleading guilty to corruption and bribe-taking charges last week, and former Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham of California resigning after pleading to corruption charges. But with federal corruption charges possibly coming at any time against one of their own -- Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson -- House Democrats have problems that raise the bar even higher than the level set by their good government rhetoric, something evident in the ambitious ethical reform agenda they have set for themselves if they win back control of the House.
Minority Leader Pelosi, Minority Whip Hoyer and other Democrats have promised reforms from nearly the very moment that Pelosi ascends to the speakership and Hoyer becomes majority leader. “We have put our [ethics reform] proposal in writing,” Pelosi said last month in reference to the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act" that she and Senate Minority Leader Reid have proposed. “The first vote that the members will take, after they vote for speaker of the House, will be on the rules package and that will be first on integrity, upholding the highest ethical standards.” Pelosi reiterated the Democrats' wish to bring “civility” back to the House after years of Republicans shutting out the minority party by reaching across the aisle on issues sides can agree upon.
In an interview, Hoyer said the centerpiece of Democrats’ reform agenda is the joint House-Senate proposal to “severely” restrict member travel and expenses that can be paid for by outside interests and to double the waiting period before departing members can lobby the House. House Democratic leaders are also promising to bring more transparency to the lawmaking process and the Byzantine rules that cover how a bill becomes law and allow for easy addition of earmarks to projects.
Hoyer said members will be given at least 24 hours notice on the content of legislation, including conference report language coming up for vote on the floor. Still up in the air is a proposal to limit how long a Democrat could serve as chairman of a single committee. That issue has divided the House Democratic Caucus.

What if Democrats Win? Spotlight on Taxes

By Martin Vaughan, CongressDaily© National Journal Group Inc.Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2006
This is the third in a series of articles exploring the impact on key committees and issues if Democrats win control of the House and Senate in November’s elections.
Democrats are stressing that, if given control of the House or Senate, they will seek to work with Republicans to improve the tax code in areas where there is bipartisan support for change -- for instance, on making the research and development tax credit permanent or in reining in the alternative minimum tax. “We need to pick some issues initially where we can come together and build trust,” said a senior House Democratic tax aide. In doing so, they hope to deflect attention away from GOP charges that Democrats would make wholesale changes like reversing some of the tax cuts passed in Bush’s first term. This is in part tactical -- Republicans in the run-up to Nov. 7 have been getting lots of mileage out of the bogeyman of coming Democratic tax increases.
Over the past several years, House Republican leaders have turned back a host of proposals passed by the Senate that would have raised taxes on specific industries by closing what Democrats say are loopholes in the code.

But it also reflects a recognition that if Democrats manage to take control of one or both chambers, they will be dealing with slim majorities and an unsympathetic White House. That means larger priorities like tax simplification and reform will be impossible without bipartisan cooperation, and makes the more partisan goal of rolling back tax cuts that expire in 2010 less likely.
“Let’s tackle tax cuts that people are in danger of losing right now,” said an aide to Senate Finance ranking member Max Baucus, D-Mont., noting that the one-year cost of extending taxpayer protections from the alternative minimum tax rises to $45 billion in 2007. House Ways and Means ranking member Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has repeatedly stressed a desire to deal with the AMT problem on a permanent basis. And R&D tax credit permanency -- rather than the current practice of extending the research credit on a year-by-year basis -- remains a major goal for Baucus. Democrats will have other tax priorities they will want to pursue. In an Oct. 5 speech at Georgetown University, House Minority Leader Pelosi pledged to make the child tax credit more generous for lower-income families and “dramatically increase the tax deductibility of college tuition.”
But Democrats are pledging to return to pay-as-you-go budgeting rules, meaning all those initiatives will have to be offset by spending cuts or tax increases -- and therein lies the rub for the business community and anti-tax advocates. “All of us are going to be hanging onto our checkbooks and alerting our members to be very careful, because there will be an effort to find new sources of revenue,” said Jade West, senior vice president for government relations at the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
Democratic aides said a Democratic majority would seek to offset some of that cost by tightening the “tax gap,” taxes that are owed but go uncollected each year, a figure estimated by the IRS to reach as high as $345 billion per year. But some Democratic sources would not rule out reversing the benefits of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers before those tax cuts expire in 2010. House Democratic alternatives to GOP tax bills in recent years have proposed raising taxes on households with annual income over $500,000 per person.
“I can see that in the picture, because we’ve proposed that several times to pay for these things,” said one House Democratic tax aide. The aide also noted that the sooner such a change is enacted, the more revenue will be generated for goals like AMT relief, as the 2010 expiration of those tax cuts approaches.
But more fearsome for downtown lobbyists is the prospect of targeted tax increases affecting the oil and gas, financial services and other industry sectors. Over the past several years, Ways and Means Chairman Thomas and House Republican leaders have turned back a host of proposals passed by the Senate that would have raised taxes on specific industries by closing what Democrats say are loopholes in the code. A recent example is the one-time, $5 billion tax on oil inventories, known as the “last-in first-out,” or LIFO accounting change, some Democrats will likely seek to revive. Pelosi vowed to “repeal current tax incentives that serve to export American jobs overseas,” in the Georgetown speech.
“House Republicans under Thomas have been a thumb in the dike” with regard to such proposals, said West. “With the House in Democratic hands, one could expect a very different dynamic where offsets are concerned.”

What if Democrats Win? Spotlight on Trade

By Martin Vaughan, CongressDaily© National Journal Group Inc.Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006
This is the second in a series of articles exploring the impact on key committees and issues if Democrats win control of the House and Senate in November’s elections.
With presidential trade negotiating authority set to expire next June, the biggest trade question looming over the next Congress is whether it will be renewed and on what terms. Democrats insist that if they controlled Congress, they would not reject out of hand granting President Bush that authority for the remaining 18 months of his term. But they will not agree to such an extension without changes to negotiating objectives that reflect long-held Democratic positions.
"Congress has been a secondary partner," says Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich.

“I wouldn’t exclude it, but we would be emphatic about how it was shaped,” said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich. Democrats have criticized the “enforce your own labor laws” standard that is a part of the 2002 trade negotiating authority bill, and would seek an enforceable commitment that countries will improve their laws and practices to meet international core labor standards.
But Democrats say just as important as labor changes are efforts to strengthen requirements for the administration to consult with Congress as it negotiates trade agreements. Senate Democrats were stung last June when Bush administration trade officials ignored language approved unanimously by Senate Finance panel members that would have prohibited goods made with forced labor from benefiting from the U.S.-Oman trade agreement. U.S. trade officials said the language was not “necessary and appropriate” to implementing the agreement.
Democrats might pursue changes to seek earlier input on negotiating proposals in trade agreements, and scrap the Congressional Oversight Group, which has been criticized as superficial and ineffective. “Congress has been a secondary partner. COG meetings are perfunctory,” said Levin.
However, unless prospects brighten for restarting global negotiations in the Doha round, trade negotiating authority might be allowed to lapse, regardless of which party is in control of Congress. “If there isn’t any hope of [a Doha deal] by March, I think a lot of members from both parties will come in and say, what’s the point?” said William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council.
The business community has already started talking about a short-term extension of current authority to give time for Doha talks to conclude, pointing toward 1993 when former President Clinton got a straight extension of fast-track as the Uruguay Round talks were wrapping up. But a straight extension of trade negotiating authority seems unlikely if Democrats retake the House or Senate. “The circumstances were very different in ’93,” said Viji Rangaswami, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
She noted that Congress in 1993 voted to extend a bill that had won broad, bipartisan support, while the 2002 trade negotiating authority squeaked through the House with the support of 25 Democrats. “The essential ingredient that allowed for a straight extension in 1993 is not present today,” she said.
A Democratic victory in the House or Senate would complicate the path for the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, and a host of other Bush administration bilateral trade initiatives, but not necessarily forestall them. Democrats would likely insist on strengthened labor provisions in the Peru deal -- at least through an addendum to the agreement, if not through re-opening language that has already been negotiated. House Ways and Means ranking member Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and Senate Finance ranking member Max Baucus, D-Mont., both have praised the administration’s launch of bilateral trade talks with South Korea, which are still in the early stages.
Cracking down on unfair trade practices would likely be a key area of Democratic focus, and Democrats would reach for stronger medicine than has been resorted to by the Republican Congress. A trade enforcement bill introduced by Ways and Means Democrats this year would allow U.S. industries to seek countervailing duties against imports from non-market economies such as China. That provision enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate, though not from Baucus and Senate Finance Chairman Grassley. The House Democratic bill also laid the legal basis for attacking Chinese currency manipulation through countervailing duties and limited the administration’s leeway in rejecting industry petitions for safeguard quotas against Chinese imports.

What if Democrats Win? Spotlight on the Budget

By Peter Cohn, CongressDaily© National Journal Group Inc.Monday, Oct. 16, 2006
This is the first in a series of articles exploring the impact on key committees and issues if Democrats win control of the House and Senate in November’s elections.
If Democrats take over one or both chambers next year, they say they would seek a return to balanced budgets within the next decade. They say that goal can be achieved even with higher domestic spending -- if combined with more modest tax-cut policies and a return to the "pay as you go" budget enforcement rules from the 1990s. Reinstatement of lapsed pay/go rules would require tax-cut extensions to be deficit neutral, posing a hurdle for some of President Bush's signature policies and likely pushing him to use his veto pen more often.

"There may be some tax cuts that go to the wealthiest among us that are going to have to get trimmed [when they expire], because you know we have to pay our bills," says Senate Budget ranking member Kent Conrad, D-N.D. Democrats would continue middle-income tax cuts expiring in 2010, as well as preventing the alternative minimum tax from ensnaring more middle-class taxpayers and extending some business-friendly provisions such as the research and development credit. This year, for example, House Budget ranking member John Spratt, D-S.C., proposed $150 billion in tax cuts in his budget blueprint, paid for by closing the "tax gap" between what is owed and what is paid -- which the IRS estimates to be around $350 billion. Less certain is the fate of tax cuts geared to wealthier taxpayers, such as lower rates on capital gains and dividends, also expiring in 2010. "There may be some tax cuts that go to the wealthiest among us that are going to have to get trimmed [when they expire], because you know we have to pay our bills," Senate Budget ranking member Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said last month.

Democrats also would increase domestic spending across the board to keep pace with inflation, while continuing robust military budgets. Army readiness would be a key theme. House Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., and Defense Appropriations ranking member John Murtha, D-Pa., argue that not since the end of the Vietnam War has the service been as ill-prepared for war. Added emphasis would be also be put on homeland security, with funds likely increased for security at the nation's 361 seaports, a top priority of Senate Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. While overall spending would get a boost, Democrats say they will subject federal agencies to more scrutiny. When Obey was Appropriations chairman in 1994, he eliminated or cut 123 programs, his staff notes. There would be more oversight and hearings -- and fewer local earmarks.
There also would be a return to 10-year budget projections in the annual budget resolution, to show longer-term impacts of spending and tax policies. In the House, Democrats might end the practice of avoiding a separate vote to hike the statutory debt ceiling upon adoption of the budget resolution. They would ensure that the end result of the "reconciliation" process -- the creation of filibuster-proof tax and mandatory spending bills -- is a net reduction in the deficit. By contrast, Republicans used reconciliation in 2005-06 to pass a $70 billion tax-cut bill and a $40 billion spending-cut bill -- adding $30 billion to the deficit.

With Democrats in control, Bush would be hard-pressed to push his proposals for Social Security and Medicare spending. Social Security overhaul is a nonstarter with most Democrats. While both parties acknowledge future Medicare obligations outstrip the government's ability to pay, the Bush administration mostly wants to trim payments to hospitals, home health providers, skilled nursing facilities and other beneficiaries. Democrats want to find savings through cuts to insurer subsidies and to allow HHS to negotiate lower drug prices, for example.