- Food Network, HGTV Drive Scripps Networks' Upside Surprise
- Tommy Lee, Medical Tourism and Nasty Santa, Your Emails
- U.S. Markets Gain 3% for the Week Despite 10.2% Unemployment
- Disney's 'Carol' Tests Widest 3-D Release Ever
- Stimulus II? Jobs Tax Credit=Cash For Clunkers
- Rockwell Automation Earnings: What Options Are Saying
- Gold Will Touch Higher Lows and Higher Highs: Analyst
- Is Misery Alive And Well in Your Office?
- Consumers Haven't Changed, They Are Just Pickier
- Sweeping Health Care Overhaul Bill Passes House
- For the Jobless, 10% is Harder Than Before
- Week Ahead: Stocks Search for Catalyst in Quiet Week
- Outlook: Dollar Likely to Ride Higher on Bleak Jobs Report
- Geithner: More Stimulus, Not a Bank Tax
- Windfall is Seen as Bank Bonuses are Paid in Stock
- Volatility Returns: Sign of the Bull Losing Muscle?
- Cramer: Earnings, IPOs Dominate Next Week
- Buying Fear: How to Own Volatility
MOST SHARED
- Solar Market Heating Back Up?
- Sweeping Health Care Overhaul Bill Passes House
- US Becomes Top Country Brand Under Obama: Survey
- Realty Execs See Pain Ahead
- BoA Board in Civil War Over Lewis' Succesor
- Easy Money & Stocks
- Want the Homebuyer's Tax Credit? Here Are Some Tips
- Administration Rejects Plan to Buy Fannie Mae Credits
Text Size 
 |
AP |
It means least-common-denominator solutions--or half-solutions--to whatever problem is on the table at the time.
That's what's happening on Pennsylvania Avenue in the alternative minimum tax debate. Both sides agree that roughly 20-million Americans who are not super-rich should be spared an AMT hit on their 2007 tax bills.
Democrats want to "pay for" the $51-billion cost of doing that by raising taxes on hedge fund managers in the name of "fiscal responsibility"; Republicans oppose that step in the name of "no new taxes." Since resolving that disagreement is to hard, the "pay for" issue will eventually be shelved and the cost of an AMT fix will simply go onto the nation's pile of debt.
It's also happening on energy legislation. With the public increasingly anxious about America's dependence on foreign oil, lawmakers in both parties have seized on higher vehicle fuel efficiency as a key step. The Democratic majority in Congress has seized on two others -- raising taxes on oil companies to help finance development of new energy sources, and requiring utilities to derive a fixed percentage of their energy from renewable sources.
Republicans have opposed the latter two steps in the name of "no new taxes" (see above) and no unreasonable mandates. Lacking the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster or presidential veto, Democrats are likely to cave in and pass the higher fuel standards.
That's another least common denominator solution--the best Washington is capable of at the moment.
Questions? Comments? Write to .
- Rumors abound that Oprah will leave her show to start a new network. What would this mean for daytime TV?
- A private equity specialist sponsored a stand-up comedy troupe in New York to prove that CEOs can, in fact, be funny.
- Cramer did the research and found eight stocks that lead the pack. Read on to get his top picks.
- Did Hideki Matsui’s performance make it more likely that the Yankees will pay to have him back?
- Which wines should you bring—or serve—with holiday meals this year? Ask a connoisseur.
- Two competitors in this year’s World Series of Poker in Las Vegas have stories fit for Hollywood.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes