Last August, under the pressure of a looming vacation deadline, lawmakers passed what President Bush described as an urgent fix to the country's ability to secretly eavesdrop on suspected terrorists overseas. Many in Congress, particularly Democrats, feared the barrage of blame if they did nothing about the electronic surveillance law and terrorists attacked while lawmakers were working on their tans.

 

So they passed a temporary extension that expired in February, with the intention of permanently fixing the law before then.

 

Dream on.

 

In the intervening months, the Senate overwhelmingly passed an excellent bill to modernize the eavesdropping law. The president has urged Congress to send him that bill. But the House has balked. It passed its own version earlier this month. A major sticking point between the two: retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the government after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

 

The Senate bill grants the immunity; the House bill doesn't. The Senate's rationale: These companies were following patriotic impulses when they responded to pleas from the federal government. The House: The companies need to answer for any possible wrongdoing and they can't just blindly follow administration requests.

 

...
Still, [House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer] added: "I see no malice in the acts of the phone companies. They had nothing to gain. They had no profit to receive. They weren't going to get any kudos from anybody for doing this."

 

Our point—and the Senate's—exactly. Whatever the companies did, they did because they were asked.

 

All the haggling over the new law won't immediately interrupt already approved wiretapping cases against terror targets. But the longer it continues, the greater potential for disrupting America's ability to spy on terrorists.

 

In a separate visit to the Tribune editorial board, FBI Director Robert Mueller recently warned of a prolonged congressional fight over a new surveillance law. "With no bill out there, there is uncertainty. There is concern with the communication carriers as to the extent to which and circumstances under which they can help us. And any uncertainty and concern are disincentives to cooperate with us. Any delay can be harmful."

 

So let's not delay anymore. Pass a law, with immunity. In a time of crisis, these companies stepped up to cooperate. They did what their government asked. Don't open them to liability for that.

The House- and Senate-passed budgets would raise taxes on every American taxpayer by an average of $3,000 per household. But don’t expect Congress to share in the sacrifice: The budget would hike discretionary spending by 8 percent, and not cut a single government program.

First, the tax increase. The largest four-year revenue surge in 40 years has pushed tax revenues to 18.8 percent of GDP -- well above the historical average. Yet the House-passed budget tied itself to a revenue baseline that assumes the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will expire, and that the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will catch another 20 million Americans. That baseline also assumes the child tax credit would be halved, the marriage penalty reimposed, and the 10 percent tax bracket raised to 15 percent. Investment taxes would likely rise, and the 55 percent “death tax” would be reinstated as well. (The Senate budget would prevent some of the lower-income tax hikes.)

 

...

While there is never a good time to raise taxes, pledging $4 trillion in tax increases during a time of economic uncertainty is especially worrisome. Raising tax rates on every taxpayer and business would reduce incentives to work, save and invest, and therefore significantly reduce the economy’s long-term capacity to grow and raise living standards.

You can read Senator Mitch McConnell's comments on the budget here.