Showing posts with label Bush tax cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush tax cuts. Show all posts
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Top 10 Obama anti-business, anti-job actions
President Obama loves to complain that he inherited an economic mess. That may be true, but his wrong-headed policies have only made matters worse, taking actions that hurt businesses and stunt job growth.
1. Obamacare costs
Obamacare will impose a new cost on many small businesses that currently do not provide health insurance for their employees and will pressure many to shift workers to part-time status to get below the measure’s “50-worker” loophole. It also means all companies will have to re-evaluate their health care coverage and make changes to come into compliance with federal guidelines or pay fines of up to $3,000 per worker. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill will lead to 800,000 fewer jobs by 2020.
2. Small business tax hikes
The expiration of the Bush tax cuts for individuals making over $200,000, or families making $250,000, will hit many small business owners, an increase that will hit as those same owners are still trying to dig out of the recession. Considering that small businesses are the main creator of jobs in the nation, every dollar taken from them in tax hikes is that many fewer dollars available for expanding employment.
3. EPA’s burdensome regulations
Regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency put a tremendous burden on businesses, making job creation more difficult. The agency’s rules on air quality standards are curtailing energy produced from coal-fired electrical plants, causing a rise in electricity prices and making scarce a major resource that is abundant in America.
CONTINUED: http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/06/top-10-obama-anti-business-anti-job-actions/
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
How Looming Tax Hikes Would Hit Typical Families
A variety of tax cuts enacted during the tenures of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama expire at the end of December. Expiring provisions include Bush-era cuts on wage and investment income and cuts for married couples and families with children. Also expiring is a 2 percentage point temporary payroll tax cut.
A look the tax increases facing typical families:
—A married couple with two children and an income of $100,000 would pay $7,935 in income taxes and $5,650 in payroll taxes this year, for a total federal tax burden of $13,585. Next year, they would face income taxes of $11,919 and payroll taxes of $7,650, for a total federal tax burden of $19,569, a total tax increase of $5,984.
CONTINUED: http://cowboybyte.com/13139/how-looming-tax-hikes-would-hit-typical-families/
A look the tax increases facing typical families:
—A married couple with two children and an income of $100,000 would pay $7,935 in income taxes and $5,650 in payroll taxes this year, for a total federal tax burden of $13,585. Next year, they would face income taxes of $11,919 and payroll taxes of $7,650, for a total federal tax burden of $19,569, a total tax increase of $5,984.
CONTINUED: http://cowboybyte.com/13139/how-looming-tax-hikes-would-hit-typical-families/
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Americans for Prosperity: Fall Issues Update
Congress is currently in the middle of its traditional August recess, but they will have a full agenda in September when they return. Tax reform, violating last year’s debt ceiling deal and health care are poised to dominate the policy discourse. We’ll continue to update you about critical developments as they occur.
Staying informed is pivotal to being a good activist. Click below to learn more from our sister organization, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, about these pressing issues for the fall.
•Need to Know: Fiscal Cliff: January 1, 2013 brings the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts; it will also usher in several new taxes from the President’s health care law. The dramatic increase in taxes will surely hit this weak economic recovery.
•Need to Know: Medicare and IPAB: Congressman Paul Ryan’s selection as the Republican vice-presidential candidate put a spotlight back on Medicare and the President’s use of a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to control Medicare.
•Need to Know: The Budget Control Act: Last summer, Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for $1.2 trillion cuts in spending dubbed the sequester. Congress seems poised to undo their agreement from only a year ago.
•Need to Know: Medicaid Expansion: Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on health care, states now have the option whether to expand their broken, costly Medicaid system.
Sincerely,
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Prosperity® (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFP has more than 2,000,000 members, including members in all 50 states, and 34 state chapters and affiliates. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org
Staying informed is pivotal to being a good activist. Click below to learn more from our sister organization, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, about these pressing issues for the fall.
•Need to Know: Fiscal Cliff: January 1, 2013 brings the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts; it will also usher in several new taxes from the President’s health care law. The dramatic increase in taxes will surely hit this weak economic recovery.
•Need to Know: Medicare and IPAB: Congressman Paul Ryan’s selection as the Republican vice-presidential candidate put a spotlight back on Medicare and the President’s use of a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to control Medicare.
•Need to Know: The Budget Control Act: Last summer, Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for $1.2 trillion cuts in spending dubbed the sequester. Congress seems poised to undo their agreement from only a year ago.
•Need to Know: Medicaid Expansion: Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on health care, states now have the option whether to expand their broken, costly Medicaid system.
Sincerely,
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Prosperity® (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFP has more than 2,000,000 members, including members in all 50 states, and 34 state chapters and affiliates. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org
Friday, December 31, 2010
How Congress Changed Your Life in 2010
Patricia Murphy, Capitol Hill Bureau Chief, The Capitolist
December 31, 2010
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/30/how-congress-changed-your-life-in-2010/
As members of the 111th Congress look back on 2010, they will see anything but a do-nothing session. From banning drop-side cribs, to freezing their own salaries for the second year in a row, to overhauling the food inspection system, to telling airlines not to charge fees for carry-on luggage, the Democratically controlled House and Senate passed bills at a feverish pace in the past year.
But several developments stand out for the breadth of their impact. They may not all be popular, as evidenced by the November "shellacking" that Democrats took in the midterm elections, but the following congressional actions in 2010 -- and in one case inaction -- will affect hundreds millions of Americans in the next year and beyond.
1. Extending the Bush Tax Cuts. The compromise brokered between President Barack Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in December will impact every American with a job and most Americans without one.
The new law will continue the expiring Bush tax rates for all income levels for the next two years; continue current tax rates on capital gains and dividends; set the estate tax at 35 percent for estates valued at more than $5 million, and continue dozens of tax breaks and credits for people from the bottom of the income spectrum to the top.
The most immediate difference will come in your first paycheck next year. Starting Jan. 1, the 6.2 percent payroll tax will drop to 4.2 percent for the next year, putting hundreds of dollars back in most workers' pockets. And for people without a job, the new law extends unemployment benefits until 2012, if they've been out of work for less than 99 weeks.
2. Reforming the Health Insurance System. No single piece of legislation was more controversial in 2010 than the Democratically sponsored overhaul of the health insurance industry.
Although the majority of Americans will continue to have insurance through their employers in the future, and most will still be covered by private insurers, the new law gives the federal government a much larger role in determining what kind of health care Americans get and how much insurance will cost. It also mandates that all Americans carry health insurance by 2014, a requirement that is being challenged in federal court.
Already this year, the law has allowed young adults to remain on their parents' policies until they are 26 years old; given tax credits to small businesses to cover employees' insurance, and will soon end insurance companies' ability to cut off coverage for customers who reach lifetime coverage caps.
Within the next three years, individuals will be able to shop for insurance through new health care exchanges, and will get government subsidies if they need help paying for it. About 15 million low-income Americans will be added to Medicaid, a development that governors have vocally opposed because of the unfunded mandates associated with it.
To pay for the multibillion dollar cost of the reforms, the bill expanded the Medicare payroll tax to investment income; will impose a 40 percent excise tax on expensive insurance policies by 2018; will add fees on pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and will collect penalties from individuals and large business that do not buy the coverage required by the new law.
3. Overhauling Federal Student Loans. Provisions tacked onto the health care reform bill eliminated the role of private lenders in originating federal student loans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that will save the federal government, which paid lenders to oversee the program, between $6 billion and $7 billion per year.
The people who will notice the biggest difference will be financial aid officers, who used to decide which private lenders they would use to originate federal loans for their students. Those loans will now all be originated by the U.S. Department of Education and will have the same federal terms and conditions that have been in effect for years.
But the changes will eventually impact every student who applies for and receives federal loans to attend college or graduate school. Although students will still seek loans through the financial aid office at their college or university, the loans cannot be resold to other loan servicers and will not be affected by private bank failures, which could disrupt payments.
Because of a spike in demand for Pell grants, that program was on course to run out of money in 2010. The Pell grant program will now remain solvent until at least 2017, with the maximum Pell grant award rising from $5,550 this year to $5,975 five years from now.
4. Failing to pass the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. In the last days of the 111th Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spiked an omnibus spending bill that was made up of all 12 annual spending bills that Congress usually passes individually.
In the short term, that means the federal government will continue operating at current spending levels until March 5. But in the longer-term, it guarantees the first of many showdowns over spending between the Republican-led House and the Democratic Senate. With government spending at the top of most incoming Republicans' target lists, compromise between the two chambers could be almost impossible.
The impasse also puts the future of earmarking in doubt. Although Republicans had sponsored thousands of the 6,600 earmarks in the bill, they backed away from the legislation when tea party activists made it clear they would challenge GOP lawmakers in the future who voted for pork projects now.
5. Overseeing a $1.29 Trillion Increase in the Deficit. New federal programs cost money, and the 111th Congress oversaw the second-highest deficit in history and an increase in the national debt to $14 trillion.
David Walker, the onetime Comptroller General of the United States, says runaway spending in Washington will have a crippling effect on Americans one and two generations from now. "We're mortgaging the future of the country, and their children and grandchildren," Walker told Politics Daily. "At the same time, because of the growth of spending, we're reducing the role of investments in our future because the budget on the discretionary side is getting squeezed at a time when America is facing growing competition in a global economy."
If Congress does not change its spending habits now, Walker said, everyone's tax bills will be higher in the future. "If we don't end up reforming our ways, federal taxes will have to double within the next 20 to 30 years, just to stop the bleeding."
December 31, 2010
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/30/how-congress-changed-your-life-in-2010/
As members of the 111th Congress look back on 2010, they will see anything but a do-nothing session. From banning drop-side cribs, to freezing their own salaries for the second year in a row, to overhauling the food inspection system, to telling airlines not to charge fees for carry-on luggage, the Democratically controlled House and Senate passed bills at a feverish pace in the past year.
But several developments stand out for the breadth of their impact. They may not all be popular, as evidenced by the November "shellacking" that Democrats took in the midterm elections, but the following congressional actions in 2010 -- and in one case inaction -- will affect hundreds millions of Americans in the next year and beyond.
1. Extending the Bush Tax Cuts. The compromise brokered between President Barack Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in December will impact every American with a job and most Americans without one.
The new law will continue the expiring Bush tax rates for all income levels for the next two years; continue current tax rates on capital gains and dividends; set the estate tax at 35 percent for estates valued at more than $5 million, and continue dozens of tax breaks and credits for people from the bottom of the income spectrum to the top.
The most immediate difference will come in your first paycheck next year. Starting Jan. 1, the 6.2 percent payroll tax will drop to 4.2 percent for the next year, putting hundreds of dollars back in most workers' pockets. And for people without a job, the new law extends unemployment benefits until 2012, if they've been out of work for less than 99 weeks.
2. Reforming the Health Insurance System. No single piece of legislation was more controversial in 2010 than the Democratically sponsored overhaul of the health insurance industry.
Although the majority of Americans will continue to have insurance through their employers in the future, and most will still be covered by private insurers, the new law gives the federal government a much larger role in determining what kind of health care Americans get and how much insurance will cost. It also mandates that all Americans carry health insurance by 2014, a requirement that is being challenged in federal court.
Already this year, the law has allowed young adults to remain on their parents' policies until they are 26 years old; given tax credits to small businesses to cover employees' insurance, and will soon end insurance companies' ability to cut off coverage for customers who reach lifetime coverage caps.
Within the next three years, individuals will be able to shop for insurance through new health care exchanges, and will get government subsidies if they need help paying for it. About 15 million low-income Americans will be added to Medicaid, a development that governors have vocally opposed because of the unfunded mandates associated with it.
To pay for the multibillion dollar cost of the reforms, the bill expanded the Medicare payroll tax to investment income; will impose a 40 percent excise tax on expensive insurance policies by 2018; will add fees on pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and will collect penalties from individuals and large business that do not buy the coverage required by the new law.
3. Overhauling Federal Student Loans. Provisions tacked onto the health care reform bill eliminated the role of private lenders in originating federal student loans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that will save the federal government, which paid lenders to oversee the program, between $6 billion and $7 billion per year.
The people who will notice the biggest difference will be financial aid officers, who used to decide which private lenders they would use to originate federal loans for their students. Those loans will now all be originated by the U.S. Department of Education and will have the same federal terms and conditions that have been in effect for years.
But the changes will eventually impact every student who applies for and receives federal loans to attend college or graduate school. Although students will still seek loans through the financial aid office at their college or university, the loans cannot be resold to other loan servicers and will not be affected by private bank failures, which could disrupt payments.
Because of a spike in demand for Pell grants, that program was on course to run out of money in 2010. The Pell grant program will now remain solvent until at least 2017, with the maximum Pell grant award rising from $5,550 this year to $5,975 five years from now.
4. Failing to pass the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. In the last days of the 111th Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spiked an omnibus spending bill that was made up of all 12 annual spending bills that Congress usually passes individually.
In the short term, that means the federal government will continue operating at current spending levels until March 5. But in the longer-term, it guarantees the first of many showdowns over spending between the Republican-led House and the Democratic Senate. With government spending at the top of most incoming Republicans' target lists, compromise between the two chambers could be almost impossible.
The impasse also puts the future of earmarking in doubt. Although Republicans had sponsored thousands of the 6,600 earmarks in the bill, they backed away from the legislation when tea party activists made it clear they would challenge GOP lawmakers in the future who voted for pork projects now.
5. Overseeing a $1.29 Trillion Increase in the Deficit. New federal programs cost money, and the 111th Congress oversaw the second-highest deficit in history and an increase in the national debt to $14 trillion.
David Walker, the onetime Comptroller General of the United States, says runaway spending in Washington will have a crippling effect on Americans one and two generations from now. "We're mortgaging the future of the country, and their children and grandchildren," Walker told Politics Daily. "At the same time, because of the growth of spending, we're reducing the role of investments in our future because the budget on the discretionary side is getting squeezed at a time when America is facing growing competition in a global economy."
If Congress does not change its spending habits now, Walker said, everyone's tax bills will be higher in the future. "If we don't end up reforming our ways, federal taxes will have to double within the next 20 to 30 years, just to stop the bleeding."
Friday, December 17, 2010
Congress Sends Tax Cut Bill to Obama's Desk
A massive bipartisan tax package preventing a big New Year's Day tax hike for millions of Americans is on its way to President Barack Obama for his signature. The measure would extend tax cuts for families at every income level, renew jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed and enact a new one-year cut in Social Security taxes that would benefit nearly every worker who earns a wage. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/17/congress-passes-extend-tax-cuts-jobless-aid/
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Tax Cut Debate Stalls as Package Hits House Hurdle
Published December 16, 2010 FoxNews.com
The massive tax cut package that passed the Senate Wednesday has screeched to a halt in the House as representatives squabble over procedural complaints.
The House was originally expected to debate and vote on the tax cut package as early as Thursday afternoon, albeit with some potential changes. The plan was to first hold a vote on an alternative proposal that would raise the estate tax above what Republicans want. If that failed, the House was scheduled to vote instead on the Senate-passed bill.
But before any of that could happen, the so-called "rule" -- the legislative device that has to be approved before a bill can come to the floor -- was pulled. The House has since gone into recess.
A senior House aide told Fox News that the House Rules Committee will try to rework the language in hopes of salvaging a vote on the package Thursday.
"We can't go anywhere anyway -- it's snowing," the aide said.
Rules Committee Chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said "just about everybody" had a problem with the rule, which would have allowed for a vote on the estate-tax alternative. The primary complaint was that members were concerned that if the alternative bill passed, they would not be able to cast a vote on the Senate version -- they wanted to be able to vote on both packages no matter what.
In addition, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said Democrats are pushing for more changes to the bill, including an extension of the income tax credit from the 2009 stimulus law.
As a result, the tax cut package is stuck in limbo as the procedural wonks figure out what to do next.
The dispute appears to have slowed the bill's momentum after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the $858 billion package of tax breaks and unemployment aid on Wednesday.
After the Senate vote Wednesday, President Obama declared himself still opposed to portions of the legislation because it keeps in place big tax benefits for the wealthy. Nevertheless, he said, compromise was necessary.
"I know that not every member of Congress likes every piece of this bill, and it includes some provisions that I oppose. But as a whole, this package will grow our economy, create jobs, and help middle class families across the country," Obama said in a statement.
In return for keeping in place tax cuts for all income levels, Obama had won a Republican pledge to vote for a 13-month extension of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. The deal also includes a 2 percent reduction in payroll taxes that fund Social Security, the federal pension system for the retired and disabled.
Most Democrats, along with Obama, opposed keeping tax cuts in place for households earning more than $250,000 a year. But Republicans threatened to scuttle a continuation of tax breaks for those who earn less than that amount without continued breaks for the wealthy.
The part of the Senate-passed legislation liberal House Democrats find most upsetting involves the inheritance taxes. Under the compromise negotiated between Obama and congressional Republicans, the portion of estates above $5 million would be subject to a 35 percent tax rate.
House Democrats want the taxation threshold lowered to $3.5 million, and the top rate increased to 45 percent. That's the alternative plan they were expected to vote on Thursday.
If the House passes that plan, the bill would have to return to the Senate -- both chambers must pass identical versions of the package. However, if the House rejects the alternative plan and subsequently approves the Senate-passed plan instead, then the package goes straight to Obama's desk for his signature.
Despite House Democrats' displeasure with the law, it was widely expected to pass because few lawmakers in either party are keen to have cast a vote that could significantly raise taxes on the middle class. That's presuming the House can get past the "rules" phase.
But passions still were running high in the House, where debate will be heated.
"Let's find out if Republicans really want to jeopardize income tax, payroll tax and estate tax relief for every American in order to provide a budget-busting bonanza to the country's richest estates," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a leader within the Democratic Party, wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece on Wednesday. "House Democrats think this trade-off should be debated and voted on in the light of day."
Even so, said Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., "We can jump up and down all we want about the higher-end estate taxes, and I don't think anything's going to change because the Senate isn't going to change it."
Thirty-one members of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging quick passage of the bill.
"It is time for us to put aside the partisan talking points and accomplish what the American people sent us here to do," said the letter.
Fox News' Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/16/tax-cut-debate-stalls-package-hits-house-hurdle/
The massive tax cut package that passed the Senate Wednesday has screeched to a halt in the House as representatives squabble over procedural complaints.
The House was originally expected to debate and vote on the tax cut package as early as Thursday afternoon, albeit with some potential changes. The plan was to first hold a vote on an alternative proposal that would raise the estate tax above what Republicans want. If that failed, the House was scheduled to vote instead on the Senate-passed bill.
But before any of that could happen, the so-called "rule" -- the legislative device that has to be approved before a bill can come to the floor -- was pulled. The House has since gone into recess.
A senior House aide told Fox News that the House Rules Committee will try to rework the language in hopes of salvaging a vote on the package Thursday.
"We can't go anywhere anyway -- it's snowing," the aide said.
Rules Committee Chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said "just about everybody" had a problem with the rule, which would have allowed for a vote on the estate-tax alternative. The primary complaint was that members were concerned that if the alternative bill passed, they would not be able to cast a vote on the Senate version -- they wanted to be able to vote on both packages no matter what.
In addition, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said Democrats are pushing for more changes to the bill, including an extension of the income tax credit from the 2009 stimulus law.
As a result, the tax cut package is stuck in limbo as the procedural wonks figure out what to do next.
The dispute appears to have slowed the bill's momentum after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the $858 billion package of tax breaks and unemployment aid on Wednesday.
After the Senate vote Wednesday, President Obama declared himself still opposed to portions of the legislation because it keeps in place big tax benefits for the wealthy. Nevertheless, he said, compromise was necessary.
"I know that not every member of Congress likes every piece of this bill, and it includes some provisions that I oppose. But as a whole, this package will grow our economy, create jobs, and help middle class families across the country," Obama said in a statement.
In return for keeping in place tax cuts for all income levels, Obama had won a Republican pledge to vote for a 13-month extension of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. The deal also includes a 2 percent reduction in payroll taxes that fund Social Security, the federal pension system for the retired and disabled.
Most Democrats, along with Obama, opposed keeping tax cuts in place for households earning more than $250,000 a year. But Republicans threatened to scuttle a continuation of tax breaks for those who earn less than that amount without continued breaks for the wealthy.
The part of the Senate-passed legislation liberal House Democrats find most upsetting involves the inheritance taxes. Under the compromise negotiated between Obama and congressional Republicans, the portion of estates above $5 million would be subject to a 35 percent tax rate.
House Democrats want the taxation threshold lowered to $3.5 million, and the top rate increased to 45 percent. That's the alternative plan they were expected to vote on Thursday.
If the House passes that plan, the bill would have to return to the Senate -- both chambers must pass identical versions of the package. However, if the House rejects the alternative plan and subsequently approves the Senate-passed plan instead, then the package goes straight to Obama's desk for his signature.
Despite House Democrats' displeasure with the law, it was widely expected to pass because few lawmakers in either party are keen to have cast a vote that could significantly raise taxes on the middle class. That's presuming the House can get past the "rules" phase.
But passions still were running high in the House, where debate will be heated.
"Let's find out if Republicans really want to jeopardize income tax, payroll tax and estate tax relief for every American in order to provide a budget-busting bonanza to the country's richest estates," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a leader within the Democratic Party, wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece on Wednesday. "House Democrats think this trade-off should be debated and voted on in the light of day."
Even so, said Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., "We can jump up and down all we want about the higher-end estate taxes, and I don't think anything's going to change because the Senate isn't going to change it."
Thirty-one members of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging quick passage of the bill.
"It is time for us to put aside the partisan talking points and accomplish what the American people sent us here to do," said the letter.
Fox News' Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/16/tax-cut-debate-stalls-package-hits-house-hurdle/
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
SENATE PASSES TAX RELIEF BILL, 81-19; Legislation Goes to the House
Tax Deal Possibly Endangered by Error in Legislation
Published December 15, 2010, FoxNews.com
President Obama on Wednesday urged lawmakers to reach a compromise on tax extenders but a glitch in the bill caused some senators to scramble for a correction without endangering its outcome.
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., came to the Senate floor Wednesday to announce a "mistake" in the legislation. She said a program to extend low income housing tax credits for people who lost homes during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was left out of the bill even though it was a deal that all sides approved.
Landrieu said the money is needed for two more years to complete the projects and its inclusion was blessed by the White House and the entire Louisiana delegation of nine lawmakers, two Democrats and seven Republicans. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., followed to say that she was right.
But the addition could open up a can of worms because Republicans have said they would not accept any changes to the deal with President Obama that House Democrats have already indicated they want to rip up.
The tax deal package would extend current income tax rates for another two years and add hundreds of billions in additional spending through sweeteners and a 13-month extension in jobless benefits. The deal was approved by Republicans and Obama but faces stiff opposition among House Democrats who say Americans should have to pay larger percentages of taxes on bequeathed estates than is negotiated in the deal.
As he prepared to enter a meeting with CEOs from 20 of the country's largest companies, Obama urged Congress to pass the tax legislation.
"I know there are different aspects of this plan to which members of Congress on both sides of the aisle object. That's the nature of compromise. But we worked hard to negotiate an agreement that's a win for middle-class families and a win for our economy, and we can't afford to let it fall victim to either delay or defeat," he said.
But as House Democrats fume over extended benefits to the wealthy, Landrieu's announcement could offer them a reason to refuse to accept the measure, which passed a Senate test vote 83-15 and was expected to win an even greater margin on Wednesday after dispensing with three amendments unlikely to pass.
An amendment from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to pay for the costs of extending unemployment insurance payments by reducing unnecessary and duplicative spending failed in a 47-52 vote;
Another amendment from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to permanently extend the Bush-era rates, permanently repeal the estate tax, and to permanently provide alternative minimum tax relief failed in a 37-63 vote;
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., also has an amendment to "provide an extension of 2010 tax cuts only for the bottom 98 percent of taxpayers, to reform the estate tax, to extend "the making work pay credit in lieu of a payroll tax holiday, to provide relief for senior citizens, and to provide for improvements in infrastructure, energy and water."
Once the legislation passes the Senate, it will go over to the House where debate could begin as early as Wednesday night. House Democrats have pledged to make a change, most likely relating to the estate tax. Or they could consider a change in the estate tax provision as a stand-alone issue.
Another option is to "divide the question" as Democrats did on a bill for supplemental funding of the war in Iraq. To give anti-war Democrats cover, the maneuver -- used a number of times -- ensured anti-war Democrats a vote on their issue but enabled the House to vote on war funding and not leave troops in the lurch.
Still, the vote doesn't sit well with liberal Democrats like Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon who said it's like going "back to square one" after House Democrats voted on a resolution last week to refuse to bring up the bill for a vote.
Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt,. told Fox News on Wednesday that he doesn't think House Democrats have the vote to kill it, but the bill is too costly.
"It's too few jobs and too much debt," Welch said, adding that Democrats support existing middle class tax rates, but "there's about a $200 billion ransom here that's being paid to get the support of the Senate Republicans and it's going from bad to worse. ... The estimates are that the cost of each job is going to be $400,000 if we borrow in order to finance that recovery."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/15/senate-vote-package-extending-bush-tax-cuts/
Published December 15, 2010, FoxNews.com
President Obama on Wednesday urged lawmakers to reach a compromise on tax extenders but a glitch in the bill caused some senators to scramble for a correction without endangering its outcome.
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., came to the Senate floor Wednesday to announce a "mistake" in the legislation. She said a program to extend low income housing tax credits for people who lost homes during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was left out of the bill even though it was a deal that all sides approved.
Landrieu said the money is needed for two more years to complete the projects and its inclusion was blessed by the White House and the entire Louisiana delegation of nine lawmakers, two Democrats and seven Republicans. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., followed to say that she was right.
But the addition could open up a can of worms because Republicans have said they would not accept any changes to the deal with President Obama that House Democrats have already indicated they want to rip up.
The tax deal package would extend current income tax rates for another two years and add hundreds of billions in additional spending through sweeteners and a 13-month extension in jobless benefits. The deal was approved by Republicans and Obama but faces stiff opposition among House Democrats who say Americans should have to pay larger percentages of taxes on bequeathed estates than is negotiated in the deal.
As he prepared to enter a meeting with CEOs from 20 of the country's largest companies, Obama urged Congress to pass the tax legislation.
"I know there are different aspects of this plan to which members of Congress on both sides of the aisle object. That's the nature of compromise. But we worked hard to negotiate an agreement that's a win for middle-class families and a win for our economy, and we can't afford to let it fall victim to either delay or defeat," he said.
But as House Democrats fume over extended benefits to the wealthy, Landrieu's announcement could offer them a reason to refuse to accept the measure, which passed a Senate test vote 83-15 and was expected to win an even greater margin on Wednesday after dispensing with three amendments unlikely to pass.
An amendment from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to pay for the costs of extending unemployment insurance payments by reducing unnecessary and duplicative spending failed in a 47-52 vote;
Another amendment from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to permanently extend the Bush-era rates, permanently repeal the estate tax, and to permanently provide alternative minimum tax relief failed in a 37-63 vote;
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., also has an amendment to "provide an extension of 2010 tax cuts only for the bottom 98 percent of taxpayers, to reform the estate tax, to extend "the making work pay credit in lieu of a payroll tax holiday, to provide relief for senior citizens, and to provide for improvements in infrastructure, energy and water."
Once the legislation passes the Senate, it will go over to the House where debate could begin as early as Wednesday night. House Democrats have pledged to make a change, most likely relating to the estate tax. Or they could consider a change in the estate tax provision as a stand-alone issue.
Another option is to "divide the question" as Democrats did on a bill for supplemental funding of the war in Iraq. To give anti-war Democrats cover, the maneuver -- used a number of times -- ensured anti-war Democrats a vote on their issue but enabled the House to vote on war funding and not leave troops in the lurch.
Still, the vote doesn't sit well with liberal Democrats like Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon who said it's like going "back to square one" after House Democrats voted on a resolution last week to refuse to bring up the bill for a vote.
Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt,. told Fox News on Wednesday that he doesn't think House Democrats have the vote to kill it, but the bill is too costly.
"It's too few jobs and too much debt," Welch said, adding that Democrats support existing middle class tax rates, but "there's about a $200 billion ransom here that's being paid to get the support of the Senate Republicans and it's going from bad to worse. ... The estimates are that the cost of each job is going to be $400,000 if we borrow in order to finance that recovery."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/15/senate-vote-package-extending-bush-tax-cuts/
Friday, December 10, 2010
Obama--Republican Compromise on Extending Tax Cuts
Message from a Club for Growth
On Monday, President Obama announced the compromise he reached with Republican congressional leaders, extending both the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits. As liberals shrieked in outrage, many conservatives assumed the deal must be pretty good.
It's not, and so far the people saying so the loudest have been the Club, and some of our PAC-endorsed superstars like Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Jeff Flake. Economic conservatives have been so fixated on extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 - a vital goal - that many have missed the underlying weaknesses of the deal cut on our behalf by Republican leaders.
1. The deal extends the marginal income tax rates, but resurrects the Death Tax from zero this year to 35 percent next year. Some people don't see this as a tax hike. We do.
2. The deal extends 99-week unemployment insurance benefits for another 13 months, at a cost of $56 billion, without offsets elsewhere in the budget. This would blow another huge hole in the deficit, just weeks after the American people demanded fiscal discipline at the polls. And it will keep the unemployment rate artificially high, leading to a protracted stall in the economy.
3. The employee-side Social Security tax cut is not only temporary, but also creates no incentive to hire, invest, and grow. This is Keynesian-style stimulus.
4. Finally, all of the tax cuts will only be extended a year or two, and history teaches we can't get permanent economic growth from temporary economic policy.
It's time Washington stopped monkeying around with temporary tax cuts and permanent spending. The pro-growth conservative Congress elected last month was sent to change Washington - that means flipping the mentality to temporary spending and permanent tax relief.
The Club's opposition to the deal has generated a lot of media interest, and I wanted to give you a chance to see what I've been up to.
Click here to see me on Cavuto: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14577&utm_source=Club+for+Growth&utm_campaign=3d0c3426e2-10_12_09_Weekly_Email_i101209A&utm_medium=email
Click here to see me on The Kudlow Report: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14576&utm_source=Club+for+Growth&utm_campaign=3d0c3426e2-10_12_09_Weekly_Email_i101209A&utm_medium=email
As we said Monday, the tax compromise is bad policy, bad politics, and a bad deal for the American people. We're going to fight it, and I hope you will continue to help us wage and win fights for economic growth and freedom over the next two years. I know you won't let up. Neither will we.
Please consider making a donation today.
Thank you, again, as always.
Best regards,
Chris Chocola
President, Club for Growth
2001 L Street, NW, Ste 600
Washington, DC 20036
PH: 202-955-5500
On Monday, President Obama announced the compromise he reached with Republican congressional leaders, extending both the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits. As liberals shrieked in outrage, many conservatives assumed the deal must be pretty good.
It's not, and so far the people saying so the loudest have been the Club, and some of our PAC-endorsed superstars like Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Jeff Flake. Economic conservatives have been so fixated on extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 - a vital goal - that many have missed the underlying weaknesses of the deal cut on our behalf by Republican leaders.
1. The deal extends the marginal income tax rates, but resurrects the Death Tax from zero this year to 35 percent next year. Some people don't see this as a tax hike. We do.
2. The deal extends 99-week unemployment insurance benefits for another 13 months, at a cost of $56 billion, without offsets elsewhere in the budget. This would blow another huge hole in the deficit, just weeks after the American people demanded fiscal discipline at the polls. And it will keep the unemployment rate artificially high, leading to a protracted stall in the economy.
3. The employee-side Social Security tax cut is not only temporary, but also creates no incentive to hire, invest, and grow. This is Keynesian-style stimulus.
4. Finally, all of the tax cuts will only be extended a year or two, and history teaches we can't get permanent economic growth from temporary economic policy.
It's time Washington stopped monkeying around with temporary tax cuts and permanent spending. The pro-growth conservative Congress elected last month was sent to change Washington - that means flipping the mentality to temporary spending and permanent tax relief.
The Club's opposition to the deal has generated a lot of media interest, and I wanted to give you a chance to see what I've been up to.
Click here to see me on Cavuto: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14577&utm_source=Club+for+Growth&utm_campaign=3d0c3426e2-10_12_09_Weekly_Email_i101209A&utm_medium=email
Click here to see me on The Kudlow Report: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14576&utm_source=Club+for+Growth&utm_campaign=3d0c3426e2-10_12_09_Weekly_Email_i101209A&utm_medium=email
As we said Monday, the tax compromise is bad policy, bad politics, and a bad deal for the American people. We're going to fight it, and I hope you will continue to help us wage and win fights for economic growth and freedom over the next two years. I know you won't let up. Neither will we.
Please consider making a donation today.
Thank you, again, as always.
Best regards,
Chris Chocola
President, Club for Growth
2001 L Street, NW, Ste 600
Washington, DC 20036
PH: 202-955-5500
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Senate Update......The Tax Cuts...HR4853
First of all the democrats have it wrong again if they truly believe people that make over 250,000 are rich. I know many small business owners, my parents included that earn more than that, but expenses are high and trying to keep people working in these economic times is a large responsibility for main street America. Again....coming after main street! Make your calls and urge them to vote for tax breaks/cuts for ALL at this time. DD
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A2968535&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A2968535&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
Senate rejects million-dollar tax-cut compromise in Saturday session
The Hill--- 12/04/10
The Senate on Saturday voted down a proposal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for middle-income families, falling short of the necessary 60 votes.
Members voted 53-36 for an amendment by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) that would have extended the cuts for individuals with incomes of up to $200,000 and families with incomes of up to $250,000.
The vote was widely expected, and was followed by a second proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that would extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanently for incomes of up to $1 million, among other provisions such as a one-year extension of unemployment benefits and cuts in capital gains, estate and dividend taxes.
The Senate voted down that proposal, too, voting 53-37, seven votes short of the 60-vote threshold necessary to end debate.
Congressional leaders are negotiating with the White House over an alternative tax cut proposal. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he is hopeful an agreement could be secured by late next week.
The Senate on Saturday voted down a proposal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for middle-income families, falling short of the necessary 60 votes.
Members voted 53-36 for an amendment by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) that would have extended the cuts for individuals with incomes of up to $200,000 and families with incomes of up to $250,000.
The vote was widely expected, and was followed by a second proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that would extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanently for incomes of up to $1 million, among other provisions such as a one-year extension of unemployment benefits and cuts in capital gains, estate and dividend taxes.
The Senate voted down that proposal, too, voting 53-37, seven votes short of the 60-vote threshold necessary to end debate.
Congressional leaders are negotiating with the White House over an alternative tax cut proposal. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he is hopeful an agreement could be secured by late next week.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Obama: Bush Tax Cuts Expire!
How Will It Affect You?
Benjamin Franklin wrote that "nothing is certain but death and taxes," but that is only half-true. There is absolutely nothing dead-certain about taxes this year.
Unless Congress acts soon, almost all of the "Bush tax cuts" and credits that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 will expire at the end of this year. Most financial analysts and Washington insiders say they don't expect that to happen. But if it does, you -- the American taxpayer -- are in for a tax hike. A big one.
Here's what it will mean to you:
-- The standard percent rates -- the baseline percentage of your income that goes to the government -- will universally rise, at an estimated cost of roughly $157 billion annually; from 10 percent to 15 (for lowest-income earners), from 25 percent to 28, from 28 percent to 31, from 33 percent to 36, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent (for highest-income earners).
-- Indexing of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which ensures that taxpayers who benefit from itemized reductions and/or credits pay a separately calculated minimum tax, will expire.
-- Taxes on capital gains and dividends will increase, potentially costing investors an estimated $35 billion annually.
-- Married couples who saw their standard deduction raised to that of double the single amount will go back to paying higher rates, at a cost of roughly $32 billion a year.
-- Expanded tax credits like the child tax credit, which previously increased to $1,000 from $500, will expire, costing American families an estimated $26 billion a year.
-- The already-expired estate tax would revert back to 2009 levels, translating to a minimum estimate of $26 billion to heirs and heiresses.
-- The personal exemption phase-out (PEP), which allowed high-income filers to deduct the full value of their personal exemptions and itemized deductions, will expire, potentially costing wealthy households about $21 billion.
"As a general matter, everybody is affected, maybe except for certain seniors," said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "All taxpayers have something at stake."
For the family of four bringing in a combined income of $75,000, the expiration of all Bush-era tax cuts will amount to a tax increase of $2,143 next year, according to the Tax Foundation's 2011 Income Tax Calculator.
A family of four earning $150,000 would see its income tax burden increase by $4,510 to $23,150, according to the Tax Foundation.
Single filers, meanwhile, would see their taxes rise by $605 at the $50,000 income plateau and by $1,355 at $75,000. A single filer earning $150,000, including $15,000 in long-term capital gains, would pay an extra $3,269, with a total tax liability of $28,340.
A single parent of one child earning $25,000 would see his tax liability rise by $955, decreasing his tax refund of $1,856 to just more than $900. A low-income family of five earning a total of $45,000 would see their taxes increase by $2,538, equating to a total tax liability of $1,028.
An upper-middle income family of four with two earners pulling in $150,000, including $15,000 in long-term capital gains, would see their taxes increase by $3,802. That family's total tax burden? Roughly $21,600.
A high-income family of four, meanwhile, with a combined income of $300,000 and $20,000 in itemized deductions, would see their taxes jump by more than $11,000 if Congress allows all of the Bush-era tax cuts to expire. That equals a total tax liability of $68,392.
For even higher earners -- such as a married couple with no children making $420,000 in total income and with $20,000 deductions apiece for state and local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions -- that total tax liability grows to $106,815, or an increase of more than $16,600 from 2010.
Further up the income ladder, a married couple earning $700,000 in wages with $300,000 worth of long-term capital gains and qualified dividends and $95,000 in deductions for mortgage interest and state/local income taxes would see their tax share grow by $61,206.
Finally, a retired married couple with a combined income of $60,000 -- including $10,000 in qualified dividends, $25,000 in Social Security benefits and $10,000 in 401(k) distributions -- would see their tax liability increase by $2,676.
"If all the tax cuts expire, everyone stands to lose," said Mark Robyn, a staff economist for the Tax Foundation. "A lot of people like to paint the Bush tax cuts as having only benefited the rich, which is not true -- you can simply look at the estimates."
Citing estimates from the Office of Management and Budget, Robyn said letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire only for high-income people would raise $630 billion over 10 years, compared to $3 trillion during the same period if all the tax cuts were to expire.
Robyn said one of the biggest tax cuts for middle-income earners was the creation of the 10 percent bracket, which will rise to 15 percent if Congress doesn't act. He also cited the significant impact of doubling the child tax credit to $1,000. That, too, will expire unless a compromise is reached in Washington.
"That's a pretty significant tax cut," Robyn said. "If that were to go back, I think a lot of people would feel that. That's a dollar for dollar decrease in your tax liability."
Source: www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/11/expiration-bush-tax-cuts-affect/ By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published October 11, 2010
Benjamin Franklin wrote that "nothing is certain but death and taxes," but that is only half-true. There is absolutely nothing dead-certain about taxes this year.
Unless Congress acts soon, almost all of the "Bush tax cuts" and credits that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 will expire at the end of this year. Most financial analysts and Washington insiders say they don't expect that to happen. But if it does, you -- the American taxpayer -- are in for a tax hike. A big one.
Here's what it will mean to you:
-- The standard percent rates -- the baseline percentage of your income that goes to the government -- will universally rise, at an estimated cost of roughly $157 billion annually; from 10 percent to 15 (for lowest-income earners), from 25 percent to 28, from 28 percent to 31, from 33 percent to 36, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent (for highest-income earners).
-- Indexing of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which ensures that taxpayers who benefit from itemized reductions and/or credits pay a separately calculated minimum tax, will expire.
-- Taxes on capital gains and dividends will increase, potentially costing investors an estimated $35 billion annually.
-- Married couples who saw their standard deduction raised to that of double the single amount will go back to paying higher rates, at a cost of roughly $32 billion a year.
-- Expanded tax credits like the child tax credit, which previously increased to $1,000 from $500, will expire, costing American families an estimated $26 billion a year.
-- The already-expired estate tax would revert back to 2009 levels, translating to a minimum estimate of $26 billion to heirs and heiresses.
-- The personal exemption phase-out (PEP), which allowed high-income filers to deduct the full value of their personal exemptions and itemized deductions, will expire, potentially costing wealthy households about $21 billion.
"As a general matter, everybody is affected, maybe except for certain seniors," said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "All taxpayers have something at stake."
For the family of four bringing in a combined income of $75,000, the expiration of all Bush-era tax cuts will amount to a tax increase of $2,143 next year, according to the Tax Foundation's 2011 Income Tax Calculator.
A family of four earning $150,000 would see its income tax burden increase by $4,510 to $23,150, according to the Tax Foundation.
Single filers, meanwhile, would see their taxes rise by $605 at the $50,000 income plateau and by $1,355 at $75,000. A single filer earning $150,000, including $15,000 in long-term capital gains, would pay an extra $3,269, with a total tax liability of $28,340.
A single parent of one child earning $25,000 would see his tax liability rise by $955, decreasing his tax refund of $1,856 to just more than $900. A low-income family of five earning a total of $45,000 would see their taxes increase by $2,538, equating to a total tax liability of $1,028.
An upper-middle income family of four with two earners pulling in $150,000, including $15,000 in long-term capital gains, would see their taxes increase by $3,802. That family's total tax burden? Roughly $21,600.
A high-income family of four, meanwhile, with a combined income of $300,000 and $20,000 in itemized deductions, would see their taxes jump by more than $11,000 if Congress allows all of the Bush-era tax cuts to expire. That equals a total tax liability of $68,392.
For even higher earners -- such as a married couple with no children making $420,000 in total income and with $20,000 deductions apiece for state and local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions -- that total tax liability grows to $106,815, or an increase of more than $16,600 from 2010.
Further up the income ladder, a married couple earning $700,000 in wages with $300,000 worth of long-term capital gains and qualified dividends and $95,000 in deductions for mortgage interest and state/local income taxes would see their tax share grow by $61,206.
Finally, a retired married couple with a combined income of $60,000 -- including $10,000 in qualified dividends, $25,000 in Social Security benefits and $10,000 in 401(k) distributions -- would see their tax liability increase by $2,676.
"If all the tax cuts expire, everyone stands to lose," said Mark Robyn, a staff economist for the Tax Foundation. "A lot of people like to paint the Bush tax cuts as having only benefited the rich, which is not true -- you can simply look at the estimates."
Citing estimates from the Office of Management and Budget, Robyn said letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire only for high-income people would raise $630 billion over 10 years, compared to $3 trillion during the same period if all the tax cuts were to expire.
Robyn said one of the biggest tax cuts for middle-income earners was the creation of the 10 percent bracket, which will rise to 15 percent if Congress doesn't act. He also cited the significant impact of doubling the child tax credit to $1,000. That, too, will expire unless a compromise is reached in Washington.
"That's a pretty significant tax cut," Robyn said. "If that were to go back, I think a lot of people would feel that. That's a dollar for dollar decrease in your tax liability."
Source: www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/11/expiration-bush-tax-cuts-affect/ By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published October 11, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Boehner surprise: Dems barely get votes to adjourn after floor speech
By Jordan Fabian - 09/29/10 12:26 PM ET
House Democrats on Wednesday barely won a 210-209 vote to adjourn the House without extending the Bush tax cuts.
Thirty-nine House Democrats voted against adjournment after Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) urged opposition to the motion in a floor speech that said it would be irresponsible for Congress to leave without providing certainty on the tax issue. Dozens of Democrats in tough races voted against adjourning.
"Vote no on this adjournment resolution. Give Congress a chance to vote on extending tax rates," Boehner said.
Boehner's floor speech turned the vote on adjournment into a referendum on the tax cuts, which has divided Democrats for months. President Obama wants to extend tax cuts for families making less than $250,000, while allowing taxes to rise on income above that threshold. Many centrist Democrats have joined Republicans in arguing for extending all of the tax cuts.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters Wednesday that the House would not vote on the expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts before lawmakers break for the November midterm elections. The House is expected to conclude its work late Wednesday or early Thursday morning.
The House had been seen as unlikely to vote on the tax measure since the Senate decided last week against acting on it before the election, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not inform lawmakers of a final decision until Wednesday morning, a House leadership aide said. Hoyer and Pelosi had split on the timing of the vote, but the aide said the two party leaders were ultimately on the same page.
Wednesday's vote, however, made it clear that dozens of Democrats were uncomfortable with leaving Washington without a vote on extending the tax cuts.
The 39 Democrats who voted against adjournment were a mix of centrist Blue Dogs and vulnerable members from Republican-leaning districts. Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.), Gerry Connolly (Va.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Walt Minnick (Idaho) and Tom Perriello (Va.) were among the vulnerable Democrats to vote against ending the work period without voting on the tax cuts.
Three House Democrats who are running for Senate, Reps. Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Charlie Melancon (La.) and Joe Sestak (Pa.) also voted against adjournment.
Members who voted to adjourn were "putting their election above the needs of your constituents," Boehner said in his speech. "Vote no on this adjournment resolution. Give Congress the chance to vote on extending tax rates."
Following the vote, Pelosi's office criticized Boehner's speech, saying it did not contain productive solutions to help aid the economic recovery.
"After listening to House Republican Leader John Boehner’s speech on the House floor today, it is clear that Americans face a choice: keep moving America forward—or return to what Republicans themselves call the 'exact same' agenda of failed ideas that favored corporate special interests, pushed us to the brink of economic disaster and left the middle class and small businesses struggling," a release from her office reads.
The House still has several votes today, including on a measure to keep the federal government operating through Dec. 3, before it adjourns.
Here's the full list of Democrats who voted against adjournment:
Rep. John Adler (N.J.)
Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
Rep. Melissa Bean (Ill.)
Rep. Tim Bishop (N.Y.)
Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Rep. Chris Carney (Pa.)
Rep. Travis Childers (Miss.)
Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.)
Rep. Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Rep. Steve Driehaus (Ohio)
Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas)
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (Ind.)
Rep. Bill Foster (Ill.)
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.)
Rep. Martin Heinrich (N.M.)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio)
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz.)
Rep. Frank Kratovil (Md.)
Rep. Betsy Markey (Colo.)
Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga.)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)
Rep. Charlie Melancon (La.)
Rep. Mike Michaud (Maine)
Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Rep. Harry Mitchell (Ariz.)
Rep. Patrick Murphy (Pa.)
Rep. Glenn Nye (Va.)
Rep. Tom Perriello (Va.)
Rep. Gary Peters (Mich.)
Rep. Mark Schauer (Mich.)
Rep. Joe Sestak (Pa.)
Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Rep. Zack Space (Ohio)
Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Rep. Dina Titus (Nev.)
Ian Swanson and Russell Berman contributed to this post
This story was updated at 2:00 p.m. and at 2:48 p.m.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/121599-boehner-decries-punt-on-tax-cut-vote-
Boehner surprise: Dems barely get votes to adjourn after floor speech - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
By Jordan Fabian - 09/29/10 12:26 PM ET
House Democrats on Wednesday barely won a 210-209 vote to adjourn the House without extending the Bush tax cuts.
Thirty-nine House Democrats voted against adjournment after Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) urged opposition to the motion in a floor speech that said it would be irresponsible for Congress to leave without providing certainty on the tax issue. Dozens of Democrats in tough races voted against adjourning.
"Vote no on this adjournment resolution. Give Congress a chance to vote on extending tax rates," Boehner said.
Boehner's floor speech turned the vote on adjournment into a referendum on the tax cuts, which has divided Democrats for months. President Obama wants to extend tax cuts for families making less than $250,000, while allowing taxes to rise on income above that threshold. Many centrist Democrats have joined Republicans in arguing for extending all of the tax cuts.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters Wednesday that the House would not vote on the expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts before lawmakers break for the November midterm elections. The House is expected to conclude its work late Wednesday or early Thursday morning.
The House had been seen as unlikely to vote on the tax measure since the Senate decided last week against acting on it before the election, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not inform lawmakers of a final decision until Wednesday morning, a House leadership aide said. Hoyer and Pelosi had split on the timing of the vote, but the aide said the two party leaders were ultimately on the same page.
Wednesday's vote, however, made it clear that dozens of Democrats were uncomfortable with leaving Washington without a vote on extending the tax cuts.
The 39 Democrats who voted against adjournment were a mix of centrist Blue Dogs and vulnerable members from Republican-leaning districts. Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.), Gerry Connolly (Va.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Steve Driehaus (Ohio), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Walt Minnick (Idaho) and Tom Perriello (Va.) were among the vulnerable Democrats to vote against ending the work period without voting on the tax cuts.
Three House Democrats who are running for Senate, Reps. Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Charlie Melancon (La.) and Joe Sestak (Pa.) also voted against adjournment.
Members who voted to adjourn were "putting their election above the needs of your constituents," Boehner said in his speech. "Vote no on this adjournment resolution. Give Congress the chance to vote on extending tax rates."
Following the vote, Pelosi's office criticized Boehner's speech, saying it did not contain productive solutions to help aid the economic recovery.
"After listening to House Republican Leader John Boehner’s speech on the House floor today, it is clear that Americans face a choice: keep moving America forward—or return to what Republicans themselves call the 'exact same' agenda of failed ideas that favored corporate special interests, pushed us to the brink of economic disaster and left the middle class and small businesses struggling," a release from her office reads.
The House still has several votes today, including on a measure to keep the federal government operating through Dec. 3, before it adjourns.
Here's the full list of Democrats who voted against adjournment:
Rep. John Adler (N.J.)
Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
Rep. Melissa Bean (Ill.)
Rep. Tim Bishop (N.Y.)
Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Rep. Chris Carney (Pa.)
Rep. Travis Childers (Miss.)
Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.)
Rep. Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Rep. Steve Driehaus (Ohio)
Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas)
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (Ind.)
Rep. Bill Foster (Ill.)
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.)
Rep. Martin Heinrich (N.M.)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (Ohio)
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz.)
Rep. Frank Kratovil (Md.)
Rep. Betsy Markey (Colo.)
Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga.)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)
Rep. Charlie Melancon (La.)
Rep. Mike Michaud (Maine)
Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Rep. Harry Mitchell (Ariz.)
Rep. Patrick Murphy (Pa.)
Rep. Glenn Nye (Va.)
Rep. Tom Perriello (Va.)
Rep. Gary Peters (Mich.)
Rep. Mark Schauer (Mich.)
Rep. Joe Sestak (Pa.)
Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Rep. Zack Space (Ohio)
Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Rep. Dina Titus (Nev.)
Ian Swanson and Russell Berman contributed to this post
This story was updated at 2:00 p.m. and at 2:48 p.m.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/121599-boehner-decries-punt-on-tax-cut-vote-
Boehner surprise: Dems barely get votes to adjourn after floor speech - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Friday, September 24, 2010
It’s the Spending, Stupid
September 24, 2010 by Chip Wood
(NOTE: Congress has now put off acting on renewing the Bush tax cuts until after the election, in an effort to get re-elected first, then rest assured they will put the screws to us! PLEASE SUPPORT CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES NOW--AND GET OUT AND VOTE NOVEMBER 2nd!~Lynn)
Now there’s a message I hope you’ll see and hear a lot between now and election day — on bumper stickers on the backs of cars, in email messages and letters to the editor, on radio talk shows and a hundred other places; including in front of every polling place in the country, if that were allowed.
Please do your share to pass it around — including sending this column to a few dozen friends and family members who should read it. I wish I could take credit for the slogan — an obvious twist on the James Carville/Bill Clinton message two decades ago — but I can’t. It was the headline in a Daniel Henninger column last week in The Wall Street Journal.
Henninger began by quoting the president at a town-hall meeting in Fairfax, Va., where our Obfuscator in Chief attempted to explain the election victories of various Tea Party candidates.
“They saw the Recovery Act. They saw TARP. They saw the auto bailout. And they look at these and think, ‘God, all these huge numbers adding up.’ So they’re right to be concerned about that.”
Right. You feel our pain. I think we’ve heard that before.
Of course, the president could also have mentioned new deficits of more than a trillion dollars a year, two $3-trillion budgets since he took office, and a trillion-dollar healthcare entitlement shoved down our throats. Voters aren’t just “concerned,” Mr. President. Many of them have had it up to here with bloated, wasteful government spending. They are, to quote a wonderful old movie, mad as h**l and they’re not going to take it anymore.
If you consider yourself one of the “they” referred to above, you can take heart from the latest poll results. Last week the Rasmussen poll queried potential voters. Nearly seven out of 10 — an outstanding 68 percent of the total — said they want smaller government and lower taxes, even if that comes at the cost of fewer services.
The number was highest, of course, among people who identified themselves as Republicans, with 88 percent saying they wanted spending reduced. Democrats scored the lowest, but a still impressive 44 percent in favor of cuts. And where did the independents fall? Some 74 percent joined the anti-spending crowd.
My liberal friends, you’ve got trouble. Big trouble. And not just in River City. I’m not sure there’s a lie big enough, or a smear nasty enough, to keep you from getting your heads handed to you this fall.
f I were running against an incumbent, one of the first questions I would ask is, where were you when the tax cuts expired? And why did you do nothing to preserve them?
In case you’ve missed all the hullabaloo, here’s what’s happening… or, to be accurate, not happening.
Back in 2001, blessed by a healthy Republican majority in the House and Senate, George Bush persuaded Congress to approve some of the largest tax cuts in our country’s history. The Democrats couldn’t stop the legislation, but they very cleverly exacted a condition: The tax cuts would expire on Dec. 31, 2010, unless Congress extended them.
We’re getting awfully close to the witching hour and thus far, Congress hasn’t done a thing… except expend a lot of hot air. If Congress does nothing over the next three months — and usually, I’ve got to admit, that’s exactly what I wish the esteemed men and women who represent us would do — you and every other taxpayer in this country will see a lot more money taken from your pocket next year and given to Uncle Sam.
In fact, it will amount to the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And it will impact almost every taxpayer in the country. The front-page story in my local paper said it all: “Unless Congress acts, almost all earning levels will be paying more — from the wealthy to the working poor.”
And please don’t let anyone sucker you into believing that what’s at stake here are “tax breaks for the wealthy.” That is a bunch of hokum. Listen to this: “A typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax-consulting firm,” according to a story by The Associated Press.
But if you do make more than Obama’s $250,000 threshold, get ready to be really hammered. Starting on Jan. 1, 2011, the top marginal income-tax rate is set to increase to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. The phase-out of itemized deductions will raise that rate to 40.8 percent. Now that Obamacare has passed there will also be a 3.8 percent healthcare tax, starting in 2013. So the total Federal tax rate for our highest earners will be 44.6 percent.
But, in fact, it will be even higher. When the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes on stock dividends and capital gains will go from 15 percent to 20 percent. President Barack Obama has said he would like to see them raised as high as 28 percent.
And here’s an astounding fact that is known (or should be) to every member of Congress: Whenever Congress has increased taxes on capital gains in the past, actual tax collections have gone down. (PROVEN FACT)
That’s right: When government raises the tax rate, actual receipts drop. When you think about it, it’s not hard to understand why. Capital gains only occur when someone sells an investment and reports making a profit on it. But most of the time, they don’t have to sell. Given the mood of the country right now, how many investors will sit on their holdings rather than give more and more of them to a greedy, grasping, irresponsible government?
Oh, and there’s one more monstrosity racing down the road toward us. That is the re-imposition of the dreaded estate tax. Beginning next year the estate tax is slated to return to 55 percent on inheritances above $1 million. Right now, because Congress did nothing last year, the estate tax is zero. That explains the delirious joy on the part of the heirs of such billionaires as John Kluge and George Steinbrenner.
By dying this year, they saved their families over a billion dollars in taxes. Imagine — their heirs got all the money, not Uncle Sam. No wonder the distributionists among us are having apoplexy.
Where does all that money go? Part of it makes certain that Federal employees now make, on average, more than twice as much as workers in the private sector. That’s the startling conclusion of an analysis by USA Today, which found that anyone lucky enough to be gobbling at the Federal trough receives, on average, some $41,791 in benefits a year.
That’s in addition to a salary, on average, of $81,258 a year. Private workers, in comparison, earn only $61,051 in total compensation.
Let me repeat the first number, to make sure you grasp it. The average benefits of a Federal employee, above and beyond the salary he or she actually gets paid, comes to $41,791 a year.
If that isn’t enough to make you want to throw some tea into Boston Harbor — and a whole bunch of incumbents along with it, I don’t know what will.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
— Chip Wood
http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/its-the-spending-stupid/?eiid=&rmid=2010_09_24_PLA&rrid=243405105
September 24, 2010 by Chip Wood
(NOTE: Congress has now put off acting on renewing the Bush tax cuts until after the election, in an effort to get re-elected first, then rest assured they will put the screws to us! PLEASE SUPPORT CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES NOW--AND GET OUT AND VOTE NOVEMBER 2nd!~Lynn)
Now there’s a message I hope you’ll see and hear a lot between now and election day — on bumper stickers on the backs of cars, in email messages and letters to the editor, on radio talk shows and a hundred other places; including in front of every polling place in the country, if that were allowed.
Please do your share to pass it around — including sending this column to a few dozen friends and family members who should read it. I wish I could take credit for the slogan — an obvious twist on the James Carville/Bill Clinton message two decades ago — but I can’t. It was the headline in a Daniel Henninger column last week in The Wall Street Journal.
Henninger began by quoting the president at a town-hall meeting in Fairfax, Va., where our Obfuscator in Chief attempted to explain the election victories of various Tea Party candidates.
“They saw the Recovery Act. They saw TARP. They saw the auto bailout. And they look at these and think, ‘God, all these huge numbers adding up.’ So they’re right to be concerned about that.”
Right. You feel our pain. I think we’ve heard that before.
Of course, the president could also have mentioned new deficits of more than a trillion dollars a year, two $3-trillion budgets since he took office, and a trillion-dollar healthcare entitlement shoved down our throats. Voters aren’t just “concerned,” Mr. President. Many of them have had it up to here with bloated, wasteful government spending. They are, to quote a wonderful old movie, mad as h**l and they’re not going to take it anymore.
If you consider yourself one of the “they” referred to above, you can take heart from the latest poll results. Last week the Rasmussen poll queried potential voters. Nearly seven out of 10 — an outstanding 68 percent of the total — said they want smaller government and lower taxes, even if that comes at the cost of fewer services.
The number was highest, of course, among people who identified themselves as Republicans, with 88 percent saying they wanted spending reduced. Democrats scored the lowest, but a still impressive 44 percent in favor of cuts. And where did the independents fall? Some 74 percent joined the anti-spending crowd.
My liberal friends, you’ve got trouble. Big trouble. And not just in River City. I’m not sure there’s a lie big enough, or a smear nasty enough, to keep you from getting your heads handed to you this fall.
f I were running against an incumbent, one of the first questions I would ask is, where were you when the tax cuts expired? And why did you do nothing to preserve them?
In case you’ve missed all the hullabaloo, here’s what’s happening… or, to be accurate, not happening.
Back in 2001, blessed by a healthy Republican majority in the House and Senate, George Bush persuaded Congress to approve some of the largest tax cuts in our country’s history. The Democrats couldn’t stop the legislation, but they very cleverly exacted a condition: The tax cuts would expire on Dec. 31, 2010, unless Congress extended them.
We’re getting awfully close to the witching hour and thus far, Congress hasn’t done a thing… except expend a lot of hot air. If Congress does nothing over the next three months — and usually, I’ve got to admit, that’s exactly what I wish the esteemed men and women who represent us would do — you and every other taxpayer in this country will see a lot more money taken from your pocket next year and given to Uncle Sam.
In fact, it will amount to the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And it will impact almost every taxpayer in the country. The front-page story in my local paper said it all: “Unless Congress acts, almost all earning levels will be paying more — from the wealthy to the working poor.”
And please don’t let anyone sucker you into believing that what’s at stake here are “tax breaks for the wealthy.” That is a bunch of hokum. Listen to this: “A typical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to a new analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a tax-consulting firm,” according to a story by The Associated Press.
But if you do make more than Obama’s $250,000 threshold, get ready to be really hammered. Starting on Jan. 1, 2011, the top marginal income-tax rate is set to increase to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. The phase-out of itemized deductions will raise that rate to 40.8 percent. Now that Obamacare has passed there will also be a 3.8 percent healthcare tax, starting in 2013. So the total Federal tax rate for our highest earners will be 44.6 percent.
But, in fact, it will be even higher. When the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes on stock dividends and capital gains will go from 15 percent to 20 percent. President Barack Obama has said he would like to see them raised as high as 28 percent.
And here’s an astounding fact that is known (or should be) to every member of Congress: Whenever Congress has increased taxes on capital gains in the past, actual tax collections have gone down. (PROVEN FACT)
That’s right: When government raises the tax rate, actual receipts drop. When you think about it, it’s not hard to understand why. Capital gains only occur when someone sells an investment and reports making a profit on it. But most of the time, they don’t have to sell. Given the mood of the country right now, how many investors will sit on their holdings rather than give more and more of them to a greedy, grasping, irresponsible government?
Oh, and there’s one more monstrosity racing down the road toward us. That is the re-imposition of the dreaded estate tax. Beginning next year the estate tax is slated to return to 55 percent on inheritances above $1 million. Right now, because Congress did nothing last year, the estate tax is zero. That explains the delirious joy on the part of the heirs of such billionaires as John Kluge and George Steinbrenner.
By dying this year, they saved their families over a billion dollars in taxes. Imagine — their heirs got all the money, not Uncle Sam. No wonder the distributionists among us are having apoplexy.
Where does all that money go? Part of it makes certain that Federal employees now make, on average, more than twice as much as workers in the private sector. That’s the startling conclusion of an analysis by USA Today, which found that anyone lucky enough to be gobbling at the Federal trough receives, on average, some $41,791 in benefits a year.
That’s in addition to a salary, on average, of $81,258 a year. Private workers, in comparison, earn only $61,051 in total compensation.
Let me repeat the first number, to make sure you grasp it. The average benefits of a Federal employee, above and beyond the salary he or she actually gets paid, comes to $41,791 a year.
If that isn’t enough to make you want to throw some tea into Boston Harbor — and a whole bunch of incumbents along with it, I don’t know what will.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
— Chip Wood
http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/its-the-spending-stupid/?eiid=&rmid=2010_09_24_PLA&rrid=243405105
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Morning Bell:
Obama’s Desperate Times and Desperate Measures
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/morning-bell-obamas-desperate-times-and-desperate-measures/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Faced with predictions of staggering losses for his party in November’s midterm elections, President Barack Obama today appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” and said, “If the election is a referendum on ‘are people satisfied about the economy as it currently is,’ then we’re not going to do well, because I think everybody feels like this economy needs to do better than it’s been doing.” The prospect of that referendum is casting a long shadow over Washington as the President and candidates alike wrestle with America’s frustration over a still-stagnant economy, despite $814 billion in stimulus spending.
So what’s President Obama’s solution? Kick into campaign mode and turn to even more destined-to-fail stimulus gimmicks, loaded with increased government spending and higher taxes.
Yesterday, President Obama chose Cleveland, Ohio, (a state with 10.4% unemployment) to deliver a blistering, campaign-style speech lambasting Republicans and laying out the details of his latest effort to jumpstart the economy. His plan includes $50 billion in spending on infrastructure that, he said, “would start putting Americans to work right away.” Despite Obama’s confidence, The Washington Post reports that the President’s plan got a cool reception from lawmakers, economists and business groups alike. One high-profile dissenter was politically vulnerable Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who said yesterday, “I will not support additional spending in a second stimulus package.”
There’s good reason to steer clear of the Son of Stimulus. This week, a White House aide threw cold water on the President’s confident job-creating promise, telling The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank that the administration doesn’t have an estimate for how many jobs the new stimulus would create and that the best-case scenario for the timing of those new jobs would be “over the course of 2011.”
And then there’s recent history.
The Heritage Foundation’s Ronald Utt, Ph.D., notes that the first Obama stimulus, which included $48.1 billion for infrastructure, “did little to spur the recovery and nothing to create new jobs,” leaving us only with massive deficits. Those transportation dollars, in particular, were disbursed in a plodding, bureaucratic way, and much of it hasn’t even been spent. Given the historical failure of transportation spending to create jobs, why shell out even more dollars? Follow the money, Utt says:
The President’s new spending plan should be seen as an effort to shore up support within a key constituency: organized labor. First revealed at a Wisconsin labor union picnic on Labor Day, the $50 billion in infrastructure spending represents tens of billions of dollars in high, federally mandated, Davis-Bacon wages for unionized construction workers.
More government spending to placate Big Labor is not the solution to America’s economic woes, but something else can be done. Heritage’s J.D. Foster, Ph.D., says that before the November elections, Congress should act to rein in spending and prevent tax hikes, starting with extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for all taxpayers (a move that President Obama has resisted). Doing so, Foster advises, will “give the economy a needed boost in 2011.”
Families and businesses are anticipating a huge tax hike come January 1, 2011, when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. The tax hike is bad enough, but given the state of the economy, what this tax hike says about Washington’s priorities is draining America’s confidence in its government. There is no argument for raising taxes on a weak economy, and Americans know it.
Those tax hikes are part of President Obama’s election year class-warfare strategy, designed to strike a populist tone at the expense of helping the economy. The President has said he can hit those making more than $250,000 with a tax hike because they represent only a small percentage of the population and “are already millionaires.” The truth is, the Obama tax hikes will directly harm the most successful sector in America: small businesses, which employ 25% of the American work force. And that will hurt job growth.
On top of President Obama’s impending 2011 tax increases, there’s word that the White House may raise tax rates on America’s manufacturers to pay for the new infrastructure spending. That’s another bad move for a country coming out of a recession. Another of his proposals is to make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent. While that’s great for the long-run, keeping current policy doesn’t do much for stimulus. And then there’s the President’s proposal to allow businesses to deduct their investment costs immediately, which will likely only have a modest impact, unless it’s extended for many years and coupled with a lower corporate income tax rate.
Better solutions? Foster suggests holding back the unspent stimulus dollars and freezing total spending at 2010 levels. (Even the President’s first director at the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, has seen the light and called for extending the tax cuts for two years.)
On “Good Morning America,” the President noted, “My challenge, and the challenge of every Democratic candidate who’s out there is just making sure the people understand there’s a choice here.” The President and Congress indeed have a choice between now and the election: more spending and higher taxes, or reining in government and giving taxpayers a break. It shouldn’t be such a challenge to make the right choice, cut spending and extend the tax cuts for the good of the country.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/morning-bell-obamas-desperate-times-and-desperate-measures/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Faced with predictions of staggering losses for his party in November’s midterm elections, President Barack Obama today appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” and said, “If the election is a referendum on ‘are people satisfied about the economy as it currently is,’ then we’re not going to do well, because I think everybody feels like this economy needs to do better than it’s been doing.” The prospect of that referendum is casting a long shadow over Washington as the President and candidates alike wrestle with America’s frustration over a still-stagnant economy, despite $814 billion in stimulus spending.
So what’s President Obama’s solution? Kick into campaign mode and turn to even more destined-to-fail stimulus gimmicks, loaded with increased government spending and higher taxes.
Yesterday, President Obama chose Cleveland, Ohio, (a state with 10.4% unemployment) to deliver a blistering, campaign-style speech lambasting Republicans and laying out the details of his latest effort to jumpstart the economy. His plan includes $50 billion in spending on infrastructure that, he said, “would start putting Americans to work right away.” Despite Obama’s confidence, The Washington Post reports that the President’s plan got a cool reception from lawmakers, economists and business groups alike. One high-profile dissenter was politically vulnerable Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who said yesterday, “I will not support additional spending in a second stimulus package.”
There’s good reason to steer clear of the Son of Stimulus. This week, a White House aide threw cold water on the President’s confident job-creating promise, telling The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank that the administration doesn’t have an estimate for how many jobs the new stimulus would create and that the best-case scenario for the timing of those new jobs would be “over the course of 2011.”
And then there’s recent history.
The Heritage Foundation’s Ronald Utt, Ph.D., notes that the first Obama stimulus, which included $48.1 billion for infrastructure, “did little to spur the recovery and nothing to create new jobs,” leaving us only with massive deficits. Those transportation dollars, in particular, were disbursed in a plodding, bureaucratic way, and much of it hasn’t even been spent. Given the historical failure of transportation spending to create jobs, why shell out even more dollars? Follow the money, Utt says:
The President’s new spending plan should be seen as an effort to shore up support within a key constituency: organized labor. First revealed at a Wisconsin labor union picnic on Labor Day, the $50 billion in infrastructure spending represents tens of billions of dollars in high, federally mandated, Davis-Bacon wages for unionized construction workers.
More government spending to placate Big Labor is not the solution to America’s economic woes, but something else can be done. Heritage’s J.D. Foster, Ph.D., says that before the November elections, Congress should act to rein in spending and prevent tax hikes, starting with extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief for all taxpayers (a move that President Obama has resisted). Doing so, Foster advises, will “give the economy a needed boost in 2011.”
Families and businesses are anticipating a huge tax hike come January 1, 2011, when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. The tax hike is bad enough, but given the state of the economy, what this tax hike says about Washington’s priorities is draining America’s confidence in its government. There is no argument for raising taxes on a weak economy, and Americans know it.
Those tax hikes are part of President Obama’s election year class-warfare strategy, designed to strike a populist tone at the expense of helping the economy. The President has said he can hit those making more than $250,000 with a tax hike because they represent only a small percentage of the population and “are already millionaires.” The truth is, the Obama tax hikes will directly harm the most successful sector in America: small businesses, which employ 25% of the American work force. And that will hurt job growth.
On top of President Obama’s impending 2011 tax increases, there’s word that the White House may raise tax rates on America’s manufacturers to pay for the new infrastructure spending. That’s another bad move for a country coming out of a recession. Another of his proposals is to make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent. While that’s great for the long-run, keeping current policy doesn’t do much for stimulus. And then there’s the President’s proposal to allow businesses to deduct their investment costs immediately, which will likely only have a modest impact, unless it’s extended for many years and coupled with a lower corporate income tax rate.
Better solutions? Foster suggests holding back the unspent stimulus dollars and freezing total spending at 2010 levels. (Even the President’s first director at the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, has seen the light and called for extending the tax cuts for two years.)
On “Good Morning America,” the President noted, “My challenge, and the challenge of every Democratic candidate who’s out there is just making sure the people understand there’s a choice here.” The President and Congress indeed have a choice between now and the election: more spending and higher taxes, or reining in government and giving taxpayers a break. It shouldn’t be such a challenge to make the right choice, cut spending and extend the tax cuts for the good of the country.
Obama says the economy needs a tax cut—and a tax increase.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Tax Contradictions
REVIEW & OUTLOOK-SEPTEMBER 9, 2010
After 20 months and more than $1 trillion down the Keynesian drain, President Obama is discovering the virtue of tax cuts. Pass the smelling salts, we just fainted.
Yesterday the President proposed a $180 billion plan that includes a permanent research and development tax credit and a tax write-off for all business capital purchases in 2011. These are both sensible ideas that would counteract at least some of the damage from Mr. Obama's looming tax increase. John McCain could sue for plagiarism because versions of both ideas were part of his 2008 campaign platform.
The White House will deny it, but it's important to understand what a conceptual switcheroo this is. Mr. Obama's economic policies to date have been based on the belief that government can drive growth by handing out checks to consumers, who will then spend the money and increase what economists call aggregate demand. Missing was any attempt to spur incentives for business or individuals to invest and take more risks. Even if this policy reversal is motivated by election desperation, it is still a tacit admission of the failure of its growth model.
The biggest short-term boost would come from allowing business expensing of capital purchases—investment in new plant, equipment, computers, technology and so on—in a single year. Such spending is currently written off over three to 20 years depending on the industry and an estimate of how long that the asset's value depreciates. But especially in our information age with its premium on human capital, it makes less sense to depreciate one type of investment at a faster rate than another.
Immediate expensing would provide a powerful incentive for businesses to spend some of that $2 trillion or so in retained earnings that they are now hoarding out of fear and uncertainty. Labor will also benefit because encouraging capital investment makes American workers more productive on the job, which is the catalyst for higher wages.
When President Bush allowed large and small businesses to write-off 50% of their capital expenditures as part of his 2003 tax cut, business spending on equipment and software rose to $1.06 trillion by the end of 2004 from $821 billion in mid-2002, a near 30% rise, according to tax economist Steve Entin. U.S. employment grew for 46 straight months, with almost eight million net new jobs created.
The big flaw in this proposal is that it's temporary. If the tax cut is for only one year, businesses will move spending forward that would have happened in future years. The economy will grow faster in 2011, other things being equal, but some of that growth will be stolen from 2012 and 2013. We've seen this temporary effect before with the home-buying tax credit, cash for clunkers and tax rebates.
In the Keynesian world-view, this is no problem because the one-year policy is supposed to kick-start the recovery and the stimulus can be safely withdrawn because the economy will become self-sustaining. But in the real world, investment will be greater and growth will be faster with a permanent reduction in the tax penalty on capital that will permanently increase the value of that capital. The White House still has some tax learning to do.
As for the research and development tax credit, it dates to the hugely successful 1981 Reagan tax cut. Year after year Congress has extended this tax credit, but only after the annual ritual of extracting campaign contributions from corporate America in return.
Making this tax credit permanent is good policy, and we almost hesitate to point out that George W. Bush endorsed this every year, lest Democrats in Congress recoil in horror. A 2010 study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, found that the U.S. ranks 17th among major economies in the generosity of its tax policy toward R&D.
Which takes us to the contradiction at the heart of Mr. Obama's partial tax epiphany: He wants to cut taxes on capital because he says the economy needs the stimulus, even as he wants to raise other taxes on capital that he says won't hurt growth. Huh?
Yesterday in Cleveland, Mr. Obama said he still wants tax rates to rise sharply in January on small business profits, dividends, capital gains and high-income earners. These are marginal rate tax increases on the very capital and R&D that his new tax cuts are supposed to nurture. And while the expensing tax breaks would be temporary, the tax increases would be permanent.
Another problem is that Mr. Obama says he wants to "pay for" the corporate tax cuts with a so far unspecified list of corporate tax "loophole closings," such as hammering the oil and gas industry. This is one reason the reaction in the business community has been so lukewarm to the new incentives.
We'll nonetheless give the President and his economic team points for intellectual progress. Their proposals for corporate tax cuts are a de facto recognition that the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate is too high. The recent report by Paul Volcker's White House economic advisory group also does a first-rate job of dissecting the high U.S. corporate tax as a barrier to growth. Mr. Obama is essentially proposing to eliminate the corporate tax for one year on new investment. But a better idea would be to slash the U.S. rate to the developed world norm in the mid-20% range, or lower. The lower the rate, the less need for tax credits and other loopholes.
The timing of these proposals will lead some to dismiss them as an election year conversion designed to stop a Democratic stampede to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts. No doubt that's part of Mr. Obama's calculation, but they are also a concession to better economic policy.
Now that Mr. Obama has conceded that tax cuts are good policy, Republicans should see him—and raise.
REVIEW & OUTLOOK-SEPTEMBER 9, 2010
After 20 months and more than $1 trillion down the Keynesian drain, President Obama is discovering the virtue of tax cuts. Pass the smelling salts, we just fainted.
Yesterday the President proposed a $180 billion plan that includes a permanent research and development tax credit and a tax write-off for all business capital purchases in 2011. These are both sensible ideas that would counteract at least some of the damage from Mr. Obama's looming tax increase. John McCain could sue for plagiarism because versions of both ideas were part of his 2008 campaign platform.
The White House will deny it, but it's important to understand what a conceptual switcheroo this is. Mr. Obama's economic policies to date have been based on the belief that government can drive growth by handing out checks to consumers, who will then spend the money and increase what economists call aggregate demand. Missing was any attempt to spur incentives for business or individuals to invest and take more risks. Even if this policy reversal is motivated by election desperation, it is still a tacit admission of the failure of its growth model.
The biggest short-term boost would come from allowing business expensing of capital purchases—investment in new plant, equipment, computers, technology and so on—in a single year. Such spending is currently written off over three to 20 years depending on the industry and an estimate of how long that the asset's value depreciates. But especially in our information age with its premium on human capital, it makes less sense to depreciate one type of investment at a faster rate than another.
Immediate expensing would provide a powerful incentive for businesses to spend some of that $2 trillion or so in retained earnings that they are now hoarding out of fear and uncertainty. Labor will also benefit because encouraging capital investment makes American workers more productive on the job, which is the catalyst for higher wages.
When President Bush allowed large and small businesses to write-off 50% of their capital expenditures as part of his 2003 tax cut, business spending on equipment and software rose to $1.06 trillion by the end of 2004 from $821 billion in mid-2002, a near 30% rise, according to tax economist Steve Entin. U.S. employment grew for 46 straight months, with almost eight million net new jobs created.
The big flaw in this proposal is that it's temporary. If the tax cut is for only one year, businesses will move spending forward that would have happened in future years. The economy will grow faster in 2011, other things being equal, but some of that growth will be stolen from 2012 and 2013. We've seen this temporary effect before with the home-buying tax credit, cash for clunkers and tax rebates.
In the Keynesian world-view, this is no problem because the one-year policy is supposed to kick-start the recovery and the stimulus can be safely withdrawn because the economy will become self-sustaining. But in the real world, investment will be greater and growth will be faster with a permanent reduction in the tax penalty on capital that will permanently increase the value of that capital. The White House still has some tax learning to do.
As for the research and development tax credit, it dates to the hugely successful 1981 Reagan tax cut. Year after year Congress has extended this tax credit, but only after the annual ritual of extracting campaign contributions from corporate America in return.
Making this tax credit permanent is good policy, and we almost hesitate to point out that George W. Bush endorsed this every year, lest Democrats in Congress recoil in horror. A 2010 study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, found that the U.S. ranks 17th among major economies in the generosity of its tax policy toward R&D.
Which takes us to the contradiction at the heart of Mr. Obama's partial tax epiphany: He wants to cut taxes on capital because he says the economy needs the stimulus, even as he wants to raise other taxes on capital that he says won't hurt growth. Huh?
Yesterday in Cleveland, Mr. Obama said he still wants tax rates to rise sharply in January on small business profits, dividends, capital gains and high-income earners. These are marginal rate tax increases on the very capital and R&D that his new tax cuts are supposed to nurture. And while the expensing tax breaks would be temporary, the tax increases would be permanent.
Another problem is that Mr. Obama says he wants to "pay for" the corporate tax cuts with a so far unspecified list of corporate tax "loophole closings," such as hammering the oil and gas industry. This is one reason the reaction in the business community has been so lukewarm to the new incentives.
We'll nonetheless give the President and his economic team points for intellectual progress. Their proposals for corporate tax cuts are a de facto recognition that the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate is too high. The recent report by Paul Volcker's White House economic advisory group also does a first-rate job of dissecting the high U.S. corporate tax as a barrier to growth. Mr. Obama is essentially proposing to eliminate the corporate tax for one year on new investment. But a better idea would be to slash the U.S. rate to the developed world norm in the mid-20% range, or lower. The lower the rate, the less need for tax credits and other loopholes.
The timing of these proposals will lead some to dismiss them as an election year conversion designed to stop a Democratic stampede to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts. No doubt that's part of Mr. Obama's calculation, but they are also a concession to better economic policy.
Now that Mr. Obama has conceded that tax cuts are good policy, Republicans should see him—and raise.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A16Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Monday, August 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
