by | BLOG, POLITICS, TAXES
The Democrats made the rounds over the weekend with their new talking point that they’ve already made substantial spending cuts. Here’s how it goes:
The Democrats are counting $917 billion from the Budget Control Act, passed in the summer of 2011, as proof that they’ve cut spending. By pitting it against the $620 billion in tax revenue hikes from the Fiscal Cliff deal last week, the Democrats are able to say that the ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes has been a 3:2 ratio so far.
The results of this math? The Democrats are poised to ask for further tax increases, because it’s “not enough”. Don’t forget, Obama said that the rich still weren’t paying their fair share in his January 3rd video.
What’s more, both Ben Cardin of the Senate Finance Committee and Chuck Schumer want to include interest savings in calculations, suggesting that the spending cuts are somewhere between $1.1 trillion and $2 trillion — making the ratio sound even larger.
The narrative is shaping up for a new tax fight with the impending debt ceiling debate. The Democrats are going to repeat this “talking point” as a justification for new taxes — saying that the past deals have been tilted toward cuts. Get ready to hear the Democrats repeat these numbers ad nauseum.
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, OBAMA, POLITICS
While the country was discussing the Fiscal Cliff, guns, and Hurricane Sandy, a new bill was introduced in Congress on Friday.
Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY 15) put forth a bill, now called “H.J. Res. 15”, that proposes “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President”.
According to GovTrack, it was then “[r]eferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”. Further, “[t]his resolution was assigned to a congressional committee on January 4, 2013, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole”.
So here we have one of the first bills introduced in the new Congressional session, which proposes removing term limits for the Presidency. Time to pay attention!
You can go to Govtrack and sign up for free to track this and other legislation.
Here is the Congressional page for Rep. Jose Serrano if you wish to contact him.
While this type of bill has been introduced in the past by Serrano (in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 [HJR 5] and 2011 [HJR 17]), the difference now is that Obama is in his second term of office and is not running for re-election anymore. He has less to worry about.
UPDATE: Serrano also submitted a bill on Friday that amends the Social Security Act and proof of citizenship…
by | BLOG, POLITICS, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Rep. Jose Serrano, the Democrat from NY who proposed H.J. Res 15, also put forth another bill — H.R. 211 — on Friday.
This bill proposes “To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to waive the requirement for proof of citizenship during the first year of life for children born in the United States to a Medicaid-eligible mother”.
Govtrack notes, “This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on January 4, 2013, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole”.
So the longtime Congressman who introduced the legislation to amend the Constitution and repeal term limits for President also wants to amend the Social Security Act with regard to citizenship.
What is the point of this legislation? Why is proof of citizenship in this situation not a positive thing? Thoughts?
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAX TIPS, TAXES
Imagine an employer gives a turkey to his employees each year for Thanksgiving. Then one year, the cost of the turkey doubles, but he still gives everyone a turkey anyway. That year, the employee is getting an increase in the value of their pay (the extra cost of the turkey).
The same logic applies to a person getting insurance with their job. If a person gets a 2% pay increase, but the medical benefits costs for the employer also increases $30 more a month then the employee pay goes up 2% plus the $30.00. Many people don’t understand those “hidden” costs regarding benefits and compensation, but that’s how it works.
In the same way, if the cost of providing a defined benefit plan costs your employer now 25% more, or goes up by X dollars more, that X dollars is ultimately additional pay going to you, whether or not you tangibly see it. Nowadays, mainly government workers and some unions are typically the only ones who have defined benefit plans; most employers have moved away from them to a defined contribution plan because of the spiraling costs inherent in a defined benefit plan. A downside, however, is that regular people in private sector jobs with 401Ks critically need to put more of their own money away for retirement because their money investment is growing so slowly.
On the other hand, Obama’s administration is doing two thing that are directly and substantially increasing the cost of employers to maintain a defined benefit plan: 1) keeping interest rates so low that employers just have to invest more just to get a decent rate of return; and 2) increased regulations, which slow the growth of business and impede business gains, thereby slowing the rate of return. On top of this, the government is ignoring the huge increased cost of fringe benefits they provide (i.e, the turkeys) in their budgets – something a private company simply cannot ignore. If a private company were to do so, then it risks going out of business . Therefore, it must account accurately and completely for its costs.
The government however, won’t ever go out of business. It merely passes off these huge costs to the employee – or worse, to the taxpayer. Higher costs to the taxpayer means less money for you. Less money for you means harder savings for the future.
Overall, you will need to put away more for retirement. If you have a defined benefit plan, the long-term projections and promises may be scaled back at some point in the future once the plan proves to be unsustainable. In a defined contribution plan, continued sluggish growth for investments make it difficult for retirement plans. Whatever your strategy, know that you will definitely need more than you think you do right now.
by | BLOG, POLITICS, QUICKLY NOTED
After the passage of this “Fiscal Cliff” Bill, the last paragraph of Animal Farm says it all.
Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No questions, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. [Animal Farm, last paragraph]
Can we even tell Republican from Democrat and Democrat from Republican anymore?
by | ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS
The House passes the Senate bill
257-167 was the vote tally.
Here’s the official list of yeas and nays:
—- AYES 257 —
Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boehner
Bonamici
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curson (MI)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luján
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marino
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Speier
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
—- NOES 167 —
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berg
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Culberson
DeFazio
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Long
Lummis
Mack
Marchant
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Moran
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Renacci
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Smith (NE)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Tipton
Turner (OH)
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)
—- NOT VOTING 8 —
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Graves (MO)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Paul
Stark
Woolsey
Thoughts?
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Measure Number: H.R. 8 (Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012)
Measure Title: An act entitled the “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.
Alphabetical by Senator Name.
Those who voted NO or DID NOT VOTE are in bold
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Not Voting
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Not Voting
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, POLITICS, TAXES
So, in the cloak of night, while the rest of the nation celebrates the start of a new year, the Senate voted 89 to 9 in favor of the “American Taxpayer Relief Act” crafted by Biden and McConnell. The funny thing is, there is no “taxpayer relief” in the act.
The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the bill includes $620 billion in revenue increases via tax hikes. Additionally, because the bill “kicks the can” on a myriad of spending programs, the actual spending cuts total a mere $15 billion. That’s 41 times more taxes than spending reduction — and it’s spending which is the root of the problem!
It is incomprehensible that McConnell was actually proud of this bill. He pointed out that now that the tax (revenue side) is settled, “now it’s time to get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending. That’s a debate the American people want. It’s the debate we’ll have next. And it’s a debate Republicans are ready for.”
Gimme a break. They’ve had plenty of time since Simpson-Bowles failed and the Super Committee failed to “get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending”.
The tax hikes include:
— An increase from 35% to 39.6% for individuals above $400K and couples above $450K. Way to punish families!
— Itemized deductions and personal exemptions and will be limited once individuals meet the $200K threshold and couples meet the $250K threshold.
— The Estate Tax (Death Tax) increases from 35% to 40% on all individual estates above $5 million and family estates above $10 million.
— Dividends and Capital Gains rates increased from 15% to 20%.
— There will be a permanent AMT “patch” as well, finally indexing it to inflation.
What about the spending cuts side? Here’s what they did:
— A $30B one-year extension of 73 week unemployment insurance, — which effects about 2 million people.
— A $30B one-year extension of the Medicare “doc fix”
— A 5 Year Extension of 2009 Stimulus tax credits aimed at college students and low-income workers.
— An extension on the Wind Production Tax Credit (the 2.2 cent per kilowatt/hour credit) that gives a refund to a wind company if it doesn’t turn a profit.
Additionally, Sequestration was delayed for two months –right about the time that the debt ceiling will reach its limit.
So many questions swirling around at this point. Do the Republicans actually think this is a good thing? That there won’t be factions at negotiation time in a couple months (defense/fiscal, etc). Why are we supposed to consider accepting more taxes now with the “promise” of spending cuts later? How is this better than Simpson-Bowles? (or even “Plan B” for that matter?) This is supposed to be an example of a “balanced approach”?
The two things to come out of this “package” are that 1) Obama was able to shape the narrative and make this about taxes, not spending; and 2) Obama was able to make Republicans break their pledge about not voting for new taxes. The damage has been done. The effects of these negotiations will be very long-term.
Let’s hope the House Republicans have the courage to do what it right. Chime in with your thoughts.
