by | BLOG, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS, TAXES
As the Senate prepares to pass the Sandy Hurricane Relief Act for $50.5 Billion, it’s worthwhile to consider this piece of legislation within the bigger picture of looming the fiscal crises. No one will deny that those citizens who were affected by this catastrophic and legendary storm deserve help. However, the bill perfectly encapsulates the dysfunction of our Congress. In merely a few short weeks, Congress has managed to figure out how to fritter away a year’s worth of revenue that was raised — after many months of wrangling and negotiations. (more…)
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY
Obama continuously tells us he has made jobs a priority. ”I will not rest until everyone has a job, a good wage, and benefits.” -Barack Obama, July 8, 2010.” So how does this assertion square with the revelation that Obama’s Jobs Council has not met in a year? (more…)
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
From the Government Printing Office *and* the Heritage Foundation, here is the full text of Obama’s 2006 speech arguing vehemently against raising the debt ceiling (when Bush was President). (more…)
by | BLOG, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA
According to National Review Online, in 2006 Obama gave a speech arguing against raising the debt ceiling. But you wouldn’t know it from Senate records anymore… (more…)
by | BLOG, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Under law, the White House must submit a budget this year by February 4. According to the Hill,
Late Friday evening, Deputy Director Zients confirmed that for the fourth time in five years, the president’s budget will not be submitted in compliance with the law,”
Only 1 budget out of 4 have been submitted on time — the budget in 2010. The rest of the years, the budgets were late. That year, the budget failed in the Senate 0-97. And last year, the President’s budget failed 0-414. Not one Democrat or Republican voted for them or was willing to sponsor them, because they were so outrageous.
Of course, this doesn’t mean we actually have a functioning budget for the United State. The Senate has not passed a budget since April 29, 2009 — which is currently 1356 days and running.
It’s okay to break the law when it comes to submitting a budget but dammit, we MUST NOT break the law when it comes to our ability to spend bumping up against the debt ceiling, or else “Social Security benefits and veterans’ checks will be delayed”, Obama sternly warned today.
And yet, in 2006, Obama voted against the debt ceiling. The NRO reports that Obama said at the time,:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better”.
We certainly wouldn’t want to know what kind of spending proposals and debt problems are in Obama’s new budget now, would we?
Obama once again, is the president of “Do as I say, not as I do”.
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 | ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS, TAXES
The Democrats have continuously claimed that they are looking out for America’s middle class by keeping the tax rates the same for them while seeking to raise rates on the top 2% who need to “pay their fair share”. The spotlight has been on this point of contention in the fiscal cliff negotiations, thereby serving to deflect attention away from the one policy that 1) is already the mechanism for ensuring that the wealthiest pay more and 2) will raise rates on the middle class for certain if the fiscal cliff has not been resolved. What is it? The AMT.
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) currently serves virtually no useful purpose, other than the raising of an ever-increasing amount of tax revenue. The AMT was instituted in its present form when the prior “add on” Minimum Tax was transformed into the AMT in the early 1980’s. Its stated purpose was to require that all taxpayers paid at least a “fair share of tax”. Yet it has become very clear in recent years that this AMT tax revenue is not coming from just the taxpayers who were the intended targets of this tax – and 28 million additional taxpayers will now be impacted if the method by which it is calculated is not fixed by the end of the year.
The AMT was developed to identify“loophole” type deductions, also known as “preferences”. There would then be an alternative calculation using lower tax rates applied against this taxable income as increased by the preferences. Whichever of the taxes is higher is the one the taxpayer must pay.
However the AMT was seriously flawed from the outset. Instead of focusing on these loophole type preferences (which would have limited the tax to a very small number of tax law abusers), the law that was passed included items that were not loopholes at all. A convoluted formula is used to calculate and compare the differences between income and deductions in order to determine who falls under the guidelines. Interestingly, a very substantial majority of all current AMT paid by taxpayers results from the following factors: 1) treating state and local taxes as a preference; 2) treating miscellaneous deductions as a preference; 3) allowing lower exemptions than the regular tax.
These factors have flaws. For instance, state and local taxes are hardly a loophole because taxes exacted by state and local governments are hardly “voluntarily” paid by taxpayers in an attempt to avoid paying federal taxes. Likewise, “Miscellaneous Deductions” is the category of deductions that consists primarily of expenses incurred to earn income. It often includes unreimbursed employee expenses, investment expenses, etc. This is the most basic and important deduction necessary to have a truly fair income tax system and should not be considered a loophole. Furthermore, the exemption available under the AMT is a fixed dollar amount which, unlike exemptions and standard deductions under the regular tax system, is not indexed for inflation; it is also phased out entirely over certain income levels.
The indexing brings us back around to the problem at hand. Each year, Congress has to approve an annual “patch” which raises the threshold for inflation in order to raise the exemption limits of the tax — so that less wealthy taxpayers won’t be subject to the AMT. During AMT discussions, Congress likes to posture and point to the patch as some major revenue loss (had the AMT been applied to those families) as an excuse to raise to raise taxes in order to offset this “potential missing tax revenue”. It’s all song-and-dance really. Congress always approves the patch; the yearly patching process itself, however, is poor government. We are learning this lesson the hard way as a quiet showdown is unfolding during negotiations.
The AMT presents a dire situation with the fiscal cliff right now. If the patch isn’t approved by the end of December 31, the AMT will reset and taxes will go up for millions. If we go off the fiscal cliff, the Democrats will be directly complicit in a massive tax increase on millions of middle-income taxpayers’ families – the opposite of what they have been claiming in their bid to raise taxes on the most wealthy.
How could this occur – unless the Democrats really do prefer to let the patch lapse…and hope they can pin the discussion failures on the Republicans. After all, if more citizens pay the AMT, more revenue is raised for the rapacious government. Is it all part of a grander scheme, perhaps? What we do know for certain is this: the Democrats have shown that their narrative of protecting the middle class is a lie and empty rhetoric. They would risk sacrificing the tax rates of 28 million taxpayers for the sake of ideology and the job creators (the top 2%).
by | ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
President Obama has all but admitted that raising the tax margin on the top 2%/”millionaires and billionaires”/the wealthy might, just might, affect the economy negatively. Anticipating increased economic decline when he pushes up the rate from 35% to 39.6%, Obama has proposed another successful round of stimulus.
What might this new stimulus look like?
Extending the 2 percentage point Social Security payroll tax cut, boosting a tax incentive to businesses, establishing a $50 billion bank for long-term infrastructure projects, and extending unemployment benefits.
And the cost to taxpayers?
An estimated $255 billion total — which the GOP would surely need to demand that it be matched dollar-for-dollar in extra spending cuts.
So, let’s recount the logic of the Left:
Raise taxes –> Economy falters due to less consumption spending —> Need to spend $255 billion in government money to prop up the economy.
How about some other logic?
Keep tax rates the same as they’ve been for 10 years —> Economy gets a chance to recover without government interference and economic uncertainty —> No need to spend another $255 billion of taxpayer money
Some have suggested these are merely bargaining chips for the budget discussions. However, if Obama was so sure about his economic policies, and if these policies were really so good, he wouldn’t need to “spend” more or bargain any.
by | ARTICLES, HYPOCRISY, TAX TIPS, TAXES
So, Mitt Romney released his 2011 taxes. And on cue, Think Progress rolls out this inane hit piece entitled “By Romney’s Own Standard, His Tax Returns Would Disqualify Him From The Presidency”. The summary of their argument accuses Romney of paying more than his fair share of taxes this year. This implies that he is somehow gaming the system or dishonest.
However, this outrage — besides being just plain stupid — is entirely disingenuous. Why? Because in 2010, Romney actually DID pay more than his fair share of taxes, and when it was discussed in January after the release of his tax return, no media outlet said a word about it. I know this because I wrote about it.
Here’s the scoop:
I reviewed Romney’s returns for several different media outlets. In my article, and with discussion to the media, I pointed out this fact:
However, the most stunning information on his return is the fact that, due to inequities inherent our tax code, Romney paid taxes on more than a million dollars of income that didn’t exist.
The problem arises with regard to Romney’s hedge funds, and how he must record income and expenses:
From the income items, off comes the subtraction for interest. However, all of the other expenses that reduce profit – which, with hedge funds, include virtually all operation expenses to earn income, including fees to the operators – are required to be recorded as miscellaneous itemized deductions. You cannot deduct your share of expenses unless that amount exceeds 2% of your AGI. What’s worse, even if your expenses do exceed the threshold, and you are subject to the AMT you can’t deduct them at all. (Romney paid AMT).
This inability to deduct necessary expenses incurred while generating that income means that Mitt Romney paid taxes on $1.017 million of income that does not exist except on paper.
I went on to chronicle my exchanges with Bloomberg, NYDaily News, and CBS Evening News. None of them mentioned this. Out of curiosity, I even sent this off to Fox Business (remember — in January, Romney was not our nominee yet). Still, I received no reply. Then I saw some erroneous information coming out of the Boston Globe, and contacted the reporter for this story, who, after a basic exchange of emails, never followed up with me regarding hedge funds or the tax return analysis.
You can read the article from back in January 2012 in its entirety here.
So, back when Romney’s 2010 tax returns were released, the narrative then was that Romney didn’t pay enough in taxes, and therefore ignored a report that showed Romney did indeed pay his fair share — and then some.
The story picked up very little traction in early July, when Vanity Fair and Politico coordinated a financial smear on Romney. Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard, made mention of the summary of that fiasco, when I was pointing out the hypocrisy of media coordination when it fits a certain narrative.
So now the pendulum has swung. Instead of saying Romney paid too little in taxes, the Left wants us to be offended again but in the opposite vein. By claiming he paid more taxes than necessary — Romney is somehow hoodwinking us again.
He can’t be trusted and doesn’t pay enough taxes. He can’t be trusted and he pays too little taxes. Thus the new message: Romney can’t be trusted with finances at all.
No, the real problem is that we can’t trust the MSM.
Crossposted at RedState.com
Note: I have not had a chance to review Romney’s 2011 taxes to see if the same iniquity occurred. I will post an update when it gets done.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, TAXES
QE3 started this week — $40 billion a month for an unlimited amount of time.
According to Bloomberg, Bernanke said, “We’re looking for ongoing, sustained improvement in the labor market,”. “There’s not a specific number we have in mind. What we’ve seen in the last six months isn’t it.”
So here we have a Federal Reserve who is supposed to be independent. It’s clear instead that the Fed is just doing the bidding of Obama — whose policies have failed to produce the results that the Fed is now trying to now create with another round of quantitative easing.
But support for quantitative easing is just another blatant example of political hypocrisy. The rationale behind quantitative easing – that it spurs investment – is vilified by the Democrat leadership when the same strategy is applied to “tax cuts for the wealthy”.
Bernanke, Geitner, the Fed, and the liberal members of Congress all supported and pushed QE2. They argued that purchasing huge amounts of Treasury securities would reduce long term interest rates. The effect would be stimulative because this action forces the other potential buyers to do something else with their money – invest in higher risk and more economically stimulative activity.
Yet aren’t these the same people who are against tax cuts for the highest-income earners? Their argument is that those higher income earners would not put their tax savings for economic stimulative use. This is simply untrue.
The supporters of quantitative easing praise lower interest rates but not lower tax margins? They laud investment as a key strategy for economic recovery – but only when it is artifically and unconventionally controlled by the government? “The rich” should not be able to invest their own money, but have to give the government more (for them to invest it)? This patent double standard is both calculated and conniving — and it ultimately endangers the economic future of this country.
QE3 just makes the economic situation worse, especially because of its open-endedness. We now face the growing threat of inflation and the fall of the value of the dollar, a cut in our credit rating, and increased federal debt (as if we don’t already have enough). Couple that with our looming tax increases for 2013, and we have both consumers and investors who are uncertain about what to do with their money anymore. . Plain and simple. That hurts, not helps.
More government interference is not the solution to our economic problems.