Today was all about the latest
legislation on tax cuts: whether it
was via a media outlet or in passing
conversation, one could not get away
from the fact that the political
landscape has been abuzz with the
most recent tax law.
Yes, today was filled with constant
commentary on what this will mean for
the future---and no I don't mean in
regards to policy, I mean in regards
to the shift in the power hiarchy of
the political landscape. Questions
like: is this a sign of Obama
conceding to the R's? What will
liberals do if it passes? What will
conservatives do if it fails? In
either scenario, all people seemed to
care about is who should be thrust up
as the victors and who should hang
their head in shame.
While I'm always game for an indepth
session full of speculation about
what may or may not constitute as
dirty playground bullying tactics on
Capital Hill---I must admit that what
I really want to know is---and this
is the most shocking question of all
----what does the new legislation
mean exactly? How will it impact the
people?
Below you will find a breakdown of
the bill as provided by National
Write Your Congressman (for more
information please visit
http://www.nwyc.com/).
Obama Outlines Tax Compromise -
12.07.2010
Highlights of Tax Cut Deal
President Obama proposed a compromise
“framework” Monday night to resolve
the year-end standoff over the
extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax
cuts. Obama’s compromise proposal
would:
Extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts,
which are set to expire on Dec. 31,
for all income levels.
Revive and extend the expired estate
tax at a rate of 35 percent and an
exemption level of $5 million.
Renew and extend for the 13 months
expired funding for emergency
unemployment benefits.
Cut the Social Security payroll tax
from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for
one year.
Allow businesses to write off the
full cost of capital investments for
one year.
Revive and extend through 2011 the
expired “patch” to prevent millions
of taxpayers from having to pay the
alternative minimum tax.
Extend other elements of the 2009
economic stimulus law (PL 111-5).
President Obama sought a quick end to
the tax standoff on Capitol Hill and
offered a compromise “framework” that
includes several concessions to
Republicans.
The framework would extend all of the
2001 and 2003 tax cuts for two years
while also extending jobless benefits
for 13 months, reviving the expired
estate tax and cutting payroll taxes
for a year.
While Obama secured concessions from
Republicans—notably the unemployment
benefits extension and the payroll
tax cut—he bartered away a central
plank in the Democratic platform for
the past decade: that tax breaks for
the highest income brackets should
expire at the end of this year.
Obama announced the outline which he
wants the House and Senate to pass
before leaving for the year.
Republicans immediately cheered the
plan, while Democrats remained quiet
as they prepared to review the
details.
The proposal would extend expanded
unemployment benefits, which expired
last week, for 13 months, without
paying for the new coverage. It also
would establish a new 2 percentage
point payroll tax credit for 2011, at
a cost of $120 billion, and allow
businesses to write off the full cost
of new capital investments for a
year.
Obama conceded that he had given in
to Republicans on an issue important
to him and many congressional
Democrats—allowing the expiration of
the Bush-era tax cuts for family
income above $250,000. But he told
Democrats and Republicans unhappy
with the deal that it needs to happen
this year.
“I know there’s some people in my own
party and in the other party who
would rather prolong this battle,
even if we can’t reach a compromise,”
Obama said. “But I’m not willing to
let working families across this
country become collateral damage for
political warfare here in
Washington.”
“The American people didn’t send us
here to fight symbolic battles or win
symbolic victories,” Obama added.
Beyond Democratic resistance to the
extension of the upper-income rates,
the estate tax deal is likely to
anger liberals, who have long hoped
to let the levy shoot up to 55
percent, with a $1 million exemption,
as scheduled on Jan. 1. The estate
tax deal is more generous than the
proposal favored by President Obama
and most congressional Democrats—a 45
percent rate with a $3.5 million
exemption level.
Republicans, however, appeared to
embrace the deal, having conceded
earlier that they would allow a long
-term extension of expanded jobless
benefits in return for the tax cut
extension.
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), the incoming
chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, said that “preventing a
massive, job-killing tax increase on
families and small businesses is my
No.1 priority. This framework will
allow us to extend all current tax
rates and give economic recovery and
job creation a chance. The failure to
reach and pass an agreement
preventing a tax hike would have been
devastating for families, especially
those who are still looking for
work.”
Senate Republicans suggested that the
Obama proposal is effectively a done
deal. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-KY) said on Twitter, “I am
optimistic that Dems in Congress will
show the same openness to preventing
tax hikes the admin has already
shown.”
Obama said his proposal included the
extension of several other expiring
pieces of the stimulus.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Debate Continues Over the Bush Tax Cuts
Debate Continues Over Bush Tax Cuts - 12.01.2010
[Image]President Obama and congressional leaders remain at odds over an extension of expiring Bush-era tax cuts, but they have agreed to set up a negotiating body that could come to an agreement by the first of the year. The President met at the White House this week for a lengthy meeting with the top Democratic and Republican leaders from each chamber to discuss the nation’s finances.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, said, “I think there was . . . widespread agreement that the two most important things to do, obviously, decide how we’re going to fund the government for the next 10 months and decide the tax issue.”
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-IL, said that the White House meeting produced a plan for dealing with the tax issue. “We had a good conversation,” he said. “We’ve got a path forward.”
The President appointed Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and White House budget director Jacob Lew to lead a group with four negotiators — one from each party in each chamber . Creating jobs, putting people back to work and setting the stage for a growing economy are the goals of the negotiators.
A revised estate tax, the extension of tax incentives - known as tax extenders - for businesses and individuals and a “patch” for the alternative minimum tax are expected to be dealt with in the context of the 2001 and 2003 tax cut debate.
For more information, please visit www.nwyc.com or email me at gms@yourvotecountspittsburgh.com.
[Image]President Obama and congressional leaders remain at odds over an extension of expiring Bush-era tax cuts, but they have agreed to set up a negotiating body that could come to an agreement by the first of the year. The President met at the White House this week for a lengthy meeting with the top Democratic and Republican leaders from each chamber to discuss the nation’s finances.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, said, “I think there was . . . widespread agreement that the two most important things to do, obviously, decide how we’re going to fund the government for the next 10 months and decide the tax issue.”
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-IL, said that the White House meeting produced a plan for dealing with the tax issue. “We had a good conversation,” he said. “We’ve got a path forward.”
The President appointed Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and White House budget director Jacob Lew to lead a group with four negotiators — one from each party in each chamber . Creating jobs, putting people back to work and setting the stage for a growing economy are the goals of the negotiators.
A revised estate tax, the extension of tax incentives - known as tax extenders - for businesses and individuals and a “patch” for the alternative minimum tax are expected to be dealt with in the context of the 2001 and 2003 tax cut debate.
For more information, please visit www.nwyc.com or email me at gms@yourvotecountspittsburgh.com.
Senate Passes Food Safety Overhaul
11.30.2010
The Senate passed a sweeping food safety bill on Tuesday that would give more power to the Food and Drug Administration, more than a year after the House of Representatives passed a similar measure.
The legislation is designed to bolster the safety of the nation’s food supply and passed 73 to 25. The measure passed with both Democrat and Republican support, particularly in the wake of several national outbreaks of food poisoning that involved eggs, peanuts and spinach.
The House approved a stricter version of the bill and House leaders have indicated that they would accept the Senate version of the bill. Proponents hope to have the legislation signed into law by the end of the lame-duck session.
The overhaul drew opposition from some tea party activists, who see it as government overreach. The bill also revealed a dividing line between burgeoning local-food movements and major agriculture businesses. Small farmers remain concerned about the cost of new federal regulation and were opposed to the bill, arguing that since most cases of national food-borne illness are caused by large companies, small producers should not be subjected to the same standards.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), a farmer, included an amendment before Thanksgiving that exempts small farmers and those who sell directly to consumers. This Tester amendment outraged many large agriculture groups, arguing that no one should be exempt from producing safe food.
The Food Safety Overhaul places a greater responsibility on manufacturers and farmers in preventing contamination, which is a departure from the current regulation that relies on government inspectors to catch contamination after the fact.
Standards are also set for imported food in the new legislation, requiring importers to verify that products grown and processed overseas meet safety regulations. Public health experts say that this is desperately needed, claiming that the FDA has only been inspecting about 1 percent of imported food products.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), a well-recognized critic of the legislation has claimed the bill is unnecessary. He has objected to the cost, estimating that it will total about $1.4 billion over four years. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that it will have a negligible impact on the federal deficit.
The legislation is designed to bolster the safety of the nation’s food supply and passed 73 to 25. The measure passed with both Democrat and Republican support, particularly in the wake of several national outbreaks of food poisoning that involved eggs, peanuts and spinach.
The House approved a stricter version of the bill and House leaders have indicated that they would accept the Senate version of the bill. Proponents hope to have the legislation signed into law by the end of the lame-duck session.
The overhaul drew opposition from some tea party activists, who see it as government overreach. The bill also revealed a dividing line between burgeoning local-food movements and major agriculture businesses. Small farmers remain concerned about the cost of new federal regulation and were opposed to the bill, arguing that since most cases of national food-borne illness are caused by large companies, small producers should not be subjected to the same standards.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), a farmer, included an amendment before Thanksgiving that exempts small farmers and those who sell directly to consumers. This Tester amendment outraged many large agriculture groups, arguing that no one should be exempt from producing safe food.
The Food Safety Overhaul places a greater responsibility on manufacturers and farmers in preventing contamination, which is a departure from the current regulation that relies on government inspectors to catch contamination after the fact.
Standards are also set for imported food in the new legislation, requiring importers to verify that products grown and processed overseas meet safety regulations. Public health experts say that this is desperately needed, claiming that the FDA has only been inspecting about 1 percent of imported food products.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), a well-recognized critic of the legislation has claimed the bill is unnecessary. He has objected to the cost, estimating that it will total about $1.4 billion over four years. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that it will have a negligible impact on the federal deficit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)