President Bush's State of the Union address last night was possibly one of his best. He even seemed to express genuine concern for the economic difficulties in many parts of the country, and the fact that "at kitchen tables across our country there is concern about our economic future."
However, his endorsement of a bi-partisan effort to pass a one-time $150 billion economic stimulus package in the next few days came with yet another call to also make permanent the tax cuts enacted in recent years that are set to expire in 2010:
"Unless the Congress acts, most of the tax relief we have delivered over the past 7 years will be taken away. Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800."
That sounds like a lot of very angry taxpayers, but Congressional leaders don't need to hide just yet. Someone once told me to be careful when you hear the word "average." After all, the "average" annual temperature in Iowa in 49.6 degrees, but that wasn't much consolation when the temperature dipped below zero last week.
Well, Congress can breathe a little easier. Here's how the impact of the 2001-2006 tax cuts breaks down for the 2007 tax year, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution:
Income----------------Percent of Taxpayers-----Average Annual Savings
Under $100,000_______85%________________$ 656
Over $100,000________15%________________$ 5,616
Well this improves the odds a little. Actually, the over $100,000 category looks higher than it really is, since it includes the group with the top 1% or so of income (over $500,000) that received an average tax reduction of $54,687 each year under the Bush tax cuts.
Now that group is likely to be a bit peeved. But these tax cuts now add over $200 billion to our budget deficit each and every year, which is far more expensive than a one-time rebate. Maybe we can persuade them that they should sacrifice the windfall they've received over the past few years for the sake of an economy that is collapsing under the weight of our nearly $10 trillion national debt.
Source: Tax Policy Center
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/index.cfm
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The Conservative "Solution"
Reading David Yepsen's column in today's Des Moines Register ("Stimulus Deal Might Do Harm"), I was surprised to find myself agreeing with the concerns he expressed over things like the growing national debt, borrowing from foreign interests, the falling value of the dollar, and the burden we are placing on our children and grandchildren.
Then I came to source of his concern: the $150 billion tax stimulus package proposed this past week. As usual the facts are distorted and inaccurate. Of the $150 billion, a little over $100 billion will be provided to individual taxpayers. The remainder is designed to provide a stimulus for corporate taxpayers. The "dinky $300 rebate" isn't $300, it's $600 for each individual, $1,200 for working couples, plus an additional $300 per child.
While I agree that this single step isn't the sole answer to the looming recession, I was more concerned by the rhetoric in his column on the supposed "conservative" solution, cutting taxes and spending less.
Wait a minute! Is this another attempt to rewrite history and ignore the fact that the failed Bush policies are how we got here in the first place? Is it possible Mr. Yepsen isn't aware that the national debt which stood at $5.6 trillion in 2000 is projected to be $9.5 trillion in 2008, and that we've almost doubled the amount of debt accumulated during the first 200 plus years of our history in just 8 short years?
Was this caused by spending less? It doesn't seem so. Prior to 2000, total Federal annual outlays never exceeded $1.7 trillion in a single year. Since then, expenditures have increased steadily each year:
2000_______1.789 trillion
2001_______1.863 trillion
2002_______2.011 trillion
2003_______2.160 trillion
2004_______2.293 trillion
2005_______2.472 trillion
2006_______2.655 trillion
2007 est. ___2.784 trillion
2008 est. ___2.901 trillion
What about extending the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003? Well, it doesn't seem like "trickle down" is really working that well, given the current state of the economy. Still, all the Republican presidential contenders have said they want to extend these tax credits, even though they don't expire until the end of 2010.
According to the Brookings Institution, making the tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues by almost $1.8 trillion over 10 years — and that's in addition to the $1.7 trillion of revenue losses already locked into law. Evidently, they don't understand "trickle down" either.
What strikes me as odd about all this is the controversy created by giving back a relatively small amount ($100 billion) of tax dollars. And, how can conservatives complain about this with a straight face?
Source: United States Office of Management and Budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html
Then I came to source of his concern: the $150 billion tax stimulus package proposed this past week. As usual the facts are distorted and inaccurate. Of the $150 billion, a little over $100 billion will be provided to individual taxpayers. The remainder is designed to provide a stimulus for corporate taxpayers. The "dinky $300 rebate" isn't $300, it's $600 for each individual, $1,200 for working couples, plus an additional $300 per child.
While I agree that this single step isn't the sole answer to the looming recession, I was more concerned by the rhetoric in his column on the supposed "conservative" solution, cutting taxes and spending less.
Wait a minute! Is this another attempt to rewrite history and ignore the fact that the failed Bush policies are how we got here in the first place? Is it possible Mr. Yepsen isn't aware that the national debt which stood at $5.6 trillion in 2000 is projected to be $9.5 trillion in 2008, and that we've almost doubled the amount of debt accumulated during the first 200 plus years of our history in just 8 short years?
Was this caused by spending less? It doesn't seem so. Prior to 2000, total Federal annual outlays never exceeded $1.7 trillion in a single year. Since then, expenditures have increased steadily each year:
2000_______1.789 trillion
2001_______1.863 trillion
2002_______2.011 trillion
2003_______2.160 trillion
2004_______2.293 trillion
2005_______2.472 trillion
2006_______2.655 trillion
2007 est. ___2.784 trillion
2008 est. ___2.901 trillion
What about extending the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003? Well, it doesn't seem like "trickle down" is really working that well, given the current state of the economy. Still, all the Republican presidential contenders have said they want to extend these tax credits, even though they don't expire until the end of 2010.
According to the Brookings Institution, making the tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues by almost $1.8 trillion over 10 years — and that's in addition to the $1.7 trillion of revenue losses already locked into law. Evidently, they don't understand "trickle down" either.
What strikes me as odd about all this is the controversy created by giving back a relatively small amount ($100 billion) of tax dollars. And, how can conservatives complain about this with a straight face?
Source: United States Office of Management and Budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html
Monday, January 7, 2008
All the news FOX "News" wants you to hear...
We should all be concerned by the decision of FOX "News" to exclude Ron Paul from the debate in New Hampshire.
As even occasional viewers know, FOX makes no pretense about bringing it's viewers actual "news," if this is defined as objective reporting. It would be difficult to watch FOX "News" programs such as the "O'Reilly Factor" or "Hannity & colmes" without realizing that FOX News has an agenda.
Excluding Ron Paul takes FOX's manipulation to a new level, and threatens the process we use to select our leaders. The New Hampshire GOP withdrew from the event in the protest.
Unfortunately, the other Republican candidates didn't do the same. Does this mean air time is more important to these candidates than things like fairness and the democratic process?
New Hampshire has an unusually high percentage of independent voters (over 45%). It will be interesting to learn how these voters respond to this kind of manipulation.
The Republican frontrunner in New Hampshire, McCain, may find that voters don't see the humor in his taunt ("We're going to miss you...") of Paul.
As even occasional viewers know, FOX makes no pretense about bringing it's viewers actual "news," if this is defined as objective reporting. It would be difficult to watch FOX "News" programs such as the "O'Reilly Factor" or "Hannity & colmes" without realizing that FOX News has an agenda.
Excluding Ron Paul takes FOX's manipulation to a new level, and threatens the process we use to select our leaders. The New Hampshire GOP withdrew from the event in the protest.
Unfortunately, the other Republican candidates didn't do the same. Does this mean air time is more important to these candidates than things like fairness and the democratic process?
New Hampshire has an unusually high percentage of independent voters (over 45%). It will be interesting to learn how these voters respond to this kind of manipulation.
The Republican frontrunner in New Hampshire, McCain, may find that voters don't see the humor in his taunt ("We're going to miss you...") of Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)