fiscal policy

[Best Buckeye]

How can this be leftover business when it is the budget for the next six months.
Nice try Obama , but this isn't leftovers , this is your budget

Even some big Dems turned against it because of the earmarks?

[jimotis4heisman]

Democrats Redefine Earmarks for the $787 Billion Stimulus Bill - WSJ.com

Not so long ago -- before President Obama's inauguration -- "earmarks" referred to the special appropriations that bypass the normal budget process to cater to special interests and protect the incumbents who inserted them. The difference now is that the politicians have gotten much better at disguising their handiwork. Under the cover of emergency spending, the projects have also grown much larger.

...

Take the $2 billion originally devoted to "one or more near zero emissions power plant(s)." No recipient was named, but that parenthetical is a wry touch, given that only the FutureGen project in Mattoon, Illinois meets the criteria. This demonstration plant for carbon capture and sequestration technology, or "clean coal," originally came out of Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force. The idea is to trap carbon emissions, compress them into liquid and then inject it underneath the earth. But years of nonprogress earned it the nickname "NeverGen," and the Department of Energy scotched its role in the $1.8 billion -- and counting -- experiment last year after costs doubled

...

After the Bush DOE pulled out, the Illinois Congressional delegation went to the barricades, including Mr. Obama when he was a Senator and Rahm Emanuel when he was in the House. Chicagoan Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat and FutureGen's best political friend, made sure the final stimulus included $1 billion for the project. That $1 billion, by the way, is about one-eighteenth of all earmarks in 2008

...

Or consider the last-minute changes that added $8 billion in out-of-nowhere appropriations for high-speed rail projects. Republicans tagged this as an "earmark" for a 311-mph magnetic-levitation train link between Las Vegas and Disneyland in Anaheim -- a project long favored by Majority Leader Harry Reid. Strictly speaking, this wasn't true. The $8 billion will be divvied up on a "competitive basis," with the L.A.-Vegas route potentially eligible for some portion

...

"Many of these projects are worthy and benefit local communities," Mr. Obama said in a speech last month touting his stimulus plan. "But this emergency legislation must not be the vehicle for those aspirations. This must be a time when leaders in both parties put the urgent needs of our nation above our own narrow interests." Yes, we realize that we're talking about rounding errors when Congress is spending nearly a trillion taxpayer dollars, but what actually happened is that some of the most influential members of Congress took a stirring and courageous stand on behalf of . . . corporate welfare.

...

Speaking of earmarks, they've quickly made a comeback even by the old definition. The $410 billion omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2009 now making its way through Congress contains at least 8,570 of them at a cost of $7.7 billion. Mr. Obama is not signaling any concern, much less a veto.

[jimotis4heisman]

Corporate-Tax Break Revives in Budget Plan - WSJ.com

President Barack Obama's proposed budget is breathing new life into a major tax break that could be a particular boon for struggling home builders, large retailers, newspapers and manufacturers.
As part of its $3.6 trillion budget blueprint unveiled last week, the administration proposed allowing large businesses to use recent tax losses to offset taxable profits earned in the past, and reap sizable cash refunds. Typically, companies can carry back such losses only two years, but the White House is considering extending that to five years.
Big home builders have lobbied for an expansion of this tax break for nearly a year and appeared close to getting it in the $787 billion economic-stimulus plan. But at the last minute, Congress limited the five-year carry-back provision to firms with annual gross receipts of $15 million or less.


continued...

[jimotis4heisman]

Congress OKs Measure Temporarily Extending Government Funding - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- The Senate approved a temporary measure to prevent the federal government from shutting down at midnight Friday.
Following the House's vote to approve the extension a short time ago, the measure will now be forwarded to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature.
The action would extend funding levels of the majority of federal government departments at fiscal year 2008 levels until midnight Wednesday.
The action was made necessary after a dispute in the Senate late Thursday night drew out consideration of a $410 billion spending bill until next week, with Democrats falling one vote short of ending debate on the bill.
With the failure of the Senate to approve the spending bill, a temporary extension of federal government funding would be necessary. Otherwise, the government would be forced to cease operating at midnight Friday.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) decided to delay a vote that would have ended debate on the measure and set up a final vote because Democrats "would be probably a vote short." According to Sen. Reid, several Republicans, including Sen. John Ensign (R., Nev.) still wanted to offer amendments to the bill.


continued...

[jimotis4heisman]

omnibus spending bill
The Columbus Dispatch - News

Members of both parties Monday voted to keep their cherished home-state projects as the Senate resumed debate on a spending bill covering foreign aid and domestic agency budgets. By a 63-32 vote, lawmakers rejected a bid by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to effectively strip about 8,000 of those earmarks from the $410 billion measure.
...

But lawmakers in both parties defend the practice, and 10 Republican joined most Democrats to defeat McCain's amendment.
"Yes, I fight for funds for my state. That's what I came here to do," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which doles out the earmarks. "Candidly, why be an appropriator if you can't help your state?"
...
The 1,132-page spending bill awards big increases to domestic programs and is stuffed with pet projects. The measure wraps together nine spending bills to pay for the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except for the departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.
The bill has 7,991 pet projects totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the GOP staff of the House Appropriations Committee.
...
Lawmakers now make $174,000 a year, having received a $4,700 raise in January.
The pending bill would deny lawmakers the raise they are due next January.

...

[jimotis4heisman]

RAW DATA: Top 20 Earmarking Senators in the $410 Billion Spending Bill - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

But he's hardly alone. The budget watchdog group has released its latest list breaking down the earmarks, lawmaker-by-lawmaker, in the $410 billion bill set to come up for a vote by the end of the day. The bill would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, with an 8.5 percent increase over last year and billions of dollars in pet projects.
Here's a breakdown of the top 20 earmarking senators and the value of their solo earmarks:
1) Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. -- $122,804,900
2) Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. -- $114,484,250
3) Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. -- $85,691,491
4) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- $76,899,425
5) Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- $75,908,475
6) Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska -- $74,000,750
7) Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa -- $66,860,000
8) Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. -- $53,133,500
9) Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. -- $51,186,000
10) Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii -- $46,380,205
11) Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. -- $39,228,250
12) Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. -- $36,547,100
13) Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt. -- $36,161,125
14) Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. -- $35,577,250
15) Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. -- $27,169,750
16) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- $26,628,613
17) Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. -- $25,320,000
18) Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis. -- $23,832,000
19) Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. -- $21,952,250
20) Former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. -- $19,588,625

[MaxBuck]

Unless and until the rules change, I see this nonsense continuing.

Though I have little affection for the woman, it's hard to argue with Feinstein's comment:

Candidly, why be an appropriator if you can't help your state?

Any senator or representative who doesn't try to get their state or district as big a piece of pie as possible won't be re-elected, and probably shouldn't be. The system needs to be changed.

[CookyPuss]

Senate clears omnibus bill - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

A $409.6 billion omnibus appropriations bill cleared Congress Tuesday even as the White House pursued new steps to try to pare back the level of parochial spending projects attached to the budget each year.

President Barack Obama is poised to sign the measure into law quickly to avoid any disruption of government operations. But Democrats anticipate that he may use the occasion Wednesday to outline new earmark reforms and answer Republican critics led by his old rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

The decisive Senate vote came on a 62-35 roll call in which Democrats finally reached the 60-vote super majority threshold that had eluded them only last week. Eight Republicans joined in the motion to cut off debate, allowing Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to succeed even with three of his own Democrats defecting.

A couple of things on earmarks. First, they don't add to the budget, they just determine how funds will be appropriated. Most of them are worthy projects. One of the reasons we elect representatives is to get worthy local projects funded. Because these are local projects, they are easy whipping material. It's easy to say, "look at that stupid [censored] they are doing with our money in Mississippi or Colorado or Alaska. Now, some bad things do get slipped in there and that's why reform is needed. I thought Obama muddied the water on the whole earmark issue by bragging about there not being any in the stimulus bill. I don't think it should be about eliminating them, just keeping it under control.

[jimotis4heisman]

]http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_SPENDING?SITE=OHCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DE FAULT

Among the many earmarks are $485,000 for a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska and $1.2 million for Helen Keller International so the nonprofit can provide eyeglasses to students with poor vision

lets be honest you have mitch mcconnell out there with comments like this and hes got 51+m of earmarks in the thing...

Republicans seized on the bill as another example of Democratic excess. On the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) charged Tuesday that the bill showed "no recognition whatsoever of the current economic climate," and that "this bill costs far too much for a government that should be watching every dime."

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) last year's Republican presidential candidate, offered two amendments to reduce the bill's earmarks, saying that in 1991 Congress inserted 546 earmarks into the budget

546 for the entire year of 1991, 7,991 for half the year in 2009...

Senate Approves $410 Billion Spending Bill - WSJ.com

[CookyPuss]

Can we please put all the "tax increases will kill small businesses, the engine of our economy" nonsense to rest please:

Very Few Small Business Owners Would Face Tax Increases Under President's Budget

Some critics of the President's budget charge that his proposals to roll back tax breaks for taxpayers with incomes over $250,000 would harm small businesses. In fact, only 8.9 percent of people with any small business income have incomes of over $250,000 and, thus, would even potentially be affected by these provisions. (See Figure 1.) And that figure substantially overstates the percentage of people with small business income who would actually be affected by these provisions; for example, only 1.9 percent of people with such income currently are in a tax bracket with a rate higher than 28 percent. As a result, the percentage of people with small business income who would be affected by proposals to increase the top two tax rates or limit the value of itemized deductions to 28 percent of deductable expenses would be extremely small.

Furthermore, even these estimates, from the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, may overstate the impact of these provisions because they are based on the previous administration's definition of "small businesses," which includes investors in small businesses who have little or no role in managing them.[1] (For more on this point, please see the box below.)

Indeed, the vast majority of small business owners and their employees would benefit from proposals in the budget to cut taxes for middle-class taxpayers, such as extending the Making Work Pay tax credits enacted on a temporary basis earlier this month in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In addition, most small businesses and their employees are likely to benefit from non-tax proposals in the budget, particularly the President's proposal to reform the health care system by expanding health insurance coverage and making health care more affordable.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by MuckFich06

Can we please put all the "tax increases will kill small businesses, the engine of our economy" nonsense to rest please:

Very Few Small Business Owners Would Face Tax Increases Under President's Budget

number of small business vs small business employees. the study is factually flawed to get certain outputs. then again it is the center on budget policy priories. this study would include people who cut grass, do trim work etc in their free time (nights/weekends), etc.

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

number of small business vs small business employees. the study is factually flawed to get certain outputs. then again it is the center on budget policy priories. this study would include people who cut grass, do trim work etc in their free time (nights/weekends), etc.

Blame Bush:

The statistics cited in this paper adopt the Bush Administration?s definition of a small business as any tax unit that receives any income (or loss) from a sole proprietorship, farm proprietorship, partnership, S corporation, or rental income. For reasons why this definition is overbroad, see Chye-Ching Huang and James R. Horney, ?Big Misconceptions about Small Business and Taxes,? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Updated February 2, 2009, Big Misconceptions about Small Businesses and Taxes. As discussed in that paper, that definition of ?small businesses? is more likely to include high-income taxpayers who do not conform to the typical conception of a ?small business owner? than it is to erroneously count low-income taxpayers, due to the increasing prevalence of passive investment income at higher income levels.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by MuckFich06

Blame Bush:

toss out the charlie rangels with their huge investment properties. you need to look at employees not orgs...

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
the first two paragraphs in their "about us" and their "mission"

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation’s premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.

The Center conducts research and analysis to inform public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that the needs of low-income families and individuals are considered in these debates. We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty.
continued...

the issues they focus on..

Fiscal issues: ...


Low-income programs and tax areas: ...

• Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program ...

• food stamps ...

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ...

• Supplemental Security Income ...

• WIC and child nutrition ...

• low-income housing programs ...

• low-income tax credits...
  

Outreach campaigns: ... Accordingly, the Center operates two outreach campaigns to help working poor families receive two key benefits for which they are eligible: low-income tax credits (specifically, the Earned Income Tax Credit

Social insurance programs and pensions: ...

Poverty and income trends: ...

[CookyPuss]

Again:

Furthermore, even these estimates, from the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center

They aren't cooking up these numbers themselves.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by MuckFich06

Again:

They aren't cooking up these numbers themselves.

i dont doubt the numbers. id question which numbers theyd chose to use. want me to make a statistical argument on mike hart's greatness?