Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (700287)	9/7/2005 2:08:47 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769667

No Taxation with Respiration!

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (700287)	9/7/2005 2:32:53 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

An Embarrassment of Riches By Jonathan Tasini, TomPaine.com Posted on September 6, 2005 alternet.org We have a new caucus on Capitol Hill: the chazer caucus. For those of you who might not be hip, chazer is the Yiddish word for pig. As in, "Gee, that person has so much [fill in the blank], to grab for more is just being a chazer ." Which brings me to a lead footsoldier in the chazer caucus, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl. Right after Labor Day, Kyl will attempt to bring to a vote a bill that would repeal the estate tax. When some really rich person croaks, their assets get transferred to their heirs, who, God forbid, have to pay taxes when the estate gets to a certain level. The chazer caucus has been brilliant in framing the estate tax as a "death tax" hurting poor family farmers. But that turns out to be nonsense. As the good folks from OMB Watch point out, "An incredibly tiny number of family farms are actually impacted by the estate tax." A new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that "if the current exemption level of $1.5 million per individual ($3 million for a couple) were in effect in 2000, then only 300 family farms would have had to pay any estate taxes. The report further estimates the number of family farms impacted would have dropped to a mere 65 farms nationwide with an exemption of $3.5 million ($7 million per couple), the level the exemption will be in 2009." This tax hits only the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. The Coalition for America's Priorities underscores the fact that this tax hits a tiny portion of the population: "In 2001, over half of all estate taxes were paid by 3,502 people with estates larger than $5 million -- representing the top 0.14 percent of all Americans." The estate tax stayed largely unchanged until 2001, when the current president took office. What's truly amazing is that the estate tax is supposed to disappear by 2010, and then be reinstated in 2011 -- as one of the gimmicks that was part of the Bush tax cuts. And what's the cost of giving the richest Americans more cash? In the first 10 years, the U.S. Treasury will lose between $750 billion and one trillion dollars, forcing more cuts in education, Medicare and other key social programs -- not to mention piling on more debt for future generations. This is an unconscionable raid on the public treasury by people already benefiting from the Bush tax cuts. It shows what a pickle we are in that the forces of light who are fighting complete repeal are suggesting one possible compromise. Instead of completely eliminating the estate tax, the compromise deal would raise the exempted estate tax to $3.5 million and $7 million for couples. But why compromise? Why shouldn't people sitting on several millions dollars be forced to pay the current tax on estates? One thing that we forget in the debate over taxes is that the wealth of the richest in our society is not a natural phenomena or due to pure skill -- society makes multi-billion dollar public investments in areas such as infrastructure and education that make it possible for the rich to pile up their wealth. Think of taxing estates as simply a modest payback for public services rendered -- the reason most people pay taxes on their paychecks. The Republicans will probably hold all 55 of their chazer caucus supporters in line by simply demanding party loyalty, though there are some attempts being made to lean on John McCain, George Voinovich (Ohio), Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island), Susan Collins (Maine), and Olympia Snowe (Maine) to buck Majority leader Bill Frist by arguing the fiscal insanity of letting millionaires get away with more money from the U.S. Treasury at a time of record deficits. It's pretty certain that the Republicans also have three Democrats: Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) and the Nelson boys. Bill Nelson (Florida) signed on as a co-sponsor of Sen. Jon Kyl's repeal bill; Lincoln has long been for full repeal and her pet policy is unlimited exemptions for farms and business, which is awful tax policy. Ben Nelson (Nebraska) gives as his excuse that he has a tough re-election next year -- but he's been off the reservation for a long time. So Frist already has 58 votes to end debate and crush a filibuster -- just two votes shy. The other Democrats who apparently are most ripe to topple are: California's Dianne Feinstein, who is personally rich, so I guess this is her looking after her heirs; Mark Pryor, who sees this as a way to suck up to his home-state Arkansas Wal-Mart heirs; Evan Bayh, who has to court financial contributors for his presidential run; and Mary Landrieu, who won a close re-election in Louisiana thanks to the low-income black voters who will take the biggest hit from the repeal. By the way, Landrieu, Bayh and Pryor all voted for the bankruptcy bill earlier this year -- yet another bill that hurt average working families but helps the well-connected and powerful (in this case, the credit card industry). What's striking to me is the complete inability of the Democratic side (read: Harry Reid) to demand party loyalty on this crucial issue and call for a solid vote against the repeal and for sustaining the filibuster. And if morality isn't enough of an argument, those considering joining the chazer caucus can seek solace in the public polls showing a majority of people against full repeal. If Kyl can't get his full repeal past a filibuster, he's going to try another maneuver: a "compromise" bill, which would make permanent the exemption at $5 or $10 million but also drop the tax rate for the estates that have to pay to an effective rate of 6 percent -- similar to a sales tax. This is a back-door repeal because it would cost up to 93 percent of the full repeal proposal. U.S. Action did an amazing chart, which shows us this: If the repeal passed, the $45 billion going back to the richest people in the country could provide health insurance for more than 22 million children. So there's the choice: more money for rich people or health coverage for children. To all the masses of people of faith, including those sanctimonious chazer caucus senators like Rick Santorum and Bill First, I ask: Wonder what Jesus would say on that? Jonathan Tasini is president of the Economic Future Group. His blog Working Life chronicles the labor movement and other issues affecting American workers. © 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. View this story online at: alternet.org

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (700287)	9/7/2005 3:02:51 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Hurricane's Toll Is Likely to Reshape Bush's Economic Agenda September 7, 2005 By EDMUND L. ANDREWS nytimes.com WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 - Hurricane Katrina is about to blow a hole in the federal budget, and it is already jeopardizing President Bush's agenda for cutting taxes and reducing the deficit. Administration officials told Republican lawmakers on Tuesday that relief efforts were running close to $700 million a day, and that the total federal cost could reach as high as $100 billion. That would be many times the cost of any other natural disaster or even the $21 billion that was allocated for New York City after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The expenses would come just as Mr. Bush and Republican leaders are trying to push through spending cuts for programs like Medicaid and student loans, extend about $70 billion in expiring tax cuts, and reduce the federal budget deficit. "There is no question but that the costs of this are going to exceed the costs of New York City after 9/11 by a significant multiple," said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. White House officials are planning to ask Congress as early as Wednesday for a second round of emergency financing, perhaps as much as $40 billion, but they said even that would be a "stopgap" measure while they assessed the full costs. Though it is still too early for accurate estimates, the costs are all but certain to wreak havoc with Mr. Bush's plans to reduce the federal deficit and possibly his plans to extend tax cuts. On Monday, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, postponed plans to push for a vote on repealing the estate tax, a move that would benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of households, costing more than $70 billion a year once fully put in effect. House and Senate leaders are also grappling with their pre-hurricane plan to propose $35 billion in spending cuts over the next five years for entitlement programs like Medicaid, student loans, food stamps and welfare payments. Those cuts could suddenly prove politically unpalatable to Mr. Bush and Republican lawmakers, who are trying to rebuff criticism that the federal government shortchanged the hurricane's poorest victims. Congressional Democrats are already using the hurricane as a reason to block Republican tax and spending plans. "Democrats think this is the worst possible time to be cutting taxes for those at the very top and cutting the social safety net of those at the very bottom, and adding $35 billion," said Thomas S. Kahn, staff director for Democrats on the House Budget Committee. Budget analysts said the magnitude and unique characteristics of the hurricane made it unlike any previous natural disaster, resulting in a variety of extraordinary costs: ¶Shelter for as many as a million people for months. ¶A potentially high share of uninsured property losses that stem from flooding, which is not covered by private insurers. ¶Education and health care for hundreds of thousands forced to live outside their home states. "Katrina could easily become a milestone in the history of the federal budget," said Stanley Collender, a longtime budget analyst here. "Policies that never would have been considered before could now become standard." Indeed, there were signs on Tuesday that Republicans and Democrats had already begun to compete with each other over who might be willing to spend more. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader, predicted on Tuesday that costs could total $150 billion. Top Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, have begun to call for "stimulus" measures to buck up the overall economy. White House officials contend that costs attributable to the hurricane are separate from Mr. Bush's underlying budget goals, which include cutting the deficit in half over the next four years and permanently extending most of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003. Budget analysts also note that natural disasters are essentially one-time costs that do not affect the government's long-run fiscal health. "We can afford $100 billion - one time," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office. "What we cannot afford is $100 billion in additional spending year after year." The problem is that, even without the hurricane, the federal government's underlying fiscal health is in poor shape. In July, the White House predicted that surging tax revenues would reduce the deficit this year to $333 billion from $412 billion in 2004. But many analysts believe that the tax surge was largely a one-time event and that overall government spending is still poised to climb rapidly as a result of the war in Iraq, the Medicare prescription drug benefit and the growing number of baby boomers who will soon reach retirement age. Before the hurricane, House and Senate Republicans were preparing to work out $35 billion in spending cuts over the next five years that would trim Medicaid payments by $10 billion and make smaller cuts in student loan programs, farm programs, food stamps, housing and cash assistance to poor families. Under the budget resolution that Congress passed this spring, Congressional committees are supposed to spell out the proposed cuts by Sept. 16. House and Senate leaders had been planning to pass the cuts within a week or so after that. * Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company