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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (605918)	3/31/2011 10:32:32 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576661

Coburn spars with Norquist over tax breaks for ethanol By Alexander Bolton - 03/29/11 07:55 PM ET Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) ripped conservative activist Grover Norquist on Tuesday for defending tax breaks that benefit special interest groups. In a letter to Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Coburn said a tax break for ethanol producers ultimately raised the tax burden for average taxpayers and should be done away with. Americans for Tax Reform quickly shot back with a letter to Coburn that accused the senator of misinterpreting its views of the ethanol tax credit, which it said it opposed. The group said it opposed Coburn’s amendment because he did not offset elimination of the tax break with a corresponding tax cut. The unusual fight between two conservative heavyweights in the Republican party reflects tension over Coburn’s role in a group of lawmakers working on a possible deal to cut entitlement spending and reform the tax code. Norquist, who hosts a weekly meeting of influential conservative activists in Washington, has warned Coburn not to embrace tax reforms that would result in a net tax increase. In its response to Coburn on Tuesday, ATR took a shot at the senator’s support for recommendations by President Obama’s debt commission, which Coburn and other senators are now trying to turn into legislative language. Ryan Ellis, tax policy director for the group, said its opposition to Coburn’s ethanol measure “has little to do with any specific deduction or credit and much to do with avoiding massive tax increases, such as those [Coburn] supported” on the debt commission. Coburn, as a member of Obama’s fiscal commission, voted for a proposal to raise $785 billion in new revenue over 10 years by wiping out niche tax breaks for an array of special interests. Ellis wrote that the debt commission proposal would have chopped away at the “whale-sized mortgage interest deduction, charitable deduction, state and local tax deduction, and the employer-provided healthcare exclusion.” Tuesday’s GOP fireworks started with Coburn’s letter to Norquist’s group. “By opposing my amendment, you are defending wasteful spending and a de facto tax increase on every American,” Coburn, one of the Senate’s staunchest fiscal conservatives, wrote of the amendment he offered to small-business legislation pending on the Senate floor. Coburn said Norquist’s defense of ethanol tax breaks demands “that Senate conservatives violate their consciences and support distortions in the tax code.” Ellis fired back in a six-point letter that urged Coburn to change his amendment to include an offsetting tax cut for eliminating the ethanol break. He said the ATR Taxpayer Protection Pledge, in which lawmakers promise not to raise taxes, would be broken by Coburn’s amendment unless he included the offsetting tax cut. Coburn is one of 41 senators who have signed the pledge. “According to the Joint Tax Committee, your amendment would increase taxes by $4.869 billion over the next two years,” Ellis wrote. “Repealing the ethanol credit is the right thing to do, but other taxes must be reduced in the same legislation by at least this much to prevent a net tax increase.” Ellis also wrote that support for Coburn’s amendment was “inconsistent” with a promise to oppose “any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar-for-dollar by further reducing tax rates.” Norquist told The Hill recently that Coburn and other GOP senators in the talks on the debt commission had promised him that they would not support reform that had the net effect of increasing taxes. “I’ve talked to the three guys in the room and they’ve promised not to vote [for] any tax increases,” Norquist said earlier this month. But Coburn’s office disputed Norquist’s characterization of the conversation. “Grover hears what he wants to hear. Dr. Coburn has been arguing for many years, in word and deed, that the problem is overspending, not under- taxation. That said, he strongly disagrees with ATR’s belief that every distortion and corporate welfare subsidy in the tax code, such as that for ethanol, is a ‘tax cut’ that needs to be preserved,” said John Hart, Coburn’s communications director. “Trusting Washington to pick winners and losers in the tax code should be anathema to conservatives,” Hart added. “ATR’s odd definition of tax purity is an argument for tax deferment, tax complexity, more spending and unsustainable borrowing.” Coburn told The Hill on Tuesday that he’s not going to shy away from a fight with conservative activists to do what he thinks is in the best interest of average taxpayers. He argues it’s not fair to require average families to pay more in taxes to fund narrow tax breaks that benefit specific industries. “I don’t care what anybody in this town says, I’m going to do what I think is the best thing to help us as a country to get out of the various serious problems we’re in,” Coburn said. He dismissed criticism of his efforts to eliminate special tax breaks as “background noise.” “We got $1.3 trillion a year in tax expenditures; if we’re going to get out of trouble we have to adjust that,” he said. “Part of the deal is to try to reform the tax code to where it effectively drives capital to where it should be, rather than where [lawmakers] say it should be.” Coburn’s stance has also sparked a fight with a fellow GOP member of the powerful Finance Committee: Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa). Grassley opposes Coburn’s effort to kill the tax break for ethanol, which he says should be considered within the two committees of jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources and Finance panels. Grassley said it’s unfair to target ethanol during the floor debate of small-business legislation when the nuclear industry and wind and solar energy industries also benefit from special tax breaks. “It’s easy for people to pick on ethanol because there’s so much ignorance about ethanol in this town,” he said. Grassley agrees with ATR’s opposition to Coburn’s amendment “because it’s a tax increase.” He argued that gasoline with ethanol in it is 10 to 12 cents cheaper per gallon than pure gasoline. Grassley said he did not know whether Coburn’s amendment could muster enough votes to pass. thehill.com

To: Alighieri who wrote (605918)	3/31/2011 10:40:12 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576661

Georgia Wingnut's Anti-Abortion Home Answering Machine Message Georgia Republican Rep. Bobby Franklin thinks miscarriages are actually secret murders and that paper money is a fraud. And he gets a lot of support for those positions. In fact, according to his home answering machine, everyone who calls him is a supporter! As Mother Jones first noted, if you call Franklin's home phone number—and if you're interested in doing so, perhaps to let him know what you think of his bill requiring mothers who miscarry to prove there was "no human involvement" in the miscarriage or face "pre-natal" murder charges, he put the number on his web site here—you get this hilarious outgoing message: This is State Representative Bobby Franklin. Thank you for calling to give me encouragement about my sponsorship of House Bill 1, recognizing that pre-natal murder is murder. I'm not able to take that encouragement right now, so at the tone please leave your name, number, and a message. Sorry telemarketers, I'll have to get your abortion-hating encouragement later! Leave a message of support for my anti-pre-natal legislation, mom, and I'll call you back when I get it. Here's hoping he upgrades to an abortion-is-murder answering machine rap. ca.gawker.com

To: Alighieri who wrote (605918)	3/31/2011 2:01:06 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576661

Wisconsin union-curbing law not in effect - state judge MADISON, Wisconsin (Reuters) - A Wisconsin state judge on Thursday issued a terse response to Republican Governor Scott Walker's moves to implement a new law reducing the powers of most public sector unions, saying it had not taken effect. The ruling adds another twist to the political wrangling over Wisconsin's state budget, which sparked massive pro-union demonstrations and made Madison the epicenter of a national debate over similar proposals in several U.S. states. Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi had issued a temporary restraining order enjoining publication of the law by the secretary of state in mid March while she heard an appeal over the way the lawmakers approved the legislation. The Walker administration began to implement the changes encompassed by the law, however, contending the scope of her order was unclear and the law had taken effect last week when it was published by the Legislative Reference Bureau. State Administration Department secretary Mike Huebsch on Wednesday said he was obligated to administer the law, citing state Justice Department legal opinions that it was in effect and noted that Sumi's order had failed to state it was not. On Thursday, Huebsch said the department would suspend implementation of the law based on Sumi's revised order, though it believed the bill was legally published and is law. Sumi, who had warned at a hearing on Tuesday that sanctions were possible if her court order was defied, issued a two-page revised order on Thursday enjoining Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the act. "Based on the briefs of counsel, the uncontroverted testimony, and the evidence received" the act "has not been published ... and is therefore not in effect," Sumi wrote. Wisconsin lawmakers' responses to the ruling underscored the deep divisions between state Republicans and Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald called Sumi's order "judicial activism at its worst." "Once again, one Dane County judge is doing everything she can to stand in the way of our efforts to improve the economy and create jobs," Fitzgerald said in a statement. Democratic Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, who had argued the drive to approve the bill violated open meeting laws, said, "I can only hope today's amended order is crystal clear enough for them to stop disregarding the rule of law." Ohio lawmakers on Wednesday approved a bill to restrict collective bargaining rights for some 350,000 public employees and ban strikes, though opponents have time to gather support to put the measures to a referendum vote in November. Similar legislation has been advanced in Tennessee, Michigan and other states this year. (Reporting by Jeff Mayers and David Bailey; Editing by Jerry Norton) reuters.com

To: Alighieri who wrote (605918)	3/31/2011 10:12:19 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576661

Still haven't checked on GE's financials. However, tonite on the news, Immelt was saying that GE had some big losses during the Recession that were carried forward. However when they do the returns this year, he expects that they will be paying taxes. I have to say.......the same thing happened to me......my accountant carried forward losses. Its legal and probably legal on the corp. level as well.

To: Alighieri who wrote (605918)	4/1/2011 11:18:44 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576661

You are either a purist or not. What do you mean by that? If your suggesting I should be against all energy subsidies I pretty much am. Perhaps I'd allow for subsidies for heating for poor people, but if your going to support the poor it might be better to subsidize their income rather than subsidize various specific things. (The counter argument is that some of them are poor because they make horrible decisions, and that if you just hand them cash they might spend it and at the end of the month not have enough for the gas or electric bill.) Also I don't have a big problem with federal funding of basic research in energy. But in terms of subsidizing large scale energy production/extraction and distribution I'm against it whether its nuclear, oil, coal, solar, wind, geo-thermal, hydro-electric, natural gas, or anything else. Get rid of all the subsidies and we will be better off.