E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
This week's Republican Conference message: Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will actually be tax increases across the board for the public.
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) promised to hammer that point home in his meeting with President Obama today. The president should be meeting with congressional leadership now.
Taxes aside, the press wanted to know about Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and the war supplemental. The Rangel question gave Boehner a chance to play the "When-I-AM-Speaker" card and the supplemental question allowed both he and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) a chance to hit the White House for playing politics with war funding.
Boehner on Rangel:
"This isn't really about Charlie Rangel. This is a sad day when the the U.S. House of Representatives has to sit in trial of one of it's own members. And it's one of the biggest broken promises from speaker Pelosi and her team who promised to drain the swamp." ...
"The Ethics Committee is overwhelmed with the number of transgressions that are there. I can tell you that if, in fact, we're the majority and I'm fortunate enough to be speaker, the ethics committee is going to work. It's going to do it's job on behalf of the institution, on behalf of the members of the institution and most importantly, on behalf of the American people."
(The Ethics Committee IS holding a hearing Thursday on Rangel and has been working investigating other members.)
Cantor and Boehner said they will support the war supplemental and that the votes are there.
"We expect a very strong Republican vote in support of this supplemental," Cantor said. "This supplemental, as the leader said, we have indicated, communicated all along we are about putting the troops first. This bill has it some monies as the leader indicated for FEMA, it has monies in it for Haiti and our vets. We are going to support this bill and it's high time that the administration stop playing games."
Leave a Comment:
Think Progress July 8, 2010: "Now, under the banner of Americans Speaking Out, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has summoned advice from those who he truly seems interested in listening to: lobbyists. Roll Call reports that Boehner has invited “senior Republican lobbyists and top officials from several large trade groups” to a meeting at Boehner’s office to discuss “their suggestions for a new GOP agenda.
As the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo has documented, congressional Republicans have “organized a pow-wow with lobbyists in order to devise a strategy” for nearly every piece of major legislation over the past year, from health care reform, to Wall Street reform, to climate change, to a jobs bill.
"Drain the Swamp" - John Boehner.
Q: The swamp Mr. Boehner? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE IN SUPPORT OF AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTHCARE OR WITHOUT A JOB?
A: YOU MET WITH LOBBYISTS.
THERE'S MORE:
Think Progress: January 9, 2006: One day last summer Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the House Republican Conference, decided to play Santa Claus. … In any event, Mr. Boehner took it upon himself to begin handing out money from tobacco lobbyists to certain of his colleagues on the House floor.
Boehner stopped handing out the checks only “after being questioned about the practice by two freshmen who’d heard about the handoff on the House floor” [Charleston Gazette, 5/11/96]
Rep. Linda Smith (R-WA) said of Boehner’s actions, “[I]f it is not illegal, it should be.”
"Tom McMahon, Acting Executive Director, Americans United for Change: “Maybe Congressman Boehner should spend a little less time schmoozing with lobbyists on golf courses in Florida and a lot more time talking to his constituents back home about the kind of health insurance reform they are demanding. With 57 percent of Ohioans supporting a public health insurance option, Rep. Boehner’s office must have taken the phone off the hook.”
What a freakin' hypocrite. Quite possibly the biggest one of all. He should stick to golf.
Score! Home Run! Touchdown! Well said Pat. Well said, indeed.
Well said, indeed!!!!
Thanks! It's all there if the media ever decides to report on it. Boehner is as dishonest as they come. Keith, Rachel, Lawrence and their guests report it. But no one else does that I can think of on tv.
The only 'work' Boehner will do with the Ethics Committee is to bury any wrongdoing by the Repubs and whip up minor transgressions on the Left as mountains from the molehills that they probably are. Not to say that we do not have real scumbags on both sides of the aisle, but the Repubs have a LONG ways to go to clean out their own transgressors. Most of his heavy lifting work will be done in the closest bar that he can get to on recess times from the House, those 16 oz'ers are sure heavy at the end of a long day saying NO!!
The deficit is massive. We need to do everything we can to bring it down. The most obvious solution is to spend less money. The next is to raise revenue. Why would we only let the tax cuts expire for some, but not all? The "wealthy" are few. By continuing cuts for the "non-wealthy" you are giving up signifigant tax revenues.
Spanky,
Presently those that are Not Wealthy are having trouble making ends meet, due to the recession raising taxes across the board is a non-starter. Raising taxes on the wealthy will hopefully make them find ways to decrease their tax burden and the only way that they can really do that is to start spending their 'profits' by putting them back into their businesses by hiring more employees. The more people working the better the tax revenues and so we would not have to depend on the Uber Wealthy so much. Because of the rich sending jobs out of this County they have made it so that they are the only ones with expendable income that can be taxed, everyone else is scrambling just to stay even! The Rich need to start rebuilding the middle class if this Nation is going to survive in any recognizable way and they are the only ones with the money to do so. However, they are working in lockstep with the Repubs in order to line their own pockets with unfunded tax breaks that they do not really need and deregulation that "wastes their money on worker safety and ecological controls" in order to protect their obscene bottom lines! They are INTENTIONALLY allowing this Nation to fail just so that they can attempt to regain full power of the Government and rule by fiat. That is totally Un-American, and they know it, we are a Democratic Republic, not a Fascist Dictatorship like they are trying to turn us into and that Bush nearly turned us into!
Spanky;
How about we make the upper 2% pay the SAME tax rate a I do. That would raise a hell of a lot more money than letting the greedy top 2% hoard it away in their savings & money markets.
B. Honest I can assure you that raising taxes on "the wealthy" will cause them to find ways to decrease their tax burden. You comments cause me to question your understanding of wealth creation, the tax code, and principally who the wealthy are and where their wealth came from.
How much money do you spend on uearly tax planning, both personally and for your business? How do you calculate the per worker cost on your business bottem line? How is it possible to do that right now, given the turmoil with the tax rates?
Is it the duty of the "wealthy" to create jobs? Does the middle class have any obligation to rebuild itself? The bush tax cuts were orginally instituted as a means to jump start the economy with was struggling in the early 2000s. It was a lot like the current stimulus programs, it just let people keep their own money through lower taxes. It appears that a lot of the current stimulus just kept teachers and government emplyees' salaries at really high existing levels. Those levels are unsustainable, particulary out here in Ca.
And by the way, you are including all those really, really highly compensated government employees in your definitionof wealthy, right? What do they do to create jobs, or help the middle class?
Spanky,
Considering that the wealthy have never had tax rates lower than they have been and their profits have never been higher, I would expect the wealthy to have added tens of millions of jobs now, but the only jobs that THEY have created have been overseas. All of the supposed 'unease' over new tax rates are a bunch of bull, with their profit levels they could be creating those jobs right now and not feel any pinch come tax time, in fact, their profits will go up with more people producing product and selling the same. All of their excuses are just a way of keeping the economic numbers down in order to make the Obama Admin and the Dems look bad on paper so they can try to catapult the Repubs back into power.
The middle class has been so drained by the rich that they are barely hanging on, what middle class we have left, and are NOT ABLE to create jobs, or else they would. The buying power of the middle class has been dropping for the last 15 years and more as the upper levels of the wealthy have taken more and more for themselves and left the middle class only the dregs and so Consumer Confidence is down because nobody but the rich have expendable incomes anymore. If you want people who can buy your products, you have to pay your workers enough to be able to buy them, as Henry Ford pointed out so well and implemented. The Corporations and rich have forgotten tahhat little tidbit and have drained the bank accounts of everybody else but themselves and so Yes, THEY are going to have to be a big part of any real recovery, whether by being taxed heavily or by being made to hire here in the US to avoid higher taxes. It is their choice, and America has been all but destroyed by letting them choose for themselves, it is time to make some choices for them, since they fail to respond to reason.
I understand wealth and wealth creation all too well, all the wealthy today understand is how to make Themselves richer and the rest of us poorer, which, in reality, is them slitting their own throats. The French Revolution was fought over similar reasons and the wealthy got lined up for the Guillotine by the thousands. I would prefer to not see that happen here as it would take a long time for us to recover, but it is headed that way if the wealthy do not wake up and see how badly they are destroying America!
B. Honest, I will ask you again: what is your definaition of "wealthy." It's kind of important to understand what you are saying. The tax system is regressive. The wealthy pay a huge share of the overall tax burden. And now you not only want a bigger percent, you appear to be blaming the "wealthy" for not creating jobs (and calling for revolution, no less). I assure you my unease over the new tax rates is very real, and plays a large role in my hiring decisions.
But let me ask you. What are the top 4 or 5 things you consider before hiring your next employee? I have many, but I assure you my profitablity, marginal tax rates, and the increased costs associated witht he government buracuracy are a few. Have you found that gov. has done anything to make it easier to hire?
It appears to me you are confusing Big Business with small business and small business people. I can assure you I have not shipped jobs overseas, or seen my profits go up due to anything other than my hard work. And yes my tax rates have increased - state, local and the multiple other taxing entities here in CA are absurd. Now we'll pile the Feds on top of that scheme.
As for your tale of the plight of the middle class all I can say is maybe they should work harder, get better educated, or open their own business. Dealing with having to make payroll every month is not the best thing, and to hear you talk about their plight is something. Or we could try your suggestion to let them "make some choices." I think they already did that, they decided it was easier to work for somebody else, than risk everything to be your own boss.
Was it hard for you to make that decision - to not only work for yourself, but also to take the leap and hire others, whom you are now responsible for?
And what happens when the "wealthy" say enough, no more taxes? What would happen if we decided to go the route of Rangel and now Kerry?
The government has done some things to make it easier to hire. I am a bookkeeper and I fill out Federal Payroll Tax form 941 for my clients. In the second quarter of this year there is a new section on the form where you can deduct a large percentage of wages for new hires. Deducting these wages from the taxable amount effectively reduces the tax burden for the business. Since Obama was elected, you can also deduct COBRA expenses paid on behalf of your employees who have lost their jobs. I hear a lot about Obama being anti-business, but from my perspective as a bookkeeper, I have seen many more changes in the tax code that benefit small businesses than I did during the Bush administration
I have to say that a 4% tax increase is not going to bankrupt those who make over $200,000 per year, whereas it could be the difference between making it and not for someone who makes $15,000.
Spanky,
I was not meaning small business owners, I was talking primarily Corporate business. I applaud you for being a small business owner, it is people like you that actually are the backbone of the American economy. I understand the levels of frustration that you have with today's economic environment, but the Corporate leaders, with trillions on hand ARE able to hire without truly affecting their bottom lines much at all. Business income and personal income are two separate things as well. I applaud you for hiring others, and yes it is a hard leap to make. I wish that I was ABLE, physically to be able to be back to running a business, but having my neck rebuilt put an end to that I am afraid, and now I have gone from successful business owner to living on $750 a month on SSI. But I KNOW how hard it is to run a small business, especially hiring folks and having to worry about keeping them happy as much as keeping the business going, it is not easy, especially in today's economics.
For the most part, those Corprats are Not paying much in taxes presently, there are so many tax breaks and boondoggles that they can find to lower their taxes to 0 or even get some back, and that is completely unfair considering that they have shipped so many jobs overseas and have failed to hire here in the US to help our OWN economy, yet enjoy all the rights and benefits here. With all of the tax breaks and incentives that they receive they SHOULD be hiring here in the US, but they still ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it, this is totally wrong.
As far as more middle class opening their own businesses, that usually takes capital, and most of them are scrambling now just to make ends meet and are not able to fund the kinds of outlay that are needed, let alone survive for the time that it takes to get the business to profitable. If the banks were more willing to take the chances for new businesses to come about it would help tremendously, however, presently they are not even loaning to well established profitable businesses, let alone to bare startups. Most people are too busy just trying to survive even while working for someone else, and as you know, most employers do not really pay enough for their employees to get very far ahead, let alone amass enough wealth to start a business. When you are fighting to keep bread on the table you are not about to throw away your job, which is your lifeline, in order to attempt to sink or swim on your own business.
Lastly, I am NOT calling for revolution, I was only pointing out that these wealth inequalities were the basis of the French Revolution and that the same inequalities are happening here. We need to do something to avoid a replay of the French Rev. because that would totally tear us apart as a Nation, which is the Last thing I want!
Congressman Boehner had no problem spending money on wars especially one in Iraq against a country that was no threat to us. But pay for it, that's another elephant in the room he seems to ignore. No other time in history have we fought a war without some sort of way of paying for it. Never before have we exported so many jobs overseas as now. Mr. Boehner seems to support that too.
So Boehner wants to listen to lobbyists rather than constituents. If I lived in his district he would pay dearly for that stupid move. It merely goes to show that Boehner is not interested in ordinary people but only in those with the moola that can provide more of that moola to him.
Boehner and Republicans have a lot of audacity to lecture others about deficit spending. The Republicans not only authorized the invasion and occupation of Iraq without have the money to pay for it, they also cut $1 trillion in revenues by cutting taxes. So deficit spending is ok so long as it's for a war with a country that did not pose an imminent threat to our country? Ridiculous!
I was sitting and pondering the Bush tax cut issue. This came to mind;
If I am not mistaken, those very same tax cuts are in affect at the present time, if I am wrong please tell me. So, if leaving the tax cuts in place will create more jobs then I have only one question and here it is, why are we not seeing jobs being created right now? It makes no sense to me. Those cuts have been in place for several years and jobs were being lost during the whole period and none of the wealthy are trying to help create any jobs. What am I missing. I am not an economist but something is not adding up.
Someone please help me to understand what is wrong with this picture. If cutting taxes for the wealthy will create jobs why are there no jobs?
The wealthy investor and businesses, big and small, WON'T invest in expanding business, in creating jobs UNTIL the market justifies it - that is simply sound business and economics 101. That also is the reason why giving them more tax cuts and credits and so on, by itself, just doesn't work to turn the economy around, to create more jobs (the 'trickle down' theory is severely flawed). Giving more money to those who already spend all they want (the wealthy) doesn't do anything either and neither does giving more to businesses who have and are shipping jobs abroad. The 'catch 22' = a good growing economy stimulates economic growth (and the creation of new jobs)! Government needs to spend to 'prime the pump': creating more spendable money with the poor and middle class, who then actually spend it and stimulate the economy which benefits everyone (including profits for businesses and investors); and to spend on government sponsored programs that create jobs and income for workers who then spend it and stimulate ....... The deficit is a problem that definitely needs to be addressed ... but if government spending is curtailed before stabilizing the economy, the problem won't be inflation but rather deflation and depression. It represents a tight rope that must be carefully walked and that can't be done by politicians who put their political ambitions above all else and just block and criticize everything while offering nothing to resolve the problems. Their are those who pursue their self-interests without hesitation or responsible thought and their subterfuge has to be recognized and rejected by the people, by the voters. The Tea Partiers and the Republican Party are totally focused on their limited private agenda which includes returning to "more of the same', and that just can't be tolerated.
RGiles, thank you for the response. I was thinking along those same lines. My thoughts are that if there is no money to spend then everybody and everything is brought to a stand still, while on the other hand, if I had a little money to spend for the necessities and everyone else caught in my shoes had the same situation eventually we would see some improvement in the economy because the supply/demand theory would take affect. On the other hand, if taxes for the middle class are not adjusted to allow the middle class to have a little money to get the necessities then the demand is cut therefore making it unnecessary for the businesses to concentrate on the supply. I hope I am clear as mud.
Now, I don't understand why the wealthy, with the tax cuts in place at the present, can not understand that if the middle class have no jobs to purchase the necessities then their businesses will not move forward either. If those tax cuts are not helping them now to produce jobs, how will they help them in the future? Somebody is being played like a stratovarious fiddle and I think it is the middle class and the poor.
Boehner Gets Specific On His Plans To Halt Federal Regulation ie; (Putting Congress On “Auto Polit” No Work Continue The “Just Say No” Policy Sit Back & Relax At TaxPayer Expense”
House Minority Leader John Boehner has finally gotten specific about his recent call for a moratorium on new federal regulations, and a look at just what kinds of regulations -- other than the obvious ones implementing health care and Wall Street reforms -- that Boehner's plan would block.
Boehner last week endorsed the REINS Act, sponsored by Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY), which states that "any rulemaking where the estimated cost to Americans would exceed $100 million," could not go into effect "without Congress voting on it first."
That's short of the full moratorium for which Boehner initially called, but could nonetheless be a recipe for gridlock and ugly politics.
That standard in the act would ensnare scores of new regulations every year, including both broadly popular, time-sensitive ones, and others over which remain substantial partisan disagreement.
The REINS (Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny) Act, while it imposes burdensome congressional oversight of regulations costing more than $100 million, does contain exemptions for emergency situations, enforcement of criminal laws, national security regulations, monetary policy rules proposed by the Fed Board of Governors, and the implementation of international trade agreements.
Congress would have to explicitly sign off on everything else before it could take effect.
The $100 million figure is no accident.
It's the cost threshold at which the Office of Management and Budget classifies a regulation as economically significant, requiring review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Many such regulations are under review right now, according to OIRA's website. To cherry pick one from the Defense Department: "This rule implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for addressing child abuse and domestic abuse in military communities. It prescribes procedures for determining whether allegations of child abuse and allegations of domestic abuse meet criteria for entry into the Service Family Advocacy Program (FAP) Central Registry."
Most of the regulation that meet the standard are highly obscure. Some, like the above DoD rule, are sensitive but hardly politically charged. Others reflect policies that the GOP strongly opposes, and which would have a hard time surviving on the Hill under Republican leadership.
For instance, OIRA last year conducted 20 separate reviews of economically significant EPA regulations, including mandatory reporting rules for greenhouse gas emissions, and rules implementing a renewable fuel standard, as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
In the near future it will no doubt be reviewing economically significant rules pertaining to the implementation of the health care and Wall Street reform laws. Under Boehner's plan, all of them would be subject to a lengthy legislative process, and possibly to rejection.
Comment: Translation, suing our Taxpayer dollars to hurt suffering Americans making sure to stall or reverse health care to our elderly, sick and the poor
Looking back at OIRA oversight in 2009, one can get a better understanding of the kinds of rules that would be subject to additional scrutiny, holding up their implementation, and possibly rejected.
Only two Department of Veterans Affairs rules met the economic significance standard in 2009, but one of them was required before the VA health care system could be expanded to enroll more Category 8 veterans (higher income veterans without service-related disabilities).
Over at the Pentagon, one of its three economically significant rulemakings provided for retroactive stop-loss special pay for service members.
Twenty-nine different Department of Health and Human Services rules were determined to be economically significant in 2009 including the implementation of provisions in the stimulus bill meant to promote the use of electronic health records, and guidelines for diminishing the risk of Salmonella in egg products.
This plan might be less far-reaching than Boehner's original moratorium plan, and would have to pass in Congress and be signed into law by President Obama -- a hard climb at best.
But it provides a snapshot of the GOP's policy agenda ahead of an election in which they could take back the House of Representatives
"Obama's plan to extend the Bush Tax Cuts would cost $2.5 trillion over the next decade, including the cost of an annual fix that spares the middle class from being hit with the Alternative Minimum - a hit of about $3,700 a year.
It would cost $2.9 trillion over the next decade to extend all the tax cuts, including AMT relief, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100722/us_time/08599200538900
Since the Democrats have consistantly criticized Bush for enacting the cuts it is odd that they now want to extend them. With a cost of $2.5 trillion over 10 years to extend for all but top two tax brackets it is obvious that all cuts should be allowed to expire.(you do the math for the yearly cost).
The only logical reason for the Administration to extend the cuts is the upcoming Mid-term Elections.
Its only another $.4 trillion to extend the cuts across all brackets. Thats a drop in the bucket for this overspending Administration and Majority. But extending it across the board would be a bad political move for the Democrats. They can't do anything that appears to be helping the "wealthy" workers/taxpayers. Riight?
This is why the Democrats need to go:
There was a deficit of 160 billion; 1.2% of GDP when dems took over in house and senate during the Bush Administration. The OMB has issued a report that there will be a 1.47 trillion deficit; 10% of GDP for next year.
Three times higher then the highest deficit during the Bush Presidency.
(this information was reported during floor speaches in the senate 7/26/10) I obtained the information on CSPAN.ORG