E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDespite all the talk in Washington about the need to eliminate tax preferences, credits and deductions, the Senate voted just last week to create a new one, and the House is expected to follow suit this week.
Everyone from President Obama's fiscal commission to Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, wants to get rid of them, or at least limit them.
As Perry said in his flat tax plan, the law is “too riddled with loopholes and special interest tax breaks that increase compliance costs and impede economic growth.”
But despite all the talk, Congress is creating another tax break: last week the Senate voted, 94 to 1, to give a tax credit to employers who hire military veterans; it was a small victory, too, for the White House, which had pushed for the new deduction as part of its jobs package. The House is expected to follow suit this week.
The veterans tax credit is just one reminder of how often Congress uses the tax code -– instead of, or in addition to, direct spending -– to help specific groups of Americans.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), would give a tax credit of up to $5,600 for employers who hire a veteran who has been looking for a job for at least six months, and up to $2,400 for those unemployed more than four weeks.
Not only is it hard to argue against helping veterans, but the estimated cost of the new credit, $95 million over 10 years, seems minuscule at a time when members of the deficit reduction “supercommittee” are wrangling over making $1.2 trillion or more in cuts over 10 years. But the supercommittee, in a search for new revenue, may recommend the elimination of some of those long-entrenched breaks in order to meet its deficit-reduction goal.
The conventional wisdom is that once Congress creates one of these tax breaks. They never go away, and year after year, the tax code becomes encrusted with them, while the revenues that would have been collected dribble away.
But we’re approaching the demise of one venerable tax break: the 45 cent-per-gallon credit for blending ethanol into gasoline.
That tax break has been around in one form or another since the late 1970s, and the ethanol industry isn’t pushing Congress to extend it beyond its Dec. 31 expiration date, according to Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association.
Why not? Because ethanol, mostly made from corn, has now gained a ten percent share of the vehicle fuel market –- thanks to the tax credit and the Renewable Fuel Standard, enacted in 2005 and expanded in 2007, which essentially mandates the use of ethanol in the U.S. fuel supply.
Even with the demise of the blender’s credit, another ethanol tax break remains on the books at least until the end of 2012: the $1.01-per-gallon producers’ tax credit for cellulosic ethanol, which is made not from corn kernels but from switchgrass, corn stalks, and other agricultural waste. Production of cellulosic ethanol is less than three million gallons a year, compared to about 14 billion of corn-based ethanol.
You can see all the energy-related tax breaks here at the Joint Tax Committee web site.
Leave a Comment:
It is always a good thing when we do something for our vets; however, this is just one of those make me feel good things. I hire people all the time and when ever possible I hire a vet because there work ethics in most cases fare exceed those of a none vet. However my first consideration is; can they do the job that I am hiring them for. If not then I move on to find someone that can do the job. When I get the authorization to hire a new employee I am already behind the power curve and do not have a lot of time to train, so they got to already have a good skill set. Tax breaks will not change the way I interview or hire.
Mic, you must not be a veteran. As a veteran I've seen benefits come and go. Congress treats our children who we put in harms way capriciously and arbitrarily. I can tell you it is not good to look death in the face. Death's face is very ugly. You come back with a very new set of priorities and a more rounded outlook. Volunteers, yes but many go as a last resort to get employment. There's a reason it is not the preferred method. It should be obvious that our children are worth the benefits considering what they do for the 99% at the behest of the 1%.
Just a suggestion, instead of placing another 50 to 75,000 plus troops on unemployment, why not train and send them to the Mexican border. With 1500 miles of open area that would place a troop within every 150 feet trained to shoot anything larger than a jack rabbit that tries to enter anywhere other than legal entry points. Call it stepping up the war on drugs, so far the United States is losing...
Because it's illegal under the Posse Commitatus law.
Oh, don't you know, they opened the Mexican border ! NAFTA and Obuma! They can bring illegals across the border in Semis now !
Re-Elect Obama 2012:
Well, for two (2) decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded.
Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against threats.
I think we should use money set aside for Congressional Insurance to pay for the Veterans Plan. Remember, it's about shared sacrifice?
The company I work for in the public sector hired a vet. They started him at $2,000.00 more than I make after 14 years with the company. He steals from the job and sits on his ass playing games on facebook all day while the rest of us work. His favorite tactic is to sit on a work request long enough for it to come back in and be assigned to someone else.
So is someone going to say that is ok?
I never thought I would give a nod of approval on anything our government does, but this time I do. Anything that would be rewarding our Vets is my vote. I am one.
Our Vets that have become a disabled vet, lost a leg, an arm deserve all the breaks they can get. THEY EARNED THEM.
ARE YOU GETTING THE IDEA NOW VA ADMINISTRATION??????
Employers, many of those vets have a lot to contribute to your business, they are still productive and benificial to your business. Take advantage of their knowledge and skills, their talents, you will be better for it.
There are other ways to help our Vets and to show our appreciation, but no more tax breaks for anyone.
I remember when Vietnam was winding down and how the press and anti-war protesters treated those poor solderers. It was the most disgraceful thing I have experienced. Those men and women had to endure the scorn of the nation.
What did you do about it Bill?
I'm all for helping the vets. I'm curious, however: What's stopping a company from laying off a current employee then subsequently hiring a veteran and pocketing the money? Is that the intention of Congress?
Mac1546:
Where are the details to this program? Another poorly written article.
Whenever I drive by the US Army recruiting billboard that shows a young man in full battle gear (battle rattle) under the headline: "Patriot" "Warrior", I get a little upset. I enlisted in the Army in 1966 not to be a patriot or a warrior, but to fulfill my military obligation at a time of my choosing rather than wait to be drafted.
Since the end of the draft, everyone serving in the military is serving at his or her choice. Not so in my time. The guys who were drafted were just as patriotic, just as brave and every bit the warrior the enlisted guys were. And whether enlistee or draftee, we were in the same situations earning the same pay (a PFC earned $99.20/mo) and on average being engaged in combat 200 days per year according to the Department of Defense.
With today's 'professional' Army (we weren't?), the general public is less critical of the death and casualty rolls because their son isn't on those lists or because those who are killed or maimed are members of our 'professional' Army. The outcry over Viet Nam was that people were being forced to fight a war that no one understood and a majority opposed. I imagine the same reaction would have been felt over invading Iraq because of non-existent WMD's.
If someone volunteers to serve in today's military, great. But to refer to these people as heroes, patriots and warriors does a disservice to the tens of thousands of Americans who did not volunteer but answered their Nation's call - and came home in body bags.
A little perspective, please.
Well said.
Anyone serving their country in any capacity is a hero... verteran or otherwise. I especially dislike those who claim exclusive rights to "patriotism".
"But to refer to these people as heroes, patriots and warriors does a disservice to the tens of thousands of Americans who did not volunteer" No, it does not. And before you begin yelling I am a Vietnam Vet---three tours, 68-72
On the surface without knowing all of the details, I am against this tax credit.
It seems that this a is a blanket tax credit for hiring any Vet. Engineers, Doctors, Nurses, and other types of skilled personnel will not have too much hardship receiving employment. Their new employer will be given up to $5,600 for doing what they were going to do anyway - hire them. That is stupid and wasteful.
I rather see some form of training for six (6) months or up to 12 months for a new skill, with pay. At the end of the training, they must pass an exit exam. The costs should be a portion of the Department of Defense's annual budget.
There really isn’t any political preference, party or individual, that is perfect, all of it and all of them have imperfections so arguing the pros and cons can actually go on forever and end up just being a distraction, a distortion, whether by design or naturally occurring. Accepting that is a start to keeping it simple, to avoiding deception and to obtaining some clarity. In the end, the result should really be what is best for the majority, which requires that voters totally avoid being conned and manipulated.
So with that in mind let’s just try to keep it simple and identify what is best for the majority. Right now we have two active movements that are competing for the people’s support: one, the Tea Party movement; and two, the Occupy Wall Street movement. Both have strong emotional support and advocate that they are trying to bring attention to and seek correction for what they see is wrong: the Tea Party says “big government” is the problem, by over stepping their authority and requiring increased government spending and taxes; the Occupy Wall Street says neglectful government is the problem with allowing exploitation by the few (1%) costing the majority (99%) their jobs, income, stability and even causing the government loss revenue. That microcosm possibly gives us insight and convenience to evaluate the total picture.
Who really benefits from each movement?: the Tea Party clearly seeks to benefit the higher income levels, the top 1 - 5%; the Occupy Wall Street obviously strives to benefit the working class, the bottom 95%. What is the mentality behind each movement?: the Tea Party can be said to be driven by the “more” mentality, while the Occupy Wall Street would likely be said to be driven by a “survival” mentality. Who is behind each movement?: it seems clear, much like the manipulation of the Evangelistic Christian and the Swift-boat propaganda, that the Tea Party movement is again well designed, well directed and well financed by “the money” who stand to gain the most; and the Occupy Wall Street movement appears to have been spontaneous out of people’s suffering and frustration and is supported by people’s contributions. Which party stands to benefit from which movement?: the Republican Party obviously benefits from and is totally identified with the Tea Party movement; the Occupy Wall Street movement doesn’t have a clear party connection and rather pushes for resolution of the problems rather than the success of a political entity.
For myself I again see the involvement of “the money” in the Tea Party and in the Republican Party, who have literally become owned and controlled by “the money”. I don’t see any real conscientious or honest concern for the people there, only the cocky and arrogant intent to con the people and manipulate public opinion, while being stubborn and cocky in the confidence they have, being emboldened by past successes, with feeling that “the money’s” power, influence and financial support will do the job. I think the list is very long that supports those conclusions but I just challenge everyone to put their biases, prejudices and loyalties, their fears and emotions aside so they can’t be used to easily con and manipulate them, and rather to objectively and rationally review the facts for themselves. I feel that when people are able to do that, then the results will be in the majority’s best interests.
RGiles:
No so. The New York Communities for Change is the former Acorn organization with he same leaders. They along with George Soro have been paying the Obama-occupiers.
That can be stated about the Democrats.
What would that be?
RGiles,
What about the Democrats? Obama has given TRILLIONS of dollars to the banks and Wall Street, and can you guess why? They own him. They own the Republicans and the Democrats.
The OWS and the Tea Party both failed because they are shadow organizations of "them". The Democrats and the Republicans have BOTH sold us out to the highest bidder. TP and OWS are tools that they are using to keep us fighting amongst ourselves, so we don't focus our attention on them.
We the people won't stand together and become a majority. The majority of Americans are content to just let it happen, and blame the other side.
Obama did sign a stimulus bill, but get your facts straight. When paulson ran into oval office screaming "we need 900 mill. immediately", Obama was not sitting behind the desk. However, they are all owned by someone. They always have been, always will be. Geo. Washington was swayed by his former buddies, "sons of liberty" as well.
That 28% rate is not going to happen.
Why is when the Republicans propose a tax break, the Democrats refer to it as an "unfunded taxcut"? Yet, the Mr. President is proposing tax breaks left and right?
And can't "unfunded taxcut" be considered an oxymoron?
Serve your country then you will understand, Its a good thing.
EVERY AMERICAN should watch the video ( u-tube ) THE AGENDA GRINDING AMERICA DOWN ,this started in 1958 ,IT must be understood Obama is their man The Democratic party has become their party , The Republicans are not innocent But we are changing the Republican party
the Republican party is changing alright, into a neo-fascist, evangelical, uneducated idiocracy. I remember when there were Conservatives (Barry Goldwater) who truly cared about the welfare of our nation. Todays "conservative" is a theocratic idiot. There are only three reasons anyone would vote todays GOP/TP....millionaire, billionaire, uninformed.....period. I understand why a wealthy person would vote that way, he can dodge his taxes. If you are not wealthy, you are being economically strangled by the same group you support. That is why there have been hundreds of articles and books written about "voting against your own best interest". I do not try to convince anyone to change their beliefs, they either have the capacity to understand, or they don't....
I hope this helps those that have served our country. They deserve all the assistance WE can give them.
I am putting my positive face on today, as while I don't believe employer tax breaks create jobs, I'm going to hope this time it works.
THANKS TO ALL OUR WONDERFUL VETS!!!
Anyone listening to the Republican candidates and to their positions in general has to ask the question, "Who do they represent? Definitely the few (1%) but is there any real concern for the majority (99%)”? We don't want a heavily "liberal" government but it should be seen and understood that our problems have actually come from being moved too far to the right. Concentration on the few, Bush-Cheney style, has literally cost this country and the majority, including the total middle-class, greatly - it hasn't been taxes or government spending (even while it would be nice to cut those back) - it has been run away greed, gross dishonesty and self indulgence by those with the opportunity, contributed to by a permissive, lax and co-responsible government that caused the problems. That is where even Ron Paul is scary as "smaller government" can be successful only when maintaining enough regulations, oversight and enforcement to prevent that exploitation of the majority by the few.
Want proof - check the constantly widening gap between the very wealthy and everyone else, look at how Bush-Cheney clearly showed the "trickle down" theory to be a total fraud only making the wealthy wealthier and soliciting political support and then recognize how their policies keep moving us closer to being a two-class society with the few (1%) competing in having it all and the majority (99%) struggling to survive. Over several years we have seen the repeated cycles - in savings and loans, banks, dot.coms, investment, mortgage and finance industries and in corporate corruption (like Enron) - with it always being the same, run-away greed exploiting the opportunity then the crashing and the costs to the majority. No where in their proposals is there any real effort to solve those problems, in fact, they are aggressively trying to return to more of the same and that is absolutely crazy. Get excited about keeping taxes down and controlling government spending but don't let that excitement blind you to the total picture, one with the average American constantly loosing ground.
Like I saved the link. Google it.