GOP Voted Against The Biggest Tax Cut In History?

[SirMoby]

Isn't the current plan to have about $280 Billion in tax cuts over two years? That would seem to make it bigger then the poorly timed Bush tax cuts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111279694652423.html

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and NAFTALI BENDAVID
WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion of tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package and prodding companies to create jobs.

The size of the proposed tax cuts -- which would account for about 40% of a stimulus package that could reach $775 billion over two years -- is greater than many on both sides of the aisle in Congress had anticipated. It may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.

The Obama tax-cut proposals, if enacted, could pack more punch in two years than either of President George W. Bush's tax cuts did in their first two years. Mr. Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001, considered the largest in history, contained $174 billion of cuts during its first two full years, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. The second-largest tax cut -- the 10-year, $350 billion package engineered by Mr. Bush in 2003 -- contained $231 billion in 2004 and 2005.

Republicans and business leaders hadn't seen specifics of the proposals Sunday night, but welcomed the idea of basing a bigger proportion of the stimulus plan on tax cuts. Their response suggests the legislation could attract relatively broad support, and it highlighted the Obama team's determination to win backing from varied interests.

Some Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), have warned against a careless stimulus plan that enables unfettered spending.

The largest piece of tax relief in the new plan would involve cuts for people who pay income taxes or who claim the earned-income credit, a refund designed to lessen the impact of payroll taxes on low- and moderate-income workers. This component would serve as a down payment on the "Making Work Pay" proposal Mr. Obama outlined during his election campaign, giving a credit of $500 per individual or $1,000 per family.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama said he would phase out a similar tax-credit proposal at around $200,000 per household, but aides said they haven't settled on an income cap for the latest proposal. This part of the plan is similar to a bipartisan initiative launched in early 2008, which sent out checks worth $131 billion.

Economists of all political stripes widely agree the checks sent out last spring were ineffective in stemming the economic slide, partly because many strapped consumers paid bills or saved the cash rather than spend it. But Obama aides wanted a provision that could get money into consumers' hands fast, and hope they will be persuaded to spend money this time if the credit is made a permanent feature of the tax code.

As for the business tax package, a key provision would allow companies to write off huge losses incurred last year, as well as any losses from 2009, to retroactively reduce tax bills dating back five years. Obama aides note that businesses would have been able to claim most of the tax write-offs on future tax returns, and the proposal simply accelerates those write-offs to make them available in the current tax season, when a lack of available credit is leaving many companies short of cash.

A second provision would entice firms to plow that money back into new investment. The write-offs would be retroactive to expenditures made as of Jan. 1, 2009, to ensure that companies don't sit on their money until after Congress passes the measure.

Another element would offer a one-year tax credit for companies that make new hires or forgo layoffs, which could be worth $40 billion to $50 billion. And the Obama plan also would allow small businesses to write off a broad range expenditures worth up to $250,000 in 2009 and 2010. Currently, the limit is $175,000.

William Gale, a tax-policy analyst at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, said the scale of the whole package is larger than expected. He called the business offerings a true surprise, since most attention has been focused on the spending side of the equation, especially the hundreds of billions of dollars being discussed for infrastructure and aid to state and local governments.

"On the other hand, it was hard to figure out how they were going to spend all that money in intelligent ways, so it makes sense to do more on the tax side," Mr. Gale said. His biggest question about the latest proposal concerns the credits for hiring new workers or refraining from layoffs. Much of that money would likely go to companies that would have hired more people anyway, he said, adding that it is impossible to know what firms would have done without such a credit.

Business lobbyists are pushing hard for Congress to allow companies that haven't paid corporate income taxes to get a break, too. Start-up companies, alternative-energy firms and large corporations that have been swallowing losses for years -- such as automotive and steel companies and some airlines -- have already begun lobbying for such "refundability."

They argue that a provision to claim losses on back taxes will have little effect on the economy if firms that need it most -- struggling companies that weren't obligated to pay any taxes -- can't benefit from a tax break.

Mr. Obama, however, doesn't back payments to companies that haven't paid taxes, aides said. Instead, businesses that haven't been paying taxes would be able to get payments from tax credits they would have taken in 2008 and 2009 for incentives offered by Congress, such as the production tax credit offered to renewable-energy firms. These amounts would likely be relatively small.

"We're working with Congress to develop a tax-cut package based on a simple principle: What will have the biggest and most immediate impact on creating private-sector jobs and strengthening the middle class?" said transition-team spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. "We're guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests."

As these details are being worked out, Mr. Obama and his family left Chicago during the weekend for Washington. He will be on Capitol Hill Monday, first to meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), then with the broader bipartisan leadership of Congress. The stimulus package will be front-and-center in those discussions.

Democratic leaders and Obama aides acknowledge that congressional Democrats' initial goal of passing the recovery package before Mr. Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration is unrealistic. Now, they hope for passage before the Feb. 13 congressional recess.

Republicans are already criticizing parts of the stimulus package. Sen. McConnell, speaking Sunday on ABC's "This Week," questioned one of the biggest items, which would send as much as $200 billion to states largely to expand the federal share of Medicaid, the health program for the poor. He suggested structuring that aid as a loan, saying it would encourage states to "spend it more wisely."

An array of business tax cuts could help overcome such GOP opposition, enabling the Democrats to present their plan as a balanced mix of tax cuts and spending. It also would likely encourage business interests to lobby hard for its enactment.

Mr. Obama's team has spoken of wanting to attract significant Republican support, not simply picking up votes from a Republican moderate or two.

Obama aides have already enlisted business groups to rally behind spending for public-works projects. Norman R. Augustine, a former chairman and chief executive of Lockheed Martin Corp., will testify before the House Democrats' Steering and Policy Committee Wednesday in favor of an infusion of federal infrastructure spending. But the tax cuts may hold more sway with Republicans.

—Amy Chozick contributed to this article.

[kres24GT]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Isn't the current plan to have about $280 Billion in tax cuts over two years? That would seem to make it bigger then the poorly timed Bush tax cuts.

You know the game Moby you play it. Two party politics. What was OK when Bush and Co were in power is not OK now that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are. And vice-versa for you and the other side.

Nothing has changed at all. Big government, more spending, tax cuts, huge deficits, corruption, ineptness, pork, money grabs, it's all the same. The only thing that has changed is the letter next to the names of the majority of the people doing it.

It's so easy to see, but the sheep are blinded. You really believe there is a difference. It's delusion, plain and simple.

[Smurf-Herder]

It's the proposed spending in the remaining 60% that's the problem.

That's why the Republican alternative bill was only half as expensive. It didn't include a $70 million dollar computer for NOAA, Bike Paths, Condoms, a new HQ for DHS, electric Golf Carts, NASA Research, endangered species money, etc.

[Mr. Blue]

Both parties are essentially the same. I actually agree with kres on this, because what you're seeing now is a form of hypocrisy that is unparalleled in the sheer size and scope.

Republicans can't really complain about Obama's spending because they didn't complain when Bush was tacking on 5 trillion to our debt. It kind of revolts me now when they are complaining about spending.

Democrats in turn shouldn't necessarily be complaining about tax cuts when they're about to give a nice huge one, they can't complain about a laundry list of things the Republicans did that were so horrible, but that they're going to do the same.

Unfortunately both sides have played this game, they'll continue to play this game, and guys like me are just screwed because I just want the government to balance the budget, dramatically reduce spending, and let Americans be able to take care of themselves, instead of us paying into a system that is mismanaged and completely ludicrous.

[mwillman]

Its the type of tax cuts that the democrats complain about.

Its about the rich paying less taxes then the people that work for them that is bothersome to many.

Obama is not some far left liberal he is a pragmatic centrist the problem with bipartisanship is that the republican party has moved so far right that a move to the left for them still keeps them father right then atilla the hun.

[disrupter]

kres24GT is bitching about tax cuts?

Originally Posted by kres24GT

Big government, more . . , tax cuts,

kres24GT, does that mean you support tax increases to balance the budget?

Are you one of the very rare breed of ACTUAL conservatives?

Actual fiscal conservatives? I thought they were extinct. Destroyed by the hypocrisy of Reaganomics.

Just curious, are you scrupulous & cautious in your use of credit in your own personal life too?

[kres24GT]

Originally Posted by disrupter

kres24GT is bitching about tax cuts?


kres24GT, does that mean you support tax increases to balance the budget?

Are you one of the very rare breed of ACTUAL conservatives?

Actual fiscal conservatives? I thought they were extinct. Destroyed by the hypocrisy of Reaganomics.

Just curious, are you scrupulous & cautious in your use of credit in your own personal life too?

I am in full support of a Constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget. If we want to increase government, we have to pick up the tab, and tax increases are to everyone. Let's see how much people love Big Government when they have to pay for it.

[disrupter]

That does bring the chickens home to roost.

What i am struck by is the fact that all foreign producers make the make the majority of their profits here in the USA.

Toyota, Mercedes & others all sell cars around the globe, but the big fat profit margins are made in the USA.
We are SLOPPY WITH MONEY!
We pay more in real dollars for much of our consumption than anyone else in the world.

We need a reality check,
not just another blank check.

[kres24GT]

Originally Posted by disrupter

That does bring the chickens home to roost.

What i am struck by is the fact that all foreign producers make the make the majority of their profits here in the USA.

Toyota, Mercedes & others all sell cars around the globe, but the big fat profit margins are made in the USA.
We are SLOPPY WITH MONEY!
We pay more in real dollars for much of our consumption than anyone else in the world.

We need a reality check,
not just another blank check.

Only once we bring fiscal responsibility to our government ad our citizens via education will we be economically stable. To continue to encourage spend spend spend is treason. Every Dem and Repub who voted for a stimulus or bailout should be tried and hung.