Cutting Taxes in a Time of War

Chuck Collins of United for a Fair Economy recently came out with a new op-ed which discusses traditional war-time sacrifice, and why now -- when we are in the midst of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- it is not time to be cutting or scaling back the estate tax, much less other taxes. We are faced with a House and Senate which very recently passed budget blueprints prioritizing defense and homeland security above social welfare programs. Along with this, last thursday the House passed an $81.4 billion emergency supplemental bill to fund our war operations. Collins' op-ed makes a good point about priorities and sacrifice. Wars are costly, and cutting taxes for the wealthy while increasing war spending does not show that our leaders have the best interests of our country or economy in mind. Collins' article can be read here.

read in full

New Study Questions Returns Under Bush SS Plan

A new study released this week by respected finance economist Robert Shiller finds up to three out of four workers who opt for President Bush's default investment option in his Social Security privitization plan would fare worse than if they remained in the traditional system. Using computer simulated models based on historical data, Shiller found a "disappointing outlook for investors in the personal accounts relative to the rhetoric of their promoters" and that Social Security actuaries and the Bush administration are using estimates of rates of return that are far to optimistic based on historical averages. Shiller concludes, "Given the risks, [Bush's] plan could be disastrous for some workers." Read more about the study in this Washington Post article.

read in full

Deficits More Threatening Than Terrorism, Survey Shows

The National Association for Business Economics (NABE) cunducted one of their biannual surveys from February 28th - March 8th of this year. The survey questioned economists, and results showed that a greater percentage of respondents believe the deficit is a greater short-term threat to Americans than terrorism. In the August 2004 survey, 40 percent of respondents named terrorism as the biggest threat, and 23 percent named the deficit the biggest threat. With 2004 deficit levels hitting a record high ($412 billion) and the President and Congress continuing to try to push through new tax cuts and extend old ones, it appears that many economists now view our deficit as a much more serious matter. In this survey, 27 percent of respondents noted the deficit as the largest threat, and 23 percent noted terrorism. The trade deficit, cited by 15 percent, and energy prices, cited by 11 percent, also rose in importance when compared with results from last August. Interestingly, 70 percent of respondents felt that Social Security had problems that need to be resolved, and the solution which received the highest rating (3.7 on a 5 point scale) was raising the retirement age. Privatization of the system received a rating of only 2.7. The rest of the results can be seen here.

read in full

Watcher: March 22, 2005

Federal Budget
  • House, Senate Pass Irresponsible FY06 Budget Resolutions
  • Smith, Kennedy Amendments Could Doom Budget Resolution
  • Despite Compromise, House Conservatives Could Threaten Budget Resolution
  • Bush Pushes Private Accounts as Public Support Drops
  • Bush, Congress Hide True Costs of Permanent Tax Cuts

read in full

House and Senate Pass Budget Resolutions

Yesterday the House and Senate passed their respective budget resolutions for FY 2006. Both votes were very close with the House passing their resolution 218 - 214, and the Senate passing theirs 51 - 49. One main difference between the two resolutions that could cause problems in conference pertain to cuts in entitlement spending. The House budget resolution includes very steep cuts to medicaid, while the Senate version does not. Yesterday Senators passed an amendment offered by Gordon Smith (R-OR) to strip the budget of Medicaid cuts and instead create a one-year commission to recommend changes in the program. The amendment passed 52 - 48. While the President's budget proposal laid out $51 billion worth of cuts to entitlement programs, the House proposal upped that amount, calling for $69 billion in spending reductions on entitlements. The Senate bill included $17 billion in entitlement reductions after $14 billion in cuts to Medicaid were removed by Gordon's amendment. When Congress returns from recess in two weeks the two chambers will conference to square their budget proposals. Two major issues of contention will be their differing levels of entitlement cuts, as well as the fact that the Senate raised the level of discretionary spending for FY06 by $5.4 billion -- to $848.8 billion. These differences, coupled with the fact that the House already had to pacify unhappy conservatives to get enough votes to pass the budget, means there is a chance no resolution will be passed this year. To read more click here and here.

read in full

Feingold's PAYGO Amendment Barely Rejected By Senate

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced an amendment to the budget resolution today to fully reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAY-GO) rules. This amendment would require both changes to entitlement spending and any tax cuts to be offset in order to pass by a simple majority in the Senate.

read in full

Tax Cuts v. Medicaid: State-by-State Analysis

The budget resolutions currently under consideration in the House and Senate are in line with the President's priorities and propose cuts to Medicaid as well as the extension of tax cuts. The budget resolutions propose to cut funding for Medicaid by approximately $15 billion over five years, and in the same breath propose costs of $23 billion to extend dividend and capital gains tax breaks. As the Center for American Progress notes, "The Medicaid cuts would have important implications for states’ budgets and for health care for the poor. At the same time, the budgets under consideration contains tens of billions of dollars in new tax cuts, which would overwhelmingly benefit those best able to make the sacrifices necessary to reduce the deficit." The Center has compiled state-by-state data which shows how the proposed Medicaid cuts would affect individual states. To contrast these cuts, the Center also has data showing the magnitude of the proposed tax cuts in each state. The report can be read here.

read in full

Greenspan Testifies Before Committee on the Aging

This morning Alan Greenspan testified at a Congressional hearing on the Economics of Retirement. In his testimony before the Senate Special Committee on the Aging, Greenspan restated his support for the creation of private Social Security accounts. He is a proponent of these accounts partly because he believes diverting payroll taxes away from a fund that can be spent by Congress would allow lawmakers to see the true size of the budget deficit, and would pressure them to reduce it. He stated, "We need, in effect, to make the phantom 'lock boxes' around the trust fund real." Senator Clinton (D-NY) responded to these comments with criticism for Mr. Greenspan, whose 2001 testimony to Congress urging tax cuts to avoid a surplus, she said, "helped blow the lid off the lock box." The Bush tax cuts that Greenspan originally supported are currently largely responsible for our record-level budget deficit, and the fact that Congress must now cut spending on domestic programs in order to deal with this deficit. To read more about the hearing, click here.

read in full

Commentary on Tax Reform

In a Washington Post op-ed piece, former White House Chief of Staff and current President of the Center for American Progress John Podesta makes an excellent argument for how President Bush succeeded in 2001 in pushing through his tax cut plans and how progressives need to have a better strategy when responding to the President's Tax Reform Panel than was seen in 2001. In a first step to providing that better strategy, Podesta summarizes the Center for American Progress' alternative tax reform plan. You can read more about the Center's plan here.

read in full

A Closer Look At Extending Tax Cuts

In creating the budget blueprint for FY 2006, many members of Congress are looking to extend the dividend and capital gains tax cuts, which are slated to expire in 2008. The high costs of these tax provisions will add to our already record-level deficits and have negative long-term economic consequences. Economists at the Congressional Research Service and the Brookings Institution have concluded that extending these tax cuts would add to deficit levels and in fact cancel out many positive effects proponents of the tax cuts state they will have. Click here for more information. While the administration and many Congressional GOP leaders are pushing to extend the dividend and capital gains tax cuts, they continue to ignore a tax problem that is increasingly affecting middle class tax payers: the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax was originally created to prevent very wealthy people from exploiting tax loopholes and not paying their fair share. However, because the tax is not adjusted for inflation and because it applies mainly to people whose income tax bills are low relative to their income, it is affecting more and more people every year. By 2010 it is estimated that people who make under $100,000 and owe the tax will pay an additional $1,321 in federal income taxes, while alternative tax payers who make between $100,000 and $200,000 will owe an additional $2,592. As an editorial in today's New York Times points out, by 2010, the Bush tax cuts alone will cause an additional 17 million taxpayers to owe the alternative tax. By 2014, "assuming the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, 40 million taxpayers will owe the alternative tax, nearly half of whom would never have faced it but for the tax cuts." While Bush and many members of Congress push to cut taxes for the wealthy by extending the dividend and capital gains tax cuts, they are effectively raising taxes on the middle class. Click here to read the editorial. Click here for another good column from the National Journal on why Bush's proposed tax cuts are unnecessary given the current economic environment.

read in full

Pages

Subscribe to The Fine Print: blog posts from Center for Effective Government