| TheTip.org |
| Polls | Members | Refer | Forums | Write for TheTip! | Home | Impeach Bush |
Impeach George Bush
Tax and Spend - Feinstein's Fiscal Responsibility Means Money Out of Our Pockets
The president and the bi-partisan committee to wage war with Iraq and spend lots of money doing it are already jacking up the income taxes - by freezing them.
Source: TheTip, 2003-01-09
Candidate: Diane
In a press release today, our evil overlords announced in the name of fiscal responsibility that they'd like the tax burden to go up to pay for their war (including Feinstein who voted to give President Bush War Powers).
Why can't we call for democratic referendums in this country like in others?
When will the war and spend economy of the US left over from the Cold War be replaced with a peace-time economy?
U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) today introduced legislation to freeze the top income rate at its current level until there is a return to budget surpluses.
Under current law, the top income tax rate is scheduled to drop from 38.6 percent to 37.6 percent in 2004 and then to 35 percent in 2006, before the entire 2001 tax cut expires in 2011. The following is the text of Senator Feinstein’s statement.
“With the nation once again facing growing budget deficits, Senator Chafee and I will today introduce legislation to freeze the top income tax rate at its current level of 38.6 percent – until such time as the federal budget returns to surpluses. We believe the ballooning deficit is bad for the economy, bad for interest rates, and bad for the health of the nation.
Under current law, the top income tax rate is scheduled to drop from 38.6 percent to 37.6 percent in 2004 and then to 35 percent in 2006. This rate is applied to the adjusted gross income of those who earn over $312,000. This top rate freeze would save $88 billion between now and 2010, and $132 billion through 2012–every penny of which would go toward reducing the federal deficit.
Everyone should understand that this top tax rate is paid by just 908,000 of the more than 128 million taxpayers nationwide – just 0.7 percent of American taxpayers. This is not a time for tax policies which benefit only a small portion of the population. It is a time for fiscally responsible policies that will ensure long-term growth and provide an immediate stimulus to our economy.
In June 2001, I voted for the President’s tax plan. It was truly a different time:
• 9/11 had not taken place;
• War had not appeared on the horizon;
• Revelations of corporate fraud had not surfaced;
• And a recession was not evident.
Those times are as different from today as day is from night. At the time, Senator Chafee and I, along with twelve other Senators from both parties, supported a ‘trigger’ on the 2001 tax reduction.
This would have frozen future tax reductions under the Bush Tax Cut if the budget returned to deficit. Unfortunately, we were able to attract only 49 votes on the amendment. I wish we had that trigger today.
Now, it is estimated that we face $1.4 trillion in cumulative budget deficits between now and 2012. And that is why we return to the idea of the trigger. I believe that we should not allow the rate reduction for the top rate to proceed -- until we return to budget surpluses.
And that brings us to the Bush Administration’s $674 billion tax cut and economic stimulus package. In my view, this is the wrong plan at the wrong time. It digs the nation deeper into debt. It is not a stimulus. It is skewed to the wealthy. And it severely limits the government’s ability to pay for needed programs, like education, transportation, and law enforcement.
First, the President’s plan would be a major contributor to massive budget deficits. The proposal would result in a budget deficit of approximately $482 billion this year alone, if the Social Security trust fund surpluses were not used to fund the budget. Using the Social Security trust fund, the deficit would still be $321 billion. This does not include the costs of a possible war withIraq, an extension of federal unemployment benefits, and the FY ‘03 and FY ‘04 appropriations bills.
Furthermore, as the federal debt increases, the government will spend billions more in tax dollars on servicing the debt – instead of priorities like homeland security, healthcare, education, transportation, or the environment. Interest on the debt over ten years is already projected to be $1.3 trillion higher than expected, even before this new package, and this package would add more than $100 billion in new interest payments over the next ten years. Unlike home mortgage payments, interest on the debt is rolled over and compounds, which makes a rising debt extremely dangerous over the long-term.
Second, the President’s tax cut is skewed to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Taxpayers with incomes over 1 million would receive $88,000 in benefits, while the typical middle-income taxpayer would only benefit by $265. This is clearly unfair. In fact one-third of all benefits would go to the wealthiest 1 percent, while less than 10 percent of the benefits would go to the 60 percent of taxpayers making under $54,000.
Third, the proposal is not stimulative. The central feature of the Administration’s plan, an elimination of taxes on corporate dividends, would not begin to be felt until April 2004. And when those savings do kick in, they would largely benefit the wealthiest taxpayers – with more than half the benefits ($225 billion) going to the top five percent of taxpayers. So to say this is a stimulus is simply inaccurate and misleading.
So, today we are urging the Senate to consider freezing a single element of the 2001 tax package. I urge my colleagues to approve a fiscally responsible package of tax proposals that reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy – instead of a massive tax cut which will do neither.”
Add a comment to this Message in our Forums.
While you're at it, check out our forums too!
User Originated Comments:
From: TheTip
1999-11-30 00:00:00
1) we haven't removed any of your
comments.
2) we believe in fiscal
responsibility which is spending as little money
as possible to get the greatest benefit possible.
the same way a sane person would run their
checkbook.
3) we're not complaining
about a halt to the tax breaks - we're complaing
about feinstein and the democrats not having any
fiscally responsible alternative - like not
spending any money at all on this war and
returning our country to a balanced budget, and
then cutting spending even further, and then
cutting taxes.
every business-owner
knows, you should spend less than you make
otherwise you get killed by interest payments on
your debt. it's simple, not complicated.
From: Harvey Mkultra
1999-11-30 00:00:00
make that 80.
From: Harvey Mkultra
1999-11-30 00:00:00
btw, feinstein's a very good senator. we need
about 50 more like her.
From: Harvey Mkultra
1999-11-30 00:00:00
you guys must be butt-heads to complain about sen.
feinstein and sen. chafee demanding a halt to
bush's tax cuts for "the top income rate". if you
didn't have your head up your ass, you'd realize
that a progressive tax structure is part and
parcel of the liberal philosophy, most of the
democratic party, and approved by moderate
republicans not under the spell of bush and his
fellow idiots. which side are you on, anyway? i
see that you removed my comments on another
economics matter, suggesting that you guys don't
know a hoot in hell about economics.
Related News
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
owned by TheTIP.
[ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ]
NEWS | ACTION | RESULTS | POLLS | MEMBERS | SEARCH