How the Fiscal Cliff May Affect Your Taxes

[Jolie Rouge]

By Kay Bell | Bankrate.com – Fri, Nov 16, 2012 4:31 PM EST

In a few weeks, tax laws U.S. taxpayers have enjoyed for more than a decade are scheduled to expire. Along with long-standing and historically low tax rates, several popular tax credits and deductions already have or will soon expire.

That scenario is being described as a fiscal cliff. And if American taxpayers are nudged over that cliff by Congressional inaction, most of them will face dramatically higher tax bills.

Estimates by tax policy groups and government accountants put the total tax cost at more than $500 billion in 2013.

That averages out to almost $3,500 per household, according to calculations by the Tax Policy Center. Middle-class taxpayers are likely to see an average increase of almost $2,000.

Using Tax Policy Center data and hypothetical taxpayers, Bankrate shows what some tax bills might look like if lawmakers don't soon put up a guardrail at the fiscal cliff's edge.

The single tax filer

Joe is single and has an adjusted gross income of $60,000 a year. As is the case among two-thirds of the tax-paying population, Joe claims the standard deduction.

After subtracting the projected 2013 personal exemption of $3,850 and standard deduction of $6,050 for a single taxpayer, Joe's taxable income comes to $50,100.

If the current tax laws are extended beyond 2012, that would mean $8,900 of Joe's income would be taxed at only 10 percent, and his top tax rate would be 25 percent. This would leave him with a tax liability of $8,465.

If the current rates expire, however, Joe's tax bill would be $863.50 higher.

The reason? There would no longer be a 10 percent rate, making more of Joe's earnings taxed at 15 percent, and his top tax rate would be 28 percent instead of 25 percent.

Married couple filing jointly

Jane and Bill have two kids: 10-year-old Jimmy and 8-year-old Sarah. Both parents work, bringing home a combined adjusted gross income of $175,000. They don't yet own a home, so without mortgage interest to deduct, they're still claiming the standard deduction.

If the current tax laws stay in place, their four personal exemptions totaling $15,400 plus the $12,100 standard deduction will get them to $147,500 in taxable income, resulting in a tax liability of $28,803.

But Jane and Bill wouldn't have to send the Internal Revenue Service that much. Thanks to the $1,000 per-child tax credit, their final tax bill would be $26,803.

If the tax laws expire, however, Jane and Bill's tax bill will go up by $6,304 to $33,107. That takes into account that the child tax credit would return to its pre-tax-cut level of just $500 per kid.

One reason for the increased tax bill is the return of the marriage tax penalty. This is where a couple pays more taxes by filing one joint return than they would if they filed two returns as single taxpayers. Wider tax brackets and a larger standard deduction for married couples now help ease the penalty.

Instead of facing a top tax rate of 28 percent, Jane and Bill would be in the 31 percent tax bracket if the tax cuts expire.

Single parent head of household

Kathryn is a divorced working mom of 7-year-old Jonah. She makes $75,000 a year via her salary and alimony payments.

By filing as head of household, Kathryn's standard deduction of $8,900 and personal exemptions totaling $7,700 for herself and her son get her to $58,400 in taxable income.

Taxes on that amount are currently collected at the 10 percent, 15 percent and 25 percent rates, giving Kathryn a tax bill of $9,125. She knocks $1,000 off that thanks to the child tax credit.

But if the tax cuts expire, Kathryn's tax liability will be $1,435 more -- $9,560 -- in 2013. The bigger bill comes from losing the expired 10 percent and 25 percent tax rates, putting more of her income into the 15 percent and 28 percent tax brackets.

And just like all parents, married or single, Kathryn will only get a $500 child tax credit for her son starting in 2013.

Expiration of capital gains rates

If any of our hypothetical 2013 taxpayers have investments in a taxable brokerage account, their tax bills next year will be higher.

Long-term capital gains and certain dividend payments are taxed at lower rates than the regular, ordinary income rates, which now top out at 35 percent. Most taxpayers pay capital gains taxes at the 15 percent rate. Taxpayers in the 10 percent and 15 percent brackets don't owe any taxes on their gains.

But if today 's lower rates expire, the capital gains rates will go to 20 percent for most investors and 10 percent for those in the 15 percent tax bracket.

And dividends will lose their favorable tax treatment entirely. These payments will return to being taxed as ordinary income, meaning that taxpayers making enough to put them into the highest income tax bracket in 2013 would pay taxes on dividends at the top 39.6 percent income tax rate.

In addition, a provision in the health care reform law, often referred to as Obamacare, will kick in next year. This new 3.8 percent surtax will apply to capital gains, dividend and interest income of more than $250,000 for married couples filing jointly or $200,000 for other taxpayers.

Payroll tax holiday over

Every person who collects a paycheck knows that taxes reduce take-home pay.

In addition to income taxes, both federal and where applicable state, payments toward Social Security and Medicare, known as FICA taxes, are collected via withholding.

So that workers would have more money to spend and give the economy a boost, Congress enacted a 2 percent cut in the Social Security taxes paid by workers. This so-called payroll tax holiday has been in effect since 2011 but is scheduled to expire Jan. 1, 2013.

That means every worker will pay more taxes in 2013. The increase could be substantial for high-income earners.

Individuals who make up to the Social Security wage base of $113,700 next year will pay $7,049.40 in taxes for the retirement system. That's $2,425 more than this year because the wage base was slightly smaller ($110,100), and workers paid just 4.2 percent of their income toward Social Security instead of the regular 6.2 percent level that returns in 2013.

Other expiring tax breaks

While the possibility of higher tax rates gets most of the attention as taxpayers near the fiscal cliff, many other provisions could cause higher taxes if they are allowed to end Jan. 1, 2013.

In addition to losing half of the current child tax credit, parents would get reduced savings from the child care tax credit.

Students looking for the $2,500 American opportunity education tax credit would find instead its predecessor the Hope credit, which maxes out at $1,800.

Lower paid workers could still claim the earned income tax credit, but eligibility requirements would be tougher and credit amounts lower.

The estate tax would apply to more property left at death, affecting estates worth more than $1 million instead of the current $5.12 million exclusion amount. The tax rate also would rise from the current 35 percent to 55 percent.

Higher-income taxpayers who itemize would again see their overall Schedule A claims reduced by 3 percent. A similar reduction also would apply to personal exemption amounts for wealthier filers.

And legislation to increase the alternative minimum tax income exclusion amount must be approved retroactively for 2012 as well as for 2013, or tens of millions more taxpayers will face higher tax bills because of this parallel tax.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-the-fiscal-cliff-may-affect-your-taxes.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Year-end tax planning for the fiscal cliffhanger
By Bill Bischoff | MarketWatch – Fri, Nov 16, 2012 2:03 PM EST

To do year-end tax planning right, you should take a two-year perspective. You don’t want to make a move that lowers your 2012 tax bill but raises your 2013 tax bill by more. But right now, taking a two-year perspective is difficult (to put it kindly), because we don’t yet know what the 2013 federal income tax landscape will look like. (See Key tax issues to watch post-election and 14 tax issues to watch after the election.)

Unfortunately, it could be mid-December or even later before the picture is revealed. Nevertheless, this article supplies some year-end tax-planning suggestions for moderate-income folks. If you’re in that category, I think it’s a good bet that the existing tax brackets for ordinary income (from salaries, self-employment income, interest, short-term capital gains and so forth) will be extended through 2013 for singles with income under $200,000 and for married couples with income under $250,000. That would mean no tax rate changes for you. I’m less optimistic that the existing favorable rates on long-term capital gains and dividends will be extended through 2013 for moderate-income taxpayers, but it’s still a reasonable possibility.

With those thoughts in mind, here are my best guesses about some tax-smart moves to make (or not make) between now and year-end.

Leverage the Standard Deduction : Are your 2012 itemized deductions likely to wind up being just under, or just over, the standard deduction amount? If so, consider the strategy of bunching together expenditures for itemized-deduction items every other year, while claiming the standard deduction in the intervening years. I think this year is a good one to go with the standard deduction. Next year, when tax rates might be higher, you can claim itemized deductions.

The 2012 standard deduction for married joint filers is $11,900. For single filers, it’s $5,950. For heads of households, it’s $8,700.

For example, say you’re a joint filer whose only itemized deductions are about $4,000 of annual property taxes and about $8,000 of home mortgage interest. Go ahead and claim the $11,900 standard deduction on this year’s return. Next year, prepay your 2014 property taxes by Dec. 31, 2013, and claim $16,000 of itemized deductions on your 2013 return: $4,000 of 2013 property taxes, plus another $4,000 for the 2014 property tax bill, plus $8,000 of mortgage interest. The $16,000 of itemized deductions will probably exceed the 2013 standard deduction amount by at least $3,500. Following this strategy will cut your taxable income by a meaningful amount over the two-year period. Other deductible items that you can bunch together every other year include the interest due with your January home mortgage payment, state income tax payments and charitable donations.

If You Are Clearly in the Itemizing Mode: Be Ready to Prepay Deductible Items (But Don’t Do It Yet) : Accelerating deductible expenditures into this year to produce higher 2012 write-offs makes sense if you expect to be in the same or a lower tax bracket next year. At this point, we don’t know what the 2013 tax brackets will be. So be ready to prepay deductible expenditures before year-end, but don’t actually do it yet. If it becomes clear you’ll face higher tax rates in 2013, you might want to defer those expenditures into next year, when the resulting deductions will deliver bigger tax savings. Here are some items you easily pay either this year or next, depending on what happens with next year’s tax rates.

State and local income and property taxes due early next year. But forget about doing the prepayment drill if you know you’ll owe the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 2012. Write-offs for state and local income and property taxes are completely disallowed under the AMT rules. Therefore, prepaying those taxes will do little or no good if you’re an AMT victim.

Accelerate Medical Expenditures Into This Year (Almost a No-Brainer for Non-Seniors) : For many years, the itemized deduction for uninsured medical expenses paid for you, your spouse and your dependents equaled the excess of qualified expenses over 7.5% of adjusted gross income (AGI is the amount on the last line of page 1 of your Form 1040). The 7.5%-of-AGI threshold still applies for 2012. Next year, the threshold rises to 10% of AGI for most folks, thanks to the Obmamacare legislation. However, if either you or your spouse will be 65 or older as of Dec. 31, 2013, the 10%-of-AGI threshold will not take effect until 2017. If you will be affected by the new 10%-of-AGI threshold, consider accelerating medical expenses into 2012. That way, you can take advantage of this year’s more taxpayer-friendly 7.5%-of-AGI threshold.

Be Ready to Prepay College Tuition : If your 2012 AGI allows you to qualify for the American Opportunity or Lifetime Learning higher-education tax credits, consider prepaying tuition bills that are not due until early 2013 if that would result in a bigger credit on this year’s Form 1040. Specifically, you can claim a 2012 credit based on prepaying tuition for academic periods that begin in January through March of next year.

The College Tax Breaks Explained. : If your 2012 AGI is too high to be eligible for the Lifetime Learning credit, you might still qualify to deduct up to $2,000 or $4,000 of college tuition costs. If so, be ready to prepay some tuition bills that are not due until early 2013. But don’t do it yet, because the college tuition deduction expired at the end of 2011. I expect it to be restored for 2012, but it hasn’t happened yet. If the deduction is restored, prepaying tuition for academic periods that begin in January through March of next year could give you a bigger write-off on this year’s return.

Take Advantage of 0% Rate on Long-Term Gains : For 2012, the federal income tax rate on long-term capital gains is 0% when they fall within the 10% or 15% federal income tax rate brackets. If all the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire at year-end, the minimum tax rate on 2013 long-term gains will be 10% (or 8% for gains from certain investments held for over five years). So consider selling winner investments held in your taxable brokerage firm account this year to take advantage of the 0% rate. That said, you should only sell winners that you are thinking about unloading anyway. Don’t let the tax tail wag the dog.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/end-tax-planning-fiscal-cliffhanger-133023711.html

[Jolie Rouge]

6 Ways the Fiscal Cliff Could Affect Seniors
By Tom Sightings | U.S.News & World Report LP – Tue, Nov 13, 2012 12:49 PM EST

The "fiscal cliff" is on the horizon. The term is shorthand for a series of federal spending cuts and tax hikes that will automatically go into effect in January 2013, if Congress doesn't act to override them. These automatic measures originated in Congress last year as part of a compromise to pass the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The tax hikes include ending the temporary reduction in the payroll tax (which funds Social Security), ending some tax breaks for businesses, changing the alternative minimum tax, and inaugurating some taxes to start paying for the Affordable Care Act. They will also affect certain tax credits for college tuition and low-income families.

At the same time, the White House has detailed a whole list of budget cuts that will affect over 1,000 government programs, including $55 billion in defense cuts and $11 billion in lower Medicare payments.

The fiscal cliff presents a giant air pocket for the entire economy. But here are six ways these tax hikes and budget cuts could affect the nation's seniors in particular:

1. Increase taxes on your dividends. Income that retired people receive from their stock and mutual fund investments is currently taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent. If we go over the fiscal cliff, dividends will be taxed at ordinary income rates, up to 40 percent. According to investment firm Goldman Sachs, companies in the S&P 500 index on average pay a dividend yield of 2.1 percent before tax. With the current tax rate of 15 percent, the yield declines to about 1.8 percent. After the fiscal cliff the average dividend yield would fall to an almost-insignificant 1.2 percent.

2. Increase taxes on capital gains. The maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains (investments held longer than a year) will increase from 15 percent to 20 percent. So, for example, if you bought AT&T ten years ago, you likely paid about $27 a share. Today, those shares are priced at about $33, for a little over a 20 percent gain. Sounds good, doesn't it? But in fact, that 20 percent gain just barely makes up for inflation. After you pay 20 percent of your gain in taxes, you've actually lost purchasing power.

3. Social Security. Arguably, the fiscal cliff brings good news for Social Security. No, your benefit will not get any higher. But the fiscal cliff ends the 2 percent payroll tax "holiday" put in place by President Obama in 2010. Since the payroll tax funds Social Security, the higher tax will repair some of the damage done to the funding of the program.

4. Cutbacks to Medicare. The fiscal cliff aims to cut some $11 billion out of Medicare, in part by lowering payments to doctors. This could mean that individual patients will have to pay the difference. Alternatively, it could put cost pressures on medical facilities, forcing them to reduce staff. Lower payments could also lead doctors to limit the number of Medicare patients they will see. The fiscal cliff could make it harder for some people to find a doctor, and could mean longer wait times and a lower quality of service for those who do.

5. The value of your home. No one knows how the fiscal cliff will influence mortgage rates. But with less government spending, less employment, less after-tax income, and a less robust economy in general, it's hard to see home prices rebounding in any meaningful way. In fact, the fiscal cliff could rachet down the value of your house yet again, as funds are squeezed out of the housing market to shore up the rest of the economy.

6. The value of your investments. In theory, the value of an investment consists of the after-tax sum of all future returns. If, as many experts predict, the economy suffers after going over the fiscal cliff, then those returns will be lower. To add insult to injury, the lower returns will be taxed at a higher rate. It only makes sense that the stock market, as well as private business investments, would settle to a lower level. High-dividend stocks, defense stocks, and banking stocks might be the biggest losers. But even more stable investments in health care, oil, and agriculture would probably be a bad bet, since going over the fiscal cliff will certainly leave everyone black and blue.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/6-ways-fiscal-cliff-could-174914411.html

What's in US fiscal cliff and who'd pay how much
What is in the $670B US fiscal cliff and who would pay how much, at a glance
By The Associated Press | Associated Press – Tue, Nov 13, 2012 10:22 AM EST

American consumers and businesses will pay much higher taxes next year if a package of tax increases and spending cuts known as the "fiscal cliff" takes effect as scheduled Jan. 1.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the measures would push the economy into recession and drive the unemployment rate to 9.1 percent next year. The rate is now 7.9 percent.

Below are the main elements. The estimated dollar figures are for calendar year 2013:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/whats-us-fiscal-cliff-whod-080225278.html

[Jolie Rouge]

3 Post-Election Tax Changes You Need to Know
By Jason Hull | U.S.News & World Report LP – Fri, Nov 16, 2012 12:31 PM EST

Now that the election is over, tax law changes are coming. It's important to prepare now for next year so you aren't surprised by what you owe (or the size of your refund) after end of 2013. Here's a look at what to watch:

Increases in the capital gains tax rate. The capital gains tax rate is increasing from 15 percent to 20 percent, and for lower-income households, it's going from zero percent to 10 percent. In a normal year, tax strategists talk about capital loss harvesting. However, with a pending rise in the tax rate, Michael Kitces, partner at the Pinnacle Advisory Group, a Columbia, Maryland, private wealth management firm, recommends investigating selling investments held in taxable accounts that have experienced sizeable gains. Because there is no wash rule for capital gains, you could immediately repurchase the same investment and readjust your basis, locking in the capital gain this year while tax rates are still lower. Higher income earners should pay special attention.

According to Kitces: "For higher income individuals, the capital gains rate rises not just to 20%, but to 23.8%, thanks to the new Medicare tax on unearned income, which just increases the imperative for harvesting capital gains. Alternatively, this also means that even if you think Congress will intervene to prevent the fiscal cliff, capital gains harvesting is still relevant for higher income clients to avoid the Medicare surtax next year. It's also generally still relevant for a lot of lower income individuals as well, as even if the rates are extended, it's hard to do harm by harvesting gains at 0% (especially if you're in a state with no state income tax liability either)."

Increases in the dividend rate. Qualified dividends will be taxed at the individual's income tax rate rather than at the previous 15 percent dividend tax rate. You can expect many companies to issue special dividends in 2012 rather than 2013 to allow their shareholders (oftentimes employees of the companies themselves) to benefit from what is usually a lower tax rate than they will face in the future. If you're a lower-income household, it might be worth investigating putting dividend-paying funds into your taxable accounts since you might wind up with a lower tax rate than before if your marginal tax rate is already below 15 percent.

If you're in a higher income household, you may want to look at moving your long-term, dividend-paying and interest-generating investments into retirement accounts and replacing them in your taxable accounts with growth-oriented investments.

Higher personal income tax rates. The highest personal income tax rate increases from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, and, additionally, there is a 3.8 percent Medicare surtax on unearned income above $250,000 for married filing jointly households and $200,000 for single filers. Depending on how the extension of the Bush tax cuts plays out, if you have to choose between contributing to an IRA in 2012 or in 2013 (ideally you contribute in both years, but sometimes it just doesn't work out that way), you may want to consider one of these strategies:

--If your income tax rate will rise and you qualify for a Roth IRA: Contribute in 2012, since Roth IRA contributions are made with after-tax money.

--If your income tax rate will rise and you do not qualify for a Roth IRA and can deduct IRA contributions: Contribute in 2013, since these contributions can reduce your adjusted gross income (AGI), and you're reducing the amount of tax you have to pay in a higher tax year.

The good thing about deciding what to do with your IRA is that you don't have to make the decision this year. You can fund your 2012 IRAs up until the April tax filing deadline in 2013, meaning you have some time to see how the "fiscal cliff" negotiations play out and what the new Congress does before making your decisions.

As always, there are many other considerations to take into account when planning your investing strategies to account for changing tax laws, so it may be wise to seek the advice of a financial planner or CPA before making these moves.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/3-post-election-tax-changes-173134149.html

Wealthy Dump Assets in Advance of Cliff
By Robert Frank | CNBC – Mon, Nov 12, 2012 4:00 PM EST

For many of the wealthy, 2012 is becoming a good year to sell.

Fearing an increase in capital gains and dividend taxes, many of the rich are unloading stocks, businesses and homes before the end of the year.

Wealth advisers say that with capital-gains taxes potentially going to 25 percent from 15 percent, and other possible increases in the dividend tax, estate tax and other taxes, many clients are selling now to save millions in taxes. "Under almost any scenario, it makes sense to take the gains this year," said Gregory Curtis, chairman and managing director of Greycourt & Co. "Clients aren't selling willy nilly. But if they can and they have a huge gain, they're selling now."

If the Bush-era tax cuts expire, taxes on capital gains would revert back to its previous rate of 20 percent from its current 15 percent. Another 5 percent may be added from health-care levies and changes in itemized deductions, bringing the rate to 25 percent for many high earners.

Taxes on dividends could go from 15 percent to over 43 percent. And the estate tax could go from 35 percent on estates worth more than $5 million to 55 percent on estates over $1 million.

As a result, the wealthy are taking a close look at all of their assets to see what could or should be sold off now to avoid potentially higher taxes next year.

The most noticeable sell-off has been in stocks. Wealth managers many of their clients who have large gains on stocks are selling them now, or selling them or buying them back again to create a higher basis (and thus a lower tax bill later).

Since the wealthiest one percent of U.S. households control more than half of the stocks in the United States, their selling and buying can have strong ripple effects on the market.

Bankers say owners of private businesses are also pressing to sell their companies to ahead of a possible tax hike. If an entrepreneur, for instance, sells a company for $100 million, they could pay $10 million less in taxes than if they sold in 2013.

Deal advisors say that by selling his company to Disney this year for $4 billion, George Lucas potentially saved hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.

Granted, business owners aren't suddenly selling their companies after the election. The businesses most likely to take advantage of lower taxes are small businesses that may have been in the process of selling and can push to close before Jan. 1. "Selling a business is not easy, it's not like you can just pull a switch," said Frederic Seegal, vice chairman of Peter J. Solomon Co, the investment banking firm.

Mansion sales are seeing a similar acceleration, brokers say. Some recent multi-million-dollar sales in Florida, New York and California were partly driven by sellers who were anxious to sell before the end of 2012, brokers say. The sell off could have profound impacts on both asset prices in the United States, as well as tax revenues.

Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center said the direct impact of all this front-loading is hard to determine, since there are so many other factors in the economy. But he said that a rise in wealthy sellers could put pressure on asset prices and stocks, at least in the short term. "This could depress asset values," he said.

He also said that all this income-shifting could make revenues more volatile and unpredictable. It might also result in the government raising less than expected during the first year or two of the tax increase. "The government may come out ahead this year, but lower the next year."

In 1986, for example, the capital gains tax rate was 20 percent but was schedule to go up to 28 percent in 1987 as part of President Ronald Reagan's tax overhaul. In 1986, capital gains collections soared to $52 billion - twice the amount as 1985. But the following year, when the higher rate kicked in, capital gains fell by 50 percent.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthy-dump-assets-advance-cliff-210032429.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Hating Grover
Norquist should wear the elite obloquy as a badge of honor.
By Rich Lowry ~ November 27, 2012 12:00 A.M.

Listening to Democrats and the media, you could be forgiven for thinking the point of a deal over the looming “fiscal cliff” wouldn’t be to reduce the deficit so much as to reduce the influence of one man, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

Known to one and all simply as Grover, he is the keeper of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge signed by almost all Republicans committing themselves not to raise taxes. For this offense, Grover is deemed the enemy of all that is right and just.

The pollster and ABC News commentator Matthew Dowd said on This Week that “Grover Norquist is an impediment to good governing. The only good thing about Grover Norquist is that he was named after a character from Sesame Street.” Not everyone has been as juvenile as Dowd, but he captured the gleeful spirit of the anti-Norquist pile-on.

The idea that we’d have “good governing” only if more tax increases were thrown on top of poorly designed, out-of-control entitlements, wasteful subsidies, rotten schools, and an ever-growing mess of regulation is fanciful. Obamacare increased taxes by more than $500 billion, and our governing did not noticeably become better as a result.Grover has three insights that are absolutely correct: 1) Revenues from tax increases will almost invariably be spent. Does anyone believe that if George W. Bush had not cut taxes early in his first term that the Tom DeLay and Nancy Pelosi Congresses wouldn’t have, in their collective wisdom, found ways to spend the additional revenues? 2) The typical structure of the Washington budget deal is tax increases now in exchange for promised spending cuts over time that don’t materialize. 3) The Republican brand is dependent on its status as the anti-tax party.

These aren’t alien beliefs foisted on the Republican party, but represent GOP orthodoxy. Nonetheless, everyone acts as if Grover is the instrument of the party’s Babylonian captivity. If only the dastardly Norquist didn’t make Republicans say they won’t raise taxes — and put it in writing — the party could fulfill its role in the “good governing” of Washington, namely joining Democrats to raise taxes.

The proof of the supposed perversity of Grover’s influence is the widely cited hypothetical example of a Democratic offer to cut $10 in spending for every $1 in new tax dollars. In one presidential-primary debate, every Republican candidate indicated that he or she would oppose such a deal. Of course, it’s all academic because such a deal will never, ever be on offer. Hypotheticals work both ways, or they should. What would Democrats be willing to accept in exchange for signing off on a premium-support plan for Medicare? Nothing.

The press isn’t scandalized by this particular intransigence. It isn’t a favorite topic on the Sunday shows whether the influence of AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, who opposes all meaningful spending cuts, will be broken in the Democratic party. No one is outraged that the Left is mustering a lobbying campaign to keep President Barack Obama from giving anything on entitlements in the talks over the fiscal cliff.

But whenever a Republican says he won’t abide by Grover’s pledge, the media act like a choir of angels celebrating another saved soul. So far, it’s only the usual suspects in the party, although House Speaker John Boehner has signaled a willingness to raise more revenue if the president will cut entitlement spending. What makes this time different from prior budget showdowns is that Republicans can remain technically compliant with the pledge by doing nothing, and taxes would still go up on everyone automatically at the end of the year.

A deal, then, could make sense, depending on the parameters. As the cliff approaches, all the pressure within Washington and within the media will be for Republicans simply to cave to the president. Grover will make it as painful as possible for them to do it, and should wear the resulting elite obloquy as a badge of honor.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334097/hating-grover-rich-lowry#

[Jolie Rouge]

Tuesday, November 27, 2012
We can't tax our way out of our fiscal problems

Maybe if we had an accurate accounting of the actual liabilities that our federal government faces, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html?m od=djemEditorialPage_h people would be a lot more concerned about fixing our fiscal problems. But we don't see reported the liabilities we face in Medicare, Social Security, and pensions for federal employees. Right now we are on the hook for $86.8 trillion for those expenses, yet they're not included in projections of our national debt. Two prominent former House members, Chris Cox and Bill Archer, report the stark truth that there is no way to tax our way out of this debt.


When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.

Nothing like that $8 trillion amount is available for the IRS to target. According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.

In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities. Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Only by addressing these unsustainable spending commitments can the nation's debt and deficit problems be solved.

This is scary stuff. No wonder that so few politicians want to talk about these stark facts. But unless we address the root causes of our fiscal crises instead of relying on short-term band-aids, we'll never come close to fixing our problems.

We can't even get an honest discussion of how big the problem is.

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2012/11/we-cant-tax-our-way-out-of-our-fiscal.html

comments

All the Democrats are saying we can tax our way out of fiscal problems. Obama feels that if the "rich" pay there fair share all our fiscal issues will go away. The only cuts that he has discussed have been to defense (about the only part of Gov't that works). So you, as you consistently have been, are the one who is being dishonest. You and the rest of the Lib/Prog's need to grow up...

..

Promises that can't be kept, won't be kept. Obligations that can't be honored, won't be honored. Debt that can't be repaid, won't be repaid. The crash is inevitable. And the more we borrow to put it off, the harder that crash will be, and the longer the recovery.

Be prepared.

[Jolie Rouge]

Surf’s up! Obamas taking $4 million Hawaiian vacation as America plunges over fiscal cliff
Posted at 12:18 pm on November 29, 2012 by Twitchy Staff

:shark:


Ana Nguyen@anananguyen

Our country is on the verge of going over a #fiscalcliff & Obama is planning a 20-day vacation! #Leadership

29 Nov 12

As Twitchy reported earlier, despite the fast-approaching fiscal cliff, President Obama can’t be troubled to meet with Congressional leaders. http://twitchy.com/2012/11/29/priorities-fiscal-cliff-obama-hasnt-bothered-to-meet-with-congressional-leaders-for-13-days/ Well, it looks like the country will have to wait a little longer for even a halfhearted show of leadership. While the president is threatening Americans that Republicans will steal their $2000, http://twitchy.com/2012/11/28/hijack-hilarity-hijinks-will-they-never-learn-white-house-launches-my2k-hashtag-fails/ he’s preparing to embark on a three-week, $4 million Hawaiian vacation. Funded by taxpayers, of course. http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/11/29/obama-slated-hawaii-cliff/


The Hawaii Reporter estimates that the total cost of the vacation to Hawaii and federal taxpayers, including funding for travel, staff and protection, is at least $4 million. Obama’s vacations are more expensive than those of previous presidents because of the huge costs to fly Air Force One and an accompanying cargo plane for nine hours or so to Hawaii.

The trip is set for December 17 to January 6. We’re set to reach the edge of the fiscal cliff on January 2. As Obama and the Democrats’ irresponsible policies send us hurtling toward economic disaster, the president and his family will be enjoying their pu pu platters. Maybe they’ll even do a little cliff diving of their own! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSnvjeCzIEE

Conservatives are absolutely livid:





Sadly - I can not share that portion with you - because certain words are CENSORED No idea WHAT WORDS nor WHY they are considered CENSORED as no one can or will tell the tale.

http://twitchy.com/2012/11/29/surfs-up-obamas-taking-4-million-hawaiian-vacation-as-america-plunges-over-fiscal-cliff/

But somehow Romney was "out of touch"?

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama’s “fiscal cliff” offer to Republicans calls for $1.6 trillion in new taxes and end of debt ceiling in exchange for … nothing, basically; Update: McConnell laughed out loud; Update: Walk away, says Krauthammer
posted at 6:02 pm on November 29, 2012 by Allahpundit

Even more unbelievable than the “offer” itself is the fact that the our hack media will go on painting Republicans as the unreasonable ideologues in this equation. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/politics/fiscal-talks-in-congress-seem-to-reach-impasse.html?hp&pagewanted=print


House Republicans said on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, an immediate new round of stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.

The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, was likely to meet strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other entitlements, to be worked out next year, with no guarantees.

He did propose some upfront cuts in programs like farm price supports, but did not specify an amount or any details. And senior Republican aides familiar with the offer said those initial spending cuts might well be outnumbered by upfront spending increases, including at least $50 billion in infrastructure spending, mortgage relief, an extension of unemployment insurance and a deferral of automatic cuts to physician reimbursements under Medicare…

[T]he details show how far the president is ready to push House Republicans. The upfront tax increases in the proposal go beyond what Senate Democrats were able to pass earlier this year. Tax rates would go up for higher-income earners, as in the Senate bill, but Mr. Obama wants their dividends to be taxed as ordinary income, something the Senate did not approve. He also wants the estate tax to be levied at 45 percent on inheritances over $3.5 million, a step several Democratic senators balked at. The Senate bill made no changes to the estate tax, which currently taxes inheritances over $5 million at 35 percent.

Here’s Peter Suderman’s idea of a commensurate counter-offer:

Peter Suderman@petersuderman

Republicans hear Obama's opening bid, counter with: Eliminate the federal government, except for defense.

29 Nov 12

Two possibilities. One: Obama reeeeally wants to avoid the cliff, so he’s engineering some political cover for the other side to compromise. Ante up with a ridiculous bid, then pretend to let Republicans “win” by letting them negotiate him down to, say, “only” a trillion in new revenues. In order to believe that, though, you have to believe that O fears the cliff. Why would he? Polls show that Republicans will take most of the blame, which means not only will Obama have more leverage after January 1 (see my earlier post about that) but he can then blame any economic sluggishness over the next year or two or four on the GOP too. That might be the difference between a Republican Senate versus a Democratic House in 2014. Which brings us to two: He’s either indifferent about going over the cliff or now actively wants it to happen, and since he knows he can count on the press to scapegoat Republicans when it does, he’s decided to shoot for the stars with his “offer” and see how desperate Boehner is. Is the GOP sufficiently nervous about being called enemies of the middle class if a deal isn’t reached that they’ll cave on tax hikes on the rich in exchange for some smaller bundle of concessions, with this insane package the only other alternative on the Democratic side? That’s what O wants to see.

Exit question: Let it burn?


Update: NRO’s Dan Foster asks a good question:


Daniel Foster@DanFosterNRO

Is the White House proposal supposed to reduce the deficit? By how much?

29 Nov 12

We’re supposed to be paying down the deficit here, not squeezing the rich to fund Obama’s next government expansion. How much of this mega-soak is designed to do the former rather than the latter?

Update: Laughable, literally: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mcconnell-burst-laughter-geithner-outlined-obamas-plan_664210.html


Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, says he “burst into laughter” Thursday when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner outlined the administration proposal for averting the fiscal cliff. He wasn’t trying to embarrass Geithner, McConnell says, only responding candidly to his one-sided plan, explicit on tax increases, vague on spending cuts…

Geithner suggested $1.6 trillion in tax increases, McConnell says, but showed “minimal or no interest” in spending cuts. When congressional leaders went to the White House three days after the election, Obama talked of possible curbs on the explosive growth of food stamps and Social Security disability payments. But since Geithner didn’t mention them, those reductions appear to be off the table now, McConnell says


Update: Via NRO, hard to argue with this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKphK1DtO8

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/29/report-obamas-fiscal-cliff-offer-to-republicans-calls-for-1-6-trillion-in-new-taxes-and-end-of-debt-ceiling-in-exchange-for-nothing-basically/

[Jolie Rouge]

Friday, November 30, 2012
Obama's terms: Surrender now

Charles Krauthammer points out that discussions of fiscal cliff negotiations shouldn't focus on the revenue side, but the expense side. The Democrats aren't even acknowledging the problem. Dick Durbin has declared that Social Security reforms should not be part of the discussion because it "does not add a penny to our deficit." Krauthammer quickly disposes of that lie. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-cliff-jumping-with-barack/2012/11/29/6ddd39f8-3a5f-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html


This is absurd. In 2012, Social Security adds $165 billion to the deficit. Democrats pretend that Social Security is covered through 2033 by its trust fund. Except that the trust fund is a fiction, a mere “bookkeeping” device, as the Office of Management and Budget itself has written. The trust fund’s IOUs “do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.” Future benefits “will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.”

And draining the Treasury, as 10,000 baby boomers retire every day. Yet that’s off the table. And on Wednesday, the president threw down the gauntlet by demanding tax hikes now — with spending cuts to come next year. Meaning, until after Republicans have fallen on their swords, given up the tax issue and forfeited their political leverage.

Republicans need to stop fighting among themselves and present a united front that they will not agree to tax increases unless we get real spending cuts, including entitlement reform.


Obama is claiming an electoral mandate to raise taxes on the top 2 percent. Perhaps, but remember those incessant campaign ads promising a return to the economic nirvana of the Clinton years? Well, George W. Bush cut rates across the board, not just for the top 2 percent. Going back to the Clinton rates means middle-class tax hikes that yield four times the revenue that you get from just the rich.

So give Obama the full Clinton. Let him live with that. And with what also lies on the other side of the cliff: 28 million Americans newly subject to the ruinous alternative minimum tax.

Republicans must stop acting like supplicants. If Obama so loves those Clinton rates, Republicans should say: Then go over the cliff and have them all.

And add: But if you want a grand bargain, then deal. If we give way on taxes, we want, in return, serious discretionary cuts, clearly spelled-out entitlement cuts and real tax reform.

The President is totally unserious in what he has proposed. He wants tax increases now along with more spending increases. Kimberley Strassel summarizes what the Democrats are offering.


According to sources on Capitol Hill, the White House wants Republicans to pony up $960 billion in immediate tax increases, which will come from hiking the top marginal rates and increasing capital gains and dividends taxes. That is just for starters. The administration also wants the GOP to surrender an additional $600 billion in revenue via later tax reforms.

The president's team specified no amounts or details on spending cuts. Rather, the White House wants more spending: at least $50 billion in new stimulus, an extension of unemployment insurance, a one-year deferral of the sequester, new money to refinance underwater mortgages, a Medicare-doctor fix . . . and a partridge in a pear tree.

Oh, the White House also wants Congress to give Mr. Obama the authority to increase the debt limit, whenever he wants, as much as he wants.

What do Republicans get in return? Next year, the White House will agree to talk to the GOP about cutting as much as $400 billion from entitlement programs. Maybe. If Democrats get around to it. Which they won't—because they'll have everything they've wanted.

This is how Obama negotiates. Give me everything I want and nothing that you want and we'll call it a deal.


How to put this tax-and-more-spending offer in perspective? It is far in excess of what the Democrats asked for in last year's debt-limit standoff—when the political configuration in Washington was exactly the same. It is far more than the president's own Democratic Senate has ever been able to pass, even with a filibuster-proof majority. It is far more than the president himself campaigned on this year

And although this is not the perception of the media and those paying only minimal attention, John Boehner has already met Obama's demand for more revenue from the wealthy.


Within two days of the election, Mr. Boehner had offered an enormous compromise, committing the GOP to provide new tax revenue, through limits on deductions for the wealthy. Mr. Obama campaigned on making "the rich" pay more—and that is exactly what Mr. Boehner agreed to give him.

All that was left for the president to do was accept this peace offering, pair it with necessary spending cuts, and take credit for averting a crisis. Mr. Obama has instead spent the past weeks campaigning for tax-rate hikes. He wants the revenue, but collected only the way he chooses. And on the basis of that ideological insistence alone, the nation is much closer to a crisis.

So why is Obama doing this? Why is he putting forward such an unserious proposal? It seems more and more that he is quite willing for us to go over the cliff. After all, he'd get lots of lovely new revenue into the treasury if all the tax cuts expire.


Then again, the most frightening aspect of the White House proposal is that it wasn't an error. Perhaps the proposal was thoroughly calculated. This suggests a president who doesn't care about the outcome of the cliff negotiations—who thinks that he wins politically no matter what. He's betting that either the GOP will be far more responsible than he is and do anything to avert a crisis, or that the cliff gives him the tax hikes his partisans are demanding. Win-win, save for the enormous pain to average families across the country.

The Republicans will have to contemplate how to deal with such an unserious offer. But in presenting his demands, the president has now made very clear that there is only one side that is working in good faith.

Don't agree to any one-sided proposal that raises taxes now with just a promise to cut spending and entitlement reform some time later. Those cuts and entitlement reform will never, ever appear. We've seen this over and over.

[Jolie Rouge]

As Michael Tanner points out, all the media want to talk about are tax increases. It's all part of the liberal agenda. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334216/all-about-taxes-michael-tanner


Yet the media still seem obsessed with Republicans and taxes: Will they stick to the Taxpayer Protection Pledge or not? Will tax rates go up or will loopholes be closed? How much new revenue will Republicans agree to?

But there is a profound lack of curiosity when it comes to the other half of this supposed bargain. Remember that hypothetical deal of $1 in tax increases to $10 in spending cuts? Republicans are still being asked about it and criticized for rejecting it. But balancing the budget under that formula would require $9 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years. When was the last time the president or a Democratic congressman was asked whether or not they would agree to such a deal?

For that matter, it’s worth noting that more than half of Democratic congressmen and eleven senators have signed a pledge to oppose any changes to Social Security or Medicare. If pledges are the root of all evil, couldn’t we pause for just a moment in our attempts to run Grover Norquist out of town to work up the tiniest bit of outrage about this one?

In fact, many Democrats actually want to spend more, at least in the short term. The president’s most recent budget calls for $2.6 in increased spending between now and 2022. That’s $1 trillion more than the $1.6 trillion that the president has called for in new taxes. Therefore, the tax hikes would not be used to reduce the deficit, but to finance new spending. And, according to news reports, the president has already floated the idea of still more stimulus spending as part of the fiscal-cliff talks.

That’s not a “balanced approach.” That’s simply old-fashioned tax-and-spend politics.

The time may someday come to parse the exact meaning of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. But for now, Republicans are simply negotiating with themselves and with the news media. Democrats haven’t even come to the table.

Even the Washington Post is fed up with the Democrats' refusal to address the true drivers of our federal debt. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-obamas-time-to-lead-on-entitlements/2012/11/27/0430b112-38c8-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions


Obama ran on a clear platform of increasing taxes on the wealthy. But he was clear on something else, too: Deficit reduction must be “balanced,” including spending cuts as well as tax increases. Since 60 percent of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there’s no way to achieve balance without slowing the rate of increase of those programs.

This could be accomplished in a progressive manner, shielding the poorest beneficiaries from cuts. But that seems less likely to be achieved if progressives boycott serious negotiations by pretending that Social Security and Medicare are sustainable with no reform at all.

Mr. Obama has understood this since at least 2009, when he told The Post’s editorial board that he would tackle entitlement reform.

“What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further,” he said then. “We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else’s.”


We're now seeing that Obama never met any of those sensible things that he used to say about a balanced approach. When has he ever made any actual policy proposal that demonstrated that he truly wanted real entitlement reform or was willing to cut any spending other than defense spending? Just the opposite. So why should we (or the Washington Post) be at all surprised at the negotiating stance he's taking now?

I still think the best thing would be to propose a version of Simpson-Bowles and try to get some Democratic senators who are up for reelection in 2014 in red states to go along with that. Probably it wouldn't make any difference. It's becoming clearer and clearer that Obama would be quite content to go over that fiscal cliff and get the defense cuts he wants as well as all the increased revenue from taxing everyone that Obama promised to never raise taxes on. And they'll blame it on the Republicans refusal to raise taxes on those earning over $250,000. What could be greater than that for the Democrats? What's a little recession if he can blame the Republicans for it. And you know that the media will be happy to go along. They're already setting the table for that story.

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2012/11/obamas-terms-surrender-now.html

[Jolie Rouge]

https://blu163.mail.live.com/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=2494e2a6-3d71-11e2-9061-00237de416aa&attindex=0&cp=-1&attdepth=0&imgsrc=cid:image001.png%4001CDD148.512DA9D0&cid=869088fbb1599300&shared=1&hm__login=lsterrio&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.15.200.8&d=d5264&mf=0&hm__ts=Mon%2c%2003%20Dec%202012%2017:48:20%20GMT&st=lsterrio&hm__ha=01_4a65b40c2a1bfbf6fba83ce158f63fe199e934b2 88a1f6df8d0e656cb262f142&oneredir=1

[Jolie Rouge]

Who is facing the fiscal cliff?? Certainly not the President (nor Congress - if we get honest)

http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/120312-635425-fiscal-cliff-talks-stall-as-obama-white-house-erects-its-own-tree-grove.htm?ven=rss

[Jolie Rouge]

Beautiful: Senator McConnell Brings Obama’s Fiscal Cliff Plan to the Floor for a Vote –
Reid Objects, Calls it a Stunt
December, 5, 2012 — nicedeb

Was Obama’s offer serious? No, of course not, nor was Obama’s last budget which got defeated 99- 0 on the Senate floor, last May.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

And so on the Senate floor, Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proved it by offering to give Democrats a chance to vote on Obama’s joke of a proposal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JHQFe1qrxSo

Reid called McConnell’s offer a Republican “stunt,” http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/05/huh-thats-odd-harry-reid-declines-to-bring-a-vote-on-obamas-cliff-plan/ but how is bringing Obama’s supposedly serious proposal to the floor a “stunt”? Is not the proposal itself, with it’s tax hikes, increased spending, and elimination of the debt ceiling a stunt, or a really bad joke?(even though McConnell did laugh at it.) Isn’t Reid really objecting to the exposure of the President’s bad joke and bad faith to the public, (even though the MSM will do its best to bury the news of it?)

Guy Benson of Townhall writes: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/12/05/surprise_mcconnell_offers_vote_on_obamageithner_fi scal_cliff_plan_reid_objects


Think about that. The President of the United States, a Democrat, crafted a fiscal cliff package that would give him everything he wants. It has tax hikes on the rich. It has huge tax hikes on investments and estates. It has more stimulus spending. It has no meaningful, specific, or guaranteed spending cuts. And it compels Congress to cede control of the debt ceiling to him. This is “fairness” on steroids. The Senate’s top Republican proposed an up-or-down vote on everything the president wants, yet Democrats, who control the upper chamber, instantly blocked it. By what definition is it a “stunt” to hold a vote on the president’s full, public plan? The White House has insisted it’s a serious document, yet Hill Democrats don’t want it to see the light of day.

Gee, is it possible these morons want to go over the fiscal cliff so they can get everything they want (higher taxes on everyone, gut the military) and blame it on the Republicans? Is it possible that virtually everything these pathetic, perennially projecting reprobates do is a politically calculated “stunt”?

Don’t worry, Reid’s discomfort was only temporary. He’ll be back tomorrow to talk about how serious the President’s plan is, and how the Republicans are just playing games and holding the middle class hostage – more dangerous than al Qaeda, they are..

I still can’t believe America voted for four more years of this ...

Krauthammer says Obama Already has U.S. more than Halfway to Collapse of Dollar and the Economy: http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/12/05/krauthammer-obama-already-has-u-s-more-than-halfway-to-collapse-of-dollar-and-the-economy/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UN5JD9-y0TA

How do you not see a Cloward-Piven strategy at play, here, at this point? http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/theclowardpivenstrategypoe.html



http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/beautiful-senator-mcconnell-brings-obamas-fiscal-cliff-plan-to-the-floor-for-a-vote-reid-objects-calls-it-a-stunt-video/

[Jolie Rouge]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10553920121206120100.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria_c10552320121206120100.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg120612dAPR20121206054544.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/81_12352820121206042426.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk120612dAPR20121206044538.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/182/930/297329_10150320249137568_692207567_8250903_1924362 826_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

#FiscalCliff: The entitlement explosion in must-see charts
Posted by: ST on December 6, 2012

Ok, so I’m officially depressed now after seeing this. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/americas-entitlement-epidemic-in-just-1-charts/ I knew it was really bad, but seriously underestimated the level.



Most Republicans understand this and know tough choices need to be made. Nearly all Democrats, on the other hand, think most entitlements should remain untouched and that instead we should just gut the defense budget. That always seems to be their default answer. In essence, they’re choosing to weaken our military over gradually but necessarily weaning the American people off of the safety net and in turn promoting individual/personal responsibility.

Big government is destroying this country – both literally and figuratively. And I blame Democrats for most of that.

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2012/12/06/fiscalcliff-the-entitlement-explosion-in-must-see-charts/

[Jolie Rouge]

Bobby Jindal: Ideas for staving off the fiscal Armageddon
posted at 6:21 pm on December 6, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Congressional Republicans are in a pretty rough position right now, to put it lightly; at every turn, the Democrats and the media are painting the GOP as the party merely trying to preserve tax loopholes for their billionaire buddies (nevermind that every dollar spent by the government is a dollar not spend much more effectively in the private sector, coming at the opportunity cost of economic growth) and callously cut off benefits for seniors and the poor, all on the backs of the middle class (forget that the Republicans’ real goal is to engender a free, robust economy in which people don’t need to be dependent on such programs). The Democrats are winning the PR battle on that one, as we clearly saw with the results of the November election, and Republicans may find themselves in the position of ceding on the fiscal cliff.

But beyond the fiscal cliff, there are even deeper and more systemic problems that will come to fruition in the all-too-foreseeable future (hint: the entitlement explosion and our tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities), and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal makes the case for some ideas for long-term reform in an op-ed today:


Today it’s the fiscal cliff, but that surely will not be the end of it; next year it will be the fiscal mountain, after that the fiscal black hole, and after that fiscal Armageddon. But the truth is Washington already drove us off the fiscal cliff while no one was looking. A nation that has a $16.3 trillion debt, a debt that is larger than our entire economy, has already driven through the guard rail and is in free fall with the cliff somewhere in the rear view mirror. …

Here are a few structural reforms, any one of which would be worth fighting for in this fiscal cliff diving exercise:

• A federal balanced budget amendment. States have balanced budget laws, small businesses have to balance their budgets, and families have to do the same. This is an idea that is supported by virtually every American who does not live in the 202 area code. It’s common sense. It is also laughed at in Washington. When you mention the BBA as a solution, they roll their eyes and write you off as a non-serious person. But the American public is dead serious about it, and they should be.

• Place a cap on discretionary and mandatory federal spending by fixing a limit on it tied to a percentage of GDP. Eighteen percent is a reasonable number in my book, but almost any number would be a victory at this point. Require a super majority vote to over-ride this limit, which would allow for recourse in a time of war or other national emergency. Again, this solution makes far too much sense to be taken seriously in Washington, a sure sign that it’s a good idea. This president is rapidly making a permanently higher level of government spending the new normal. …

A balanced-budget amendment? Quelle horreur! But as Jindal says in his piece, it is all too apparent that “Congress and this administration are psychologically incapable of getting our fiscal house in order without laws that give them no other alternative” — which pretty adequately explains why President Obama is asking to wield a credit card in the United States’ name with no credit limit to speak of. Actually having to have a plan to eventually correct the balance sheet and abide by a mechanism that forces us to have politically difficult conversations? Now, that’s just crazy talk.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/06/bobby-jindal-ideas-for-staving-off-the-fiscal-armageddon/

[Jolie Rouge]

New plan. We just won’t collect the taxes
posted at 12:31 pm on December 9, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

There’s a new bit of creative thinking making the rounds in DC this weekend, proving yet again that not all ideas wind up being good ones. According to this line of thought, assuming no deal is reached to prevent tax rates from going up on the middle class, Timothy Geithner has certain, hidden superpowers which will save the day. If the tax rates go up, people won’t need to worry about it because we just won’t withhold the extra money from their paychecks. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/271791-white-house-could-protect-middle-class-from-tax-hikes


The White House has the power to temporarily protect taxpayers from middle-class tax hikes even as upper income rates rise if Congress does nothing and all of the Bush-era tax rates expire in January.

Experts and lawmakers alike agree that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has the power to adjust how much is withheld from paychecks for tax purposes — for all taxpayers or just for some.

By doing so, Geithner could ensure paychecks reflect the White House position that wealthier taxpayers with annual income higher than $250,000 see their taxes rise. Geithner at the same time could leave withholding tables where they are for the middle class, ensuring those workers don’t see a higher cut from their paychecks.

I’ve noticed a bit of confusion out there, particularly given some of the comments popping up on Twitter, so we should first identify what this doesn’t mean. The White House can not simply ignore the tax laws put in place by Congress and collect a different amount of tax than what is due, and this proposal isn’t suggesting that. If the tax rate goes up, you’re still going to owe more money.

But what they’re talking about is the fact that Treasury is responsible for publishing the withholding tables which employers use to determine how much to deduct from workers’ paychecks for their taxes. In theory, Geithner could leave the withholding tables the same for lower income workers, effectively making it seem as if their taxes haven’t gone up. But this is a pretty dangerous game to play unless you’re very sure you know what the eventual tax rate is going to be and when it will go into effect. If you guess wrong and fail to withhold the correct amount, tens of millions of people will find themselves owing a big ole’ check to the IRS when tax day rolls around and you’ll find yourself about as popular as a skunk at a garden party.

So what does this plan actually “solve” in terms of the ongoing tax debate? In reality… nothing.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/09/new-plan-we-just-wont-collect-the-taxes/

comments


If they go through with this, it will deny Obama his chance to blame Republicans for middle class tax increases

Don’t count on it. His 51% will believe whatever the MSM tells them. YES, the Republicans will stil be blamed.

..


“If you guess wrong and taxpayers have to write checks next April…they’re not going to be happy.”

Ask the residents of Staten Island how well the government works…

..

Now let’s see . . . if Obama wins, tax rates on the “rich” go up and the middle class tax rates stay the same; If we go over the “cliff”, tax rates on the “rich” and the middle class go up but the middle class will continue on their present withholding tables, therefore their tax liability remains unchanged. If the Republicans win, all tax rates stay the some and do not go up. This is a no win game for the Republicans and a win-win game for Obama because Obama can win even if we go over the cliff. It’s time to stop this nonsense and let those politicos try to find something constructive to do.

..

There is no more rule of law. The Federal Government, under the Progressives (read Socialists) have thrown it out long ago. They make things up as they go along, they interpret things as they like and they decide which laws to enforce and then selectively enforce them. Without the rule of law, there is only tyranny and we are there.

[Jolie Rouge]

Washington Post pays 2013 dividends now
so investors can avoid tax increases championed by president the paper endorsed
By Doug Powers • December 8, 2012 12:20 AM

In October, the Washington Post backed President Obama for re-election, praising his proposed “balance of entitlement reform and revenue [tax] increases” that could take effect in January of 2013. Obama may well get his way and taxes could soon go up on $250k and up earners (and maybe everybody). http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-25/opinions/35500076_1_fiscal-commission-entitlement-reform-and-revenue-president-barack-obama

With that in mind, the Washington Post Company can now be added to the list of those who are paying 2013 dividends in 2012 so their investors won’t get nailed by the possible tax increases the paper endorsed as a terrific way for the government to cull additional revenue. Proof positive that no matter what happens in the negotiations, the country is definitely going off the irony cliff: http://www.boston.com/business/news/2012/12/07/washington-post-pay-dividend-early/AwkF6D3XCar4UA9fMgZxoL/story.html


The media and education company said Friday that its dividend of $9.80 per share is payable Dec. 27 to shareholders of record as of Dec. 17. The payout is instead of regular quarterly dividends next year.

Washington Post is the latest company to move up its quarterly payout or issue a special end-of-year payment to protect investors from potentially having to pay higher taxes on dividend income starting in January.

The business arm of a publishing conglomerate contradicting and rebutting an endorsement from its media arm is not uncommon. In the universe of corporate MSM, the WaPo is serving as another nice example of self-contained point/counterpoint — cause & effect rolled up neatly in one newspaper.

Related story: In September, Costco’s founder said that Obama would be better for business than Romney. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-06/costco-founder-says-obama-better-for-business-than-romney.html This month, Costco borrowed billions to pay out in special dividends to investors before the tax increases Obama wants will more than likely hit next month. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/03/costco-fiscal-cliff-dividend/ Joe Biden recently offered personal thanks for the former. http://twitchy.com/2012/11/29/dunce-of-the-people-biden-attends-costco-grand-opening-hilarity-ensues/




**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/12/08/washington-post-dividends/

[Jolie Rouge]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/121210joyrideRGBFF20121211015123.jpghttp://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz121112dAPR20121211124535.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama to Charities: Bite the Hand that Feeds You, or Else!
By Mary Theroux | Wednesday December 12, 2012 at 5:30 PM PST

Does President Obama hate private charity, or does he think only the government should take care of people? Does he just hate the idea of anyone directing their own money as they choose, or what?

For whatever reason, for now the fifth time in his administration, he’s proposing eliminating or limiting the tax deductibility of charitable contributions.

This time around he’s using some interesting tactics, and charities caught in the cross-fire might do well to learn from church leaders who helped push Obamacare to their congregations what happens to amateurs who play politics with the big boys. http://philanthropy.com/article/White-House-Urges-Nonprofits/136155/ (Hint: they may find themselves badly burned in the process.)

In the current campaign to get more tax revenue from “the rich,” the White House called in the heads of various charities for a little gentle arm-twisting: http://philanthropy.com/article/White-House-Urges-Nonprofits/136155/


Senior Obama administration officials invited nonprofit leaders to the White House this week to enlist them to push for increased taxes on the wealthy...

“The president has been very clear on this: They are looking to increase rates on the wealthiest 2 percent,” said Stacey Stewart, president of United Way USA, who attended the White House meeting. “They were asking us to lend our voice to that.”

And how did the White House go about trying to persuade these non-profit leaders to “lend their voice”?


The White House officials said that the charitable deduction is more likely to be altered if the president does not succeed in raising tax rates on the wealthy, according to Ms. Stewart.

Charity leaders had been very busy on Capitol Hill, urging lawmakers to reject any limitation or elimination of the charitable deduction. The not-so-subtle ploy by the White House to have them add support for taxing the rich more puts them in a delicate position: if their wealthy donors find out they’re also lobbying to raise upper-income tax rates, will they respond by redirecting their giving to causes that didn’t get into bed with the White House? But if the private charities don’t help Obama pass higher tax rates, will he retaliate by yanking or limiting the deductibility of contributions?

A tricky calculus, indeed.

And a rare peek at some of the most distasteful gamesmanship imaginable.

For this is not a political game where all that matters is if the President “wins” or not. It is a game that involves people’s lives.

Anyone who is familiar with the non-profit sector knows that ever-increasing amounts of federal aid directed to the poor has not decreased poverty, but has, rather, vastly increased the need for more and more private charity.

Even as the number of American families receiving federal assistance ballooned over the past 4 years, demand for services by agencies such as The Salvation Army increased, for example, by up to 80% for programs serving families with children. My local Salvation Army is serving double the number of children as last Christmas.

And what’s the projected impact of the president’s proposed change in the charitable deduction?

Changes in the charitable deduction are conservatively projected to reduce contributions from individuals by 2.5 percent. With individuals contributing $217.79 billion in 2011, that’s a drop of $5,444,750,000, an amount that would run the federal government for 8 hours, but covers nearly two years of budget for the Salvation Army, serving 30 million people annually in need due to poverty, addiction, natural disasters, and just plain bad luck.

And for the Keynesians in the audience, here’s a real multiplier: for every person employed in the non-profit sector, another 5 people volunteer. You won’t get that when you divert those dollars to your friends in DC. (“Hello, IRS, I’d like to volunteer for a day!”)

But if numbers leave you cold, just think about who you’d like turning up on your doorstep in the aftermath of a hurricane: FEMA, or the Salvation Army?

Unfortunately, when only the feds are around to help, it turns out they’re often nowhere to be found.

Let’s not cut off the lifeline that actually serves those most in need. Surely Washington can learn to live with a little less pork.

http://blog.independent.org/2012/12/12/obama-to-charities-bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you-or-else/

Once the Income Tax entered onto the American stage the death of the American Republic was inevitable. For years many patriotic and concerned Americans have been fighting a valiant battle to try and defeat the IRS only to be marginalized and ridiculed. Most people relied on tax accountants and tax lawyers to steer their economic life to “legally” pay the least amount of taxes. People lived with that arrangement for years. They knew,with the right deductions,write offs,trusts etc. and the correct arranging of their economic lives that they could avoid most of the punitive tax damage to their success by keeping most of the wealth they had created in their lifetime. They did this without realizing that sometime in the future the political and fiscal situation would become so desperate for the Political Class that those methods of economic arrangements could change. Today that is what is happening. This lack of deductions for charitable contributions is only the beginning. Soon the Federal Government is going to nationalize the 15 trillion or so dollars that are tied up in 401k and IRA accounts. This will be done as a swap out of the assets in exchange for Treasury Bonds which will pay a paltry 3%. Real inflation today is about 9%. On top of this,the government is setting up an economic police state to make sure that everyone pays their “fair share.” This will be done from cradle to grave by numbering people from birth (Social Security Number) and forcing the people to use that number if they want to work,trade,buy or sell even something as trivial as a pack of gum. There’s even talk of implanting an economic computer chip into every citizen to better follow their activities. The plans for the economic future of Americans has been laid out to the point of making tax serfs out of the population. No economic privacy whatever. Big Brother knows all. There will be no need for tax filing or accountants,the government will take whatever it deems necessary and then tax whatever is left over. All of this stems from the Income Tax that people use to think they could avoid by “smart tax planning.” But no longer. Its either or. No third way. No compromise. Either Americans fight to get rid of the Income Tax,root and branch,or live in a land of servitude and serfdom. The choice is yours.

[Jolie Rouge]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/546859_438548612865976_1841593437_n.jpg

WOW: Total federal and state welfare spending has increased more than 16-fold since 1964. No wonder we are heading towards a cliff. Please SHARE. From The Heritage Foundation.


...


Spending is the problem!

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/66730_470593089665721_1504895275_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

Boehner offers tax increase on $1 million-plus along with entitlement cuts,
Obama turns it down
By Doug Powers • December 16, 2012 02:27 PM

Before proceeding, you’d better put on a hard hat… just in case.

Here’s our fiscal cliff update for the weekend: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FISCAL_CLIFF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-15-21-23-10


Signaling new movement in “fiscal cliff” talks, House Speaker John Boehner has proposed raising the top rate for earners making more than $1 million, a person familiar with the negotiations said. President Barack Obama, who wants higher top rates for households earning more than $250,000, has not accepted the offer, this person said.

The proposal, however, indicated progress in talks that had appeared stalled. The person would only discuss the plan on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

Leaving $250k to $999k earners with no tax increase coupled with the large spending cuts in Boehner’s proposal means the offer was destined to be turned down, which it was: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/16/us-usa-fiscal-republicans-idUSBRE8BE0AN20121216


President Barack Obama is not ready to accept a new offer from the Republican leader of the U.S. the House of Representatives to raise taxes on top earners in exchange for major cuts in entitlement programs, a source said late Saturday.

The shape and details of Boehner’s offer were uncertain Saturday night, as was the exact reason the president was prepared to reject it.

The source said Obama sees the offer made on Friday by U.S. House Speaker John Boehner as a sign of progress, but simply believes it is not enough and there is much more to be worked out before Obama can reciprocate.

Is there a strategy to Boehner’s approach, or is this just the start of the cave-in process? That’s more of a rhetorical question, because there will be no putting that tax increase genie back in the bottle, and the White House knows it. Obama’s strategy is probably to keep sending these offers back with a note attached saying “you’re getting warmer” until the Republicans accidentally counter with more than Obama was asking in the first place. I say that half jokingly — okay, maybe quarter jokingly.

Remember — last week NYT reporter Helene Cooper said there’s a palpable atmosphere of cockiness at the White House and that Team Obama doesn’t feel they should have to negotiate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXKN8EEFyWY&feature=player_embedded


**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/12/16/boehner-tax-increase-obama/

[Jolie Rouge]

John Boehner suggests tax plan previously proposed by Nancy Pelosi;
‘Not a serious proposal’ says… Pelosi
By Doug Powers • December 18, 2012 03:28 PM

In May, Nancy Pelosi wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner requesting an immediate extension of the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning less than a million dollars per year, and for the cuts to expire on those earning more than that amount: http://www.democraticleader.gov/news/press/pelosi-letter-boehner-allow-house-vote-now-permanent-extension-middle-income-tax-cuts


Without further delay, the Majority Leadership should schedule a vote on extension of the middle-income tax cuts, as early as next week, to increase certainty for millions of American taxpayers and for the economy. We should not delay passing this legislation that will help afford all Americans the opportunity to reach their goals and realize the promise of the American Dream.

We must ask the very wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. Democrats believe that tax cuts for those earning over a million dollars a year should expire and that we should use the resulting revenues to pay down the deficit.

This morning, John Boehner proposed the same thing, and the White House dismissed it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/john-boehner-plan-b_n_2322802.html


Democrats from the White House and beyond panned the new “Plan B” proposal of House Speaker John Boehner avoid at least the tax portion of the fiscal cliff, but anti-tax GOP House members sounded cautiously optimistic about the idea of passing a measure that allows tax hikes only on income over $1 million.
[...]
White House spokesman Jay Carney later released a statement panning Plan B, saying that the sides should keep negotiating and that Plan B idea would not meet Obama’s top priority of protecting middle-income earners.

“The Speaker’s ‘Plan B’ approach doesn’t meet this test because it can’t pass the Senate [not true - DP http://freebeacon.com/white-house-and-dems-reject-boehners-plan-b/ ] and therefore will not protect middle class families, and does little to address our fiscal challenges with zero spending cuts,” Carney said.

Nancy Pelosi panned the Pelosi plan as well: http://www.businessinsider.com/boehner-fiscal-cliff-millionaire-tax-plan-obama-pelosi-reid-schumer-2012-12


“It’s a tactic, but it’s not a serious proposal,” she said.

I actually agree with her. No proposal that originated with Nancy Pelosi should be taken seriously. Celebrate bipartisanship!

Today Pelosi said she only made that proposal in May as a ploy to “smoke out the Republicans” on raising taxes on the wealthy: http://nation.foxnews.com/nancy-pelosi/2012/12/18/pelosi-glad-boehner-taking-some-my-suggestions-raising-taxes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHHfHqIhMeo&feature=player_embedded

Something just happened — though I’m not exactly sure what.





**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/12/18/nancy-pelosi-proposal/

[Jolie Rouge]

Despite leaning hard on rank-and-file members, Boehner fails to pass ‘Plan B’;
House adjourns, Dow plunges

Posted at 8:26 pm on December 20, 2012 by Twitchy Staff

http://twitchy.com/2012/12/20/despite-leaning-hard-on-rank-and-file-members-boehner-fails-to-pass-plan-b-house-adjourns/

[Jolie Rouge]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/603305_441824299205074_543018713_n.jpg

Examiner: "A new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research released this week has confirmed beyond question that the left's race-bait...ing attacks on the housing market (the Community Reinvestment Act--enacted under Carter, made shockingly more aggressive under Clinton) is directly responsible for imploding the housing market and destroying the economy.

Again, let's review:

-President Bush went to Congress repeatedly for years warning them that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to destroy the economy (17 times in 2008 alone). Democrats continuously ignored him, shut down his proposals along party lines and continued raiding the institutions for campaign contributions on their way down."

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-confirms-economy-was-destroyed-by-democrat-policies?CID=examiner_alerts_article

[Jolie Rouge]

Fiscal Cliff Tax Hikes Are Not The Only Scary Thing That Could Happen To You On January 1
The Huffington Post | By Catherine New Posted: 12/27/2012 3:06 pm EST

President Obama returned to Washington to resume "fiscal cliff" talks on Thursday, after cutting short his holiday in Hawaii. Unfortunately, the likelihood of the president and Congress reaching a deal by the Dec. 31 deadline appears slim, as Democrats and Republicans have been unable to reach a compromise. The fiscal cliff refers to a series of expiring tax breaks, new taxes and spending cuts that will all take effect starting Jan. 1 unless an alternate deal is reached.

Here are 10 ways your money could be affected if there is no deal reached by the end of the year:

1.Your Income Tax Rates Will Go Up The expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31 means nearly every American taxpayer will see their rates go up when the rates go back to their 2001 levels. President Obama’s plan to avert the cliff includes keeping the current rates for middle- and low-income earners, while allowing the rates to increase for the highest income levels from 35 to 39.6 percent. Republicans have pushed to keep the tax cuts for everyone.

2.Your 2012 Tax Bill Will Be Huge As many as 28 million Americans are about to be slammed with the alternative minimum tax because a "patch" to adjust the AMT for inflation will not go into effect unless Congress acts. For middle-class households with kids and earning around $75,000, the AMT will add $3,700 on average to the tax bill for 2012 alone.


3.Your Paycheck Will Be Smaller The first paycheck of the year is going to be smaller for up to 125 million Americans after the Social Security payroll tax holiday expires on Dec. 31, raising the rate from 4.2 to 6.2 percent.


4.Your Tax Refund Will Be Delayed The Internal Revenue Service has said that without a deal by Dec. 31, tax refunds could be delayed for as many as 100 million taxpayers as the government agency scrambles to revise tax forms to reflect the changes post-cliff.


5.Your Kids Will Cost You More Money Among the tax credits that expire on Dec. 31 are several that help lower- and middle-income families with kids, including the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, Child and Dependent Care Credit, and the American Opportunity Credit. All four revert to lower levels on Jan. 1, which could cost families hundreds to thousands of dollars in lost tax credits, according to CNN Money.


6.You Cannot Collect Extended Unemployment As many 2 million unemployed Americans won’t be able to collect extended benefits after Jan. 1, when the federal government’s unemployment extension ends as part of automatic spending cuts.


7.Your Stocks Could Wobble The stock market tumbled on Thursday after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said it looked like the the country was going to go over the fiscal cliff. Uncertainty over taxes could create more market volatility, experts say, but there is a silver lining: The Fed has promised to keep interest rates low for the next year, and that could help stabilize the economy overall.


8.If You Use Medicare, It Will Be Harder To Find A Doctor One of the spending cuts that will be enacted on Jan. 1 is a 30 percent reduction in the rates Medicare pays doctors. According to physicians' groups, the pending change has already sent doctors fleeing some health care plans, Forbes reported.


9.Finding A New Job Will Be More Difficult Mandatory spending cuts slated to start on Jan. 1 will cut into government jobs and jobs dependent on federal contracts. One report from George Mason University estimated that the cuts could cost 2.14 million jobs, the Christian Science Monitor reported.


10.High Earners Will Pay New Taxes For Obamacare High-earning taxpayers will pay a new 3.8 percent tax hike on net investment income, including income from interest, dividends, capital gains, rental and royalty income. Much of that same income group is also subject to a new .9 percent increase in Medicare taxes. These tax hikes are part of the Affordable Care Act and go into effect on Jan. 1.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/27/fiscal-cliff-tax-hikes_n_2370579.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing5%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk3&pLid=250281&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

So Obama is willing to sacriffice the 98% of us to tax the top 2% .. FYI the tax increase on the top 2% will run the country 8 days !!

..

We all are going to get tax hike. This has been planned from the start. The fiscal cliff thing is just something they're using to have an excuse to raise taxes.

[Jolie Rouge]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/377917_550294544989420_120655183_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

Fiscal cliff negotiations update: Biden, Congress to receive pay increases — no other news to report
By Doug Powers • December 28, 2012 04:34 PM


All of us watching the “fiscal cliff” circus (or as much of it as we’ve been allowed to watch http://twitchy.com/2012/12/28/cbs-mark-knoller-knocks-most-transparent-administration-ever-for-closed-door-fiscal-cliff-talks/ ) who are potentially faced with paying higher taxes next year while the country is set to hit the debt limit on New Year’s Eve have only one question on our minds: When will President Obama lift the pay freeze on federal employees?

Well lose sleep no more, America, because that day is today: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-orders-raise-biden-members-congress-federal-workers_692223.html


President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.

According to disclosure forms, Biden made a cool $225,521 last year. After the pay increase, he’ll now make $231,900 per year.

Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase.


Did Biden’s contract called for an additional performance bonus if he hit more than 100 gaffes during the 2012 election season — a goal he eclipsed easily.

Here’s a good question: https://twitter.com/DLoesch/statuses/284750552653512705?tw_i=284750552653512705&tw_e=details&tw_p=tweetembed


Dana Loesch✔
@DLoesch

Shouldn’t the senate pass a budget before getting a pay raise? weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-or…

28 Dec 12

They could be thinking that if they pass a budget there might not be enough wiggle room for a pay raise, so it’s best to do it the other way around.

Still no fiscal cliff deal to announce. There are reports of a “mini deal” in the works, which often turn out to be one giant horrible idea chopped into smaller bite-size pieces. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/28/leaders-search-last-minute-fiscal-cliff-deal/

**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/12/28/fiscal-cliff-negotiations/

ccomments

So the kabuki has been reduced to staging phony meetings only to announce that nothing has changed. It wouldn’t surprise me if what they really talked about was how to handle the upcoming civil unrest when the fit hits the shan.

Everyone talks as if it will be a slide down the cliff or a bungy ride. No. Once the death spiral starts, it will quickly gain speed. Layoffs will trigger more layoffs as consumption spending plunges and debts don’t get paid. We are heading for a monumental crisis. And look who’s in charge. The enemy controls “both” sides of the table.

...

Maybe this is a good time to ask:

What is the Presidential “Entertainment Allowance,” and how is it that he and his wife seem to enjoy unlimited benefits due to his position as CEO of USA?

One would think, since Congress has sole authority with the country’s purse strings, they would limit he and the FLOTUS’ seemingly endless gadabout ventures…or is that a path huevos-less Republicans dare not tread?

Heh…threaten to cut off funding for PLOTUS-POTUS’s travel and entertainment budget…talk about negotiating leverage!


..


One would think, since Congress has sole authority with the country’s purse strings, they would limit he and the FLOTUS’ seemingly endless gadabout ventures…or is that a path huevos-less Republicans dare not tread?

And take a chance of retribution if/when a republican gets elected? Not a chance.

We’re dealing with an entire Marie Antoinette elite class and neither side gives a rat’s ass about the “little people” . . .at least until the next election any way.

[Jolie Rouge]

Tick tock: No deal on the fiscal cliff yet; Update: The last hope is …
posted at 9:31 am on December 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I think this is the moment when Harvey Keitel started running after the blue 1966 Thunderbird convertible at the Grand Canyon, isn’t it? http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/274941-lawmakers-have-no-bill-no-deal-and-new-years-on-the-cliff


Senate leaders are racing against the clock to reach a “fiscal cliff” deal the House and Senate can approve on New Year’s Eve.

Leaders in the upper chamber narrowed their differences Sunday as Republicans agreed to drop a demand to curb cost-of-living increases to entitlement benefits, while Democrats showed flexibility on taxes.

Yet after months of talks on ways to avoid the fiscal cliff of tax hikes and spending cuts at the end of 2012, House and Senate lawmakers find themselves approaching the new year without a bill to present to their members.

Significant differences remain over two key parts of a deal — the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester and the estate tax.

Instead of working through the night, the Senate recessed at 7:27 p.m. Sunday with plans to reconvene Monday at 11:00 a.m., and the House recessed around the same time.

Without legislative language, the likelihood of stopping the leap seems pretty low. Even if Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell reach a deal this morning, they’d have to schedule a vote by this afternoon — and hope it gets a floor vote with no debate by unanimous consent. What’s the likelihood that Rand Paul will allow that? Remote.

Even if the Senate managed such an effort, the House would have to pass the deal in time for Barack Obama to sign it before midnight. I think the goal now has become to pass a deal before the next Congressional session starts, so that they don’t have to restart the process all over again. That means that the new deadline will be Wednesday, January 2nd, and a deal this morning with legislative language has a decent shot at making it … assuming a deal is reached at all.

Here’s Chuck Todd claiming that the chances of getting a deal “really depends on the political motivations” of the negotiators. In other words … status quo ante, right? This whole crisis generated from political motivations over the last three years. It started with Harry Reid refusing to use the normal budget process in order to shield Democrats from voting for the fiscal consequences of their own spending policies, preferring artificial crises to pressure Republicans into sharing the blame for them; otherwise, we could have resolved all of these disagreements through the usual conference-committee process. Funny how Chuck never mentions that while insisting that it’s the Republicans who are making purely political moves at that point.

Update: Has it gotten this desperate? http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/31/biden-mcconnell-could-be-last-hope-in-reaching-fiscal-cliff-deal/ Help us, Joe-bi-Wan Bidenobi …


With the fiscal cliff just hours away, there is new hope that conversations between Sen. Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden can produce a deal to avert the financial disaster. Aides say the pair spoke multiple times last night and will continue working toward a solution.

McConnell called the vice president after waiting 18 hours for a counter proposal from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who seemed to throw in the towel.


e thought of Reid getting cut out of the solution may make the pain of the compromise a little easier to take.

Update II: Andrew Malcolm has declared Biden the 2012 Joke of the Year. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AndrewMalcolm/~3/5mCjILAH174/joe-biden-gaffes-senile-nutjob-union-whacko.htm Maybe the joke will be on Harry Reid …


The new apparent “deal” includes a 5% increase in the Death Tax from 35% to 40%. AWFUL. There is no way that gets even a majority of support amongst the GOP House members. McConnell is selling us out. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fiscal-cliff-disputes-remain-deadline-nears

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/31/tick-tock-no-deal-on-the-fiscal-cliff-yet/


https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s480x480/224815_451493048239519_1543615179_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

BREAKING NEWS: Any attempt to avoid the fiscal cliff will not be voted on today in the House of Representatives.

We will update this story as soon as we receive more information.


http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/national-news/fiscal-cliff-will-not-be

The so called "fiscal cliff" deal has gotten our chief strategist all fired up. Check out this video, it's only a minute long and Happy New Year! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUU-7LnUA_0

This "deal" has me pretty fired up, so I made a video. It's only about a minute long and since my resolution is to make more of these videos, I'd love your input to help me make them better! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUU-7LnUA_0

[Jolie Rouge]

Where is the other party on this? Bueller? Bueller?


Senator urges Obama to rescind pay raise for Congress
Published December 31, 2012
Washington – Republican Sen. Rob Portman is urging President Obama to rescind a recent executive order granting pay increases to Congress and other federal officials, saying the move doesn't exactly jibe with the country's debt crisis.

Obama signed an executive order last week that will lift a ban on pay freezes for federal employees.

Rank-and-file members of Congress would all see a $900 bump next year -- up from $174,000. Congressional leaders will receive a slightly higher raise, with the House speaker receiving a $1,100 salary increase to $224,600. The top two Senate leaders will see pay rise $1,000, to $194,400.

Vice President Biden, meanwhile, will see his pay increase from $225,521 last year to $231,900 after his raise goes into effect March 27, 2013.

But the pat on the back came as a surprise to some, given the lack of progress all year toward a deal to head off the looming fiscal crisis -- which includes $600 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts. Even if that is resolved, Washington has still done relatively little to address the more than $16 trillion debt.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., introduced legislation Monday that would rescind the pay raises.

“I am calling on my colleagues in the House and Senate to rescind President Obama’s executive order that gives members of Congress a pay raise," she said in a statement. "This executive order was not requested by Congress and we should reject it. We have a spending problem in our country and we should be looking for areas to cut spending. At a time when families across the country are cutting back we should not increase government spending and add to the debt burden by giving members of Congress a pay raise. We need to begin with ourselves and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.”

Portman said now is not the time for bigger salaries in Washington -- at least not until the country can deal aggressively with its debt and deficit problems.

"At a time when our country is facing record debt and trillion-dollar deficits, the last thing Washington should do is reward itself with a pay increase," the Ohio senator said. "I am calling on President Obama to withdraw his recent executive order raising federal salaries -- including for members of Congress. Until a long-term deficit reduction agreement is reached, we should not consider increasing the pay for Congress."

Obama also OK'd raises for circuit and district court judges.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/31/obama-gives-congress-pay-raise/#ixzz2GfrQbo3j

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/31/obama-gives-congress-pay-raise/

[Jolie Rouge]

Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

The budget deal passed by the U.S. Senate today would raise taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households, mostly because of the expiration of a payroll tax cut, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said. A 2 percent payroll tax cut, enacted during the economic slowdown, is being allowed to expire as of yesterday.

The heaviest new burdens in 2013, compared with 2012, would fall on top earners, who would face higher rates on income, capital gains, dividends and estates. The top 1 percent of taxpayers, or those with incomes over $506,210, would pay an average of $73,633 more in taxes.

Much of that burden is concentrated at the very top of the income scale.

The top 0.1 percent of taxpayers, those with incomes over about $2.7 million, would pay an average of $443,910 more, reducing their after-tax incomes by 8.4 percent. They would pay 26 percent of the additional taxes imposed by the legislation.

Among households with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million, taxes would go up by an average of $14,812.

Top Tax Rate

The bill, being discussed by House members today, would raise the top tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent last year, starting with income over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples.

The top tax rates on capital gains and dividends would go up to 23.8 percent, from 15 percent last year. The new rate includes a 3.8 percent tax from the 2010 health-care law that took effect today.

The Tax Policy Center’s definition of income is a gross measure that includes items such as the employer’s share of payroll taxes, making it larger for many households than the adjusted gross income shown on tax returns.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-01/senate-passed-deal-means-higher-tax-on-77-of-households.html

[Jolie Rouge]

What does President Obama do after he raises taxes on us and signs an EO to give himself and others in Gov. a pay raise??!! He's back to Hawaii at a total cost of $7million to us!!! Whoohoooo - it's great being King, isn't it??!!

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/02/obama-returns-hawaii-added-cost-3-million/

In a move that is rich in irony, President Obama agreed Tuesday night to sign an emergency deficit reduction bill that does almost nothing to rein in spending and then jetted out to Hawaii to resume his vacation at an extra cost of more than $3 million to taxpayers.

The price tag is in addition to more than $4 million that is already being spent on the Obamas’ Hawaii idyll, bringing the total cost of the excursion to well over $7 million.

The added cost was incurred because by the time the Obamas return from Hawaii – whenever that is – the president will have used Air Force One to travel to Honolulu and back twice.

Obama was forced to return from Hawaii just after Christmas to complete negotiations to avoid the Fiscal Cliff, talks resulting in the bill that was passed by Congress last night. Obama resisted significant spending cuts throughout the negotiations, and the final legislation relies almost solely a new taxes to reduce the deficit.

Air Force One is known to cost about $180,000 an hour to fly. Based on an estimated 18 hours roundtrip flying time for the jet between Washington and Honolulu, the travel cost alone of Obama’s decision to return to Hawaii amounts to around $3.24 million. And that doesn’t include the price tag for the massive security operation required to move the president or the cost of the cargo plane that follows Air Force One around.

The Obamas could have saved taxpayers millions by returning from Hawaii together after Christmas and then resuming their vacation at one of the many ritzy resorts that lie outside of Washington. If the beach is a must, even a trip to Florida would have been far less expensive.

Or they could have simply stayed at the White House or Camp David, each a luxurious government-run installation, billing taxpayers a relative pittance.

Obama will get a full day of vacation in today, landing in Hawaii early in the morning.

[Jolie Rouge]

January 1, 2013, 1:55 PM ~ By Sudeep Reddy
Payroll Tax Cut Expires; How Much More Will You Pay?

The fiscal cliff deal reached by the White House and Senate Republicans wouldn’t extend the payroll-tax holiday. The biggest hit to 2013 growth appears likely to come from this tax break’s expiration on Monday.


The workers’ share of the Social Security payroll tax had been lowered by two percentage points for the past two years, to 4.2% from 6.2%, amounting to an annual income boost of $1,000 for a typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year. It provided an increase of as much as $2,202 this year for a worker earning $110,100, the maximum wage subject to the payroll tax.

The end of the tax break would effectively raise taxes for all wage earners next year, a potential surprise for many despite the expected extension of most individual income-tax rates. That would mean the highest tax burdens since 2008 for most U.S. households, before the Obama administration pushed a tax credit in the 2009 stimulus law and the payroll-tax break.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/01/01/payroll-tax-cut-expires-how-much-more-will-you-pay/?fb_action_ids=10200244637428696&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210200244637428696%22%3A392 404450847350%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210200244637428696%22%3A%22og .recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=[]


How Much More Will You Pay in Taxes?
Enter Your Annual Pretax Income: $ 45,899
CALCULATED $917.98 Additional amount you'll pay next year if payroll-tax holiday expires.

Link has a app to calculate ... dare you ?

[Jolie Rouge]

Heckuva job, Barry! Obama ‘signs’ fiscal cliff bill from Hawaii via Autopen sparking auto-mockery
Posted at 7:58 am on January 3, 2013 by Twitchy Staff

http://twitchy.com/2013/01/03/heckuva-job-barry-obama-signs-fiscal-cliff-bill-from-hawaii-via-autopen-sparking-auto-mockery/


Zing! As Twitchy reported, President Obama headed back to finish up his fancy pants Hawaiian vacation at an additional cost to taxpayers and without signing the oh-so-urgent fiscal cliff crapwich bill. Last night, use of the Autopen was authorized. Journalist Mark Knoller tweets out some background.

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama’s Tax Evaders of the Year; Update: Add Al Gore to the list
By Michelle Malkin • January 1, 2013 08:54 AM

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/01/obamas-tax-evaders-of-the-year/

[Jolie Rouge]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A_uzc4lCQAEk2Pt.jpg
As the first pay period of 2013 comes to a close, employers are being forced to ring in the new year by explaining why their employees’ checks are smaller.

Fiscal cliff deal socks it to the rich — middle class hardest hit
By Doug Powers • January 4, 2013 11:29 AM

A couple of days ago I advised http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/02/reminder-taxes/ the pro “tax the rich” crowd to put away the party hats and kazoos after the fiscal cliff deal passed, because middle class taxes would still be going up. Not only that, but according to the Tax Policy Center, as a percentage, people earning between $30k and $200k will be taking a bigger tax hit than those making between $200k and $500k: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256972/Middle-earners-hit-hardest-revealed-workers-making-30-000-bigger-hit-earning-500-000-new-fiscal-deal.html ''
Earners in the latter group [$200,000-$500,000] will pay an average 1.3 percent more – or an additional $2,711 – in taxes this year, while workers making between $30,000 and $200,000 will see their paychecks shrink by as much as 1.7 percent – or up to $1,784 – the D.C.-based think tank reported.

Overall, nearly 80 percent of households will pay more money to the federal government as a result of the fiscal cliff deal.

‘The economy needs a stimulus, but under the agreement, taxes will go up in 2013 relative to 2012 – not only on high-income households, as widely discussed, but also on every working man and woman in the country, via the end of the payroll tax cut,’ said William G. Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center.

‘For most households, the payroll tax takes a far bigger bite than the income tax does, and the payroll tax cut therefore – as [the Congressional Budget Office] and others have shown – was a more effective stimulus than income tax cuts were, because the payroll tax cuts hit lower in the income distribution and hence were more likely to be spent,’ he added.

According to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the fiscal cliff deal that Autopen signed yesterday http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/04/socking-it-to-the-rich-middle-class/ is “a big gift-wrapped present of certainty to the middle class” http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16334798-fiscal-cliff-deal-includes-at-least-679-billion-for-special-interests?lite (notice how George W. Bush’s income tax cuts Dems said were “for the wealthy” have now morphed into Debbie’s “present of certainty” to the middle class).

What DWS didn’t mention was that, thanks to the schadenfreude stimulus included in the fiscal cliff deal, http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/160876/ even Obama supporters are now realizing they’ve been duped into playing a role in The Incredible Shrinking Paycheck. http://twitchy.com/2013/01/04/hope-and-less-change-americans-cringe-at-first-paychecks-of-2013-stunned-lib-asks-what-happened/



**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/04/socking-it-to-the-rich-middle-class/

[Jolie Rouge]

Fiscal cliff deal includes at least $67.9 billion for special interests
By M. Alex Johnson, NBC News

Taxpayers aren't the only ones who won't be flying off the fiscal cliff — this year, at least. Add race cars, movies and asparagus to the list.

As part of their last-second deal to slam the brakes on an economy racing toward the so-called fiscal cliff, lawmakers gave the green light this week to extending dozens of business and industry tax breaks, like a cost-recovery program that will save the owners of "motorsports entertainment complexes" (that is, racetracks) about $70 million over the next two years.

Much of the compromise agreement that President Barack Obama's autopen signed into law Thursday was targeted at individuals and families, notably preserving most of the tax cuts that passed under President George W. Bush, which were set to expire Monday. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, told MSNBC that the deal was "a big gift-wrapped present of certainty to the middle class."

But the agreement also came loaded with extensions of separate existing tax breaks for businesses and industries, many of which had expired in the past year — about $67.9 billion in all in 2013, as tabulated by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation.

(The extensions will actually cost much more: Not only were they made retroactive to cover 2012, but some of the breaks and credits would be in effect for 10 years if left in place. Many cover only one or two years, however.)

In addition to extending tax breaks for racing moguls, the legislation also extended:

• A tax credit for construction of renewable energy projects, like wind turbines and biomass, geothermal and hydropower generation, for one year. It's projected to cost about $116 million, the committee said.

That may seem like a drop in the bucket, but here's the kicker: While the extension to qualify for new projects covers only 2013, the actual tax credit itself is good for 10 years. That means new projects that break ground in 2013 will be able to claim the credit for the next decade, at an overall price tag the committee put at slightly less than $12.2 billion.

• An arcane provision of corporate tax law, called active financing income, that lets U.S. corporations defer taxes on some income they earn from their overseas subsidiaries. That provision will cost the U.S. Treasury more than $9 billion this year and $1.8 billion next year.

• Tax breaks for Hollywood producers who shoot their movies and TV shows in the U.S., at a cost of about $430 million through 2014.

• A program that sends most federal taxes collected on rum produced in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands back to those territories to subsidize domestic production. Bar tab: $222 million over two years.

• A tax break worth about $15 million a year for asparagus growers hit hard by cheap asparagus imported from Peru.

• $4 million in tax breaks over the next two years for people who buy "2- or 3-wheeled plug-in electric vehicles" — in other words, electric scooters, Segways and the like.

The purpose of the deal was to prevent a series of steep spending cuts and tax increases on the middle class from automatically taking effect in the new year. But "we're not making it (the tax system) better or fairer," Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said on the House floor Tuesday in explaining why he was voting against the measure.

"We're not getting rid of the NASCAR loophole. We're not getting rid of the electric motor scooter low-speed loophole. We're not getting rid of a whole lot of tax things that are here," Issa said.

ther new nor secret
Although many of the provisions are being characterized as new pork barrel programs that sneaked their way into the bill under cover of darkness, there's nothing new or secret about any of them.

Most of the tax breaks had been scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, 2011, and as long ago as February, lawmakers were seeking a way to revive them.

Industries in limbo as Congress mulls expired tax breaks

Eventually, they were packaged together as the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012. It was so titled because "people need certainty to plan their finances, and businesses need certainty to hire, invest and grow," as Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee, said when the committee passed the package in August.

Once it was out of committee, the measure went nowhere. That is, until this week, when — with a lame-duck Congress just hours away from going home without having addressed the fiscal cliff — it was substituted almost word for word into the deal brokered by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

It makes up Titles III and IV of the final bill, with many of the alterations reading like this:

Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is amended by striking "January 1, 2012" and inserting "January 1, 2014".

Former Sens. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., left, and Erskine Bowles, D-N.C., co-chairman of President Barack Obama's 2010 deficit commission, said Congress missed a 'magic moment' to reform the tax code.

By taking the clock down to 00:00 and backing itself into a corner, Congress "missed this magic moment to do something big to reduce the deficit, reform our tax code and fix our entitlement programs," said former Sens. Erskine Bowles, D-N.C., and Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., the co-chairmen of Obama's 2010 commission responsible for finding a way out of the country's economic morass. "We have all known for over a year that this fiscal cliff was coming," they said in a joint statement Tuesday, adding: "Yet even after taking the country to the brink of economic disaster, Washington still could not forge a common sense bipartisan consensus on a plan that stabilizes the debt."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was less diplomatic. "It's so incredibly disappointing that members of Congress saw fit to add hundreds of millions of dollars in special-interest handouts to the recently passed 'fiscal cliff' bill, which had the simple purpose of avoiding massive tax rate increases on average Americans," McCain said Thursday. "It's hard to think of anything that could feed the cynicism of the American people more than larding up must-pass emergency legislation with giveaways to special interests and campaign contributors," he said. "And this growing cynicism — largely justified in my view — will make it harder for us to deliver the tough medicine needed to address our crushing national debt."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16334798-fiscal-cliff-deal-includes-at-least-679-billion-for-special-interests?lite

Read the full 10-year analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation (.pdf) http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/AJDocs/130104_CliffAnalysis.pdf

[pepperpot]

Duped, duped, duped....we should have went off the cliff....why prolong the agony? It will be worse.

[Jolie Rouge]

By taking the clock down to 00:00 and backing itself into a corner, Congress "missed this magic moment to do something big to reduce the deficit, reform our tax code and fix our entitlement programs," said former Sens. Erskine Bowles, D-N.C., and Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., the co-chairmen of Obama's 2010 commission responsible for finding a way out of the country's economic morass. "We have all known for over a year that this fiscal cliff was coming," they said in a joint statement Tuesday, adding: "Yet even after taking the country to the brink of economic disaster, Washington still could not forge a common sense bipartisan consensus on a plan that stabilizes the debt."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was less diplomatic. "It's so incredibly disappointing that members of Congress saw fit to add hundreds of millions of dollars in special-interest handouts to the recently passed 'fiscal cliff' bill, which had the simple purpose of avoiding massive tax rate increases on average Americans," McCain said Thursday. "It's hard to think of anything that could feed the cynicism of the American people more than larding up must-pass emergency legislation with giveaways to special interests and campaign contributors,"
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16334798-fiscal-cliff-deal-includes-at-least-679-billion-for-special-interests?lite

Read the full 10-year analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation (.pdf) http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/AJDocs/130104_CliffAnalysis.pdf

is there any Libs or Obama-bots here who want to even try to defend this travesty ?

[Jolie Rouge]

Having a debt ceiling at all is like having slavery, or something
Darleen Click

Oh good lord. http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/rep-davis-calls-for-confidence-in-the-president-with-debt-limit-control-video/


“Sometimes when we’ve gotten great answers is when presidents have had enough authority to take some actions,” Davis told TheDC on Capitol Hill Friday. “I mean, remember that we just celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, and if Abraham Lincoln had not had the power, authority and the will to make that decision, we may have gone on with the war that was going to last several additional years and much longer, and thousands and thousands of people could have and would have, in all probability, lost their lives.”

“So, I think that we should have enough faith and confidence in the president and the president ought to have the authority to make that decision without Congress placing limits or determinates or determinations, and so yes, I think the president should have the ability to make that decision.”

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=46437

comments

It isn’t about slavery, but about the exigent use of a clear Presidential war power under the role of commander-in-chief in the case of the Emancipation Proclamation, a power explicitly granted the Executive in the 2nd Art. of the Constitution (and in the theoretical discussions of the framers prior to the final draft and ratification of the Constitution) vs. a seizure of powers denied the Executive but explicitly granted to Congress in Article 1 of that same Constitution. F@#$, can’t these Congresspeople read?

And who the hell does he mean by “we” when he says “… an expression of the kind of power that we were willing and are willing to provide the President”?

..

I am just trying to figure out which is more messed up: comparing raising the debt ceiling to abolishing slavery, or thinking the Emancipation Proclamation shortened the war by several years and saved thousands and thousands of lives.

..


Apparently being really f---ing stupid is a lot like slavery.

I think it’s now blindingly obvious that being really f---ing stupid is no impediment to be elected, and re-elected, to Congress.

[Jolie Rouge]

OBAMA TO BOEHNER: 'WE DON'T HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM'

In an interview with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, newly re-elected House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) opened up about President Obama’s utter unwillingness to cut a single dollar from federal spending. In a stunning admission, Obama reportedly told Boehner, “We don’t have a spending problem.”

Boehner added that President Obama continues to maintain that America’s federal deficit is caused not by governmental overspending but by “a health-care problem.” Said Boehner, “They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system.” Boehner told Obama, “Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with Obamacare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” Obama eventually replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”

Obama may be tired of hearing Boehner talk about a spending problem, particularly when Obama has been re-elected on the basis of ignoring government spending. Nonetheless, America does have a spending problem, which Obama is steadfastly ignoring. “He’s so ideological himself,” Boehner explained, “and he’s unwilling to take on the left of his own party.” That’s why Obama refused to raise the retirement age for Medicare after agreeing to it. “He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members,” said Boehner. “But he didn’t even want to try … We could never get him to step up.”

Boehner says that there will be no new tax increases over the debt ceiling. “The tax issue is resolved,” he said. And he said that more closed-door negotiations with Obama would be “futile.” It’s a bit too late to recognize that, but better late than never.

Obama need not negotiate on spending. He can just continue to bully Republicans by suggesting that they are the party of the rich – and his media lackeys can pretend that it’s fiscally irresponsible to ask the government to live within its means.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/06/Obama-Boehner-tired-spending

[pepperpot]

Reminds me of the old adage... I don't have a drinking problem. I drink, get drunk, fall down, no problem!

http://www.shirtofun.com/image/cache/data/Drinking-problem_rect-500x500.jpg

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001392501/DrinkingProblem_xlarge.jpeg

http://buttonmuseum.org/sites/default/files/drinking-problem-f.png

Me thinks you deny too much......

[Jolie Rouge]

2013 Federal Income Tax Brackets And Marginal Rates
By Luke Landes | Forbes – Fri, Jan 18, 2013 1:55 PM EST

When you file your federal income tax return before April 2013, you're filing your 2012 taxes, and the 2012 income tax brackets define the amount of tax you owe to the government before credits and after-tax adjustments. The first paycheck or consultancy fee you earn in 2013 falls under new rules, however. The 2013 income tax brackets apply to money you earn during that year, although you may not notice how this affects you until you file your income taxes in early 2014. If you pay estimated taxes throughout the year, you may be more aware of the change in brackets.

Now that Congress has passed a new law to avoid the fiscal cliff, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, we have a better picture of the marginal tax rates for 2013 ahead of the official announcement from the IRS. With the changes to the top tax bracket set by the law and the remaining brackets adjusted by inflation with help from The Tax Foundation, this article includes the likely tax scenario.

In 2013, the Bush-era tax cuts have been extended -- made "permanent" -- for all taxpayers but the highest tax bracket. This is similar to one of the scenarios predicted earlier, but the question up until the last minute has been at what income level would the older, higher top marginal tax rate be effective.

Republicans wanted this number to be high, where the top tax rate would affect only those taxpayers earning over $1,000,000, while President Obama was aiming for the top tax rate to affect more taxpayers, including those earning over $200,000 or $250,000. The Congress settled on a compromise of $400,000 for taxpayers filing single as the threshold for the top tax rate, which is very close to what the top tax bracket would have been anyway, due to inflation.

As a result, these are the tax rates you can expect in 2013.


Rate ---- Single Filers ----------- Married Joint Filers ------- Head of Household Filers
10% -- $0 to $8,925 ------ ----- $0 to $17,850 --- ---------- $0 to $12,750
15% --- $8,925 to $36,250 ----- $17,850 to $72,500 -------- $12,750 to $48,600
25% --- $36,250 to $87,850 - -- $72,500 to $146,400 ------- $48,600 to $125,450
28% ---- $87,850 to $183,250 -- $146,400 to $223,050 ----- $125,450 to $203,150
33% ---- $183,250 to $398,350--$223,050 to $398,350 ------ $203,150 to $398,350
35%----- $398,350 to $400,000--$398,350 to $450,000 -------$398,350 to $425,000
39.6%--- $400,000 and up -------$450,000 and up--------------$425,000 and up

Keep in mind that the tax rates listed in these tables are marginal rates. That means that you do not owe your rate on all of your income. For example, if you single, you earn $100,000 per year, you would not owe 28% on all of your income -- you would not owe $28,000 to the federal government. You would owe 10% of $8,925, 15% of $27,325 (the difference between the top and the threshold of the second tax bracket), 25% of $51,600, and 28% of $12,150 (the difference between your income and the threshold of the third tax bracket).

That calculation results in $21,293, or an effective (not marginal) tax rate of 21.2%. That will be further reduced by any credits, assuming your taxable income is the same as your gross income. Your effective tax rate could be much lower if deductions have already reduced your taxable income to $100,000 from a larger gross income. For example, if a 401(k) contribution reduced your taxable income from $115,000 to $100,000, you would still use the same tax calculation I've described here, but your effective tax rate would be 18.5%.

Income tax isn't the only concern for workers' paychecks in 2013. With the elimination of the temporary cut to payroll taxes, employees earning less than $110,100 will go back to paying their full share of the tax. For someone earning $50,000, that's $83 less in his take home pay each month than he would receive if the cut had been extended.

With the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 now law, rather than Congress needing to extend the Bush-era tax cuts every year, they will be permanent. Congress can, however, create a new law at any time to change the rates or the tax brackets, but the end-of-year political dance about whether to renew these specific tax cuts will no longer exist.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/updated-2013-federal-income-tax-124922974.html

--

comments

Welfare has ceased to be a means to help people and has become a lifestyle that enables more dependence. 5 year limit on welfare without permanent disability. Drug test all recipients.

...

Only the first 3 tax brackets apply. Anyone in the last 4 brackets actually pays the Alternative Minimum Tax which has a max rate of 28%. Welcome to the world of the IRS - smoke and mirrors people. Also note that huge jump from 10% to 25% for just about everyone in the Middle class. Peanuts for the poor, 28% max for the rich and 25% for you.

[Jolie Rouge]

So, U.S. GDP dropped 0.1% in the fourth quarter. Does that mean that the current administration's policies that projected "growth" are not working? Yes.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/539047_468716386517185_131636265_n.jpg


US debt headed toward 200 percent of GDP even after 'fiscal cliff' deal
By Vicki Needham - 01/29/13 12:15 PM ET

The nation's long-term fiscal outlook hasn't significantly improved following the recent agreement between Congress and the White House over tax and spending issues, according to a new analysis.

The "fiscal cliff" deal, combined with the debt-limit agreement of August 2011, only slightly delays the United States reaching debt-to-gross domestic product levels that would damage the economy and risk another fiscal crisis, according to a report from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation released on Tuesday. http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Fiscal-Outlook/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-atra-2012-long-term-analysis.aspx

The agreement "may have prevented the immediate threats that the fiscal cliff posed to our fragile economic recovery, but we haven’t remotely fixed the nation’s debt problem," said Michael A. Peterson, president and COO of the Peterson Foundation.

"The primary goal of any sustainable fiscal policy is to stabilize the debt as a share of the economy and put it on a downward path, and yet our nation is still heading toward debt levels of 200 percent of GDP and beyond," he said.

The report concludes that the recent round of deficit-reduction measures won't make major improvements because they fail to address most of the major contributors to the debt and deficit, including rapidly rising healthcare costs.


The analysis suggests that lawmakers take action quickly to ensure that the nation is on a sustainable fiscal path.

At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing last week, lawmakers and budget experts agreed that rising healthcare costs, such as Medicare, must be addressed this year as part of efforts to overhaul the tax code and entitlement programs.

"Until spending in those areas is reduced, tax revenues are increased, or policymakers implement a combination of both, the United States will continue to have a severe long-term debt problem," the report said.

"Reforms should be implemented gradually, and fiscal improvements must be achieved before our debt level and interest payments are so high that sudden or more draconian reforms are required to avert a fiscal crisis."

The latest deal that stopped income tax increases for those making $400,000 a year or less may have only improved the burgeoning debt situation by a year.

Scheduled spending cuts from the 2011 budget deal, combined with the fiscal cliff agreement, put the debt on track to reach 200 percent of GDP by 2040, five years later than was projected prior to the passage of the two deals.

The recent deficit-reduction measure gave the nation an additional year before hitting that 200 percent threshold, the report showed.

Sequestration does not improve the outlook much, either.

Even if the budget sequester is fully implemented, federal debt would still reach 200 percent of GDP within about 28 years.


On top of that, the debt will continue to grow between now and 2022, and will accelerate significantly after that.


Debt is now projected to grow from 72 percent of GDP in 2012 to 87 percent in 2022, down only slightly from the 90 percent that was estimated before passage of the most recent deal.

Many economists suggest keeping debt at or below 60 percent of GDP, with research showing that economic growth slows for countries that have debt levels exceeding 90 percent of economic growth.

"Americans shouldn’t be under any false impression that our debt problems are behind us," Peterson said.

"And because it takes years to implement policies fairly and gradually, we need to make decisions now, before we are forced by markets to take severe action that hurts our economy and our citizens."


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/279857-report-fiscal-outlook-not-improved-by-debt-deal#ixzz2JTxCDzxF
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook