Pledges are getting to be straitjackets for some GOPs

by: Lucy Edwards

Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 08:16:36 AM EDT

An agenda for Occupy Wall St. - "An Indecent Proposal"

by: Lucy Edwards

Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 15:17:49 PM EDT

The inscrutable comments of Charlie Bass

by: DianeR

Mon Sep 26, 2011 at 13:38:46 PM EDT

ANNIE, WE NEED YOU! KUSTER IN 2012!

From Bass op ed, Nashua Telegraph, Sept 25:
First, Congress should enact a temporary or permanent amnesty on the U.S. taxes a U.S. company is forced to pay on foreign-sourced income. For example, a company based in Nashua that also does business overseas is taxed on both its U.S.- and foreign-earned income.

This amounts to double taxation and explains why some U.S. companies are choosing to relocate their operations - and jobs - overseas. It is estimated that more than $1 trillion in assets held by U.S. companies offshore would be returned if we enacted a law that suspended, at least temporarily, the tax on foreign earnings.

Frank Guinta Gets Schooled by Constituent

by: Dean Barker

Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 20:38:41 PM EDT

Doing it in person is a lot harder, especially when your constituents are on to your misleading statements, and ThinkProgress is there to document it:

GUINTA: Well I think the way you raise revenue, my personal feeling is [...] I don't feel that raising taxes has to be the first option, there have to be many other options and alternatives before you raise tax rates. I feel like it can be regressive to raise rates on small businesses [...]

WOMAN: Most small businesses are never even in the bracket of which we speak. They never reach that. And when they do it's only the first dollar above the first $250,000 that is taxed at that higher rate. So it's really very misleading when 'Our small businesses need to be protected.' They already are. Because 80, 90 percent of them never even have taxable income at the rate you're talking about, so it's really very misleading, and I'm really sick of hearing this misleading stuff.

Debt Deal

by: whp

Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 08:42:49 AM EDT

And that gets to the truth of this deal, and perhaps of Washington in this age: it's all about lowest-common denominator lawmaking. There are no taxes. No entitlement cuts. No stimulus. No infrastructure. Less in actual, specific deficit reduction than there was in the Simpson-Bowles, Ryan, or Obama plans, and even than there was in the Biden/Cantor or Obama/Boehner talks. The two sides didn't concede more in order to get more. They conceded almost nothing in order to get a trigger and a process, not to mention avoid a financial catastrophe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Will the stalemate break in 2012?  

How long has the hostage situation been going on?

by: Lucy Edwards

Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:55:48 PM EDT

Both the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Tax Policy Center show that for the past 60 years, whenever tax rates were the highest, more jobs were created than when the tax rates were the lowest, as they are now.
Also, the wealthy and big corporations have billions of dollars in cash but are not using it to make more jobs. Yet Boehner argues that if they get more money, they will create jobs.

Legislature's hidden tax increase

by: kite

Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 08:43:09 AM EDT

Under a plan crafted by House budget writers, New Hampshire hospitals stand to lose $250 million dollars over the next two years. New analysis shows that if they lose these funds, all but four of the state's largest hospitals would suddenly plunge into the red.

This budget tactic is disturbing on so many levels.  First, the sheer mendacity of Republican leadership regarding their so-called refusal to raise taxes, although not unexpected, is still appalling.  And this fee on hospitals violates an agreement going back to Republican governor Judd Gregg.

Worse, at the same time Republicans are saying the New Hampshire health care system is in good shape, they are about to tax it into changing beyond recognition:

Under a new analysis done by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, if Wilhelmsen doesn't make any changes, his bottom line would suddenly plunge from a $5 million surplus to a $6 million dollar loss.

Mentioned very briefly in the story is the fact the obstetrics are expensive, making those facilities a frequent target of cuts.  The implications for the rural poor in the northern part of the state are left as an exercise for the reader.

budget writer Neal Kurk says hospital execs are crying wolf. "We're dealing with very large institutions. Only one of those in 2009 lost money. 12 of the 13 were doing very well, thank you

Well, at least we're lowering taxes on cigarettes.
 

Granite State Poll: Increase Revenue to Balance Budget

by: William Tucker

Tue May 03, 2011 at 06:00:00 AM EDT

By a 73% - 24% margin, New Hampshire residents favor some tax increases to help address New Hampshire’s budget shortfall. As the severity of the proposed spending cuts in the GOP House budget has become known, those who favor balancing the budget with spending cuts alone has decreased from 29% to 24%.

A new WMUR Granite State Poll asked respondents to select the approach they would choose to deal with the budget shortfall. 24% responded entirely with spending cuts, 21% said mainly spending cuts with some tax increases, 36% chose an even balance, 11% said mainly tax increases and some spending cuts, and 5% chose to address the budget shortfall entirely with tax increases.

When asked about spending cuts for specific programs, solid majorities said there should be no spending cuts in healthcare services for lower income residents (60% - 39%) or mental health services (59% - 39%). The respondents expressed support for at least "some spending cuts" in funding for hospitals (56% - 39%), infrastructure projects (54% - 43%), and state university and community colleges budgets (52% - 46%). Less than 10% support "significant cuts" for any program.

The comprehensive survey also indicated there is little support for GOP-backed proposals limiting workers' collective bargaining rights.

Several states, from Wisconsin to Massachusetts, have sought to curb state spending by limiting the ability of public employees to collectively bargain for benefits. There is little support for this proposal in New Hampshire. Most state residents (66%) think that private sector workers should have the right to form unions and collectively bargain and 62% think that public employees, should have that right.

The Granite State Poll — sponsored by WMUR-TV, and conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center — interviewed 504 New Hampshire adults between April 15 and April 26, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percent.

New Meme Emerging: Government is Good, We Need Taxes

by: susaninrindge

Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 17:08:43 PM EDT

The focus of the demonstrations last week was on cuts to human services and union-busting; it's nice to hear business owners joining the chorus, a mix of outrage, panic and befuddlement.

Just a couple examples taken from the article:
The House budget calls for deep cuts to the state's tourism budget. Hotels and restaurants  fear that without the State doing marketing, they will lose business.

Contractors will be hurt by the $30 cut to vehicle registration because there will be $90M less for highway improvements and the long-delayed Route 93 improvement project. Car dealers think the cuts will delay inspections and issuance of titles.

Real estate is unhappy about the inevitable cost shifting to cities and towns and the inevitable rise in property taxes.

Business & Industry Assoc of NH says cuts in Medicaid will increase the cost (to businesses) of private health insurance premiums.

There are many more interesting examples of the apprehension over this budget within the business community  

But something else struck me reading this article. Government is actually helping businesses. Government is not just here to deliver services to the "needy" and "get in the way of business."  With taxes and fees, government is able to do what small businesses cannot do for themselves.  Marketing NH cannot be done effectively by a single restaurant or hotel. Government has done this and business people don't seem to want government to stop doing it. And finding new markets around the world cannot be done effectively by single business.

The complaints and concerns of business over this budget mean that our government has been effective. That while everyone screams about taxes, they are getting something valuable in return. When the taxes are removed, they worry about the benefits they will lose, the benefits they know they cannot provide for themselves.

Businesses don't want to lose the marketing, R&D, education and training the workforce, providing infrastructure, incentives for innovation, incentives for conservation.

We are seeing state and federal government  mercilessly and callously stripped of resources. Maybe some of it is necessary. But could it be that in this process of losing so much we have taken for granted, that we will begin to see its value and fight to keep as much of it as we can? Even if it means we pay TAXES!

"Can this patient be saved?" NH's "anorexia nervosa" on taxes

by: Lucy Edwards

Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 07:25:57 AM EDT

The prognosis of the patient in question is poor because, unfortunately, she exhibits acute and severe symptoms in all realms of the disorder. But you haven't heard the worst of it yet: This isn't a simple intervention against a single individual but involves an entire state. The patient I am describing is New Hampshire herself. All of her. Or should I say, what is left of her?

Think about it. Substitute the word "tax" for "food" and the analogy fits perfectly. By restricting her intake of money (taxes) and focusing only on cutting what some say is "fat" in the budget, Miss New Hampshire is starving herself. She is becoming anorexic.

House GOP plans will gut state's revenues for years

by: Mike Emm

Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 07:45:52 AM EDT

uh oh: CACR 6 may be coming back

by: TimothyHorrigan

Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 22:21:18 PM EDT

Restrict growth of government
CACR 6, which would require a 3/5 vote in the House to raise taxes, was voted on and then tabled last week, but is coming back to the floor this week. There are a number of Republicans who voted against it in last week's vote. Please email all representatives at HReps@leg.state.nh.us and ask them to support this constitutional amendment. Also, contact the Republicans who voted against it and apply some pressure. This is a core Republican issue, and every Republican should support this effort!

CACR 6 Threatens State's Long-term Fiscal Health

by: William Tucker

Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 06:00:00 AM EDT

CACR 6 proposes to amend the state's constitution to require a three-fifths vote in both chambers of the legislature to impose new or increased taxes or license fees.

The New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute details why this would be unsound fiscal policy and how it would threaten the state's long-term fiscal health.

[S]tate budget deficits tend to emerge during economic downturns .... Erecting procedural barriers to tax increases ... means that policymakers would either have to enact deeper spending cuts than would otherwise be the case or would have to rely upon short-sighted accounting gimmicks to bring revenue and expenditures into balance.

A supermajority requirement would cede control over any number of important priorities to a minority of the legislature. ... [T]hey could also delay or halt consideration of other critical legislation ... for concessions on other, potentially unrelated issues.

Economics War not Culture War

by: Little Guy

Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 17:31:52 PM EDT

There has been an economic guerrilla war going on for the last thirty years and we are in its latter days. It began with Reaganism and Thatcherism in the 80's and the union-busting the Air Traffic Controllers and British coal Miners. The big battle in the 90's was over NAFTA and the slow destruction of America's manufacturing capability which began destroying middle class families. At the same time, came the early attacks on Welfare Mom's and inefficient non-profits.

The thing about a guerrilla war is that most of the battles seem small and far away but not very dangerous. But this was not really a small war because it began the slow but steady outsourcing of America's jobs even as major corporations began receiving more and more tax breaks.

In the 2000's, the economic war became more overt. While America was reeling from 9/11, the economic elite stepped up and began the greatest wealth shift in our history. Over half of our military and our intelligence has been privatized, yielding them trillions of new dollars in profits. The wars of choice in the Middle East have jacked up oil prices, yielding world record shattering profits for the oil companies.

You the tax payer have shelled out trillions of dollars to oil companies, Blackwater (Xe) style intelligence companies, and tribal chieftains who buy weapons from global arms manufactures. In the meantime, the banks began gambling with what turned out to be taxpayer's money, again to the tune of trillions of dollars. At the same time, Republican's busy slashing taxes for the wealthy and the regulatory agencies so that Bernie Madoff and others could literally make out like bandits.

So now, round three begins with an all out war on all social services, unions, daycare, public health, social services, social security and all other services. This is an economic war that believes that government should not be helping anyone except big business. This is an economic war that wants to eliminate clean water act, clean air act, forest service, and most other federal and state services except those that directly benefit business profits.

You will not see the Republican creating jobs because they don't believe government should have anything do to with jobs. In fact, high unemployment is helping businesses continue to chip away at salaries and benefits. Republicans are the enemy of the middle class. They believe that only the wealthy business owner should profit by government policies. It is not an accident that the banks and Wall Street were bailed out while middle class home-owners were allowed to swing in the breeze. It is economic war and it is just about lost.

Unions aren't greedy. Teachers and government workers aren't greedy. They are just barely making a living wage. It just looks good because the rest of the middle class hasn't had a raise greater than the cost of living in twenty years.

This country had a thriving middle class from the post war fifties through the early eighties. During this time we had social and economic give and take, with everyone's standard of living rising. And then the first shot of Reaganism was fired across the bow of the middle class, only it was couched as always as necessary medicine. But instead this country is being destroyed by an economic clique of bankers, politicians and global corporations. They have destroyed the social contract. They don't believe that anyone should have any other beliefs than their own greedy profit-taking.

They often use social issues to divide and conquer. They even cynically call them "wedge" issues. Make no mistake about it, it is an economic war and the representatives of the moneyed classes are about to do a knockout blow. They will spend the next two years dismantling state government which will in turn send cities and towns into financial meltdown. From this perspective, both Republicans, Corporate Democrats and Obama are all on the same team and fighting against the middle class. This is a time when government should be saving families and the middle class. Instead they are throwing them over the side and sending us into a descending spiral of depression even while they continue to waste billions on wars, tax breaks and obscene profits for the wealthy.

Nary a Peep?

by: BurtCohen

Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 19:42:33 PM EST

Will nobody make a peep? Is it really crucial for our security that the US continue to extend it's military reach even further? It really is the 21st century; might not there be other more cost effective methods of achieving peace and security?

All analysts agree the war in Afghanistan has no military solution. So we spend more billions preparing for more war. Today we face a murderous madman by the name of Colonel Qadafi. Would new refueling tankers help? Are all the old ones really in need of being totally scrapped?

Why is nearly everyone in Washington afraid to take on the biggest waster of taxpayer money: bloated military welfare?

Oh and Boeing shares jumped more than 3% in after-hours trading.

The US Government cannot go broke.

by: StraffordDem

Mon Feb 21, 2011 at 19:30:18 PM EST

Interestingly, I'm beginning to read with increasing frequency, the deficit terrorists beginning to shift their arguments regarding their slash and burn economics.  Conservahero Paul Ryan has begun to shift from austerity measures as expansionary policy to austerity measures as a moral imperative.  

This is not insignificant.  It signals that even the deficit reduction fools advocates acknowledge that there is nothing to support the concept of austerity as expansionary economic policy.

While we're at it, it's worth mentioning that every budget cut from any government agency works in exactly the same manner as a targeted tax increase.  When we cut a budget, we take away someone's benefits and it's the exact same thing as levying a tax on them.  Keeping this in mind, it's much easier to understand the GOP positions on budgets in DC and across the nation.

Open Thread: The Budget Beast

by: Jennifer Daler

Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 08:35:11 AM EST

a number he likes because, as the "mark of the beast," it is symbolic of the deficit devil New Hampshire faces. Republicans also say they intend to eliminate or reduce taxes and fees.

So now we're using imagery from Revelation as part of our public policy debate? Well, as the Monitor says, the result of eliminating revenue streams will

make the budget beast even bigger and more fearsome.

If the budget deficit is huge, nothing short of eviscerating state government will spare cities and towns cuts in state aid. Municipalities are also likely to see increased local welfare costs as a result of cuts in state social programs.

It's downshifting on the local property tax payer yet again. Stay tuned for a return to "lowballed" agency budgets and visits to the fiscal committee for some off-line supplemental funding.

This is an open thread.
h/t Dean

Temp 2% SSI Tax Reduction a Backdoor Tax Cut for Wealthy

by: nhveedub

Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 06:39:57 AM EST

The tax compromise that congress passed this month included a bargain: Replace the expiring 'Making Work Pay' tax cut of 2010 with the 2% SSI tax cut in 2011. This benefits higher paid individuals based on the difference in mechanics of the two taxes:

... the Making Work Pay credit was $400 for an individual, one would have to earn at least $20,000 to match or exceed the payout from Making Work Pay. About 51 million filers make less than $20,000 a year or are state or local government employees who have their own pension funds and don't pay into Social Security. They will see their paychecks shrink by an average of $4.04 less per week under the new system, according to the Tax Policy Center.

How do those with plump salaries make out??

Higher income earners were not eligible for Making Work Pay and will fare even better under this plan: Individuals making $100,000 will see a $2,000 increase in take home pay -- or $38.46 per week. Couples making $100,000 will see an increase of $23.08 per week.

How many tax benefits did we hand out to the rich at the expense of these living under the poverty line?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/3...

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

by: William Tucker

Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 15:57:23 PM EST

Earlier this week, Grant Bosse wrote how unfair the American tax system is to wealthy taxpayers. As proof, he provides this fact:

Our progressive income tax system, made steeper over the years, now yields revenues from which more are derived from the richest 1% of Americans than from the bottom 95% combined.

OK, an impressive sounding statistic. Also misleading and largely irrelevant. Since the income tax generates less than half of all federal tax revenue, a serious discussion of tax fairness must include all taxes — including payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, excise taxes, etc.

The Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution found that in 2009, the top 1 percent shouldered the burden for roughly 23 percent of all federal taxes.

So the top 1 percent receive 16 percent of the nation's income and are responsible for 23 percent of the total federal tax burden. That's the nature of a progressive — and fair — tax system.

Social Security: If The Rich Paid Taxes Like You And Me...Problem Solved

by: fake consultant

Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 00:18:32 AM EST

Today we take on another bite-sized chunk of economic analysis: how can you get to a situation where Social Security is financially stable for the next 75 years?

We'll describe some proposals that are out there-but the big focus of this conversation will be to look at one change that, all by itself, could not only solve the entire funding problem, but could actually allow us to lower the Social Security tax rate, immediately, and still achieve fiscal balance.

"Well, if that's such a bright idea" you might ask, "why haven't we adopted it already?"

That's a great question-and after you hear the proposal, you may well have explanations of your own.