He’d take care of this right here, right now if he could.
[via DB]
He’d take care of this right here, right now if he could.
[via DB]
Obama says he’s not caving on tax cuts [CNN]
President Barack Obama declared Friday that his “number one priority” is preserving tax cuts for the middle class, and sharply denied that comments by his senior adviser David Axelrod suggest that his administration is about to cave in to Republicans who also want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
“That is the wrong interpretation because I haven’t had a conversation with Democratic and Republican leaders,” Obama said of a Huffington Post article suggesting that in advance of negotiations with lawmakers next week, the White House has calculated that giving in on tax cuts for the rich is the only way to get the middle too.
Companies Would See Big Tax Shifts [WSJ]
Tax-reform plans proposed by President Obama’s deficit-cutting commission would radically change corporate tax policy and, business groups say, could improve U.S. competitiveness in global trade. But they also could create winners and losers among U.S. companies.
Business groups and economists have long sought fundamental changes to the tax code, which hasn’t been overhauled since 1986.
Pwning the social debate [AccMan]
Proceed with caution. Sayeth Dennis Howlett, “If the title of this post bamboozled you, the rest will make your head explode.”
House Dem leaders’ reactions to fiscal panel report differ sharply [The Hill]
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) came out swinging, calling the proposals “simply unacceptable,” while the two men battling to be her deputy, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) and whip James Clyburn (S.C.), released muted responses. Neither Hoyer nor Clyburn criticized the commission, avoiding a politically explosive set of ideas as they wrestle for support from their Democratic colleagues for the post of minority whip.
Backdating Scandal Ends With a Whimper [DealBook]
“These prosecutions went out with a whimper rather than a bang,” said Christopher J. Clark, a criminal defense lawyer at Dewey LeBoeuf who has done work on backdating cases. “With few convictions and no substantial sentences, juries and the courts simply did not agree with the government’s position that stock option backdating represented a serious financial crime.”
Richard Hatch still surviving life’s rocky road [Providence Journal]
Survivor champ, convicted tax dodger and “l’m living on borrowed 15-minutes-of-fame time” Richard Hatch is now going to be on the Celebrity Apprentice.
A QuickBooks Alternative for the Accounting-Phobic Owner [You’re the Boss/NYT]
Spooked by QuickBooks? WorkingPoint may be the solution for the debit-credit disinclined.
Newsweek, Daily Beast Set Merger [WSJ]
Under the proposed agreement, expected to be disclosed Friday, the two news organizations will be combined in a 50-50 joint venture called the Newsweek Daily Beast Co. The deal comes three weeks after the two sides abandoned talks of a merger over a disagreement about control.
Plenty is being said about Bowles and Simpson’s Fiscal Commission report but we prefer to go with experts on the matter. Some musings from around the tax blogosphere
Joe Kristan loves the zero option, harkening back to the Reagan days:
If no “tax expenditures” were added back, the plan would reduce individual rates to 8, 14 and 23%, with a flat 26% corporate rate. There would be no reduced rate for capital gains, greatly simplifying tax lives for most of us.
This is an excellent idea. I would only apply more of the savings to reducing rates and add a dividends paid deduction to integrate the individual and corporate systems — a huge simplification. Nancy Pelosi isn’t craz friends didn’t like the first zero option either.
From the aforementioned Tax Policy Center:
[T]his proposal is so provocative it almost seems as if Bowles and Simpson realize they have no chance of building consensus on their own commission. As a result, they may have decided to take their best shot now rather than watch their plan get nibbled to death. If so, it may not have been a bad idea. The fiscal panel may fade away in shame, but I have a feeling this plan may live on.
Tax Foundation’s Tax Policy Blog notes there’s plenty of displeasure to go around:
On the spending side, hawks will wince at the defense cuts while defenders of entitlement spending will dislike the higher retirement age and lower cost-of-living adjustments. One line item calls for all earmarks to be eliminated. Federal employee unions will not like the idea of a 3-year federal pay freeze and a reduction in non-defense employment by 10 percent through attrition.
On the tax side, there are certainly tax hikes for tax-haters to hate: gas taxes, dividend and capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes on high earners. Also, the revenue cap that the chairmen suggest, 21% of GDP, is higher than revenue has been in two generations.
Robert Flach is pleasantly surprised by the report but warns:
By just saying “add back in any desired tax expenditures, and pay for them by increasing one or all of the rates from their zero expenditure low” without limitations or restrictions we all know that the supporters of every single existing “tax expenditure”, as well as proposed new ones, will fund a lobby to throw money at Congress to keep or add their particular benefit. And individual Congresscritters will negotiate back and forth – “I’ll support your tax break if you support mine”. Before you know it we will end up with the same mucking fess we have now!
Meanwhile Dan Meyers needs oxygen:
[T]he report was nothing if not breathtakingly audacious by Washington standards.
Kay Bell notes the contention that has already begun over Social Security:
The debate over what typically is an inviolable government benefits program (remember Dubya’s failed attempt to privatize Social Security?) is going to rage for a bit…Perhaps most of the other members are as upset with the Social Security and tax suggestions as a lot of other people are right now. When the points of view of those 16 other commission members are taken into account, some of the recommendations might change … or disappear.
As Joe mentioned above, Nancy Pelosi hates the report, quoted by The Hill as, “simply unacceptable,” plus we gave you Dick Durbin’s thoughts yesterday.
Personally, we’re fans of the report because if nothing else, it forces politicians to entertain real solutions rather than hide behind the bullshit rhetoric we hear about “tax reform” and “cut spending.” And finally, as Gerald Seib writes at the Journal, there aren’t any more excuses:
By making their ideas public, they made it harder for other commission members to run and hide. The commission now can’t simply bury controversial or unpopular ideas. It has to say to the world that it has rejected them and take responsibility for having done so.
It’s about time.
The presumed next Majority Leader in the House has gone on the record (with Fox News no less) that any pragmatism on the President’s part will be slapped away like a homeless vet’s outstretched hand:
The Obama administration’s hopes of reaching a tax deal with Republicans that would decouple rates on the rich from the middle class appear dead.
House GOP Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) threw cold water on the proposed plan, which would temporarily extend tax cuts for the wealthy while permanently extending tax cuts for the middle class. “Taxes shouldn’t be going up on anybody right now,” Cantor said.
So, in other words President Obama, you can take any of this “compromise” talk and stick it in your tea because that’s what was mandated by the people:
“This election … was really the American people saying they are tired of the lack of results in Washington,” he said. “They want to see more jobs for more Americans. They want to see us … cut government spending, rein in the size of government so we can get this economy growing again. That was the prescription, that was the mandate that came from the people.”
So a fair amount of ellipsises there, so maybe he’s not exactly sure what he’s saying but Cantor is a fool if he thinks that “cutting government spending” and” reining in the size of government” is not part of the GOP agenda despite what Paul Ryan writes in the Financial Times.
Security Agency spending seems to be a pretty big piece of the shopping spree; doesn’t it make sense to start there? If not, are we going to continue buying predator drones on the credit card and cut education again since raising taxes is absolutely out of the question?
Cantor, Republicans signal Obama tax proposal is dead in the water [The Briefing Room/The Hill]
White House signals compromise on tax cuts [Reuters]
A conciliatory White House said on Thursday it was willing to negotiate with Republicans on tax cut extensions, but Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell took a hard line against compromises with President Barack Obama in a new Congress.
In the first possible policy shift since Democrats suffered heavy election losses two days ago, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs signaled Obama was open to talks on a temporary extension for the wealthy of Bush-era tax cuts that expire at the end of the year.
New York Court Sends “Amazon Tax” Case Back for More Information [