Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts

Friday, June 04, 2010

Obama extends benefits of gay federal workers

In a move that goes beyond the memo President Obama signed last June which permitted same-sex partners to use the government’s long term care insurance and other fringe benefits, he extended the range of benefits to same-sex partners of eligible federal workers to include access to medical treatment, relocation assistance, credit unions, and fitness centers. These benefits do not cover uniformed members of the military, however, but the House is working on a repeal of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law, so there is a chance they will cover same-sex couples of military personnel next year.

This extension of benefits comes in perfect alignment each year with June now being the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Pride Month declared by Obama. Obama also ordered federal agencies last year to identify other benefits that could be offered to same-sex partners. Unfortunately, he is prevented by federal law from providing full federal benefits to same sex-partners. Read the full article here.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Obama Budget: Record Spending, Record Deficit

Yesterday, The president asked Congress to approve a record amount of spending on economic relief. His administration insisted that in order for the economy to recover, the government must spend more money on the relief efforts. You can find a story of the announcement from the Associated Press piece below.

Spelling out painful priorities, President Barack Obama urged Congress on Monday to quickly approve a huge new shot of spending for recession relief and job creation, part of a record $3.8 trillion budget that would boost the deficit beyond any in the nation's history while only slowly beginning to put Americans back to work.

If Congress goes along with Obama's election-year plan, the nation would still end the year with unemployment pushing double digits at 9.8 percent and this year's pool of government red ink deepening to $1.56 trillion — by the administration's accounting.

The spending blueprint for next year calls for tax cuts for workers and business and more aid for cash-starved state governments as well as the unemployed. The jobs initiative largely mirrors last year's stimulus bill, but is about one-third its size. The president is asking for nearly $300 billion for recession relief and job stimulus.

Continue reading at Yahoo! News…

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Big Banks vs. Obama

From NewsWeek.com:

The big banks are considering challenging President Obama's proposed tax on very large banks and financial institutions in court as unconstitutional. Let's see if I have this right. The Federal Reserve deciding unilaterally, without public debate, to assume hundreds of billions of dollars of financial companies' liabilities, spent hundreds of billions to buy mortgage-backed securities and potentially expose taxpayers to massive losses: That's totally constitutional. Congress passing a law suggesting that a small portion of the bailed-out financial industry, which is still benefitting from massive government subsidies, pay a fee for running huge balance sheets: That's unconstitutional.

The industry has argued that the Obama bank tax would hurt the recovering economy because banks would pass on higher costs to customers and borrowers rather than eat them. Higher taxes mean less money available for lending. In theory, that may be true. But when you consider the size of the banks, the size of the tax, and the vast sums of money they squander each quarter because of poor lending decisions—the proposed banking tax is a drop in the bucket.

The tax amounts 15 basis points on the net liabilities of financial institutions that have assets greater than $50 billion and that received capital as part of the TARP or issued debt as part of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, which allowed banks to save hundreds of millions of dollars on interest costs. It would total about $90 billion—$9 billion per year over 10 years. Sean Ryan of Wisco Research in Madison, Wisc., calculated the expected tax hits for several institutions, which he provided to me. The bigger you are, the harder you get hit: Giants JPMorgan Chase and Citi would each pay about $1.5 billion per year, while a merely large bank like US Bancorp would pay about $100 million per year.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Clinton, Obama, & McCain: The Good, Bad, & Ugly Candidate Tax Views

As the primary elections continue across the United States, I am keeping to my commitment to getting the candidate’s tax views more attention. So much attention is being placed on superficial topics that taxes are taking a back seat. Taxes and the economy will probably become a popular topic in the general election, but I strongly encourage every one to think taxes now! Read up on the candidate’s respective websites, and check out neutral information sources like SmartVoter.org.

At this point in the game there are only three major candidates left in the race. Each have quite different tax views. Below are the good, bad, and ugly tax views of each major remaining candidate.

Hilary Clinton

The Good

Let Bush’s Tax Cuts Expire

Ms. Clinton adamantly claims that the middle class has been ignored by the current administration and seeks to strengthen and grow the middle class and restore the basic bargain: "if you work hard and do your part, you can build a better life for yourself and your family." One method of doing so would be to let the Bush tax cuts expire. This may be a controversial view, but most liberals will agree that it’s essential for the improvement of the American economy. These tax cuts only go to the extremely wealthy individuals in the country and do nothing for the hard working American class. Although some argue that cutting taxes for the rich stimulates the economy, since these tax cuts were enacted the national debt has only increased. Most Americans are quick to judge any tax increase because no one likes paying more in taxes. However, I doubt any one reading this blog would be affected, as letting Bush’s tax cuts expire would only raise taxes on the super rich.

The Bad

Maintain Current Social Security Cap

Clinton supports retaining the current income cap on the Social Security tax, which is a good idea. Currently income over $102,000 is not subject to taxation from the social security tax. Therefore the top income earners do not pay the social security tax on their full income. Increasing the limit on the social security cap, or removing it all together, would create millions of dollars in additional federal revenue.

The Ugly

Mandatory Health Insurance

With heath care issues on the top of every one’s mind Clinton recently proposed the "American Health Choice Plan" which revolves around an individual mandate requiring everyone to have health insurance. Her plan would give more choices to taxpayers seeking health insurance without quite making it universally available through he federal government. Clinton claims her program would cost about $110 billion per year, but has not yet given any specific information on how the plan would be funded. The concept is not so bad on it’s own, but the lack of funding information makes this an ugly tax view.

Barack Obama

The Good

Tax Wealth More Than Regular Wages

One of the tax cuts enacted by President Bush was to drop the tax rate on capital gains from 20% to 15%. This was another tax break that specifically targets the wealthiest in this country who do not earn wages, but rather live off of investments and accumulated wealth. There’s no reason that capital gains should be taxed so much less then regular wages, and Obama agrees. By raising the tax back to 20% some studies estimate that an additional $100 billion in revenue could be generated for the federal government.

The Bad

New Tax Credits

Obama's tax plan features a prominent "Making Work Pay" credit that would offset federal taxes on the first $8,100 of a taxpayers earnings. It would essentially generate a credit of up to $500 for single persons or $1,000 per family. According to Obama this credit would eliminate income taxes for at least 10 million low-income Americans. The idea of lowering taxes for low paid working Americans is considered great by many liberals, but there isn’t really a need for a new credit to accomplish this. Instead, why not expand the Earned Income Tax Credit or the standard deduction amount rather than trying to get a new credit passed by codgers.

The Ugly

No Taxes For Senior Citizens

One of Obama’s tax proposals is to eliminate all federal taxes imposed on senior citizens making under $50,000 per years and not requiring them to file tax returns. This may be a good way to get the senior vote, but it’s much more complicated than it seems. First of all, senior citizens often have income from multiple sources including capital gains, dividends, Social Security, retirement plans, etc. Determining their exact income would still require the same effort as filing a tax return. Additionally, this plan gives special tax treatment to a group if individuals based solely on their age, which seems like borderline age discrimination. Why should a struggling single mother have to pay taxes on her $49,999.00 income when a retired grandmother would pay noting on the same income amount?

John McCain

The Good

Investment Tax Cuts

McCain is a strong supporter of lowering taxes to encourage economic growth, which is the dominant economic stance of the Republican party. Not only does he support renewing the Bush tax cuts, but he also favors numerous tax cuts. McCain hopes to reduce taxes on Capital Gains, Interest, Dividend, Investment income, and even corporate tax rates. And as if his tax cuts weren’t enough, McCain also supports a new rule that would require a 3/5-majority vote to raise taxes. In summary, McCain is a strong supporter of permanent tax cuts, and the Republicans love him for it.

The Bad

Continued War Funding

McCain is a strong supporter of the American military and the "War on Terror," with promises of a continued military presence in Iraq. According to his website, he believes that the answer to our current national security problems is to not "roll back our overseas commitments," but to increase the size of our Army and Marine Corps and continue the current War on Terror. McCain has recognize there is a problem with current military spending but has not provided any information on how to continue the military efforts while lowering the current $12 billion-per-month budget.

The Ugly

No Pledge Against Taxes

Although liberals typically support raising taxes to stimulate the economy, this view is very unpopular among republicans. McCain is one of the only republicans who ran for president this year who declined to sign the pledge put forth by Americans for Tax Freedom not to impose any new taxes or increase existing taxes. The conservative wing of the Republican Party are almost always against increasing taxes and this lack of a commitment could hurt his chances of winning the presidency.

Blog Archive