Obama's Budget 'Cheats' (by $98 Billion) in Reporting Cost of Child Tax Credit & EITC Expansion

From the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget via TaxProf:

A few months ago, we pointed out that the Administration was cheating in its Mid-Session Review budget baseline. Essentially it was taking policies which President Obama had signed into law as temporary, under the stimulus bill, and assuming them as permanent. The implication being that, if the policies were a part of the baseline, they wouldn't need to be paid for when enacted.

[T]he Administration says it should be able to measure its policies off of a "current policy" baseline. We disagree; if President Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts -- the same ones which he criticized the Bush Administration for not paying for -- he should have to offset them, or else fess up to using them to increase our debt. For the sake of argument, let's accept that the Administration should be allowed to budget from a current policy baseline. The result would remain the same—they are cheating.

The Administration is taking two tax provisions from the 2009 stimulus bill -- expansions of the child tax credit and the EITC -- and claiming them as part of the "current policy" Bush tax cuts.

The Administration didn't inherit these policies, they created them. And worse, still, they created them as explicitly temporary, under a stimulus bill which they claimed was meant only to help bring us out of this recession.

Yet the White House wants to continue these policies, and they don't want to pay for them. So what do they do? They hide these policies in their baseline, in the hopes that they won't have to. For the tax cuts, as Bob Williams of TPC points out, they don't show this until "footnote 5 on page 170 of Analytical Perspectives."

So how much money is involved here? Well, putting these measures into the baseline makes the President's tax cuts for families appear to cost $143 billion over ten years, when they actually cost $241 (excluding the Bush tax cuts).

Obama: More Job Losses to Come

In a meeting with economic advisers on Monday, President Barack Obama stated that there would indeed be more job losses in the next few months. However, he claimed that this does not mean the economy is not recovering. There is “always a lag of several months between businesses starting to make profits again and investing again and them actually rehiring again,” he asserted.

Obama also said he's confident "that having moved the economy on the right track ... there's no reason why we're not going to be able to not only create jobs, but the kind of sustainable economic growth that everybody's looking for."

The White House has highlighted several indicators of economic stabilization over the past week. Among other things, administration officials have argued that the Democrats' controversial $787 billion economic stimulus program helped stave off a depression and spark 3.5% growth in the third quarter.

On Friday, the administration released a report claiming the program helped create or saved over 640,000 jobs.

Republicans questioned the validity of the White House report, saying it exaggerated the program's effectiveness. Each new job, critics charged, cost $248,000 to create.

The Commerce Department said construction spending rose unexpectedly in October by almost 1%. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com were anticipating a 0.5% decline.

Continue reading at CNN.com…

Latest Good Reads:

A Tax Deduction Is Only Worth What It Is Worth

IRS Severs Ties With, and Files $2m in Liens Against, ACORN

Mr. Tax Law Writing Tax Evader

401(k) vs. IRA - Which is Better For Your Extra Money?

It Could Be Worse Than Taxation, Worse Than Stimulus

GOP Stripped Flu Pandemic Preparedness From Stimulus

From The Nation.com:

When House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who has long championed investment in pandemic preparation, included roughly $900 million for that purpose in this year's emergency stimulus bill, he was ridiculed by conservative operatives and congressional Republicans.

Obey and other advocates for the spending argued, correctly, that a pandemic hitting in the midst of an economic downturn could turn a recession into something far worse -- with workers ordered to remain in their homes, workplaces shuttered to avoid the spread of disease, transportation systems grinding to a halt and demand for emergency services and public health interventions skyrocketing. Indeed, they suggested, pandemic preparation was essential to any responsible plan for renewing the U.S. economy.

But former White House political czar Karl Rove and key congressional Republicans -- led by Maine Senator Susan Collins -- aggressively attacked the notion that there was a connection between pandemic preparation and economic recovery.

Now, as the World Health Organization says a deadly swine flu outbreak that apparently began in Mexico but has spread to the United States has the potential to develop into a pandemic, Obey's attempt to secure the money seems eerily prescient.

And partisan attacks on his efforts seem not just creepy, but dangerous.

The current swine flu outbreak is not a pandemic, and there is reason to hope that it can be contained.

But it has already believed to have killed more than 100 people in a neighboring country and sickened dozens of Americans -- causing the closing of schools and other public facilities in U.S. cities.

States Could Lose Billions In Taxes To Stimulus

From The Associated Press:

President Barack Obama told the nation's governors in February that the states' $229 billion share of the federal stimulus package "will ensure that you don't need to make cuts to essential services that Americans rely on now more than ever."

But while one hand of the federal government is offering Medicaid, education and other direct assistance to the states, the other hand could reduce state tax revenues by billions of dollars. That's because many states copy adjustments in the federal tax code into their own to make things less confusing for taxpayers — and the $787 billion stimulus package is heavily laden with federal tax breaks and incentives.

The changes could dwindle revenues at a time when states are facing their own fiscal crises.

"We have to balance our budget and the federal government doesn't," said Sen. David Hoyle, a co-chairman of the North Carolina Senate's Finance Committee. "So they can spend at length what they want and print more money. We can't."

The total potential losses are hard to calculate nationwide, because many states are still figuring out how to spend their money from the recovery plan and haven't closely studied the fine print of the tax provisions. But 17 states performing essentially back-of-the-napkin calculations told The Associated Press they could lose at least a cumulative $1 billion in revenues through 2011 if their tax codes imitate the federal changes.

Across all 50 states, it's could be much higher: Tax experts interviewed by AP estimated the total losses anywhere from $4 billion to $60 billion over the next two years.

Even at the high end, that's well short of the estimated $244 billion in budget gaps facing states through next year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. But it comes at a time when every bit counts and could force some states into cuts they'd hoped the stimulus money would avert.

"There will be both economic and political judgments being made," said Jim Eads, executive director of the Federation of Tax Administrators, representing local taxing authorities and revenue departments.

Schwarzenegger Defends Tax Hikes, Applauds Stimulus

From The Los Angeles Times:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday defended his decision to raise taxes as a necessary step to stem California's staggering economic crisis.

During appearances on morning news shows in Washington, D.C., Schwarzenegger said he would gladly accept money from the federal stimulus package approved by Congress last week even though some fellow Republican governors had balked at the program. And he predicted that although California's economy would begin rebounding next year, it would take "years from now to get back to where we were."

"I don't think that we have turned a corner yet," Schwarzenegger said on CNN's "State of the Union With John King."

The $130-billion state budget signed Friday by Schwarzenegger has earned the second-term governor jeers from state Republicans, some of whom argued for more spending cuts over tax hikes, which include across-the-board sales- and income-tax increases for the first time in 17 years. Schwarzenegger said that he drastically slashed spending in the new budget and that elected officials who disagree with his approach are "not in touch" with the public.

"It's very simple. Listen to the people," Schwarzenegger said on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos."

The governor called the federal stimulus plan a "terrific package" and said Republican leaders throughout the nation needed to shelve party ideologies in the face of the ongoing economic crisis. He cited, for example, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who has said he may refuse federal stimulus money for his state.

Obama Set To Sign Stimulus Bill Into Law

After weeks of renovation and a long approval process, Obama is now making his way to Denver, to sign his Stimulus Bill into law at a science museum. NECN.com posted a video and article discussing the plan and how it went. A portion of the article can be found below, but the video and full post can be viewed here.

As President Obama boarded Air Force One this morning for Denver, he left behind Washington D.C., where the stimulus bill faced nearly unanimous Republican opposition.

Instead, he'll sign the bill at a science museum, and focus on investment in green jobs and technology like wind and solar power.

It's a massive bill combining spending and tax breaks -- $787 billion dollars in all.

Some of the first money, $27 billion, will go to states for projects like road and bridge repair.

The bill also includes a $400 tax credit and incentives to buy first homes and new cars.

There's $100 billion in new spending for schools and colleges.

Unemployment and food benefits will be extended, a bit of help for these auto industry employees, who learned just yesterday, they're losing their jobs.

But will it work, and how fast? So far, stocks have tumbled as Wall Street investors worry it may be some time before the stimulus money helps turn the economy around.

GM and Chrysler, which have already received billions in federal loans, must submit plans to the government for staying viable by the end of the business day.

While the Obama administration reviews the proposals, the automakers will ask for another $7 billion dollars.

FAQ: Senate Stimulus Bill’s Home Buyer Tax Credit

From the Wall Street Journal:

Readers are posing many different questions about the proposed $15,000 homebuyer tax credit that is in the Senate version of the economic stimulus bill. It’s important to remember that the proposed credit is far from a done deal. The bill still has a couple of big hurdles, including tomorrow’s scheduled vote in the Senate. (Read the Senate version.)

If it passes, it will have to be reconciled with the House version of the stimulus bill, which modifies an existing $7,500 homebuyer credit, repealing a provision that requires buyers to pay it back.

There are some big differences between those two versions. The Senate version is nonrefundable, meaning you can only receive the credit if you owe federal income taxes. The existing credit is refundable, meaning you get a check from the government even if you don’t owe income tax. Moreover, the current credit applies to first-time home buyers, defined as anyone who has not bought a house in three years. The Senate version is open to existing homeowners.

Here are some more Frequently Asked Questions. Please note that the answers may change as the Senate bill changes:

If I bought a home and used the $7,500 homebuyer tax credit, can I retroactively receive $15,000 credit if it becomes law? No.

Are there any income restrictions on the tax credit? The Senate version currently has no income limits. The current $7,500 tax credit phases out on buyers with incomes exceeding $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples.

When will the new tax credit go into effect? The Senate version would take effect when the bill is signed by the president into law, and it would last for one year.

Can I take the tax credit this year? Yes. The Senate proposal would allow buyers — even those who purchase in 2009 — to claim the credit on their 2008 taxes.

The proposed tax credit is nonrefundable. What does that mean? You can only receive the credit to the extent that you owe federal income taxes. The Senate proposal would give home buyers two years to claim the credit, so buyers could claim a $7,500 credit in 2009 and a $7,500 credit in 2010. A family of four that makes less than $82,000, for example, could have a tax liability of less than $7,500 and they would not receive the full value of the credit.

Are there any repayment requirements on the tax credit? No. The Senate proposal does not require the credit to be paid back. The House proposal eliminates a 15-year repayment provision on the existing $7,500 tax credit.

If I am eligible for the current $7,500 credit, am I also eligible for the $15,000 credit? While the $15,000 credit has fewer restrictions than the existing credit, there is one big difference: because the credit is nonrefundable, if you have a low federal income tax liability, you could end up receiving more money with the current credit than the larger, proposed credit.

Are there any increased down payment requirements on the proposed tax credit? No. A separate measure has been introduced in the House that would expand the tax credit to $15,000 but would require a 5% down payment on mortgages. The Federal Housing Administration currently requires a minimum 3.5% down payment.

Can I use the tax credit to buy a second home? No.

How long do I have to live in my home after I purchase it with the tax credit? The Senate version requires buyers to pay back the credit if they sell the house less than two years after they buy