DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record—House H8552

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

H8552 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 16, 2010 Murphy (CT) Ruppersberger Stark b 1933 The CHAIR. The gentleman will state Murphy (NY) Ryan (OH) Stupak his parliamentary inquiry. Murphy, Patrick Sa´ nchez, Linda Sutton Messrs. LIPINSKI and COSTELLO Nadler (NY) T. Teague changed their vote from ‘‘yea’’ to Mr. GOHMERT. My parliamentary Napolitano Sanchez, Loretta Thompson (CA) ‘‘nay.’’ inquiry is, since the rules of the House Neal (MA) Sarbanes Thompson (MS) So (two-thirds not being in the af- allow for someone in opposition to Nye Schakowsky Tiberi claim time in order to speak on a bill, Oberstar Schauer firmative) the motion was rejected. Tierney is that rule being abrogated now, or Obey Schiff Titus The result of the vote was announced Pallone Schock Tonko as above recorded. can we follow the rules and have some- Pascrell Schrader Towns one like me, who is opposed to the bill, Pastor (AZ) Schwartz Tsongas f Paulsen Scott (GA) claim time? Vela´ zquez Payne Scott (VA) TAX RELIEF, UNEMPLOYMENT IN- The CHAIR. No such rule is applica- Visclosky Perlmutter Sensenbrenner SURANCE REAUTHORIZATION, ble to these proceedings. Perriello Serrano Walz Wasserman AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2010 Mr. GOHMERT. I’m sorry. I did not Peters Sestak understand. Peterson Shea-Porter Schultz The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pending Pingree (ME) Sherman Waters The CHAIR. There is no such rule. Polis (CO) Shuler Watson any declaration of the House into the Mr. GOHMERT. So this is set up now, Pomeroy Simpson Watt Committee of the Whole pursuant to the rules have been abrogated, so no Price (NC) Sires Waxman House Resolution 1766, the Chair would time is allotted to anyone in opposi- Quigley Skelton Weiner note that the Senate amendment to Reyes Slaughter Welch tion? Did I understand that correct, Richardson Smith (WA) Wilson (OH) the House amendment to the Senate Mr. Chairman? Rodriguez Snyder Woolsey amendment to the bill H.R. 4853 con- The CHAIR. The gentleman has not Ross Space Wu tains an emergency designation for stated a parliamentary inquiry. Rothman (NJ) Speier Yarmuth purposes of pay-as-you-go principles Roybal-Allard Spratt Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary in- under clause 10(c) of rule XXI and an quiry, then. NAYS—166 emergency designation pursuant to The CHAIR. The gentleman will state Aderholt Foxx Moran (KS) section 4(g)(1) of the Statutory Pay-As- his inquiry. Akin Franks (AZ) Murphy, Tim You-Go Act of 2010. Mr. GOHMERT. Under the rules of Alexander Gallegly Myrick Accordingly, the Chair must put the the House, going back to the Thomas Austria Garrett (NJ) Neugebauer question of consideration under clause Bachmann Gerlach Nunes Jefferson rules of the House, as adopted Bachus Gingrey (GA) Olson 10(c)(3) of rule XXI and under section by this majority in this term, someone Barrett (SC) Goodlatte Owens 4(g)(2) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go in opposition to a bill is always given Bartlett Graves (GA) Paul Act of 2010. the right to claim time. So I am asking Barton (TX) Graves (MO) Pence Biggert Griffith Petri The question is, Will the House now the parliamentary inquiry if that is Bilbray Guthrie Pitts consider the Senate amendment to the now the case, or if that rule—the Bilirakis Hall (TX) Platts House amendment to the Senate standing rule—is not going to be al- Bishop (UT) Harper Poe (TX) amendment? Blackburn Hastings (WA) Posey lowed at this time? Blunt Heller Price (GA) The question of consideration was de- The CHAIR. The gentleman’s premise Boehner Hensarling Putnam cided in the affirmative. is incorrect. Bonner Herger Rahall The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman’s Bono Mack Hoekstra Reed Boozman Holden Rehberg ant to House Resolution 1766 and rule premise is incorrect? Boucher Hunter Reichert XVIII, the Chair declares the House in So someone can claim time in opposi- Boustany Inglis Roe (TN) the Committee of the Whole House on tion? Thank you. Brady (TX) Issa Rogers (AL) the state of the Union for the consider- The CHAIR. The House is operating Broun (GA) Jenkins Rogers (KY) Brown-Waite, Johnson (IL) Rogers (MI) ation of the Senate amendment to the under a rule that allocates control of Ginny Johnson, Sam Rohrabacher House amendment to the Senate the time for debate to the chair and Buchanan Jones Rooney amendment to the bill, H.R. 4853. ranking minority member of the Com- Burgess Jordan (OH) Ros-Lehtinen mittee on Ways and Means. Burton (IN) Kaptur Roskam b 1937 Calvert King (IA) Royce b 1940 Camp King (NY) Ryan (WI) IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Campbell Kingston Scalise Accordingly, the House resolved Mr. TAYLOR. Further parliamentary Cantor Kline (MN) Schmidt itself into the Committee of the Whole inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Cao Lamborn Sessions The CHAIR. The gentleman from House on the State of the Union for the Capito Lance Shadegg Mississippi will state his inquiry. Carter Latta Shimkus consideration of the Senate amend- Mr. TAYLOR. I understand that Cassidy Lee (NY) Shuster ment to the House amendment to the Chaffetz Lewis (CA) Smith (NE) under the rule just passed, the time has Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. Childers Linder Smith (NJ) been allocated to a proponent on this Coble Lipinski Smith (TX) 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue side of the aisle for the bill, a pro- Coffman (CO) LoBiondo Stearns Code of 1986 to extend the funding and Cole Lucas Stutzman ponent on this side of the aisle for the expenditure authority of the Airport Conaway Luetkemeyer Sullivan bill. The understanding was, though, and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title Costello Lummis Taylor that time would be allowed to the op- Culberson Lungren, Daniel Terry 49, United States Code, to extend au- ponents of this bill. Davis (KY) E. Thompson (PA) thorizations for the airport improve- Diaz-Balart, L. Mack Thornberry I am asking if the Chair or someone Diaz-Balart, M. Manzullo Tiahrt ment program, and for other purposes, would identify who that time will be Djou McCarthy (CA) Turner with Mr. SABLAN in the chair. yielded to. Dreier McCaul Upton The Clerk read the title of the bill. Duncan McClintock Walden The CHAIR. The rule provides for the Emerson McCotter Westmoreland The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the debate time to be allocated equally and Fallin McKeon Whitfield Senate amendment is considered read. controlled by the chair and ranking Flake Mica Wilson (SC) General debate shall not exceed 3 minority member of the Committee on Fleming Miller (FL) Wittman hours equally divided and controlled by Forbes Miller (MI) Wolf Ways and Means. Fortenberry Miller, Gary Young (AK) the chair and ranking minority mem- The Chair recognizes the gentleman ber of the Committee on Ways and from Michigan. NOT VOTING—26 Means. Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time Berry Hare Ortiz The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. as I may consume. Brown (SC) Johnson, E. B. Radanovich LEVIN) and the gentleman from Michi- Buyer Kilroy Rangel The Democratic majority in the Cleaver Marchant Rush gan (Mr. CAMP) each will control 90 House has made it crystal clear that DeGette McCarthy (NY) Salazar minutes. we stand on the side of middle income Gohmert McHenry Tanner PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES families, of unemployed workers, of Gordon (TN) McMorris Van Hollen Granger Rodgers Wamp Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have small businesses struggling in this dif- Halvorson Olver Young (FL) a parliamentary inquiry. ficult economy. The compromise before VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:07 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\RECORD10\RECFILES\H16DE0.REC H16DE0 bjneal on DSK2TWX8P1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE December 16, 2010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8553 us clearly requires painful choices. these last weeks, obstructing and hold- Senate. And the President has flatly These choices relate to each of the ing hostage everything until they get refused to sign such legislation into three criteria for judging the merits of their way on the tax breaks for the law. So again, tell me, how do we get a this package: Does it add to the def- very wealthy, I am not willing to put better deal by waiting? It makes no icit? Does it promote economic the fate of the middle class and the un- sense to gamble with the American growth? And does it promote fairness? employed in the hands of the Repub- people’s jobs and the very paychecks For decades, Republicans have un- lican majority next year. Especially they rely on to put food on the table wisely promoted a view that tax cuts when voiced by the Senate Republican and keep the house warm this winter. pay for themselves. So while making leader that their main priority is the Americans are suffering through the deficit reduction their rhetoric, they failure of our President. deepest and longest recession since the never have had any intention of paying I reserve the balance of my time. Great Depression. This is not a time for tax cuts which add to the deficit, Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield for political speeches or electoral pos- plain and simple. Adding to the deficit myself such time as I may consume. turing. This is a time to act respon- is defensible if the bill meets another This House—the people’s House—has sibly, to do what is right, and to vote criterion: Does it promote economic a simple choice today: raise taxes on ‘‘yes.’’ Employers are begging us to growth? Adding to the deficit in the families and small businesses or pre- pass this legislation. Small businesses short term as a tool to promote eco- vent a massive job-killing tax increase and the National Federation of Inde- nomic growth that will, in turn, help from going into effect a mere 16 days pendent Business are supporting the address the long-term deficit has been from now.
Recommended publications
  • The Death of the Income Tax (Or, the Rise of America's Universal Wage

    The Death of the Income Tax (Or, the Rise of America's Universal Wage

    Indiana Law Journal Volume 95 Issue 4 Article 5 Fall 2000 The Death of the Income Tax (or, The Rise of America’s Universal Wage Tax) Edward J. McCaffery University of Southern California;California Institute of Tecnology, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, Taxation-Federal Estate and Gift Commons, Taxation-State and Local Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation McCaffery, Edward J. (2000) "The Death of the Income Tax (or, The Rise of America’s Universal Wage Tax)," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 95 : Iss. 4 , Article 5. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol95/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Death of the Income Tax (or, The Rise of America’s Universal Wage Tax) EDWARD J. MCCAFFERY* I. LOOMINGS When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, just weeks into her tenure as America’s youngest member of Congress, floated the idea of a sixty or seventy percent top marginal tax rate on incomes over ten million dollars, she was met with a predictable mixture of shock, scorn, and support.1 Yet there was nothing new in the idea. AOC, as Representative Ocasio-Cortez is popularly known, was making a suggestion with sound historical precedent: the top marginal income tax rate in America had exceeded ninety percent during World War II, and stayed at least as high as seventy percent until Ronald Reagan took office in 1981.2 And there is an even deeper sense in which AOC’s proposal was not as radical as it may have seemed at first.
  • Bergen County Technical Schools District Bergen County Special Services School District

    Bergen County Technical Schools District Bergen County Special Services School District

    RULER Employee Handbook Bergen County Technical Schools District Bergen County Special Services School District www.bergen.org Approved: 8/05 Revised: 11/17/20 BCSS 12/08/20 BCTS TABLE OF CONTENTS BERGEN COUNTY TECHNICAL SCHOOLS DISTRICT BERGEN COUNTY SPECIAL SERVICES SCHOOL DISTRICT SUBJECT PAGE Disclaimer 2 Superintendent’s Letter to Staff 3 Purpose 4 Goal 4 Standards for Excellence in Educational Service 5 Mission Statement – Bergen County Special Services School District 8 Overview – Bergen County Special Services School District 8 Mission Statements – Bergen County Technical Schools District 15 Overview – Bergen County Technical Schools District 15 Affirmative Action 25 Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying 25 Conscientious Employee Protection Act 26 Employee Information 27 Employee Benefits 51 Financial Information 56 Health and Safety 59 Directories of the Districts 63 County Administration 74 DISCLAIMER The purpose of this handbook is to provide descriptive information and practical guidance to new and current District employees. It supersedes any prior handbook. This handbook is not a contract of employment. No information contained in this handbook should be construed as a contract of employment or guarantee of continued employment. This handbook does not supersede any individual employment contract or collectively negotiated agreement. Neither this handbook nor any other guideline, policy or practice of the Board of Education creates an employment contract. No one is authorized to provide any employee with an employment contract or special arrangement concerning the terms or conditions of employment unless the contract or arrangement is in writing and signed by the Superintendent of Schools and is formally approved by the Board of Education.
  • Heinonline ( Fri Mar 13 19:01:34 2009

    Heinonline ( Fri Mar 13 19:01:34 2009

    +(,121/,1( Citation: 52 UCLA L. Rev. 2004-2005 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Mar 13 19:01:34 2009 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0041-5650 THE POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY OF REDISTRIBUTION Edward J. McCaffery & Jonathan Baron Welfare economics suggests that the tax system is the appropriate place to effect redistribution from those with more command over material resources to those with less: in short, to serve "equity." Society should set other mechanisms of private and public law, including public finance systems, to maximize welfare: in short, to serve "efficiency." The populace, however, may not always accept first-best policies. Perspectives from cognitive psychology suggest that ordinary citizens react to the purely formal means by which social policies are implemented, and thus may reject welfare-improving reforms. This Article sets out the general background of the problem. We present the results of original experiments that confirm that the means of implementing redis- tribution affect its acceptability. Effects range from such seemingly trivial mat- ters as whether tax burdens are discussed in dollars or in percentage terms, to more substantial matters such as how many different individual taxes there are, whether the burden of taxes is transparent, and the nature and level of the public provision of goods and services.
  • Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Certificate

    Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Certificate

    Employee’s Withholding Certificate OMB No. 1545-0074 Form W-4 ▶ (Rev. December 2020) Complete Form W-4 so that your employer can withhold the correct federal income tax from your pay. ▶ Department of the Treasury Give Form W-4 to your employer. 2021 Internal Revenue Service ▶ Your withholding is subject to review by the IRS. Step 1: (a) First name and middle initial Last name (b) Social security number Enter Address ▶ Does your name match the Personal name on your social security card? If not, to ensure you get Information City or town, state, and ZIP code credit for your earnings, contact SSA at 800-772-1213 or go to www.ssa.gov. (c) Single or Married filing separately Married filing jointly or Qualifying widow(er) Head of household (Check only if you’re unmarried and pay more than half the costs of keeping up a home for yourself and a qualifying individual.) Complete Steps 2–4 ONLY if they apply to you; otherwise, skip to Step 5. See page 2 for more information on each step, who can claim exemption from withholding, when to use the estimator at www.irs.gov/W4App, and privacy. Step 2: Complete this step if you (1) hold more than one job at a time, or (2) are married filing jointly and your spouse Multiple Jobs also works. The correct amount of withholding depends on income earned from all of these jobs. or Spouse Do only one of the following. Works (a) Use the estimator at www.irs.gov/W4App for most accurate withholding for this step (and Steps 3–4); or (b) Use the Multiple Jobs Worksheet on page 3 and enter the result in Step 4(c) below for roughly accurate withholding; or (c) If there are only two jobs total, you may check this box.
  • Changing Workplaces Review Final Report May 23, 2017

    Changing Workplaces Review Final Report May 23, 2017

    Changing Workplaces Review Final Report May 23, 2017 Dear Clients and Friends, Today, the Government of Ontario released the Changing Workplaces Review final report and recommendations, labeling it an “An Agenda for Workplace Rights”. Touted as the first independent review of the Employment Standards Act and Labour Relations Act in more than a generation, the review was commenced in February, 2015. For every Ontario employer, the recommended changes to the Employment Standards Act and Labour Relations Act are far reaching and will have significant impact. The government has undertaken to announce its formal response to the report in the coming days, and may be aiming to table draft legislation modeled on all, or part, of the recommendations prior to the Legislature rising for summer recess (June 1, 2017). If that occurs we could see legislation make its way into force by late Fall or early next year. Sherrard Kuzz LLP will review the report and government response and distribute a comprehensive briefing note, as we did following the release of the Interim Report (see Sherrard Kuzz LLP homepage). In the interim, to review the report click here, and the summary report click here. Sherrard Kuzz LLP is one of Canada’s leading employment and labour law firms, representing management. Firm members can be reached at 416.603.0700 (Main), 416.420.0738 (24 Hour) or by visiting www.sherrardkuzz.com. MAY 2017 THE CHANGING WORKPLACES REVIEW AN AGENDA FOR WORKPLACE RIGHTS Summary Report SPECIAL ADVISORS C. MICHAEL MITCHELL JOHN C. MURRAY TABLE OF CONTENTS THE CHANGING WORKPLACES RECOMMENDATIONS ON Related and Joint Employer ..............................50 REVIEW: AN AGENDA FOR LABOUR RELATIONS ......................................

  • Can We Starve the Government Beast?

    tween 1995 and 2007 growth in Euro countries aver- aged about 2 per cent per annum, even though almost all Euro countries reduced the size of government (as Can we starve the measured by the proportion of general government outlays to GDP). In fact, no less than 21 out of the 28 countries listed in surveys of OECD member countries government beast? made such reductions and eleven cut them by more than 5 percentage points of GDP, which suggests that they made reductions in discretionary outlays. Par- Sinclair Davidson ticularly noteworthy were the cuts by the Nordic ‘big spenders’—Sweden (13 per cent), Norway (9 per cent), Finland (13 per cent) and Denmark (9 per cent)—as his reckless spending has got to stop’. well as those by Canada (10 per cent), Czech Republic With those words Kevin Rudd out- (11 per cent) and the Slovak Republic (12 per cent). flanked John Howard’s economic These countries have thus reduced the relative ex- policy from the right. Australia’s tent of government outlays by 15-20 per cent, result- traditional centre-left party won the ing in much diminished ‘Swedenisation’. The reasons 2007 election with smaller government rhetoric than ‘Tthe traditional centre-right party. Of course, the Rudd for these developments in Europe are unclear, but they certainly suggest smaller governments have increasingly government is not going to be a small government, but been favoured. Moreover, while one or two countries then neither was the Howard government. Voters had with relatively small government outlays have experi- a choice of two-large government parties at the elec- enced relatively poor economic performances, some tion and seemed to prefer the party that offered slightly academic analysis suggests a favourable relationship be- lower tax cuts with slightly less spending.
  • The Political Psychology of Redistribution

    The Political Psychology of Redistribution

    The Political Psychology of Redistribution Edward J. McCaffery and Jonathan Baron USC CLEO Research Paper No. C05-4 USC Legal Studies Research Paper and USC Law and Economics Research Paper No. 05-8 CLEO RESEARCH PAPER SERIES LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER SERIES Sponsored by the John M. Olin Foundation University of Southern California Law School Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network electronic library at http://ssrn.com/abstract=695305 The Political Psychology of Redistribution Edward J. McCaffery and Jonathan Baron∗ March 15, 2005 Abstract Welfare economics suggests that the tax system is the appropriate place to effect redistribution from those with more command over material resources to those with less—that is, in short, to serve “equity.” Society should set other mechanisms of private and public law, including public finance systems, to maximize welfare—that is, in short, to serve “efficiency.” The populace, how- ever, may not always accept first-best policies. Perspectives from cognitive psy- chology suggest that ordinary citizens can react to the purely formal means by which social policies are implemented, and thus may reject welfare-improving reforms. This Article sets out the general background of the problem. We present the results of original experiments that confirm that the means of implementing redistribution affect its acceptability. Effects range from such seemingly trivial matters as whether or not tax burdens are discussed in dollars or in percent terms, to more substantial matters such as how many different individual taxes there are, whether the burden of taxes is transparent or not, and the nature and level of the public provision of goods and services.
  • Part Two: What Employers Need to Know About Handling Benefits When Employees Are on Leave

    Part Two: What Employers Need to Know About Handling Benefits When Employees Are on Leave

    Part Two: What Employers Need to Know about Handling Benefits When Employees are on Leave Presented by: Chelsea Deppert Phone: (404) 240-4268 Email: [email protected] fisherphillips.com AGENDA FOR TODAY • Laws Governing Leave Administration and Benefit Continuation • Best Practices for Premium Payments During Leave • Counting Service Hours for ACA Purposes During Leave • Other Practical Tips for Leave Administration fisherphillips.com Laws Governing Leave Administration and Benefit Continuation fisherphillips.com Employee Leave • There are numerous laws that protect employees on leave: . Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) . Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) . Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) . Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) . State Laws and Workers’ Compensation Laws • Some of these laws may require continuation of certain employee benefits fisherphillips.com FMLA – The Basics • Who is eligible for FMLA leave: . Employer with 50 or more employees within 75 surface miles . Employee must have worked for employer for at least 12 months . Employee must have worked at least 1250 hours in 12 months prior to leave • Eligible employees are entitled to 12 weeks (unpaid) leave in an employer- designated 12-month period for a qualifying event . Serious health condition of the employee or the employee’s spouse, child or parent; . Birth or adoption of employee’s child; or . Qualifying military-related exigency • Eligible employees are entitled to 26 weeks leave to care for seriously ill military member (employee must be the spouse, child, parent or next of kin of the covered service member) fisherphillips.com FMLA – The Basics • FMLA Leave is Unpaid . Employer may require or employee may elect to substitute available paid leave for unpaid leave (e.g., PTO, vacation, sick) • Notice of Need for Leave .
  • Chapter 2: What's Fair About Taxes?

    Chapter 2: What's Fair About Taxes?

    Hoover Classics : Flat Tax hcflat ch2 Mp_35 rev0 page 35 2. What’s Fair about Taxes? economists and politicians of all persuasions agree on three points. One, the federal income tax is not sim- ple. Two, the federal income tax is too costly. Three, the federal income tax is not fair. However, economists and politicians do not agree on a fourth point: What does fair mean when it comes to taxes? This disagree- ment explains, in large measure, why it so difficult to find a replacement for the federal income tax that meets the other goals of simplicity and low cost. In recent years, the issue of fairness has come to overwhelm the other two standards used to evaluate tax systems: cost (efficiency) and simplicity. Recall the 1992 presidential campaign. Candidate Bill Clinton preached that those who “benefited unfairly” in the 1980s [the Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top tax rate on upper-income taxpayers from 50 percent to 28 percent] should pay their “fair share” in the 1990s. What did he mean by such terms as “benefited unfairly” and should pay their “fair share?” Were the 1985 tax rates fair before they were reduced in 1986? Were the Carter 1980 tax rates even fairer before they were reduced by President Reagan in 1981? Were the Eisenhower tax rates fairer still before President Kennedy initiated their reduction? Were the original rates in the first 1913 federal income tax unfair? Were the high rates that prevailed during World Wars I and II fair? Were Andrew Mellon’s tax Hoover Classics : Flat Tax hcflat ch2 Mp_36 rev0 page 36 36 The Flat Tax rate cuts unfair? Are the higher tax rates President Clin- ton signed into law in 1993 the hallmark of a fair tax system, or do rates have to rise to the Carter or Eisen- hower levels to be fair? No aspect of federal income tax policy has been more controversial, or caused more misery, than alle- gations that some individuals and income groups don’t pay their fair share.
  • May 22, 2017 Agenda Packet

    May 22, 2017 Agenda Packet

    THE STATE OF TEXAS § CITY OF BALCONES HEIGHTS § COUNTY OF BEXAR § Suzanne de Leon, Mayor Jack Burton, City Council Place 3 Stephen Lara, City Council Place 1 Lamar Gillian, City Council Place 4 Miguel C. Valverde, Mayor Pro Tem Charles White, City Council Place 5 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, May 22, 2017 from 5:00 p.m. – 5:45 p.m. prior to the Regular City Council Meeting there will be a reception to Welcome the Incoming Elected Officials. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE ABOVE CALLED MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF BALCONES HEIGHTS, TEXAS, WILL BE HELD ON Monday, May 22, 2017, at 6:00 P.M., IN THE JUSTICE CENTER, LOCATED AT 3300 HILLCREST DRIVE, BALCONES HEIGHTS, TEXAS, 78201 TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON ANY LAWFUL SUBJECT WHICH MAY COME BEFORE SAID MEETING, INCLUDING, AMONG OTHERS, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND ACTED UPON: CALL TO ORDER AND RECORDING OF QUORUM INVOCATION AND PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE U. S. A. AND TEXAS FLAGS Here are the words to the Texas pledge: "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible." OATH OF OFFICE: • Newly elected officials will take their Oath of Office. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD At this time, citizens who have filled out a registration form prior to the start of the meeting may speak on any topic they wish to bring to the attention of the governing body so long as that topic is not on the agenda for this meeting.
  • Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08): Current Status of Benefits

    Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08): Current Status of Benefits

    Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08): Current Status of Benefits Julie M. Whittaker Specialist in Income Security Katelin P. Isaacs Analyst in Income Security March 28, 2012 The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, with the cover date shown, for inclusion in its 2012 Green Book website. CRS works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to Committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. Congressional Research Service R42444 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08): Current Status of Benefits Summary The temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) program may provide additional federal unemployment insurance benefits to eligible individuals who have exhausted all available benefits from their state Unemployment Compensation (UC) programs. Congress created the EUC08 program in 2008 and has amended the original, authorizing law (P.L. 110-252) 10 times. The most recent extension of EUC08 in P.L. 112-96, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, authorizes EUC08 benefits through the end of calendar year 2012. P.L. 112- 96 also alters the structure and potential availability of EUC08 benefits in states. Under P.L. 112- 96, the potential duration of EUC08 benefits available to eligible individuals depends on state unemployment rates as well as the calendar date. The P.L. 112-96 extension of the EUC08 program does not allow any individual to receive more than 99 weeks of total unemployment insurance (i.e., total weeks of benefits from the three currently authorized programs: regular UC plus EUC08 plus EB).
  • Paid Safe and Sick Leave Law: Frequently Asked Questions

    Paid Safe and Sick Leave Law: Frequently Asked Questions

    Paid Safe and Sick Leave Law: Frequently Asked Questions COVID-19 Alert Update about Workplace Laws During COVID-19, available at nyc.gov/workers, includes a summary of City labor laws for employers and employees as you deal with the impact of COVID-19 on your workplace. The Department of Consumer and Worker To contact OLPS: Protection (DCWP) Office of Labor Policy & Standards (OLPS) enforces NYC’s Earned • Email [email protected] Safe and Sick Time Act (Paid Safe and Sick • Call 311 (212-NEW-YORK outside NYC) Leave Law) referred to in FAQs as the Law. and say “Paid Safe and Sick Leave” • Use Live Chat, available at These FAQs provide general information and nyc.gov/BusinessToolbox guidance for employees and employers. They (employer inquiries only) are not intended to serve as individualized • Visit nyc.gov/workers2 legal advice.1 For specific questions, you should contact your legal advisor. Sections I. GENERAL QUESTIONS II. EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE LAW III. RIGHT TO AND NOTICE OF SAFE AND SICK LEAVE IV. USE OF SAFE AND SICK LEAVE V. HOW SAFE AND SICK LEAVE IS PAID VI. RETALIATION VII. EMPLOYER RECORDS VIII. COMPLAINTS AND ENFORCEMENT IX. OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS RELATED TO LEAVE 1 OLPS will update FAQs as appropriate. Please note the date at the bottom of FAQs and check nyc.gov/workers to make sure you have the most current FAQs. 2 Visit nyc.gov/workers for the law and rules, helpful sample documents, and information about other labor laws enforced by DCWP. Updated November 2, 2020 Page 1 of 41 I.