DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record—House H1990

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record—House H1990 H1990 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE April 19, 2012 McCarthy (CA) Posey Smith (NE) The result of the vote was announced ‘‘(C) DIRECT OWNER.—The term ‘direct owner’ McCarthy (NY) Price (GA) Smith (NJ) as above recorded. means, with respect to any qualified small busi- McCaul Price (NC) Smith (TX) ness, any person who owns (or is considered as McClintock Quigley Stated against: Smith (WA) owning under the applicable non-family attribu- McCollum Rehberg Southerland Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I was away from tion rules) any stock of such business (or, if McGovern Reyes Speier the Capitol due to prior commitments to my McHenry Richardson such business is other than a corporation, any Stearns constituents. Had I been present, I would have McIntyre Rivera Stutzman capital or profits interest of such business). McKeon Roby Sullivan voted ‘‘no.’’ ‘‘(D) 10-PERCENT-OR-LESS DIRECT OWNERS.— McKinley Roe (TN) Sutton f The term ‘10-percent-or-less direct owner’ McMorris Rogers (AL) Thompson (PA) means, with respect to any qualified small busi- Rodgers Rogers (KY) Thornberry SMALL BUSINESS TAX CUT ACT ness, any direct owner of such business who Mica Rogers (MI) Tiberi Michaud Rohrabacher Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to owns (or is considered as owning under the ap- Tierney plicable non-family attribution rules)— Miller (MI) Rokita Tipton House Resolution 620, I call up the bill Miller (NC) Roskam ‘‘(i) in the case of a qualified small business Tonko (H.R. 9) to amend the Internal Revenue Miller, Gary Ross (AR) Towns which is a corporation, not more than 10 per- Moore Ross (FL) Code of 1986 to provide a deduction for Tsongas cent of the outstanding stock of the corporation Moran Rothman (NJ) domestic business income of qualified Turner (NY) or stock possessing more than 10 percent of the Mulvaney Roybal-Allard Turner (OH) small businesses, and ask for its imme- total combined voting power of all stock of the Murphy (CT) Royce Murphy (PA) Runyan Upton diate consideration. corporation, or Myrick Ruppersberger Van Hollen The Clerk read the title of the bill. ‘‘(ii) in the case of a qualified small business Nadler Ryan (WI) Walden The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. which is not a corporation, not more than 10 Walz (MN) Neugebauer Scalise LATOURETTE). Pursuant to House Reso- percent of the capital or profits interest of such Noem Schiff Wasserman business. Schultz lution 620, the amendment in the na- Nunes Schmidt ‘‘(E) APPLICABLE NON-FAMILY ATTRIBUTION Watt Nunnelee Schwartz ture of a substitute recommended by RULES.—The term ‘applicable non-family attri- Olson Schweikert Waxman the Committee on Ways and Means, Webster bution rules’ means the attribution rules of sub- Palazzo Scott (SC) printed in the bill, is adopted. The bill, Pascrell Scott (VA) Welch section (c) or (e)(3) of section 267, as the case Pearce Scott, Austin West as amended, is considered read. may be, but in each case applied without regard Pelosi Scott, David Westmoreland The text of the bill, as amended, is as to section 267(c)(2). Pence Sensenbrenner Whitfield follows: ‘‘(3) W–2 WAGES.—For purposes of this sec- Perlmutter Serrano Wilson (FL) tion— H.R. 9 Petri Sessions Wilson (SC) ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘W–2 wages’ Pingree (ME) Sewell Wolf Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- means, with respect to any person for any tax- Womack Pitts Sherman resentatives of the United States of America in able year of such person, the sum of the Platts Shimkus Woolsey Congress assembled, Polis Shuster Yarmuth amounts described in paragraphs (3) and (8) of Pompeo Simpson Young (IN) SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. section 6051(a) paid by such person with respect This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business to employment of employees by such person dur- NAYS—118 Tax Cut Act’’. ing the calendar year ending during such tax- Adams Gerlach Olver SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR DOMESTIC BUSINESS IN- able year. Altmire Gibson Pallone COME OF QUALIFIED SMALL BUSI- ‘‘(B) LIMITATION TO WAGES ATTRIBUTABLE TO Andrews Graves (MO) Pastor (AZ) NESSES. QUALIFIED DOMESTIC BUSINESS INCOME.—Such Baldwin Green, Gene Paulsen (a) IN GENERAL.—Part VI of subchapter B of term shall not include any amount which is not Bass (CA) Griffin (AR) Peters chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 Benishek Grijalva Peterson properly allocable to domestic business gross re- Biggert Gutierrez Poe (TX) is amended by adding at the end the following ceipts for purposes of subsection (c)(1). Bishop (NY) Hanna Quayle new section: ‘‘(C) OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Except in the Boswell Hartzler Rahall ‘‘SEC. 200. DOMESTIC BUSINESS INCOME OF case of amounts treated as W–2 wages under Brady (PA) Heck Reed QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESSES. paragraph (4)— Burgess Herrera Beutler Reichert ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—In the case ‘‘(i) such term shall not include any amount Capuano Honda Renacci of a qualified small business, there shall be al- which is not allowed as a deduction under sec- Cardoza Hoyer Ribble lowed as a deduction an amount equal to 20 per- tion 162 for the taxable year, and Castor (FL) Huelskamp Richmond Chandler Israel Rigell cent of the lesser of— ‘‘(ii) such term shall not include any amount Chu Jackson (IL) Rooney ‘‘(1) the qualified domestic business income of which is not properly included in a return filed Clarke (NY) Jackson Lee Ros-Lehtinen the taxpayer for the taxable year, or with the Social Security Administration on or Cleaver (TX) Rush ‘‘(2) taxable income (determined without re- before the 60th day after the due date (including Clyburn Johnson (OH) Ryan (OH) gard to this section) for the taxable year. extensions) for such return. Coffman (CO) Keating Sa´ nchez, Linda ‘‘(b) DEDUCTION LIMITED BASED ON WAGES ‘‘(4) CERTAIN PARTNERSHIP DISTRIBUTIONS Cohen Kind T. PAID.— TREATED AS W–2 WAGES.— Conaway Kucinich Sanchez, Loretta ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The amount of the deduc- ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a qualified Costa Langevin Sarbanes Costello Latham Schakowsky tion allowable under subsection (a) for any tax- small business which is a partnership and elects Courtney Lee (CA) Schilling able year shall not exceed 50 percent of the the application of this paragraph for the taxable Cravaack Lewis (GA) Schock greater of— year— Critz LoBiondo Shuler ‘‘(A) the W–2 wages of the taxpayer paid to ‘‘(i) the qualified domestic business taxable in- DeFazio Luetkemeyer Sires non-owners, or come of such partnership for such taxable year Dent Lynch Stark ‘‘(B) the sum of— (determined after the application of clause (ii)) DesJarlais Markey Stivers ‘‘(i) the W–2 wages of the taxpayer paid to in- which is allocable under rules similar to the Dold Matheson Terry Donnelly (IN) McCotter Thompson (CA) dividuals who are non-owner family members of rules of section 199(d)(1)(A)(ii) to each qualified Duffy McDermott Thompson (MS) direct owners, plus service-providing partner shall be treated for Fattah McNerney Vela´ zquez ‘‘(ii) any W–2 wages of the taxpayer paid to purposes of this section as W–2 wages paid dur- Fitzpatrick Meehan Visclosky 10-percent-or-less direct owners. ing such taxable year to such partner as an em- Forbes Meeks Walberg ‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS RELATED TO OWNERSHIP.— ployee, and Foxx Miller (FL) Waters For purposes of this section— ‘‘(ii) the domestic business gross receipts of Fudge Miller, George Wittman ‘‘(A) NON-OWNER.—The term ‘non-owner’ such partnership for such taxable year shall be Gardner Neal Woodall means, with respect to any qualified small busi- reduced by the amount so treated. Garrett Nugent Yoder ness, any person who does not own (and is not ‘‘(B) QUALIFIED SERVICE-PROVIDING PART- ANSWERED ‘‘PRESENT’’—3 considered as owning within the meaning of NER.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term Amash Gohmert Owens subsection (c) or (e)(3) of section 267, as the case ‘qualified service-providing partner’ means, may be) any stock of such business (or, if such with respect to any qualified domestic business NOT VOTING—20 business is other than a corporation, any cap- taxable income, any partner who is a 10-per- Bass (NH) Flake Rangel ital or profits interest of such business). cent-or-less direct owner and who materially Bishop (UT) Gosar Schrader ‘‘(B) NON-OWNER FAMILY MEMBERS.—An indi- participates in the trade or business to which Braley (IA) Guinta Slaughter vidual is a non-owner family member of a direct such income relates. Burton (IN) Manzullo Walsh (IL) owner if— ‘‘(5) ACQUISITIONS AND DISPOSITIONS.—The Cummings Marino Young (AK) ‘‘(i) such individual is family (within the Secretary shall provide for the application of Davis (KY) Napolitano Young (FL) Filner Paul meaning of section 267(c)(4)) of a direct owner, this subsection in cases where the taxpayer ac- and quires, or disposes of, the major portion of a b 1057 ‘‘(ii) such individual would be a non-owner if trade or business or the major portion of a sepa- subsections (c) and (e)(3) of section 267 were ap- rate unit of a trade or business during the tax- So the Journal was approved. plied without regard to section 267(c)(2). able year. VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:25 Apr 20, 2012 Jkt 019060 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19AP7.007 H19APPT1 smartinez on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE April 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H1991 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED DOMESTIC BUSINESS INCOME.— subsection (m) or (o) of section 414 shall be ‘‘(C) any deduction allowable under section For purposes of this section— treated as a single employer for purposes of this 200,’’. ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified domes- subsection. (9) Section 1402(a) of such Code is amended by tic business income’ for any taxable year means ‘‘(B) PREDECESSORS.—Any reference in this striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (16), by an amount equal to the excess (if any) of— subsection to an employer shall include a ref- redesignating paragraph (17) as paragraph (18), ‘‘(A) the taxpayer’s domestic business gross re- erence to any predecessor of such employer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
    S. HRG. 112–733 PRESIDENT’S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 2012 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 79–764—PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 20:27 Mar 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 R:\DOCS\79764.000 TIMD COMMITTEE ON FINANCE MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah KENT CONRAD, North Dakota CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona RON WYDEN, Oregon MIKE CRAPO, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York PAT ROBERTS, Kansas DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN CORNYN, Texas BILL NELSON, Florida TOM COBURN, Oklahoma ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN THUNE, South Dakota THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Staff Director CHRIS CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 20:27 Mar 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 R:\DOCS\79764.000 TIMD C O N T E N T S OPENING STATEMENTS Page Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee on Finance ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • US Elections
    U.S. Elections: Policy and Market Implications BY PAUL HOFFMEISTER OCTOBER 5, 2016 MONEY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE - 2016 EMERGING ASSET MANAGERS FORUM COPYRIGHT 2016 Contents o Election Outlook o Tax and Trade Outlook o Market Implications o Investment Frameworks o Biggest Policy Surprise? 2 Does it matter who becomes the next President? The post-WW2 statistics… Real GDP ◦ Democratic Presidents: 4.35% ◦ Republican Presidents: 2.54% Unemployment ◦ Democratic Presidents: Fell 0.8 percentage points ◦ Republican Presidents: Rose 1.1 percentage points Inflation ◦ Fared similarly S&P 500 Returns (annualized) ◦ Democratic Presidents 8.08% ◦ Republican Presidents 2.70% Source: "Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration", Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson, Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Economics, Princeton University, July 2014 3 Race for the White House Will it be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? ◦ Clinton: ◦ Betting Markets ◦ PredictIt.org 68% probability ◦ Iowa Electronic Markets 67% (compared to 80% on August 17) ◦ Trump: ◦ USC/LA Times Poll: Trump 46.3%, Clinton 42.4% ◦ Brexit vote phenomenon ◦ Remain traded 85% likelihood on election day ◦ Trump has consistently defied betting markets (e.g. early and late GOP primaries) ◦ Swing states: Ohio +5, Florida +3, Nevada +2 (as of September 14) ◦ Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight.com): ◦ Probability: Clinton 55.8%, Trump 44.2% ◦ Electoral Votes: Clinton 278.3 electoral votes, Trump 259.4 4 What Party will control the Senate? Democrats need 4 if Clinton wins, 5 if Trump wins. 11
    [Show full text]
  • Playing Fair: Distribution, Economic Growth, and Fairness in Federal and State Tax Debates
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLL\51-1\HLL103.txt unknown Seq: 1 12-FEB-14 13:45 SYMPOSIUM: CLASS IN AMERICA PLAYING FAIR: DISTRIBUTION, ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND FAIRNESS IN FEDERAL AND STATE TAX DEBATES JOSEPH D. HENCHMAN* AND CHRISTOPHER L. STEPHENS** Intuitions of fairness drive many federal and state tax policy decisions. But these intuitions, however strongly felt, can be exceedingly difficult to operation- alize and implement without unforeseen consequences. This Article examines several salient examples of such policies, including the estate tax, the Bush tax cuts, the Alternative Minimum Tax, the Buffett Rule, and state millionaires’ taxes. In doing so, this Article attempts to reveal flaws in the redistributive impulse for taxation policy by assessing some of its political and economic ramifications as well as the unreliable measurements of fairness that form the foundation of these policies. “[T]he present tax code contains special preferences and provi- sions, all of which narrow the tax base (thus requiring higher rates), artificially distort the use of resources, inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many eco- nomic decisions.” —President John F. Kennedy1 I. INTRODUCTION In May 2012, presidential candidate Mitt Romney confidentially told guests at a fundraiser that “[47%] of Americans pay no income tax” and that “they will vote for this president no matter what.”2 Secretly recorded and released in September of that year, the videotaped comments severely, perhaps fatally, damaged Romney’s chances of defeating President Barack Obama.3 * Vice President for Legal & State Projects at the Tax Foundation, Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • A Buffett Rule for Social Security and Medicare: Phasing out Benefits for High Income Retirees
    Penn State Law eLibrary Journal Articles Faculty Works 1-1-2012 A Buffett Rule foro S cial Security and Medicare: Phasing Out Benefits for High Income Retirees Samuel C. Thompson Jr. Penn State Law Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/fac_works Part of the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Samuel C. Thompson Jr., A Buffett Rule for Social Security and Medicare: Phasing Out Benefits of r High Income Retirees, 50 U. Louisville L. Rev. 603 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A BUFFETT RULE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE: PHASING OUT BENEFITS FOR HIGH INCOME RETIREES Samuel C. Thompson, Jr. I. INTRODUCTION A. Three Deficit and Debt Proposals The concern with the federal budget deficits' and the growing federal debe has brought forth three principal proposals: (1) the December 2010 proposal by the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (the Deficit Commission Proposal);3 (2) the April 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution, The Path to Prosperity, advanced by Congressman Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on the Budget (the Ryan Proposal);4 and (3) the proposal of President Obama set out in a speech he gave at George Washington University on . I would like to thank the following for their helpful comments on this paper: the faculty members at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law who participated in a forum on the paper; Professor Richard Kaplan of the University of Illinois College of Law, an expert in income tax and elder law; Professor Joel Handler of the UCLA School of Law; and my research assistants at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law: Stephen Anderson, Marc Boiron, Grace Hahn, Jake Mattinson, and Becky Sue Thompson.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 112 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 112 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 158 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2012 No. 60 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. and was The American people realize some- proactively and, as reflected in the 27 called to order by the Speaker pro tem- thing that my Democrat friends don’t job-creating measures passed by the pore (Mr. PALAZZO). seem to understand: that government House this Congress alone, to ensure f cannot create jobs and shouldn’t be in job providers are able to create, inno- the business of handing out jobs. In vate, and lead. DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO 2010, the American people sent me and We hope our friends in the Senate TEMPORE many of my colleagues to Washington and White House will decide to join us The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- to cut government spending and offer as we say ‘‘yes’’ to American jobs for fore the House the following commu- real solutions to job creation. We have American people. nication from the Speaker: been aggressively fighting to achieve f WASHINGTON, DC, that challenge. April 25, 2012. Our country needs commonsense, AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE I hereby appoint the Honorable STEVEN M. pro-growth policies that will help EXCHANGE COUNCIL PALAZZO to act as Speaker pro tempore on small business regain their confidence. this day. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The When business owners have faith that JOHN A. BOEHNER, Chair recognizes the gentleman from Speaker of the House of Representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercatus Research
    MERCATUS RESEARCH TAX GIMMICKS Antony Davies and Devin Bowen Bridging the gap between academic ideas and real-world problems ABOUT THE MERCATUS CENTER AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY The Mercatus Center at George Mason University is the world’s premier university source for market-oriented ideas—bridging the gap between academic ideas and real-world problems. A university-based research center, Mercatus advances knowledge about how markets work to improve people’s lives by training graduate students, conduct- ing research, and applying economics to offer solutions to society’s most pressing problems. Our mission is to generate knowledge and understanding of the institutions that affect the freedom to prosper and to find sustainable solutions that overcome the barriers preventing individuals from living free, prosperous, and peaceful lives. Founded in 1980, the Mercatus Center is located on George Mason University’s Arlington campus. www.mercatus.org Copyright © 2012 by Antony Davies and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University Mercatus Center George Mason University 3351 North Fairfax Drive, 4th Floor Arlington, VA 22201-4433 (703) 993-4930 mercatus.org Release date: October 11, 2012 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Antony Davies is associate professor of economics at Duquesne University and a Mercatus Center-affiliated senior scholar. His primary research interests include forecasting and rational expectations, consumer behavior, international economics, and mathematical economics. Davies’ research has appeared in the Journal of Econometrics, the Journal of Consumer Psychology, the Journal of Economic Psychology, the International Journal of Forecasting, Clinical Cancer Research, Applied Economics, the Journal of Socioeconomics, and Analysis of Panels and Limited Dependent Variable Models (pub- lished by Cambridge University Press).
    [Show full text]
  • Why We Need a Buffett Rule Seven Convincing Reasons
    Why We Need a Buffett Rule Seven Convincing Reasons Seth Hanlon February 2012 In recent months President Barack Obama articulated a fairness principle known as the “Buffett Rule,” named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who disclosed that he pays a smaller percentage of his income in federal taxes than his secretary. The Buffett Rule holds that no millionaire should pay a lower effective tax rate than middle-class families. On February 1, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012. The bill would turn the principle behind the Buffett Rule into a rule of the U.S. tax code, requiring that all households with incomes above $1 million pay at least a 30 percent minimum tax rate (with a phase-in for incomes between $1 million and $2 million). Here are seven compelling reasons why we need a Buffett Rule. 1. The incomes of the top 1 percent have skyrocketed over the past three decades, nearly quadrupling and leaving middle-class incomes far behind. Rising inequality has meant that the very rich have captured an outsized share of the country’s economic gains. Inequality on the rise Average after-tax income in constant dollars, 1979-2007 $1,319,700 1,400,000 $55,300 1,200,000 Middle quintile Top 1% 1,000,000 800,000 $44,100 600,000 $346,600 400,000 200,000 0 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Source: CBO 1 Center for American Progress | Why We Need a Buffett Rule: Seven Convincing Reasons 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Attention: Deficit Disorder - ALR's National Polling Summary
    9/7/2018 Attention: Deficit Disorder - ALR's National Polling Summary September 30, 2011 Anzalone Liszt Research National Polling Summary ______________________________________________________________________________________ Friends, Below you will find the weekly Anzalone Liszt Research National Polling Newsletter, which provides a pollster's take on data and trends that affect political campaigns. With the debt super committee's deadline less than two months away, we thought it would be a good time to review what the public would like to see the committee propose, their initial reactions to its creation, and their thoughts on its prospects for success. Most notably, polling from the past two months reveals that President Obama's proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy and his commitment to protecting Medicare from any significant changes reflect the opinions of the vast majority of Americans. As a result, the GOP's polar opposite positions on these two issues puts the party significantly out of step with the public. Following our analysis are additional news items and data we thought you'd enjoy. John Anzalone and Jeff Liszt _____________________________________________________________________________________ STORY THIS WEEK: Attention: Deficit Disorder Americans oppose big Medicare cuts, but are divided on defense cuts Make no mistake, Americans are eager to see the deficit addressed in a serious way. In April, a Washington Post/Pew poll found that 81% of Americans felt that the federal budget deficit was a problem that needs to be addressed now, with just 14% saying that it should be addressed when the economy improves. But this desire for action does not mean that Americans welcome just any deficit reduction proposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Framing Protest: News Coverage of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Movements
    Framing Protest: News Coverage of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Movements A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Sociology of the College of Arts and Sciences by William Zinser B.A. University of Cincinnati April 2007 Committee Chairs: Annulla Linders, Ph.D. David Maume, Ph.D. Abstract In regards to contemporary, American political movements, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movement have both generated quite a bit of news coverage. In this thesis I examine what type of coverage each movement receive, determine how coverage differs across the two movements, and propose an explanation for the differences. There is an extensive sociological literature on news media, both in terms of institutional practices and media products. For the purpose of this project, the literature on media framing of protest movements is especially important. Drawing on a framework which employs McLeod and Hertog’s protest paradigm, Boykoff’s frames of dissent, and Iyengar’s distinction between episodic and thematic framing, this study uses a content analysis to discern if frames used by The New York Times and USA Today -when covering the Tea Party and Occupy movement- differ, and if so, how. The findings show that, overall, the Occupy movement receive less favorable coverage in that Occupy protesters are more likely to be represented as deviant in some way, whereas Tea Party activists are more likely to be represented as having credible political demands. These differences, I argue, are due to the Tea Party’s less threatening concerns to the capitalist system.
    [Show full text]
  • State and Federal Individual Capital Gains Tax Rates: How High Could They Go? a Special Report by the ACCF Center for Policy Research
    Special Report State and Federal Individual Capital Gains Tax Rates: How High Could They Go? A Special Report by the ACCF Center for Policy Research As the debate on federal tax reform continues, the ACCF Center for Policy Research (CPR) presents this Special Report to further the debate and highlight the effect of increased federal tax rates on long-term individual capital gains tax rates when both the federal, state and, in some cases, local tax rates are combined. Long-term individual capital gains contribute significant amounts to state’s taxable income. Thus important questions are whether higher federal rates, combined with state capital gains taxes may reduce state’s budget receipts as well as overall investment and job growth. Background: is unclear whether President Obama’s new 30% tax minimum target rate would include the Medicare tax. Growing talk of tax reform and ongoing discussion of the “Buffett Rule”, based on the idea that wealthy individuals should pay a higher percentage of their in- Policy Scenarios: come in Federal taxes, has once more put the taxa- As Americans face the possibility of a higher Federal tion of investment income and capital gains in the top capital gains tax rate, it may be helpful to examine spotlight. Currently, the Federal top individual capital the ramifications of such a policy shift. Raising the top gains tax rate is 15%, however this rate is set to expire Federal rate would exacerbate the combined Federal on December 31, 2012 and revert to 20% in 2013. In and State tax burden on the sale of capital assets al- addition, high income households (single filers making ready faced by taxpayers in most states as well as po- more than $200,000 or married couples making more tential tax rate increases.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxes Really Do Matter: Look at the States
    TAXES REALLY DO MATTER: LOOK AT THE STATES By Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore I. LESSONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION FROM HIGHEST AND LOWEST TAX STATES Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress are betting the future of the U.S. economy on a gamble that tax rates don’t matter, so raising income taxes, dividend taxes and capital gains taxes in 2013 won’t hurt the economy. The evidence from the states, however, suggests just the opposite is true. We’ve looked at the evidence for more than two decades, with data dating back to 1960, and we’ve found that in any 10-year period you look at, the no-income tax states consistently outperform the equivalent number of the highest income tax states (see Figure 1). Figure 1 10-Year Personal Income Growth Rates for No-Income Tax States and Highest Income Tax States (annual, percentage, period 1971-2010) 70% 70% No Personal Income Tax States 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% Highest Personal Income Tax States 20% 20% 10% 10% 10-Year Growth Premium of No-Income Tax States over Highest Income Tax States 0% 0% 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Laffer Associates For example, over the most recent 10-year period, 2001-10, the average of the nine states without income taxes—Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming—had 14% growth in population—versus 9% for all states and only 5.5% for the nine highest income tax states—Oregon, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, New York, Vermont, Maryland, Maine and Ohio.
    [Show full text]
  • Alex Mark Brill
    1789 Massachusetts Ave. NW 202.862.5931 ALEX M. BRILL Washington, DC 20036 [email protected] PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE American Enterprise Institute Resident Fellow, 2017–Present Research Fellow, 2007–2017 Research Assistant, 1997–1999 Matrix Global Advisors, LLC CEO and Founder, 2007–Present Hooper Lundy & Bookman PC Economic Policy Advisor, 2012–Present Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations Louis O. Kelso Fellow, 2017–2018 U.S. Chamber Foundation Fellow, 2012–2013 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Economic Policy Advisor, 2007–2012 Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives Senior Advisor to the Chairman, 2005–2007 Chief Economist, 2003–2007 Senior Economist, 2002–2003 White House Council of Economic Advisers Staff Economist, 2001–2002 EDUCATION Boston University, M.A. Mathematical Finance, 2001 Tufts University, B.A. Economics, 1997 BOOKS Carbon Tax Policy: A Conservative Dialogue on Pro-Growth Opportunities, Alliance for Market Solutions, 2017. Editor. The Real Tax Burden: More Than Dollars and Cents, AEI Press, 2011. With Alan D. Viard. ARTICLES AND STUDIES “The Cost of Brand Drug Product Hopping.” MGA Study, September 2020. “Negative Economic Impact of Restricting Drug Rebates in Medicare Part D.” MGA Study, September 2020. “The Negative Economic Effects of Medicare Buy-In and Public Option Proposals.” MGA Study, August 2020. Alex M. Brill “The Economic Cost and Spatial Diffusion of the Opioid Crisis, 2009–18.” (with Scott Ganz and Burke O’Brien) AEI Economic Perspectives, June 29, 2020. “Progressivity, Redistribution, and Inequality.” (with Scott Ganz) National Affairs, June 23, 2020. “Lessons for the United States from Europe’s Biosimilar Experience.” MGA Study, June 2020.
    [Show full text]