White House Rundown: Tax changes, Franken, the Budget, health care, the OPE, credit cards, and air pollution

The White House Press releases have stacked up to a guilt-inducing and slightly concerning level in my inbox, so I decided to take the most recent (and to me, highest priority) and do a quick list-like rundown in one post to (a) clear my email and conscience, and (b) get us all up-to-date on a few current events and additional resources for more information.

Here we go, in chronological order from oldest to most recent:

7. Jason Furman responds to Twitter and Facebook comments about tax changes

"Yesterday, even before we posted here on the blog about the President's proposals to curb offshore tax havens and end tax incentives for companies shifting jobs overseas, we asked for your reactions on our various social networking outposts. As we expected, there were a lot of interesting comments and questions, largely supporting the President but some raising concerns and objections. We asked Jason Furman, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, to address some of them."

Read all of the questions and Jason Furman's answers at the whitehouse.gov blog.

Views on Taxation from a Fiscally Conservative DADocrat

After reading several of the MOMocrat posts and comments surrounding the Teabagging (giggle), loyal reader and DADocrat, T., asked if he could weigh in. Please be kind to him.  This is his first blog post ever.

I like most of the suggestions I have seen on MOMocrats here regarding the "positive side" of why we as U.S. Citizens pay our Federal Taxes.  I am, as the MOMocrats will verify, a fiscal conservative, although I am best described as Independent politically.

A couple of points for this tax time musing I would like to make.

First, lets compare apples to apples.  There are many different taxes we pay, some pay more, less, or none at all, given the disparities in the various sales, usage, property, personal property, sin, and income taxes across the 50 states.  So lets focus on Federal Income Tax.

Yes, it pays for all of the good things that we in this Nation have come to enjoy, in many cases take for granted, or have no idea we are even paying for it.  Our leaders, chosen by us, have instituted a relatively progressive system of collecting federal income tax.  A system that is, lets all admit, less than perfect given all of the deductions and loopholes that exist, but it is nonetheless what we have to work with.

I am not going to argue that taxes or what they pay for are inherently good, bad or indifferent.  I would like to comment on how what we pay affects the overall health and function of our capitalist economy.  Yes I said capitalist.  Our system of free enterprise is what makes our Nation great, and in the long run pulls us through rough times, and allows us to prosper in good times.

To that end, I would like to point out some middle ground regarding Federal Income Tax, and how its application fluctuates given the economic situation.  There are many theories;  Keynesian economics, Supply Side economics and even the good old Laffer Curve to help us understand the effects of taxes.  But in the end it is all a matter of what rates on which income brackets are best suited to a given economic situation.  

Assuming that a 0% tax and a 100% tax would certainly result in the same thing, Zero federal revenue and chaos in the economy, the answer lies somewhere in between.  Sometimes the market needs help and sometimes it needs to be left alone.  The tricky part, and the part many will never see eye to eye on, is to what degree does the government intervene or not intervene.  In this case the intervention stands on how we as a nation decide what our present fiscal policy should be regarding taxation and intervention into free enterprise.  I contend that for this precise moment in time our government should run a deficit, should intervene in the market, and should keep "everyone's" taxes on the low end of the spectrum.  That is not to say those factors should not change when the economic situation changes.  They will always fluctuate, indeed should fluctuate, and the crazies on both ends of the dogmatic/ideological spectrum are just going to have to live with that fact.

What we do not want to occur, and I firmly believe no one blue, red or purple would ever advocate for, is a system of taxation and intervention that results in the old Soviet maxim, "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us"

T is a dad of two young boys, a fiscal conservative, and he voted for GWB.  Twice.  Try not to throw rotten tomatoes at him.  He's seen the error of his ways.  T is not a blogger, but he plays one on TV. We're also pretty sure that the last line is an attempt to get flamed by liberal whack jobs who take themselves too seriously and not a reflection of T's actual views.

Dear AIG, I've Solved Your Bonus Problem!

I don't practice law anymore, but after having contract law in my head for over 15 years, there are still a few tidbits bouncing around in there. Maybe I'd be better off if that wasn't the case, because then this whole crapola story about AIG not being able to get out of paying $165 million in bonuses to its employees wouldn't keep me up at night.

As a recovering attorney, I know full well people break contracts every day -- that's why lawyers have jobs! It's not a question of whether you can break the deal or not, it's a matter of whether one is prepared to live with the consequences of breaching a contract. So if AIG just said, 'We know we agreed under other circumstances that we'd pay big bonuses, but we're not paying because things are drastically different,' what then?

Poor AIG says it has no alternative. Woe to the insurance giant. It's stuck.

Or they're crying wolf.

Legislative Recap: Helping Families Save Their Homes, Upcoming Votes, and Paid Parental Leave

Congress has been hard at work on the economy, government program funding, spending bills and more. Here's a short recap of all that's happening in DC:

H.R. 1106 Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

What this is: Rep. John Conyers [D-MI] and 24 cosponsors introduced this bill that was designed to help prevent mortgage foreclosures by expanding credit availability and modifying bankruptcy protections. It also provides protection for VA insured home loans. Its projected cost is $27 per American over the 2009-2014 period for a total of $107.79 per person or $277.01 average household. See calculator here for different calculations.

Click here to read the PDF of the entire bill.

Click here to read a solid summary of it by the GOP.

Status: The House passed this bill 234-191 on March 5, 2009. It now moves on to the Senate for consideration; however, the Senate may debate and vote on a companion bill rather than the exact House bill.

Click here for final vote results tally.

Click here to track this bill.

Econ 101: Crisis of Credit

For those readers out there who are still unsure about how housing, investment banks, your 401(k) and the economy are all tied together, this is a wonderful tutorial I found today at NPR's Planet Money. 

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Kady also blogs at Wonkess.

A Toolkit for Figuring Out the Senate & House Stimulus Bills

I thought I'd post some resources I found helpful in figuring out what's likely to create jobs in the House and Senate stimulus bills before the Senate votes on their version and the bills go to conference.

First of all, why does the stimulus bill require 60 votes or more in the 100-seat senate to pass? Short answer: it's a(n emergency) spending bill that exists outside the usual "budgeting/authorization/appropriations process" and has to comply with various laws that govern additional spending. Long, detailed, wonky answer: go here.

Econ 101: Stimulus

Momocrat Julie wrote a post earlier today, indignant over a member of the "Stimulati's" unfortunate characterization of the goals of the stimulus as spurring government spending instead of putting more dollars into the individual's hands "because...wait for it...we wouldn't spend it. Instead? We'd live on it."

We find ourselves in a precarious economic situation, and unfortunately, due to the bumbling idiocy that is Washington D.C., and the apparent impossibility of doing things in any way except the same old way, we are about to see our government take on a massive amount of debt in an attempt to "stimulate" ourselves out of this recession.

Now don't get me wrong.  Like Robert Reich, I'm dead-set against the Republican suggestion of all tax cuts all the time.  Tax cuts have their place, but it's hard to understand how anyone can justify tax cuts when we've had eight years of exuberant tax cutting which have gotten us to this very place.

On the other hand, we're clearly not in an era of post-partisanship when the ruling party (yes, Dems, I'm talking about you) takes a policy disagreement and turns it into a taunt, running as far in the other direction as possible, thumbing their noses all the while.