The Washington Times reports that the IRS will not be able to finish their investigation regarding the targeting of Tea Party and other groups, until far after the 2014 elections:
“John Koskinen, the man President Obama tapped to clean up the embattled agency, also said it will take years to respond to all of the document requests from Congress. He told Congress that even complying with a subpoena for emails from just a handful of key employees couldn’t be done before the end of this year because it takes time to have attorneys delete protected taxpayer information”.
It is quite convenient that there will be no resolution to the IRS scandal before the midterm elections, especially on top of the new proposed IRS regulations regarding 501(c)4s.
The IRS is an agency that needs to clean house from top to bottom.
So, the tax that was supposed to hit high income earners now also can affect children under certain conditions involving investment. Taxpayers — take note!
“Last Friday, the IRS published a tip on its website entitled “Tax Rules for Children with Investment Income.” Included is this note regarding the Net Investment Tax [emphasis added]:
Starting in 2013, a child whose tax is figured on Form 8615 may be subject to the Net Investment Income Tax. NIIT is a 3.8% tax on the lesser of either net investment income or the excess of the child’s modified adjusted gross income that is over a threshold amount”
During Bob Beckel’s recent appearance on “Cashin In”, Bob stated that “Wall Street investment bankers should be in jail because they nearly threw this country into depression”. This statement is quite ridiculous. Since when is the economic cycle grounds for throwing people in jail?
Bob Beckel has absolutely no information that anybody from Wall Street who committed any wrongdoing has not already been appropriately prosecuted. There is no more evidence that any of these people should be in jail than there is evidence that the economic recession was caused by Bob Beckel and his statements on television. Bob Beckel’s cluelessness was further demonstrated by his comment that implied that he did not believe that executive compensation is reduced even when companies were losing money! Does he have no contact whatsoever with the economic world?
It is quite clear that the major course of the recent meltdown was government activities creating an environment for making real estate loans that never should have been made. A short trip down memory lane through Youtube and the unconscionable congressional hearings moderated by Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd should be enough to remind Beckel of the real economic culprits.
It was all too obvious that when the Republicans tried to rein in this overextended lending policy of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they were viciously attacked as scare mongers and racists. For Bob Beckel to insist that unnamed Wall Street groups performed criminal activities in connection with this economic meltdown is incredibly irresponsible. From an evidentiary point of view, it is just as likely that Beckel committed criminal activities.
The extensive, substantive, and expensive Obamacare changes being made now on a regular basis by President Obama certainly appear to be an unconstitutional, if for no other reason than law changes of that magnitude seem clearly to be Congress’s domain. But the administration argues that these are just minor tweaks needed to ease the implementation of a vast new law. Let’s look at reality.
Government periodically changes tax rules through new legislation. Often, the new laws require clarification concerning how to interpret the law under certain conditions, and the law itself anticipates that the IRS will issue regulations, rulings, or procedures to assist in understanding the law. The President’s Obamacare changes have nothing to do with this, since the President is changing unambiguous, clearly understandable provisions of the law.
Often, especially when new laws reflect a major change from prior law, these new laws require a way to smooth the transition. So when President Clinton phased out exemptions and some deductions for high net-worth individuals, the law provided that only ⅓ of the disallowances would apply for the first year, ⅔ for the second year, and complete disallowances from the 3rd year forward. This is an example of a “transition rule”. It allowed for the substantial effects of the new law to be smoothly integrated into people’s tax lives.
As a CPA, I have to deal with the tax code side of things, and the process that happens with such tax changes is called the “transition rules”. Tedious as it may be, Congress spends a lot of time on these transition rules to get it right.
Having experienced major tax changes such as the 1986 IRC overhaul, and the Bush “tax cuts” of 2001 and 2003, I can say that the transition rules during these times were specific, onerous, and complicated. They particulars were negotiated by Congress down to every last period and exclamation point.
Everyone knows the transition rules are the province of Congress.
So for the President to come out and say that he has the universal right to make tax transition rules, it is laughable — and one of the biggest lies yet. If his advisors did not tell him it is Congress’s role to make transition rules, he should fire all of them for incompetence.
One of the most important things about transition rules is that Congress spends time negotiating in committee and on the floor, the revenue effect of those rules. They are complex and interwoven with the law and focus on the effects of implementing that law. An example might be for Congress to consider whether to make the pain of the law spread out over time, or implemented all at once.
It is absolutely irregular for President Obama to insert himself into law and play with the transition rules willy-nilly. As a CPA, I would demand to see his detailed analysis of the revenue effects of these changes. I am not confident that such an analysis exists.
It is absolutely critical to understand the problem that Obama creates: only Congress is allowed to appropriate revenue, not the President. Therefore, any transition rules changes made by Obama that wreak havoc on the budget lack the proper authority to appropriate extra revenue to cover the effect of such changes.
The recent revelation that the White House, congressional Democrats, and the CBO all now consider work to be a lifestyle choice reminds me of a scenario some years back with one of my clients.
There was a person who was getting a divorce, and the couple had 2 children. One of the discussions involved who was going to pay for the children’s college. The husband offered to pay 90% of the cost since he made substantially more money, leaving 10% as the wife’s portion to pay. This seemed to be a pretty fair offer.
The wife, on the other hand, did not agree that the offer was fair. Her rationale? If she ultimately got remarried down the road and decided to stay at home and not work, she would not be able to afford her 10% portion.
Understandably, the husband was taken aback. He said to her something along the lines of “you mean to tell me that you have a responsibility to take care of your children’s education, and because you have the chance not to work, then your children’s needs and your obligations somehow aren’t your responsibility anymore?”
The wife was understandably a little embarrassed, as she had never looked at it that way before.
Have you? We ought to have the moral compass not to insist that other people pay our bills for us.
This brings us back to Obamacare. It is not in any way morally acceptable, for those of us who are working, to subsidize people who prefer not to work and stay home and call it a “choice”.
Here’s the root of programs like Obamacare and welfare. A social safety net is supposed to be just that — a temporary hand-up, not a prolonged hand-out. A steady diet of benefits creates a disincentive to work. The decision not to work unfairly forces other people (who do work) to pay for the things that the benefit receipients should be paying for. With the expansion of programs such as food stamps, unemployment, and now healthcare, we are making it harder, if not impossible, to move out of that lower class rung.
What is Wall Street, anyway? I would be willing to bet that 90% of the protesters from Occupy Wall Street and of self-styled liberals have absolutely no idea what Wall Street is, what it does, and how important it is.
If not for Wall Street, there wouldn’t be any Main Street, certainly not as we know it today.
In order for any business to be successful, it must run on capital. Capital can be funded by an owner’s personal investment or through funds from outside investors. The ability to grow from the Mom and Pop store to the bigger corporation model is dependent upon the business owner’s ability to get risk capital.
This risk capital is necessary to rent the space, hire the employees, grow the inventory,and buy the equipment to get the business going. There is no guarantee that this money could ever be paid back. But the investors are willing to risk their hard-earned money in the hope that the venture is successful enough to 1) repay the money borrowed and 2) to give back a reasonable profit for the risk taken.
So where does that money typically come, that risk capital? Wall Street. Look around the house at what you have. Your lights? From the utility company. Where did that capital come from to build the utility plants, to lay the distribution networks, to expand them? Risk capital. Wall Street. Where did Macy’s get its start? Or Google, or IBM? Or any of the energy, pharmaceutical, or chemical companies? Or virtually any large corporation you can think of today — where did it get its funds to really get going and continue to grow? Wall Street.
And the people on Wall Street, people sometimes described (invariably by clueless politicians and populists who know nothing about what it takes to run a business or create jobs) as paper-pushers who make unconscionable amounts of money, what do they do?
They must be able to analyze how businesses (Main Street) work, and which ones (out of the many thousands out there all claiming to be worthy) are likely to be successful. They must develop the confidence of potential investors, and convince them to invest in these projects. They must bring the companies and investors together to agree on how much of the company the investors would get for the amount of capital that is being invested. Should the money invested be equity (ownership in the company) or bonds (loans to the company), and if bonds, what interest rate? Most importantly, more than in any other business, pay day never comes to Wall Street unless the capital is successfully raised. And if Main Street is not successful with its new capital, good luck for that Wall Street company in trying to raise money for its next project.
There have been abuses on Wall street, certainly. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that there are any more abuses than in any other business. And those abuses almost always are paid for with serious financial pain to those companies.
But none of these abuses can compare with the financial abuses and mismanagement that we endure daily from our government. Our government has us at the brink of bankruptcy, with a $17 trillion dollar debt (more than 100% of our GDP) which balloons to more than $100 trillion if our entitlement obligations are included.
We have President Obama and the Democratic leaders of the Senate (Harry Reid) and the House (Nancy Pelosi) saying that this is not a current problem (clearly not the truth) and spending money they don’t have to get votes for the next election. A short trip through YouTube (circa 2004-2005) clearly show that Barney Frank (Democratic House…), Chris Dodd (Democratic Senate ….) and Maxine Waters (Democratic House ….), among other Democrats, were principally responsible for the recent economic meltdown. The videos of Congressional Hearings demonstrate unquestionably that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were cooking their own books and lending to dangerously unqualified borrowers, but the Democrats prevented any remedial action to be taken.
And taxpayers and Main Street have borne the heavy burden of their negligence during this sluggish, anemic economic recovery.
Wall Street is an invisible backbone of our economy — providing the money and investments that are necessary to continue America’s upward mobility in all facets of our lives. Focusing only on trumped up Wall Street problems or buying into the class warfare hatred of the rich is misguided — especially while giving our government a free pass to use and abuse our taxpayer money each day.
It is really obvious to see that Ben Bernanke was not an independent Fed Chair, but just a lackey for President Obama. Though his responsibility was monetary policy, he was often asked why – despite the most stimulative monetary policy possible – the economy has shown the worst recovery, by far, since the Great Depression more than 80 years ago.
As a student of the Great Depression, Mr. Bernanke was fully aware of the disastrous policies of FDR that impeded the recovery – large tax increases, burdensome regulation, anti-business government programs, and overboard support of union labor- and that President Obama followed suit in every particular.
And yet not a word from Mr. Bernanke that these policies should be questioned. You might be able to say that the President didn’t know any better – you cannot say that about Mr. Bernanke.
I find Mr. Bernanke’s failure to address the exploding Obama regulatory excesses particularly inexcusable. The effect of new regulations from the EPA, NLRB, ObamaCare, Dodd Frank, etc., etc. clearly serves to curtail expansion plans, absorb capital that otherwise would have been used for growth, and increase the costs of starting a new business (clearly scuttling some). At least some meaningful portion of our scrawny recovery can be explained by this regulatory environment.
As Chair of the (supposedly) independent Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke owed it to the American people to speak out. This failure should be long-remembered.
The new pre-school plan presented by Mayor de Blasio reveals just how politically disingenuous he really is.
In his effort to push the progressive agenda he put forth during his campaign, de Blasio has vowed to have universal pre-school in New York State to be paid for only by the wealthiest New Yorkers.
Here’s the logical inconsistancy: If universal pre-school is the all-important and necessary step for all children in their educational development (the merits of which is fodder for another article entirely), then the only logical conclusion is that the cost should also be borne by all taxpayers the way K-12 already is — not just a select few. If “everyone” is not willing to pay his or her fair share of this “necessary” project, then maybe that tells us that it should not be done.
This line of thinking clearly echoes the Obama Administration’s sentiment that the rich “pay just a little bit more”, and it is not welcome in New York.
Today marks the fifth anniversary of the Santinelli Rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which spawned the infamous Tea Party (Taxed Enough Already?). Even if you heard it then, it’s definitely worthwhile listening to once more:
The first Tea Party protests subsequently followed on February 27th to protest the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus bill signed by President Barack Obama on February 17th, 2009.
There is raging debate about whether or not the Tea Party still holds the influence it did during the 2010 Congressional elections as well as whether or not ARRA helped our economy recovery.
“Five years later, the U.S. economy is undoubtedly in a stronger position, thanks to the grit and determination of our nation’s workers and businesses. The economy has now grown for 11 straight quarters, and businesses have added 8.5 million jobs since early 2010. While far more work remains to ensure that the economy provides opportunity for every American, there can be no question that President Obama’s actions to date have laid the groundwork for stronger, more sustainable economic growth in the years ahead.”
At the same time, Obama has more than doubled the public debt. CNS News reported that “the marketable debt of the U.S. government has more than doubled–climbing by 106 percent–while President Barack Obama has been in office, increasing from $5,749,916,000,000 at the end of January 2009 to $11,825,322,000,000 at the end of January 2014”
