Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
I'd forgotten about that saying. Let's GOTV & make it happen! 
because many of us working in the federal sector were frustrated at the administration for not following the Pay Comparability Act of 1990 formula to provide wage increases to bring the federal salaries closer to that in private industry for the same positions, citing all kinds of things including "economic issues" (that were non-existent) -
Clinton to OK Pay Raise
August 29, 1997
THE DAILY FED
President Clinton will authorize a 2.8 percent average pay increase for federal workers, The Washington Post reported Friday.
The raise will be divided between a 2.3 percent base pay increase and locality pay raises that will average 0.5 percent.
Under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA), which requires the Federal Salary Council to close the gap between federal and nonfederal pay rates, white-collar executive branch employees would have received a 10 percent average pay raise. However, the Clinton administration has rejected the law's formulas as based on flawed methodology.
(snip)
https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1997/08/clinton-to-ok-pay-raise/3999/
August 29, 1997
THE DAILY FED
President Clinton will authorize a 2.8 percent average pay increase for federal workers, The Washington Post reported Friday.
The raise will be divided between a 2.3 percent base pay increase and locality pay raises that will average 0.5 percent.
Under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA), which requires the Federal Salary Council to close the gap between federal and nonfederal pay rates, white-collar executive branch employees would have received a 10 percent average pay raise. However, the Clinton administration has rejected the law's formulas as based on flawed methodology.
(snip)
https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1997/08/clinton-to-ok-pay-raise/3999/
But then come that 1998 election year, a few things "changed"
-
Clinton approves 3.6 percent pay raise
August 20, 1998
President Clinton Thursday approved a 3.6 percent average pay raise for federal civilian employees and military personnel next year, and will propose a 4.4 percent increase for the following year. "Today, the government operates more efficiently and better serves the American people," Clinton said in announcing the raise. "This success would not have been possible without government employees who have been called upon to work harder and to do more with less."
Federal employee organizations, who had asked Clinton to endorse a 5.8 percent raise for next year, were quick to denounce the President's proposal. "Rather than honestly addressing the growing pay inequity between the federal and private sectors, President Clinton has thumbed his nose at the federal work force by urging Congress to approve a pay raise that actually worsens the current pay gap," American Federation of Government Employees President Bobby Harnage said Wednesday.
In an effort to mute such criticism, Clinton not only announced next year's raise, but also recommended a 4.4 percent average increase for the year 2000 well in advance of when such proposals are typically announced.
The two increases together would amount to the largest federal pay increase in nearly two decades, administration officials told the Washington Post. "We wanted to keep [federal employees] even with inflation," a senior administration official told the paper. "They've done a good job."
(snip)
https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/08/clinton-approves-36-percent-pay-raise/4047/
August 20, 1998
President Clinton Thursday approved a 3.6 percent average pay raise for federal civilian employees and military personnel next year, and will propose a 4.4 percent increase for the following year. "Today, the government operates more efficiently and better serves the American people," Clinton said in announcing the raise. "This success would not have been possible without government employees who have been called upon to work harder and to do more with less."
Federal employee organizations, who had asked Clinton to endorse a 5.8 percent raise for next year, were quick to denounce the President's proposal. "Rather than honestly addressing the growing pay inequity between the federal and private sectors, President Clinton has thumbed his nose at the federal work force by urging Congress to approve a pay raise that actually worsens the current pay gap," American Federation of Government Employees President Bobby Harnage said Wednesday.
In an effort to mute such criticism, Clinton not only announced next year's raise, but also recommended a 4.4 percent average increase for the year 2000 well in advance of when such proposals are typically announced.
The two increases together would amount to the largest federal pay increase in nearly two decades, administration officials told the Washington Post. "We wanted to keep [federal employees] even with inflation," a senior administration official told the paper. "They've done a good job."
(snip)
https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/08/clinton-approves-36-percent-pay-raise/4047/
(this was the period of that damn "do more with less"
)
But to your point -
THE 1998 ELECTIONS: CONGRESS -- THE OVERVIEW; G.O.P. IN SCRAMBLE OVER BLAME FOR POOR SHOWING AT THE POLLS
By Alison Mitchell and Eric Schmitt
Nov. 5, 1998
Stunned by the Democratic resurgence in the midterm elections, Congressional Republicans tore into one another yesterday over who was to blame for their failure to make the traditional opposition party gains in an off-year election.
The soul-searching and recriminations -- and a possibility of Congressional leadership challenges -- came as election results showed that Republicans had been unable to increase their 55-to-45-vote margin in the Senate and that Democrats had picked up five seats in the House.
The Democratic surge was the first time since 1934 that the President's party had gained seats in a midterm election and it whittled the Republican lead in the House down to 12 votes and the majority to 6. The Democratic victories were even more remarkable in a year marked by the monthslong scandal over President Clinton's affair with Monica S. Lewinsky.
The Republicans' new 223-to-211 majority (assuming a Democrat leading in Oregon holds on to win), with one independent, amounted to the smallest Congressional majority since the Republican-led Congress of 1953, the last time Republicans controlled the House until they captured it again in 1994.
(snip)
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/05/us/1998-elections-congress-overview-gop-scramble-over-blame-for-poor-showing-polls.html
By Alison Mitchell and Eric Schmitt
Nov. 5, 1998
Stunned by the Democratic resurgence in the midterm elections, Congressional Republicans tore into one another yesterday over who was to blame for their failure to make the traditional opposition party gains in an off-year election.
The soul-searching and recriminations -- and a possibility of Congressional leadership challenges -- came as election results showed that Republicans had been unable to increase their 55-to-45-vote margin in the Senate and that Democrats had picked up five seats in the House.
The Democratic surge was the first time since 1934 that the President's party had gained seats in a midterm election and it whittled the Republican lead in the House down to 12 votes and the majority to 6. The Democratic victories were even more remarkable in a year marked by the monthslong scandal over President Clinton's affair with Monica S. Lewinsky.
The Republicans' new 223-to-211 majority (assuming a Democrat leading in Oregon holds on to win), with one independent, amounted to the smallest Congressional majority since the Republican-led Congress of 1953, the last time Republicans controlled the House until they captured it again in 1994.
(snip)
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/05/us/1998-elections-congress-overview-gop-scramble-over-blame-for-poor-showing-polls.html
So YES it can be done when there is a GOP overreach (and in 1998, they were in the midst of their impeachment of Clinton).
particularly the "top" nominal tax rate. Since 1981, there has been a veritable soap opera of tax changes, little for the good -
The original overhaul of the tax code that sent us down the rabbit hole -
H.R.4242 - Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Title I: Individual Income Tax Provisions - Subtitle A - Tax Reductions - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to reduce individual and estate and trust income tax rates for 1982, 1983, 1984 and thereafter. Reduces the highest marginal tax rate for all types of income from 70 to 50 percent, effective in 1982 (thus repealing the provisions limiting the income tax rate on personal service income to 50 percent). Reduces the alternative minimum tax on individuals and the personal holding company tax to correspond with the reductions in the highest marginal tax rates. Establishes a maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains of 20 percent for sales and exchanges occurring after June 9, 1981.
And that started the ball rolling and lead to this -
H.R.3838 - Tax Reform Act of 1986
Title I: Individual Income Tax Provisions - Subtitle A: Rate Reductions; Increase in Standard Deduction and Personal Exemptions - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to revise the income tax rates for individuals and certain estates and trusts. Sets such rates at: (1) 15 percent of taxable income up to $29,750 and $4,462.50 plus 28 percent of the excess over $29,750 for married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses; (2) 15 percent of taxable income up to $23,900 and $3,585 plus 28 percent of the excess over $23,900 for heads of households; (3) 15 percent of taxable income up to $17,850 and $2,677.50 plus 28 percent of the excess over $18,850 for single individuals; (4) 15 percent of taxable income up to $14,875 and $2,231.25 plus 28 percent of the excess over $14,875 for married individuals filing separate returns; and (5) 15 percent of taxable income up to $5,000 and $750 plus 28 percent of the excess over $5,000 for estates and trusts. Allows cost-of-living adjustments in such tax rates. Phases out the 15-percent bracket for taxpayers above certain income levels through a rate adjustment requiring additional tax liability. Provides that such revised rates shall tax effect for taxable years beginning in 1988. Sets forth an interim tax rate schedule for taxable years beginning in 1987.
and then these -
H.R.5835 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
Title XI: Revenue Provisions - Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 - Subtitle A: Individual Income Tax Provisions - Part I: Provisions Affecting High-Income Individuals - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the maximum marginal income tax rate to 31 percent. Repeals the current phase-out of the 15-percent rate and personal exemptions. Phases-out the deduction for personal exemptions as a taxpayer's adjusted gross income exceeds a threshold amount. Increases the individual alternative minimum tax rate. Provides an overall limitation on itemized deductions. Disallows such deduction for unnecessary cosmetic surgery.
H.R.2264 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Subchapter B: Revenue Increases - Increases the marginal tax rate for certain higher incomes. Imposes a surtax on certain higher incomes.
Ed. top marginal rate to 39.6%
Ed. top marginal rate to 39.6%
H.R.1836 - Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Title I: Individual Income Tax Rate Reductions - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to establish, as of tax year 2001, a 10 percent individual tax bracket for each filing status applicable to the first: (1) $12,000 ($14,000 for 2008 and thereafter) of taxable income for the married filing jointly category; (2) $10,000 of taxable income for the head of household category; and (3) $6,000 ($7,000 for 2008 and thereafter) of taxable income for either the filing as unmarried or married filing separate return categories.
Phases in reductions, beginning in 2001, of the 28 percent, 31 percent, 36 percent, and 39.6 percent brackets. Reduces each rate by one percentage point annually (with an additional 1.6 percent decrease for the 39.6 percent category), so that for years 2006 and thereafter the rates for each category will be, respectively, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, and 35 percent.
Phases in reductions, beginning in 2001, of the 28 percent, 31 percent, 36 percent, and 39.6 percent brackets. Reduces each rate by one percentage point annually (with an additional 1.6 percent decrease for the 39.6 percent category), so that for years 2006 and thereafter the rates for each category will be, respectively, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, and 35 percent.
H.R.2 - Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - Title I: Acceleration of Certain Previously Enacted Tax Reductions - (Sec. 101) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to accelerate the increase to the $1,000 child tax credit to include 2003 and 2004. Maintains the levels and the sunset established under the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) for years following.
Provides for advance payment for 2003.
Ed. had a sunset provision of 10 years
Provides for advance payment for 2003.
Ed. had a sunset provision of 10 years
H.R.8 - American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 - Title I: General Extensions - (Sec. 101) Makes permanent the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 for individual taxpayers whose taxable income is at or below a $400,000 threshold amount ($450,000 for married couples filing a joint return).
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) revise income tax rates for individual taxpayers whose taxable income is at or below the $400,000 threshold amount ($450,000 for married couples filing a joint return) and increase the rate to 39.6% for taxpayers whose taxable income exceeds the threshold, (2) set the threshold for the phaseout of personal tax exemptions and itemized deductions at $250,000 for individual taxpayers ($300,000 for married couples filing a joint return), and (3) increase the top marginal estate tax rate from 35% to 40%.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) revise income tax rates for individual taxpayers whose taxable income is at or below the $400,000 threshold amount ($450,000 for married couples filing a joint return) and increase the rate to 39.6% for taxpayers whose taxable income exceeds the threshold, (2) set the threshold for the phaseout of personal tax exemptions and itemized deductions at $250,000 for individual taxpayers ($300,000 for married couples filing a joint return), and (3) increase the top marginal estate tax rate from 35% to 40%.
H.R.1 - An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to reduce tax rates and modify policies, credits, and deductions for individuals and businesses. It also establishes an oil and gas leasing program for the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.
(Unless otherwise specified, provisions referred to in this summary as temporary or as a suspension of an existing provision apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026.)
TITLE I
Subtitle A-- Individual Tax Reform
Part I--Tax Rate Reform
(Sec. 11001) This section temporarily replaces the existing tax brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, and 39.6%) with new brackets (10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% , 37%) and specifies the income levels that apply for each bracket.
(Unless otherwise specified, provisions referred to in this summary as temporary or as a suspension of an existing provision apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026.)
TITLE I
Subtitle A-- Individual Tax Reform
Part I--Tax Rate Reform
(Sec. 11001) This section temporarily replaces the existing tax brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, and 39.6%) with new brackets (10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% , 37%) and specifies the income levels that apply for each bracket.
(I will add this link for a table of all these changes because it is a good source of what changed what to what - https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/)
The below is from here (leading up to what was the 2017 tax cuts legislation rammed through by the previous administration) - https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2017/03/21/if-you-think-taxes-are-too-high-you-need-to-read-this/99380398/
However none of this would be something that would necessarily relate to the OP or the Federal Reserve.
If you look historically, this nation has gone through a whiplash of concepts and acrimonious debate, regarding establishing a "National Bank". I used to work near the original "First Bank" (1791) and "Second Bank" (1816) of the U.S. (both headquarters buildings are still here in Philly, used for other purposes now). With poor decisions in both cases, and a charter lapse of the latter bank, this eventually lead to the establishment of the current Federal Reserve system in 1913 (with 12 "Regions" that are headed up by 12 Presidential-appointed "Governors" who manage the money supply). And this system has been in effect for what will be 110 years as of next year.
ETA - this sums up where things were "back in the day"
The interest rates in the '70s were not the current 1.58% that is in place as the fed lending rate to the banks.
Federal Funds Rate - 62 Year Historical Chart
Shows the daily level of the federal funds rate back to 1954. The fed funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions (banks and credit unions) lend reserve balances to other depository institutions overnight, on an uncollateralized basis. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets eight times a year to determine the federal funds target rate. The current federal funds rate as of July 27, 2022 is 1.58%.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart
Shows the daily level of the federal funds rate back to 1954. The fed funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions (banks and credit unions) lend reserve balances to other depository institutions overnight, on an uncollateralized basis. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets eight times a year to determine the federal funds target rate. The current federal funds rate as of July 27, 2022 is 1.58%.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart
I.e., in 2022, we are nowhere near even the lowest of the low fed interest rates in existence in the mid-late '70s, which were in the 4% - 5% range. If you look at the booming economy under Clinton in the '80s, the fed funds rates were in the 5% - 6% range.
People forget that after the crash of 2007, the fed basically took the borrowing rate down to at or near 0%, and only started really kicking it back up again just before the pandemic, when back down it went.
They are trying to get it into the 2% - 3% range (for fed funds rates) and then as we know, the retail banks will add additional on top of that. But it is not going to be the 10% - 20% rates that existed in the '70s.
WaPo just issued one of those this morning (gotta do the horse race) -
Americans dismayed at end of Roe are less certain they will vote, poll finds
A Washington Post-Schar School poll finds 65 percent of Americans view the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling as a major loss of women’s rights, while 35 percent say it is not
By Hannah Knowles, Emily Guskin and Scott Clement
July 29, 2022 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the end of Roe v. Wade represents a “major loss of rights” for women, a Washington Post-Schar School poll finds, but those who support abortion access are less certain they will vote this fall — a sign of the challenges facing Democrats who hope the issue will motivate their base in the midterms.
(snip)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/29/abortion-roe-midterms-poll/
A Washington Post-Schar School poll finds 65 percent of Americans view the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling as a major loss of women’s rights, while 35 percent say it is not
By Hannah Knowles, Emily Guskin and Scott Clement
July 29, 2022 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the end of Roe v. Wade represents a “major loss of rights” for women, a Washington Post-Schar School poll finds, but those who support abortion access are less certain they will vote this fall — a sign of the challenges facing Democrats who hope the issue will motivate their base in the midterms.
(snip)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/29/abortion-roe-midterms-poll/
This is what your link says -
Fed funds target range is now at 2.25% to 2.50%.
Which is what I posted above. They are TARGETING that 2% - 3% range and want to keep it in that range, and we are CURRENTLY at "1.58%" (again "fed funds rate" and then retail banks add a couple percent on for lending to customer).
There is a bizarre amnesia, with the media feeding it, where for some reason, people believe "interest rates" have always been at 0% (consumer rates have never been that in modern lending history).
This economic situation is NOT the same as the 1970s. Don't believe the hype. Right now -
The one thing with the interest rates is that at a slightly higher rate, it encourages SAVING and that pulls currency "out of circulation" to reduce all the dollars pumped out there during the periods of "quantitative easing" when the crash of 2007 happened and over the 15 year since (making the environment inflationary) and the slightly higher rates benefit the non-stock market trading consumer (which is the vast majority) by getting a bit more off their money as they build up a cushion.
When you see business media whining - "Why are people saving????? They have to buy buy buy for the GDP!!!" and then will come back around again the next day and say "Why AREN'T people saving????? They have to have put something away in case of a downturn!!!!!", this is when I just walk away from the nonsense. .
"Americans aren't spending!!!111!!!" / "Americans aren't saving!!11!!11".
Tastes great!!1!! No, less filling!!1!!
It's idiotic.
