Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CBPP Statement: White House achieved everything it sought for low- and middle-income families.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 01:23 PM
Original message
CBPP Statement: White House achieved everything it sought for low- and middle-income families.

Statement: Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, on the Tax Cut-Unemployment Insurance Deal

The deal between President Obama and Republican leaders on tax cuts and unemployment insurance has two substantial positive aspects: its surprisingly strong protections for low- and middle-income working families and its stronger-than-expected boost for the economy and jobs. But it also has two deeply disturbing negative features: not only the extension of the high-end income-tax cuts, but also an egregious estate-tax giveaway that Senator Jon Kyl demanded for the estates of the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent of Americans who die.

Congress should approve this package — its rejection will likely lead to a more problematic package that does less for middle- and low-income workers and less for the economy. Then, in 2012, when the economy should be stronger, the President should make clear he will veto any legislation to extend either the high-end tax cuts or the weakening of the estate tax beyond the estate-tax parameters that were in place in 2009, and he should take that case to the country.

The Positives in the Package

In several respects, the package exceeds the expectations we and many other observers had set when the negotiations began.

■ The 13-month extension of federal unemployment benefits is a major accomplishment. Only a few weeks ago, the House fell short of passing a three-month extension. The 13-month extension will prevent 7 million jobless workers from losing essential income support, without which they would have to cut their purchases substantially, causing the loss of many more jobs. The Council of Economic Advisers recently estimated that an end to these benefits would cause the loss of 600,000 ­jobs and cut already-inadequate economic growth by 0.6 percentage points by the end of next year, quite a large amount; Goldman Sachs recently made a similar estimate of the impact on economic growth.

■ The package continues for two years all of the 2009 Recovery Act improvements in the Earned Income Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit (which helps students from low- and middle-income families afford college), and the refundable component of the Child Tax Credit. These measures are simultaneously effective stimulus policy, desirable social policy, and admirable anti-poverty policy. They encourage work over welfare and help more Americans obtain a college education; they provide sound stimulus by putting money in the hands of hard-pressed working families that will spend it; and they substantially reduce child poverty.

■ The package also contains a one-year reduction of 2 percentage points in the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax; workers will pay a 4.2 percent tax on their first $106,800 in wages, rather than 6.2 percent. This provision, which would replace the current “Making Work Pay” tax cut, would raise workers’ take-home pay by $120 billion in 2011 (relative to current law) and consequently should provide some economic boost.

These provisions would protect low- and middle-income workers and their families and, by boosting their incomes, also preserve or create substantial numbers of jobs. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, estimates that federal unemployment benefits generate $1.60 in economic activity for every dollar in cost; the refundable tax credits generate about $1.20 to $1.40 in activity for each dollar in cost; and the payroll tax reduction generates about $1.25 for each dollar in cost. In other words, all of these measures rank high in “bang-for-the-buck” effectiveness.

In this part of the package, the White House achieved everything it sought for low- and middle-income families. It apparently did not compromise on these issues

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3340



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. so the 2% reduction in SS payroll tax is a "positive" . . . .. hmmmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. that is what scares me - got it now - and the R's will not let go
next will be an employer reduction
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. This by itself it reason to vote it down. For me this is a deal breaker..
Anything that touches SS in a bad way is a non starter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. agree - hope we have some D's that agree with this position
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Wish one of our Reps or Senators would get on the floor and flat out say it..
"This is an attempt to chisel away at SS and I will do every thing in my power to stop it"

Basically tell them......we know what you are doing and it isn't going to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Do you even know who Robert Greenstein is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. is there a point to your post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yes there is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. and it would be . . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. If you read the links
you wouldn't have to ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. kinda thought so . . . . just wanted to add a snarky post, huh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. And it's just a little tax increase on the lowest wage earners. No big deal. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. Underachievers
If the got everything they wanted, then they didn't ask for enough, because the bill is a disaster. The question is did they not ask for more because they didn't think they could? Or is Obama truly so firmly entrenched in the Rethuglican, free trade, free market mindset, that he thinks working people don't really deserve more? I believe it is the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. Self-Delete
Edited on Fri Dec-10-10 02:59 PM by JamesA1102
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC