CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Obama’s small business rubber stamp not so good at paying taxes, debts

In revelations that would be comical if they weren’t so predictable (and true), President Obama’s top small business advocate really is keeping it consistent with the administration he backs.

Small Business Majority President and CEO John Arensmeyer has frequently been trotted all over the place as a small business advocate supportive of the president’s agenda and policy goals. In a Huffington Post piece last year Arensmeyer advocated for higher taxes, writing "of course, nobody likes paying taxes, but we have a grave budget crisis on our hands."

Then there's this video segment in which Arensmeyer pushed support for an online sales tax. Note his advocating that everyone pay their fair share:

That’s funny considering Arensmeyer himself has had frequent problems when it comes to paying his own taxes, via The Washington Examiner:

Federal records show, for example, that from 2005 to 2009 Arensmeyer's group failed to file mandatory IRS 990 tax returns, even though donor records show Small Business Majority got at least $1.4 million in 2008 and 2009. Failure to file 990's for three consecutive years can result in the forfeiture of a group's tax-exempt status.

So, his vehicle for advocating that everyone else pay their fair share hasn’t been paying its fair share all along? It doesn’t stop there:

Marin County, Calif., court records show four tax liens on Arensmeyer Communications between 1999 and 2001, totaling more than $66,000. A fifth tax lien against Arensmeyer's firm was filed by the Illinois Department of Revenue in 1999 for $4,011.58. Arensmeyer filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2007 to erase $211,000 in largely personal debt. The self-professed small business advocate even stiffed a struggling Pennsylvania small business, costing the owner $20,000.

Costing real small business owners thousands of dollars while racking up tax liens? All in a day’s work for someone who seems to think the Obama agenda actually helps small business.

The report exposing Arensmeyer goes on to note that he’s managed to also attend 17 White House functions, including but not limited to a South Lawn event with British Prime Minister David Cameron. Seems you can do whatever you want as long as you support the Obama agenda.

Senate passes Obama's fiscal cliff tax increases in dead of night

In a move all too reminiscent of the passage of the ever unpopular ObamaCare, last night the Senate voted 89 to 8 to approve the so-called "American Taxpayer Relief Act" (H.R. 8, as amended). The deal was negotiated by Vice President Joseph Biden and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

You can read the 157 page bill below.

Mat 12564

It is very unlikely that any Senator actually read the 157 page bill before they voted on it. It's like former Speaker Pelosi said of the Democrats' ObamaCare bill, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill increases tax revenue by $620 billion while reducing spending by only $15 billion. That's right a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending the ratios were 3:1 and 2:1 respectively.  We should remember that while those tax increases happened, the promised spending cuts did not.

That history makes me question the wisdom of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's effort to "prevent very real financial pain" by agreeing to tax increases in exchange for another spending cuts to be named later:

“As I said, this shouldn’t be the model for how to do things around here. But I think we can say we’ve done some good for the country. We’ve taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it’s time to get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending. That’s a debate the American people want. It’s the debate we’ll have next. And it’s a debate Republicans are ready for.”

The bill raises income tax rates for those taxpayers with incomes more than $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. These higher income taxpayers will also pay higher rates on investment income, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent. Add the 3.8 percent ObamaCare surcharge on investment income -- another tax that takes effect in January, and the top rate on investment income would rise to 23.8 percent for those high-income households.

The bill also raises taxes on couples earning more than $250,000 a year and single people earning more than $200,000 by limiting personal exemptions and itemized deductions.

Estates taxes will also be increased, with the top rate raised to 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates.

The bill also delays the automatic $1.2 trillion draconian sequester spending cuts for sixty days. The sequester cuts, evenly split between defense and certain domestic discretionary spending, were scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. The $24 billion cost of the sequester delay is allegedly made up with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues from rules changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

Worse, the bill actually increases the deficit by including:

• A permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax.
• A five-year extension of tax credits for college tuition and the working poor, which were enacted as part of Obama’s failed 2009 stimulus.
• A one-year extension for unemployment benefits, affecting two million people.
• The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.

The eight Senators who voted against this tax increase included five Republicans and three Democrats:

• Bennett D-CO
• Carper D-DE
• Grassley R-IA
• Harkin D-IA
• Lee R-UT
• Paul R-KY
• Rubio R-FL
• Shelby R-AL.

That leaves a lot of Senators who violated their pledge not to raise taxes.

Now the question is, will the House also approve the American Taxpayer Relief Act?

 

Republicans take a stand to prevent the Obama tax increases

All 42 members of the Senate Republican Caucus sent a Dear Harry letter to Senate majority leader  Reid earlier today. The letter draws a line through the Democrats lame duck session and informs Reid nothing is going to happen until the impending Obama tax increases have been prevented: 

“We Cannot Agree to Prioritize Any Matters Above the Critical Issues of Funding the Government and Preventing a Job-Killing Tax Hike”

You can read the letter below:

Priorities Letter 12-1-10

It's good to see that the Senate Republican Caucus got that message from the "shellacking" the Dems took last month.

Tax day food for thought

The folks at Reason TV have put together a video that will make you stop and think about the fairness of our tax code.

That's right:

• Individual taxpayers spend $27.7 billion preparing taxes.

• The tax code has grown to more than 67,500 pages.

• The least wealthy 50% pay less than3% of federal income taxes.

• The wealthiest 1% pay 39.89% of all federal income tax.

• The wealthiest 5% pay more than 60% of all federal income taxes.

• The wealthiest 10% pay more than 70% of all federal income taxes.

The Washington Post recently ran an editorial, which based upon numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, sliced the 2006 taxpayer data a little differently:

• The top 20% of earners paid 70% of all federal taxes.

• The very richest -- the top 1% of taxpayers paid 28% of all taxes.

• The lowest 20% of households paid only 0.8% of all federal taxes.

• The bottom 90% of households paid only 45%.

When President Obama and Congressional Democrats say the "wealthy" should pay their "fair share" what do they mean? Is it fair for 10% to pay 70% of the income tax? How much should they pay? And as Ari Fleischer wrote in the Wall Street Journal the other day -- shouldn't everybody pay a far share of the income tax?

Democrats Propose Drastically More Spending

According to the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union, in the past three Congresses, House Democrats introduced legislation that would have increased annual federal spending by $1.1 trillion more than legislation introduced by House Republicans:

2001 -- Average House Democrat: $262 billion Average House Republican: $20 billion

2003 -- Average House Democrat: $402 billion Average House Republican: $31 billion

2005 -- Average House Democrat: $547 billion Average House Republican: $12 billion

$1.1 trillion, wow!