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
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
July 6, 2013
[font size="3"]Why poor white Southerners keep voting for policies that screw them and how this hurts the rest of the nation. [/font]
In 1978, out of college without a job and having failed to establish Birmingham’s version of The Village Voice, I took a job as advance man for the Alabama Republican Senate candidate.
One incident that stuck with me was a visit to campaign headquarters by a young Republican adviser—I didn’t recognize his name, but I remember that he strummed a guitar while talking to us. He told us, “Don’t ever use the words ‘black’ and ‘white’ in an argument. Always say ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative.’ You’ll turn every argument about race into a political one. You do that, and race will start to disappear as an issue.”
Our candidate, Jim Martin, lost the election to somebody named Donald Stewart, who was the very model of the politically ineffectual Democrat who would soon get steamrolled by the new Reagan-led Republican Party. Within a few years, however, Alabama would move, along with much of the South, from the Democratic to the Republican Party. But it was a case of rebranding rather than change. In less than a generation, every Wallace segregationist Democrat I knew had turned into a conservative Reagan Republican; as the guitar-picking adviser had predicted, race almost ceased to be a political issue and, as my friend the late journalist Paul Hemphill put it, “George Wallace’s role in framing the politics of the new South was obscured.”
I thought of these words while reading Chuck Thompson’s “Better Off Without ’Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession.” Or rather, rereading. On its release in August, I dismissed it because the author is rude and obnoxious and because his chapter on football in the South is utterly lacking in logic and sound history. Thompson doesn’t think that the Alabama Crimson Tide has the greatest tradition in college football. But I digress. (More on football later.)
Over the past months, however, I’ve become more convinced by Thompson’s main argument, that the South—the states that comprised the Old Confederacy—should not only be allowed to secede, but both countries created by the split would be better off.
(more)
Is the South Dragging the Rest of the Nation Down? - Allan Berra, Truthdig
http://www.alternet.org/south-dragging-rest-nation-down[font size="3"]Why poor white Southerners keep voting for policies that screw them and how this hurts the rest of the nation. [/font]
In 1978, out of college without a job and having failed to establish Birmingham’s version of The Village Voice, I took a job as advance man for the Alabama Republican Senate candidate.
One incident that stuck with me was a visit to campaign headquarters by a young Republican adviser—I didn’t recognize his name, but I remember that he strummed a guitar while talking to us. He told us, “Don’t ever use the words ‘black’ and ‘white’ in an argument. Always say ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative.’ You’ll turn every argument about race into a political one. You do that, and race will start to disappear as an issue.”
Our candidate, Jim Martin, lost the election to somebody named Donald Stewart, who was the very model of the politically ineffectual Democrat who would soon get steamrolled by the new Reagan-led Republican Party. Within a few years, however, Alabama would move, along with much of the South, from the Democratic to the Republican Party. But it was a case of rebranding rather than change. In less than a generation, every Wallace segregationist Democrat I knew had turned into a conservative Reagan Republican; as the guitar-picking adviser had predicted, race almost ceased to be a political issue and, as my friend the late journalist Paul Hemphill put it, “George Wallace’s role in framing the politics of the new South was obscured.”
I thought of these words while reading Chuck Thompson’s “Better Off Without ’Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession.” Or rather, rereading. On its release in August, I dismissed it because the author is rude and obnoxious and because his chapter on football in the South is utterly lacking in logic and sound history. Thompson doesn’t think that the Alabama Crimson Tide has the greatest tradition in college football. But I digress. (More on football later.)
Over the past months, however, I’ve become more convinced by Thompson’s main argument, that the South—the states that comprised the Old Confederacy—should not only be allowed to secede, but both countries created by the split would be better off.
(more)
July 6, 2013
The EVs and hybrid vehicles are still too expensive even with tax credits of $7,500 per vehicle.
According to the Congressional Budget Office’s presentation at this year’s Energy Information Administration conference, which took place on June 24th, based on the 2011 prices, the tax credits offered by the government could not offset the higher lifetime cost of EVs compared with the gasoline-fueled cars.
The government is currently offering subsidies on purchases of EVs and hybrids, which are fitted with an externally charged battery which can be powered by gasoline. The subsidy can be between $2,500 and $7,500 in tax credits, and depends on the battery’s capacity. The report also says that the federal tax credit should see a boost for the EVs to be as cost effective as traditional vehicles.
This means that it would take a federal tax-credit higher than $12,000 to make a 16-kWh battery-powered vehicle commercially competitive with the usual fuel-economy compact car. The gasoline prices also play an important role in this debate, but as the gas prices are below $4 per gallon, EVs are not cost-competitive.
Congressional Budget Office: Tax offsets don't offset the higher cost of Hybrids and PHEVs
http://www.inautonews.com/evs-and-hybrids-still-too-expensive#.UdiJQxjD-mwThe EVs and hybrid vehicles are still too expensive even with tax credits of $7,500 per vehicle.
According to the Congressional Budget Office’s presentation at this year’s Energy Information Administration conference, which took place on June 24th, based on the 2011 prices, the tax credits offered by the government could not offset the higher lifetime cost of EVs compared with the gasoline-fueled cars.
The government is currently offering subsidies on purchases of EVs and hybrids, which are fitted with an externally charged battery which can be powered by gasoline. The subsidy can be between $2,500 and $7,500 in tax credits, and depends on the battery’s capacity. The report also says that the federal tax credit should see a boost for the EVs to be as cost effective as traditional vehicles.
This means that it would take a federal tax-credit higher than $12,000 to make a 16-kWh battery-powered vehicle commercially competitive with the usual fuel-economy compact car. The gasoline prices also play an important role in this debate, but as the gas prices are below $4 per gallon, EVs are not cost-competitive.
Car companies have adopted an “all hands on deck strategy,” says Alan Baum, a principal at Detroit-based automotive market research and forecasting firm Baum & Associates. “They need to invest in fuel efficient technologies, including electric vehicles, to not just comply with higher emission standards but also to be ready to seize the moment when changes in technology reduce electric vehicle costs and drive sales volume.”
July 6, 2013
Roberts Court decides conditions have changed therefor Sectn 4 isn't necessary. This is a judgement
.. on the constitutionality of the law??? Since when does the Supreme court decide on whether a law is practical or appropriate given current circumstances. I thought they were limited to deciding whether a law was constitutional or not??
... oh, yeah, I forgot, the Roberts court is free to pick and choose whether it agrees with laws philosophically (iow: politically) or not.
Roberts has no appreciation for the principal of division of powers. He can make pronouncements on any basis that pleases him. John Roberts, Chief Justice and Ayatollah of the Roberts Uber Court. Like Nixon said "something's legal if the president does it" Ayotollah Roberts believes his uber court can decide what the limits of their charge is by just passing judgements on whatever basis seems right to them (i.e. to Roberts).
Their judgements are, ipso facto, appropriate. Thus the Roberts Uber Court enjoys free range to make whatever determinations they want and only their whims limit them. Roberts rather too easily embraces the traditional idea of the divine right of kings....and of despots.
July 6, 2013
There is good reason to be wary of Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch’s plan for “blank slate” reform of the individual income tax. But when it comes to the corporate income tax, this approach to reform could be a great opportunity – if it is used to raise substantial revenues.
The corporate income tax is one of the most progressive pieces of our tax code, with the vast majority of the tax borne by wealthy investors. But over the last 50 years, corporate taxes have declined as a share of federal revenues, reducing the progressivity of the tax code overall. The statutory top corporate tax rate is 35 percent, but the code is so riddled with loopholes and special preferences that corporations now pay an average effective tax rate of 12.6 percent — less than many middle class families.
That means that “blank slate” tax reform that wiped out all corporate tax expenditures – the loopholes and special breaks that allow companies to avoid the statutory tax rate – could raise a lot of revenue very progressively while both enhancing efficiency and protecting middle-class families from tax increases and damaging spending cuts. In fact, just repealing one large tax expenditure known as “deferral,” the provision that allows companies like Apple to use offshore subsidiaries to classify their profits as “foreign” and indefinitely avoid U.S. taxes, would raise more than half of the revenue called for in the Senate Budget Resolution.
Yet instead, corporate lobbyists are lining up to tell Congress that corporate reform should be “revenue neutral.” They say the U.S. should lock in the low effective rates corporations have achieved through past lobbying and accounting games, and that even as we are kicking kids off head start and furloughing nurses for returning veterans, corporations should not be asked to contribute any more to our nation’s fiscal needs. Worse, multinationals are pushing for a so-called “territorial” tax system, under which they would never owe tax on any profits they could characterize as overseas. This would magnify the problems created by deferral and potentially lead to even more erosion of the corporate tax base in the future.
(more)
Wiping The Corporate Tax Code Clean (of tax loopholes) Could Raise Money And Help The Middle Class
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/03/2256471/wiping-the-corporate-tax-code-clean-could-raise-money-and-help-the-middle-class/There is good reason to be wary of Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch’s plan for “blank slate” reform of the individual income tax. But when it comes to the corporate income tax, this approach to reform could be a great opportunity – if it is used to raise substantial revenues.
The corporate income tax is one of the most progressive pieces of our tax code, with the vast majority of the tax borne by wealthy investors. But over the last 50 years, corporate taxes have declined as a share of federal revenues, reducing the progressivity of the tax code overall. The statutory top corporate tax rate is 35 percent, but the code is so riddled with loopholes and special preferences that corporations now pay an average effective tax rate of 12.6 percent — less than many middle class families.
That means that “blank slate” tax reform that wiped out all corporate tax expenditures – the loopholes and special breaks that allow companies to avoid the statutory tax rate – could raise a lot of revenue very progressively while both enhancing efficiency and protecting middle-class families from tax increases and damaging spending cuts. In fact, just repealing one large tax expenditure known as “deferral,” the provision that allows companies like Apple to use offshore subsidiaries to classify their profits as “foreign” and indefinitely avoid U.S. taxes, would raise more than half of the revenue called for in the Senate Budget Resolution.
Yet instead, corporate lobbyists are lining up to tell Congress that corporate reform should be “revenue neutral.” They say the U.S. should lock in the low effective rates corporations have achieved through past lobbying and accounting games, and that even as we are kicking kids off head start and furloughing nurses for returning veterans, corporations should not be asked to contribute any more to our nation’s fiscal needs. Worse, multinationals are pushing for a so-called “territorial” tax system, under which they would never owe tax on any profits they could characterize as overseas. This would magnify the problems created by deferral and potentially lead to even more erosion of the corporate tax base in the future.
(more)
July 3, 2013
Here’s a scary thought: On Labor Day, a day celebrating the contributions that the labor movement has brought Americans – the 40-hour workweek, the weekend, minimum wage – there may be no one to enforce labor law.
The National Labor Relations Board is the five-person panel that makes the final decisions on labor-related cases in the United States. The board derives its authority from the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, the same act that made mandatory a minimum wage, limitations on child labor, overtime pay, and the standard workweek.
Currently, this five-person board has only three members, with Chairman Mark Pearce’s term expiring on the Tuesday before Labor Day. That would leave the NLRB without a quorum, and working Americans vulnerable.
“Why does this important board have so many vacancies?” you ask. It’s the same reason that too many seats on the federal courts are: Republican obstructionism. The five-person board is designed to be split evenly 2-2 between Republicans and Democrats and one choice of the President’s party, meaning the current balance should be 3-2 Democrats. Yet due to GOP threats of filibuster, President Obama cannot get his nominees to even a vote on the Senate floor. When President Obama tried to sidestep the Senate mess through recess appointments, they were declared unconstitutional by the D.C. Circuit Court, which itself was functioning at diminished productivity due to Republican filibustering of the President’s nominees. FYI: The D.C. Circuit Court was only recently balanced out in May, with the 97-0 confirmation of Sri Srinivasan.
After the D.C. Circuit’s decision, many of the decisions made under the appointments have been challenged by businesses that stand to gain from their decisions being overturned. This process has left many Americans in limbo, waiting to hear from the Supreme Court on the validity of the recess appointments, and for what they have been awarded as part of their claim against companies.
(more)
“Gimme Five”: Fight For A Full Labor Relations Board
http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130703/gimme-five-fight-for-a-full-labor-relations-boardHere’s a scary thought: On Labor Day, a day celebrating the contributions that the labor movement has brought Americans – the 40-hour workweek, the weekend, minimum wage – there may be no one to enforce labor law.
The National Labor Relations Board is the five-person panel that makes the final decisions on labor-related cases in the United States. The board derives its authority from the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, the same act that made mandatory a minimum wage, limitations on child labor, overtime pay, and the standard workweek.
Currently, this five-person board has only three members, with Chairman Mark Pearce’s term expiring on the Tuesday before Labor Day. That would leave the NLRB without a quorum, and working Americans vulnerable.
“Why does this important board have so many vacancies?” you ask. It’s the same reason that too many seats on the federal courts are: Republican obstructionism. The five-person board is designed to be split evenly 2-2 between Republicans and Democrats and one choice of the President’s party, meaning the current balance should be 3-2 Democrats. Yet due to GOP threats of filibuster, President Obama cannot get his nominees to even a vote on the Senate floor. When President Obama tried to sidestep the Senate mess through recess appointments, they were declared unconstitutional by the D.C. Circuit Court, which itself was functioning at diminished productivity due to Republican filibustering of the President’s nominees. FYI: The D.C. Circuit Court was only recently balanced out in May, with the 97-0 confirmation of Sri Srinivasan.
After the D.C. Circuit’s decision, many of the decisions made under the appointments have been challenged by businesses that stand to gain from their decisions being overturned. This process has left many Americans in limbo, waiting to hear from the Supreme Court on the validity of the recess appointments, and for what they have been awarded as part of their claim against companies.
(more)
July 3, 2013
Keystone Academy: Where Legislators Learn the Etiquette of Serving Special Interests
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112748324
July 2, 2013
SEN. MCCONNELL: PASS A BUDGET THROUGH REGULAR ORDER
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "A second term presents the opportunity to do things differently, and in the Senate that means a return to regular order. Later this week, the House plans to send the Senate a bill to address the debt limit in a timely manner. Once we get it, the Senate should quickly respond. If the Senate version is different than the one the House sends over, send it off to conference. That's how things are supposed to work around here. We used to call it legislating." [McConnell Floor Remarks, 1/22/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "Why aren't we trying to do something about reducing spending? We know we need to do it. When are we going to do it? We don't need to use the deadlines. We could go through the regular order. Congress could pass bills. They could have conferences between the House and Senate." [ABC This Week, 1/6/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "But, in any event, we ought not to ignore the law any longer. And I think it's a good step in the direction of getting back to regular order, which we ought to follow, it strikes me, most of the time, unless there's a pretty strong reason not to do that." [Press Conference, 1/29/13]
REPUBLICANS ASKED AND ASKED AGAIN FOR THE SENATE TO PASS A BUDGET RESOLUTION
Sen. Thune (R-SD): "It all started with the fact that this Chamber has not produced a budget for now 3 years in a row." [Floor Remarks, 9/13/12]
Sen. Corker (R-TN): "We have not had a budget in this body for 1,240 days." [Floor Remarks, 9/20/12]
Sen. Cornyn (R-TX): "1,387 days since the United States Senate has passed a budget." [Floor Remarks, 2/14/13]
Sen. Coats (R-IN): "It has been 1,372 days since the United States Senate passed a budget." [Floor Remarks, 1/30/13]
Sen. Cornyn (R-TX): "But it starts with passing a budget, something Senate Democrats haven't done for 1,414 days." [Floor Remarks, 3/13/13]
Sen. Isakson (R-GA): "Let's get back to the business of America. Let's get a budget to the floor." [Floor Remarks, 9/20/12]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I don't think the law says 'pass a budget unless it's hard.' So I think there's no question that we would -- we would take up our responsibility." [Press Conference, 1/24/12]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "A second term presents the opportunity to do things differently, and in the Senate that means a return to regular order. Later this week, the House plans to send the Senate a bill to address the debt limit in a timely manner. Once we get it, the Senate should quickly respond. If the Senate version is different than the one the House sends over, send it off to conference. That's how things are supposed to work around here. We used to call it legislating." [McConnell Floor Remarks, 1/22/13]
Sen. Blunt (R-MO): "These problems are big, but they are not necessarily that complicated. We just have to have the willpower to deal with them. This Congress has not done that. This Senate, more importantly, has not done that. The House has passed bills. The House has passed a budget ." [Floor Remarks, 9/20/12]
BUT NOW, REPUBLICANS ARE STANDING IN THE WAY
Sen. Toomey (R-PA): "Mr. President, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Sessions, is not available because he has a conflict at the moment. On his behalf, I object." [Floor Remarks, 4/23/13]
Sen. Cruz (R-TX): "Yes. I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/6/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/7/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/8/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/9/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/14/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/15/13]
Sen. Lee (R-UT): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/16/13]
Sen. Paul (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/21/13]
Sen. Rubio (R-FL): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/22/13]
Sen. Lee (R-UT): "I object to the motion on the floor." [Floor Remarks, 5/23/13]
Sen. Rubio (R-FL): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 6/4/13]
Sen. Lee (R-UT): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 6/12/13]
Sen. Toomey (R-PA): "And so I object." [Floor Remarks, 6/19/13]
Sen. Cruz (R-TX): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 6/26/13]
By: DPCC
- See more at: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=news&id=239#sthash.XAC2NrSW.dpuf
Remember? Not Long Ago, Republicans Wanted To Pass a Budget -
http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=news&id=239SEN. MCCONNELL: PASS A BUDGET THROUGH REGULAR ORDER
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "A second term presents the opportunity to do things differently, and in the Senate that means a return to regular order. Later this week, the House plans to send the Senate a bill to address the debt limit in a timely manner. Once we get it, the Senate should quickly respond. If the Senate version is different than the one the House sends over, send it off to conference. That's how things are supposed to work around here. We used to call it legislating." [McConnell Floor Remarks, 1/22/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "Why aren't we trying to do something about reducing spending? We know we need to do it. When are we going to do it? We don't need to use the deadlines. We could go through the regular order. Congress could pass bills. They could have conferences between the House and Senate." [ABC This Week, 1/6/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "But, in any event, we ought not to ignore the law any longer. And I think it's a good step in the direction of getting back to regular order, which we ought to follow, it strikes me, most of the time, unless there's a pretty strong reason not to do that." [Press Conference, 1/29/13]
REPUBLICANS ASKED AND ASKED AGAIN FOR THE SENATE TO PASS A BUDGET RESOLUTION
Sen. Thune (R-SD): "It all started with the fact that this Chamber has not produced a budget for now 3 years in a row." [Floor Remarks, 9/13/12]
Sen. Corker (R-TN): "We have not had a budget in this body for 1,240 days." [Floor Remarks, 9/20/12]
Sen. Cornyn (R-TX): "1,387 days since the United States Senate has passed a budget." [Floor Remarks, 2/14/13]
Sen. Coats (R-IN): "It has been 1,372 days since the United States Senate passed a budget." [Floor Remarks, 1/30/13]
Sen. Cornyn (R-TX): "But it starts with passing a budget, something Senate Democrats haven't done for 1,414 days." [Floor Remarks, 3/13/13]
Sen. Isakson (R-GA): "Let's get back to the business of America. Let's get a budget to the floor." [Floor Remarks, 9/20/12]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I don't think the law says 'pass a budget unless it's hard.' So I think there's no question that we would -- we would take up our responsibility." [Press Conference, 1/24/12]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "A second term presents the opportunity to do things differently, and in the Senate that means a return to regular order. Later this week, the House plans to send the Senate a bill to address the debt limit in a timely manner. Once we get it, the Senate should quickly respond. If the Senate version is different than the one the House sends over, send it off to conference. That's how things are supposed to work around here. We used to call it legislating." [McConnell Floor Remarks, 1/22/13]
Sen. Blunt (R-MO): "These problems are big, but they are not necessarily that complicated. We just have to have the willpower to deal with them. This Congress has not done that. This Senate, more importantly, has not done that. The House has passed bills. The House has passed a budget ." [Floor Remarks, 9/20/12]
BUT NOW, REPUBLICANS ARE STANDING IN THE WAY
Sen. Toomey (R-PA): "Mr. President, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Sessions, is not available because he has a conflict at the moment. On his behalf, I object." [Floor Remarks, 4/23/13]
Sen. Cruz (R-TX): "Yes. I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/6/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/7/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/8/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/9/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/14/13]
Sen. McConnell (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/15/13]
Sen. Lee (R-UT): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/16/13]
Sen. Paul (R-KY): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/21/13]
Sen. Rubio (R-FL): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 5/22/13]
Sen. Lee (R-UT): "I object to the motion on the floor." [Floor Remarks, 5/23/13]
Sen. Rubio (R-FL): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 6/4/13]
Sen. Lee (R-UT): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 6/12/13]
Sen. Toomey (R-PA): "And so I object." [Floor Remarks, 6/19/13]
Sen. Cruz (R-TX): "I object." [Floor Remarks, 6/26/13]
By: DPCC
- See more at: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=news&id=239#sthash.XAC2NrSW.dpuf
July 2, 2013
The long-term unemployed, those who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, are seeing a big reduction in unemployment benefits thanks to sequestration, according to a new report from the National Employment Law Project (NELP). Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) benefits, which help workers after they exhaust state-level programs around 26 weeks, have been reduced by nearly 15 percent.
Nearly 40 percent of those who are unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, coming to a total of 4.4 million people. Yet 8 percent of this year’s sequestration cuts are being taken out of the modest benefits provided to these workers, the report says.
The cuts to each check become more severe the longer a state waits to implement them. Maryland and New Jersey are cutting benefits by more than 22 percent. Seven states cut benefits in May and June, reducing checks by 16.8 to 22.2 percent. Other states have eliminated weeks rather than reduce benefits: Maine cut the last eight weeks of benefits and Florida eliminated the last four. California, the state with the most workers collecting EUC benefits, cut checks by 17.7 percent in May alone for 120,000 workers. About 429,000 will experience cuts through September 30 and 531,000 by the end of the year if sequestration continues.
The report comes on the heels of news that North Carolina has been dropped from the EUC program altogether. It cut the level of its weekly benefit payments, violating a provision of the program and leaving it completely ineligible for federal jobless funds.
(more)
Sequestration Slashes Benefits For The Long-Term Unemployed
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/02/2249251/sequestration-slashes-benefits-for-the-long-term-unemployed/The long-term unemployed, those who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, are seeing a big reduction in unemployment benefits thanks to sequestration, according to a new report from the National Employment Law Project (NELP). Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) benefits, which help workers after they exhaust state-level programs around 26 weeks, have been reduced by nearly 15 percent.
Nearly 40 percent of those who are unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, coming to a total of 4.4 million people. Yet 8 percent of this year’s sequestration cuts are being taken out of the modest benefits provided to these workers, the report says.
The cuts to each check become more severe the longer a state waits to implement them. Maryland and New Jersey are cutting benefits by more than 22 percent. Seven states cut benefits in May and June, reducing checks by 16.8 to 22.2 percent. Other states have eliminated weeks rather than reduce benefits: Maine cut the last eight weeks of benefits and Florida eliminated the last four. California, the state with the most workers collecting EUC benefits, cut checks by 17.7 percent in May alone for 120,000 workers. About 429,000 will experience cuts through September 30 and 531,000 by the end of the year if sequestration continues.
The report comes on the heels of news that North Carolina has been dropped from the EUC program altogether. It cut the level of its weekly benefit payments, violating a provision of the program and leaving it completely ineligible for federal jobless funds.
(more)
July 2, 2013
Large, profitable U.S. corporations actually paid just a 12.6 percent effective tax rate in 2010. That’s barely a third of the 35 percent corporate rate on the books, and it’s actually lower than the median effective tax rate for middle-class Americans. The number comes from a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study intended to clarify the terms of debate as lawmakers weigh changes to the business tax code.
Most analyses of the gap between the tax rate on the books and the “effective rate” companies actually pay rely upon company financial statements, but the GAO’s work is based on actual corporate tax returns for 2010. The researchers found that large companies – those “with assets of $10 million or more” – that are profitable paid about 12.6 percent of their global income in U.S. taxes. The figure rises to 16.9 percent of global income if all foreign, state, and local taxes are factored in. Companies that took a loss for the year actually paid a higher rate than the profitable ones.
In the spring, Apple CEO Tim Cook defended his company’s entirely legal tax avoidance strategies before a Senate committee. Apple used Ireland-based subsidiaries to pay almost zero tax on tens of billions in income from international sales, and other massive firms like Google and Microsoft use similar corporate structures and accounting strategies to avoid billions in taxes.
The new numbers are inconvenient for the ongoing business community’s push to slash corporate tax rates. A group called the Alliance for Competitive Taxation (ACT) was launched in June by 40 major corporate brands and cites multiple studies using different methodologies to claim that U.S. companies pay among the highest effective tax rates in the world, but this new data would appear to refute those studies. Recent work from the Economic Policy Institute has also shown no correlation between corporate tax rates and economic growth.
REPORT: Corporations Pay Lower Tax Rates Than The Middle Class
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/02/2248801/report-corporations-pay-lower-tax-rates-than-the-middle-class/Large, profitable U.S. corporations actually paid just a 12.6 percent effective tax rate in 2010. That’s barely a third of the 35 percent corporate rate on the books, and it’s actually lower than the median effective tax rate for middle-class Americans. The number comes from a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study intended to clarify the terms of debate as lawmakers weigh changes to the business tax code.
Most analyses of the gap between the tax rate on the books and the “effective rate” companies actually pay rely upon company financial statements, but the GAO’s work is based on actual corporate tax returns for 2010. The researchers found that large companies – those “with assets of $10 million or more” – that are profitable paid about 12.6 percent of their global income in U.S. taxes. The figure rises to 16.9 percent of global income if all foreign, state, and local taxes are factored in. Companies that took a loss for the year actually paid a higher rate than the profitable ones.
In the spring, Apple CEO Tim Cook defended his company’s entirely legal tax avoidance strategies before a Senate committee. Apple used Ireland-based subsidiaries to pay almost zero tax on tens of billions in income from international sales, and other massive firms like Google and Microsoft use similar corporate structures and accounting strategies to avoid billions in taxes.
The new numbers are inconvenient for the ongoing business community’s push to slash corporate tax rates. A group called the Alliance for Competitive Taxation (ACT) was launched in June by 40 major corporate brands and cites multiple studies using different methodologies to claim that U.S. companies pay among the highest effective tax rates in the world, but this new data would appear to refute those studies. Recent work from the Economic Policy Institute has also shown no correlation between corporate tax rates and economic growth.
July 1, 2013
The Congressional Budget Office predicted back in November 2009 that a medium-cost plan on the health exchange – known as a “silver plan” – would have an annual premium of $5,200. A separate report from actuarial firm Milliman projected that, in California, the average silver plan would have a $450 monthly premium.
Now we have California’s rates, and they appear to be significantly less expensive than what forecasters expected.
On average, the most affordable “silver plan” – which covers 70 percent of the average subscriber’s medical costs – comes with a $276 monthly premium. [font color="blue"]{that's $3,300 per year, so the CBO's estimate overshot the number by 57%!! _Bill USA}[/font] For the 2.6 million Californians who will receive federal subsidies, the price is a good deal less expensive, the amount noted in green below.
Health premiums will be lower for the youngest Americans. Here’s how the costs work out for a 25-year-old purchasing the same health plan.
(more)
here's the Federal Poverty Levels: http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html
Health Insurance Rate Shock-California Obamacare Ins Exchange Premiums LOWER than expected
... even for young people!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/23/california-obamacare-premiums-no-rate-shock-here/
The Congressional Budget Office predicted back in November 2009 that a medium-cost plan on the health exchange – known as a “silver plan” – would have an annual premium of $5,200. A separate report from actuarial firm Milliman projected that, in California, the average silver plan would have a $450 monthly premium.
Now we have California’s rates, and they appear to be significantly less expensive than what forecasters expected.
On average, the most affordable “silver plan” – which covers 70 percent of the average subscriber’s medical costs – comes with a $276 monthly premium. [font color="blue"]{that's $3,300 per year, so the CBO's estimate overshot the number by 57%!! _Bill USA}[/font] For the 2.6 million Californians who will receive federal subsidies, the price is a good deal less expensive, the amount noted in green below.
Health premiums will be lower for the youngest Americans. Here’s how the costs work out for a 25-year-old purchasing the same health plan.
(more)
here's the Federal Poverty Levels: http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
