Well That Didn't Take Long

[darrels joy]

RE: Well That Didn't Take Long
Getting a lot of emails along these lines:
I don't know why I'm e-mailing you, except that I just need to vent to someone on The Corner. Pass this around to the others if you like — I bet I'm not the only one.

I really don't like McCain. I'll probably vote for him just as a vote for divided government. I'm far too libertarian in my leanings to be comfortable with McCain (or Obama, for that matter).

That said, the way the pro-Obama media and bloggers, and Obama himself, have responded to Joe has got me nearly shaking with rage. They are attempting to destroy a man — a private citizen — who had the audacity to ask The One a question. Mind you, Joe was on his front lawn playing football with his son when Obama strolled up to give him his hopenchange spiel. Obama approached Joe, not the other way around. And Joe asked Obama an honest question. And Obama gave him an honest — and very, very revealing — answer. Again, mind you, the embarassment was on Obama's end, not Joe's. It wasn't a gotcha question.

And yet, for that Joe is being pilloried, every aspect of his private and professional life being sorted through and exposed. To prove ... what? What does that have to do with Obama's answer? What does Joe's situation have to do with Obama's philosophical answer — that he wants to "spread the wealth"? Obama's answer goes down the memory hole while the nation concentrates its fire on obliterating Joe the Plumber.

It's sickening, it's maddening and it's downright chilling.

Sorry for the length. But I am just SEETHING.

[MORTARDUDE]

We have been "spreading the wealth" since 1975 with the Earned Income Tax Credit. Look it up. It is supported by both parties.

Larry

[reconeil]

What does any "EARNED Income Tax CREDIT" for Workers have to do with giving
MILLIONS of NON-Taxpayers a lump sum Gift and/or REdistribution of U.S. Taxpayer Monies?

Such most certainly seems like typical Democrat/Socialist/Marxist: "Spreading The Wealth"
Barack Hussein Obama II or Jr. & Queen Nancy Pelosi (Lenin also) style asinine dictates, to me.

Neil

[darrels joy]

Republicans And The Earned Income Tax Credit

Commentary

Monday, June 16, 2003

by Bruce Bartlett


Republicans are having a hard time getting traction on the idea that it is wrong to increase refundable child tax credits to families with no income tax liability. It’s not a question of being stingy; many are genuinely concerned about the growth of a nontaxpaying class that potentially can vote subsidies for itself under the guise of tax reduction. In practice, however, this is less of a problem than it appears.

In truth, Republicans have no one but themselves to blame for the mess they have gotten into. It was they who invented the first refundable tax credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), back in the 1970s. And it was Republicans who invented the child credit in the 1990s. Both were bad ideas that have come back to haunt them.

The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by a Republican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975. In part, Ford was responding to the argument for a negative income tax that had been advanced by free-market economist Milton Friedman.

Advocates of the EITC in the 1970s made two principal arguments. First, rising payroll taxes meant that many low-income workers now paid more of these taxes than they paid in income taxes. But it was impractical to cut their payroll taxes because there was a strong tradition of having a single tax rate that every worker paid on the first dollar of earnings. Supporters of Social Security viewed this as essential to the structure of the system, so that workers would view the money withheld as a “contribution” rather than a tax. Moreover, Social Security’s finances were precarious in 1975, having required a big tax increase just 2 years earlier.

Second, EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975. The legislative history makes clear that Congress and the White House both viewed the EITC as a de facto payroll tax cut, not a welfare program.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase. But it was not until Bill Clinton’s administration that the EITC really became an all-purpose welfare program. As a result, spending shot up. The refunded portion of the credit, which is scored as direct spending in the budget, rose from $10 billion in 1992 to $26 billion in 2000. Even before welfare reform significantly reduced outlays for Aid to Families With Dependant Children, the federal government’s principal welfare program, the refunded portion of the EITC was greater. Now it is two and a half times greater.

Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Although not refundable at first, it was in effect refundable for many because it increased their EITC payments. In 2001, the child credit was made explicitly refundable. Shortly, Congress will likely increase its refundability still more.

As a result of the EITC, the child credit and other tax cuts, the percentage of those with no income tax liability has risen to 30 percent of all tax filers, according to the Tax Foundation. (this was in June 2003) The combination of EITC and the child credit offsets 100 percent of the income tax liability for almost all families with incomes below $30,000. And because of refundability, 100 percent of the payroll tax is also offset for those with incomes below $20,000. Those with earnings below $10,000 pay no income taxes and get a check from the government for 2.6 times their payroll tax liability. (This is where people object to Obama saying that he'll give a tax break to 95% of taxpayers. People are learning about how this tax credit system has turned and, as it is advertised as payments paid out over the year, seen as welfare for workers encouraging them to NOT work harder. )

Some now worry that having so many citizens free of taxation is a threat to democracy. In principle, there is nothing to stop them from voting themselves larger and larger benefits at the expense of the taxpaying class. Offsetting this possibility, however, is the fact that those with low incomes vote in low percentages, while those with high incomes vote in high percentages. Thus, in practice, the electoral clout of the taxpaying class has tended to rise as it bears more and more of the total tax burden. That is why Republicans control Congress and the White House despite the growth of nontaxpayers.

Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.
http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2003/bb061603.html

[reconeil]

Thanks again for pertinent info & explanation even though sadly showing that Career Ruling Elite are usually pretty-much bipartisan, when continually pandering to Americans for votes. Besides, it's not Democrat nor Republican money that's so often cavalierly & quite Big Brother Socialistically pissed-away. It's always & obviously solely U.S.Taxpayer Monies PAYING FOR EVERYTHING. There actually are no Government Programs. Just U.S. Taxpayer Funded Programs.

Still, and as things now stand for low wage earners or partime holidays & summer workers like H.S. & College Students,...any or all of such would have to be bloomin idiots to earn only one dollar more than $10,000., for the year.

Not only do they get to keep about $1,000. or the low 10% Income Tax usually taxed MANY OTHER Americans,...they also get an additional about $2,600. and/or that 2.6 times of tax rate as a gift or bonus.

Hey,...total it up. A $3,600 bucks yearly gift or bonus to a whole-lot-of-people, just isn't too shabby a generosity by any stretch.

Still, and in fairness, how come: "We The (Schnooks)" and/or The U.S. Worker/Taxpayer are forced or dictated taking infinitely BETTER Financial & Retirement Care of our lords, leaders or rulers,...WITH OUR MONEY? For the poor & destitute, at least I can understand.

But REALLY,...SO MANY MILLIONAIRES on The Public Dole & Trust? Truly Amazing? Millionaire Socialists governing us, Millionaires informing us and Millionaires holding our monies as seen fit. Hell,...no wonder Private Sector Middle Class America now overall pretty-much in deep s--t. "Too many (Poor, Disabled, Rich & Greedy Financiers) and not enough (Private Sector Workers/Indians)" to pick-up-the-tab.

Neil

[darrels joy]

What I get from this is Republicans have tried to help those poor families that work. This because they do care & don't want to give money to lazy bums.

The reason that this doesn't work is the assistance of others in making sure that people get help applying for this money and getting it paid out over time. It turned from trying to avoid welfare to welfare for the working poor with no negatives.

Have you wondered lately (when they were discussing the minimum wage increases) why the working poor are making so little per year? We just must do more to help these "working poor" families.

Why work more to get ahead when, at a certain point, you start to lose the money you don't have to work for?

It made a nice theory but it didn't hold up in practice.

[darrels joy]

Checks on 'Joe' more extensive than first acknowledged
Tax, welfare info also sought on McCain ally


A state agency has revealed that its checks of computer systems for potential information on "Joe the Plumber" were more extensive than it first acknowledged.

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed today that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.

The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.

Jones-Kelley made the revelations in a letter to Ohio Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, who demanded answers on why state officials checked out Wurzelbacher.

Harris called the multiple records checks "questionable" and said he awaits more answers. "It's kind of like Big Brother is looking in your pocket," he said.

If state employees run checks on every person listed in newspaper stories as buying a business, "it must take a lot of people a lot of time to run these checks," he said. "Where do you draw the line?"

The checks were run after the news media reported that Wurzelbacher was considering buying a plumbing business with more than $250,000 in annual income, Jones-Kelley wrote.

"Given our understanding that Mr. Wurzelbacher had publicly indicated that he had the means to purchase a substantial business enterprise, ODJFS, consistent with past departmental practice, checked confidential databases ," she wrote.

"Not surprisingly, when a person behind in child support payments or receiving public assistance is receiving significant media attention which suggests that the person appears to have available financial resources, the Department risks justifiable criticism if it fails to take note and respond," Jones-Kelley wrote.

The results of the searches were not publicly released and remain confidential, she wrote. Wurzelbacher has said he is not involved in a child-support case and has not purchased any business.

Jones-Kelley wrote that the checks were "well-meaning," but misinterpreted amid the heated final weeks of a presidential election.

Wurzelbacher became a household name when Republican presidential hopeful John McCain frequently referred to "Joe the Plumber" during his Oct. 15 debate with Democrat nominee Barack Obama. The checks began the next day.

Wurzelbacher, who has endorsed and campaigned for McCain, had been caught on videotape challenging Obama about his tax proposals during a campaign visit to "Joe's" neighborhood in the Toledo suburb of Holland.

Republicans have painted the checks on Wurzelbacher as a politically motivated bid by Democrats to dig up dirt and discredit the McCain ally. The Obama campaign has said it has no ties to the checks and supports investigations.

The administration of Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland has said the information was not improperly shared and that there were no political motives behind the checks.

The Dispatch has uncovered four uses of state computer systems to access personal information on Wurzelbacher, including the child-support check authorized by Jones-Kelley.

She said on Monday that her department frequently runs checks for any unpaid child support obligations "when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight."

Republican legislators have challenged Jones-Kelley's reason for checking on Wurzelbacher as "frightening" and flimsy.

Jones-Kelly also has denied any connections between the computer checks on Wurzelbacher and her support for Obama. She donated the maximum $2,500 this year to the Obama campaign.

Ohio Inspector General Thomas P. Charles is investigating whether the child-support check on Wurzelbacher was legal.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...0.html?sid=101