Economy > Taxes
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
24 June 2011
John A. Boehner, an Ohio Republican,
became Speaker of the House of
in January 2011.
Chris Weyant draws political cartoons for
and is also a cartoonist for The New Yorker.
23 May 2012
22 November 2010
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Roll Call
7 December 2010
7 December 2010
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
7 December 2010
The Mobile Register
13 April 2010
The Buffalo News
27 November 2008
tax and spending
claim taxes from
online sales USA
A Tax System Stacked Against the 99 Percent
tax reform USA
raise taxes on the
Taxing the Rich, New York Style
USA December 2011
Do taxes narrow the wealth gap?
USA September 2011
cartoons > Cagle > Tired of taxes
tax receipts UK
tax laws USA
income tax UK
tax cut UK
tax cut USA
tax return UK
tax return USA
tax filings USA
tax cut USA
cartoons > Cagle > Tax cuts
December 02, 2016
Main character: President-elect Donald Trump
tax break UK
tax break / corporate tax break
fiscal stimulus UK
corporate taxes USA
The Trouble With Corporate Taxes
USA February 2011
Apple Owes Ireland $14.5 Billion In Taxes,
European Commission Says
NPR August 30, 2016
How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=185839228 - May 21,
tax shelter USA
tax hike USA
Internal Revenue Service IRS USA
whos-afraid-of-the-irs-not-facebook - Jan. 23, 2020
cartoons > Cagle > Irritating IRS
9 February 2009
M : U.S. president Barack Obama
The Green Bay Press-Gazette
31 March 2011
by Ed Stein
April 13, 2014
us-usa-budget-taxes-idUSTRE7347CX20110406 - Wed Apr 6, 2011
at taxpayers' expense
tax > cartoons > Cagle > Terrible 1040
tax loophole UK
tax loophole USA
close tax loopholes
VAT rise UK
VAT hike UK
cut / slash
VAT fraud UK
VAT villains UK
VAT fraudsters UK
UK > Her Majesty Revenue & Customs HMRC
5 February 2009
Why the Economy
Needs Tax Reform
December 29, 2012
The New York Times
Over the next four years, tax reform, done right, could be a
cure for much of what ails the economy. Higher taxes, raised progressively,
could encourage growth by helping to pay for long-neglected public investment in
education, infrastructure and basic research. More revenue would also reduce
budget deficits, helping to put the nation’s finances on a stable path. Greater
progressivity would reduce rising income inequality, and with it, inequality of
opportunity that is both an economic and social scourge.
The big obstacle to comprehensive tax reform is the persistent Republican myth
that spending cuts alone can achieve economic and budget goals. That notion was
sounded rejected by voters during the election. Yet it still has adherents among
many Republicans, which will make it that much harder for Congress to grapple
with the bigger and more complex issue at the heart of tax reform: how to pay
for government in the 21st century.
The main problem is that the current tax code is incapable of raising the
revenue needed to pay for the goods and services of government. Over the last
four years, federal revenue as a share of the economy has fallen to its lowest
level in nearly 60 years, a result of the recession, the weak recovery and a
decade’s worth of serial tax cuts. Even with deep spending cuts, the chronic
revenue shortfall is expected to continue, swelling the federal debt — unless
taxes go up. To stabilize the debt over the next 10 years while financing more
investment would require at least $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion in new revenue,
above what could be raised by letting the top income tax rate revert to its
pre-Bush-era level of 39.6 percent.
A logical way to help raise the additional needed revenue would be to tax
capital gains at the same rates as ordinary income. Capital gains on assets held
for more than a year before selling are taxed at about the lowest rate in the
code, currently 15 percent and expected to rise to 20 percent in 2013. That is
an indefensible giveaway to the richest Americans. Research shows that the tax
breaks do not add to economic growth but do contribute to inequality. Currently,
the top 1 percent of taxpayers receive more than 70 percent of all capital
gains, while the bottom 80 percent receive only 6 percent.
Another sensible approach is to cap deductions at 28 percent, or to convert
deductions, which disproportionately benefit high-bracket taxpayers, to tax
credits, which would provide the same benefit to all taxpayers, regardless of
tax bracket. President Obama must also pursue other revenue raisers, including a
restoration of the estate tax, higher tax rates or surcharges on
multimillion-dollar incomes, and higher corporate taxes, including an end to the
deferral of tax for American companies that stash their earnings abroad.
All that would only be a start, because the new revenue would only slow the
growth of the debt in the near term. After 10 years, the pressures of an aging
population and health care costs would cause the debt to accelerate again.
With that in mind, Mr. Obama would be wise to instruct the Treasury Department
to start work on tax reform now, exploring carbon taxes, both to raise revenue
and to protect the environment; a value-added tax, coupled with provisions to
protect lower-income taxpayers from higher prices, to tax consumption and
encourage saving; and a financial transactions tax, to ensure that the financial
sector, whose profits have substantially outpaced those of nonfinancial
corporations, pay a fair share.
Not all of the proposed new taxes would gain support, but all deserve to be part
of the debate. Controlling the terms of that debate, and then advancing from
debate to action, could well be the toughest challenge of Mr. Obama’s second
term and, if met, his defining economic legacy.
Why the Economy Needs Tax Reform,
Race to the Bottom
December 5, 2012
The New York Times
Competition among states and cities to lure businesses in hopes of creating jobs
is not new, but it has become more fierce in recent years. An investigation by
The Times found that state and local governments are giving out $80 billion a
year in tax breaks and other subsidies in a foolhardy, shortsighted race to
attract companies. That money could go a long way to improving education,
transportation and other public services that would have a far better shot at
promoting real economic growth.
Instead, with these giveaways, politicians and officials are trying to pick
winners and losers, almost exclusively to the benefit of big corporations (aided
by highly paid lobbyists) at the expense of small businesses. Though they
promise that the subsidies are smart investments, far too often the jobs either
don’t materialize or are short-lived, leaving the communities no better off.
The three-part series by Louise Story described how in places like Texas and
Ohio, state and local governments have lavished millions of dollars in tax
breaks on corporate giants like Samsung and the Big Three automakers — even as
they faced budget deficits and were forced to cut spending on critical services.
The tax revenues forgone in this giveaway frenzy should concern Congress deeply.
After all, federal funds account for one-fifth of state and local budgets.
In one particularly egregious example in Pontiac, Mich., the State of Michigan
gave $14 million in tax credits and a state pension fund guaranteed $18 million
in bonds to a movie studio that created just 12 permanent jobs. In Texas,
Amazon.com, the online retailer, received tax abatements, sales tax exemptions
and other benefits totaling $277 million to open a warehouse that promises to
employ 2,500 people. Those benefits were granted after the retailer closed
another warehouse because of a dispute with the government involving sales
Many governments don’t know the full value of the subsidies they hand out in the
form of tax refunds, rebates, loans, grants and more. And they don’t know if the
jobs created would have been created anyway. The fact is, numerous studies show
that such incentives result in only a small increase in jobs and that any gains
usually come at the expense of other cities and states.
Local governments would be much better off investing tax dollars in education
and public works that would deliver long-term benefits to both businesses and
workers. California, for instance, is among the least generous of the larger
states in doling out tax breaks. It gave out just $112 per capita compared with
$759 in Texas, $672 in Michigan, and $210 in New York. Its experience leaves no
doubt that investments made in public institutions like the University of
California system can remain critically important to economic growth decades
The senseless race to give away billions in subsidies is, of course, hard to
stop when elected leaders think a pledge of potential jobs might help in their
next election. But even when attracting businesses is a legitimate goal, it has
to be done in ways that are fair and transparent.
The trouble with targeted incentives is that they are little more than transfers
of wealth to a handful of powerful corporations from all other taxpayers,
including other businesses. If the problem is excessive tax burdens on
businesses in general, then the solution is broad tax reform that also benefits
small business owners, who are more likely to stick around if the regional
economy weakens and who are unlikely to hopscotch around the country in search
of a bigger tax break.
Race to the Bottom, NYT, 5.12.2012,
How to Get Business to Pay Its Share
May 3, 2012
The New York Times
By ALEX MARSHALL
JAMES MADISON never played with an iPhone, but he might have
had something to say about the news last weekend about Apple. Over the last few
years, the company has avoided paying billions of dollars in state and federal
taxes by routing profits through subsidiaries based in tax havens from Reno,
Nev., to the Caribbean.
This is a common practice among major American businesses, and back in 1787,
Madison saw it coming. Someday, he warned, companies could grow so large they
“would pass beyond the authority of a single state, and would do business in
other states.” To make sure the companies remained accountable to government, he
said the federal government should “grant charters of incorporation in cases
where the public good may require them, and the authority of a single state may
In other words, a National Companies Act.
Such an act would create a common corporate architecture for all American
companies doing business across state lines and internationally. It would
establish not only uniform tax policies but also national standards for the
structure of corporate boards, the power of chief executives, the relations of
management with workers and shareholders and the interaction of American
companies with other nations. National companies would have to abide by national
rules, and the option of shopping around for the most favorable laws or tax
policies simply wouldn’t exist.
It’s an idea that has been proposed and pursued many times, particularly during
the early 1900s, when companies like Standard Oil, which was a collection of
companies incorporated in various states and assembled into a national “trust,”
were becoming increasingly powerful. Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft,
Woodrow Wilson and, later, Franklin D. Roosevelt all supported the creation of a
national companies law, but the measures were consistently opposed by the
business community and eventually defeated.
Today, however, considering how much effort and money American companies expend
on keeping a competitive advantage by figuring out which loopholes to exploit
from the bewildering array of rules now in effect, they might not entirely
oppose reform. In an era of global competition, it could help to have a clear
set of standards. It’s certainly what other nations have. In Germany, for
example, national legislation established rules for the structure of corporate
boards. Britain’s Parliament establishes how a corporation can be created and
what its rights and responsibilities are.
Legally, there is little doubt that the United States Congress could impose
similar rules under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Although the states
have traditionally been the main arena for corporate rules, the federal
government has long created national corporations, from the First Bank of the
United States in 1791 to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967.
Congress could use this same power to require that companies doing business
across state lines have national corporate charters, which would subject them to
federal rules. Alternatively, it could simply set rules for corporate
organization and conduct that would apply to all interstate companies of a
Passing a National Companies Act won’t be easy. Companies would hire lobbyists
to push for favorable rules. And some states with particularly easy
incorporation terms, like Delaware, might resist. Around 60 percent of Fortune
500 companies are incorporated in Delaware, and the state earns a great deal in
fees and tax revenues as a result.
But the Apple controversy shows that the nation is ready for reform. While the
company is a symbol of private enterprise, its existence is made possible by a
charter that some government writes and grants. It should serve public as well
as private ends — and pay its rightful share in taxes — or it should not exist
Alex Marshall is a senior fellow
at the Regional Plan
an urban research and advocacy group,
and the author of the forthcoming book
“The Surprising Design of
How to Get Business to Pay Its Share, NYT,
Antipoverty Tax Program
The New York Times
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
N.C. — Karen Spain spent several long months before receiving her tax refund
this year in a state of suspended panic. The rent was three months late. Her
car’s brakes were shot. And she could no longer afford to pay her electricity
So when the refund finally arrived — a $7,200 cash infusion that was about a
third of what she earned all last year as an assistant manager at an auto parts
store — it brought a certain measure of relief, both financial and
psychological. That did not last long.
“Did we celebrate?” said Ms. Spain, a 49-year-old mother of two. “No. We
maintain, that’s all we do. We are just trying to keep our heads above water.”
It is tax time, the season when the country’s largest antipoverty program, the
earned income tax credit, plows billions of dollars into mailboxes and bank
accounts of low-income working Americans like Ms. Spain. It is the most
important financial moment of the year for many people in the bottom half of the
wage bracket, a time to pay off old bills, make car repairs, buy children
clothes and maybe make a big purchase like a refrigerator or a TV.
As incomes among the country’s lowest wage earners continue to stagnate, the
credit has played a critical role in smoothing the hard edges of an unforgiving
labor market for the country’s most vulnerable workers and helping stem the tide
of income inequality that has been rising among Americans in recent decades.
Nearly one in five filers now receive the credit — about 28 million returns in
the 2010 tax year, the most recent year figures are available — representing the
highest percentage since the program began in the 1970s, according to the
The effect has been significant. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a
research group based in Washington, estimates the credit lifted about six
million Americans out of poverty last year.
“We find clear evidence that the E.I.T.C. has significantly reduced poverty
rates and income inequality,” said Raj Chetty, an economist at Harvard who has
studied the subsidy’s effect across cities. “The program is pulling up the lower
end of the income distribution.”
The credit also seems to have an important psychological side effect: It makes
people feel middle class.
“You get this feeling of, ‘Hey, I’m like them now,’ “ said Wesley Rouse, 27, a
property manager in Durham.
But the boost is often temporary. Many people who receive the credit fall back
into poverty over the course of the year, caught in the same cycle of low-wage
work and reliance on credit that put them there in the first place.
One problem is the form the credit takes. The refund can pay as much as 40
percent of a family’s annual income at once, a windfall that many experts are
now arguing should be changed by paying the refund in installments over the
“It’s feast or famine,” said Mae Watson Grote, director of the Financial Clinic,
a New York-based group that teaches financial planning to low-income New
Yorkers. “It’s very hard to manage when it’s a windfall.”
That cycle has the natural force of a tide at National Pawn, a shop in a
working-class area of north Raleigh.
“We’re all cleaned out,” said Sundeep Joshi, the store’s manager, waving his
hand toward empty shelves, reflecting a whirlwind of recent purchases. But
people will start to bring things back to sell as their budgets get squeezed, he
said. By July, the back room is usually packed with pawned items. “That’s the
story every year,” he said.
Kathryn Edin, a professor of public policy at Harvard whose coming book, “It’s
Not Like I’m Poor: How Working Families Make Ends Meet in a Post-Welfare World,”
finds that recipients spent the subsidy overwhelmingly on bills and current
expenses. Less than 10 percent of the money paid out was saved, she found. “The
E.I.T.C. is one of the best social policies we’ve ever devised, but it does not
solve the fundamental problem that you still can’t live on your wages,” she
For Ms. Spain, the subsidy was a lifeline. Together with other tax credits, it
pushed her family income up to about $27,000, above the federal poverty
threshold of $22,800 for a family of four in 2011. (Her husband, an unemployed
cook, did not earn much income.)
But the money went fast. Rent ate up a third. Then came brakes and a new bumper
for her 1998 Honda Civic. She paid the overdue electricity bill, reactivated her
car insurance and bought some new clothes for her two girls, ages 8 and 9.
“You get these large sums, but you have to repair things, and pay back rent, and
you owe on all your bills,” Ms. Spain said. “I’m not at the point where I can
put $500 aside and just let it sit there and grow.”
That economic vulnerability has spawned an industry of lenders who hawk
short-term loans at exorbitant rates to tide people over until tax time, said
Peter Skillern, executive director of Reinvestment Partners, a nonprofit
organization in Durham that helps low-income families file their taxes. The
practice, known as “refund anticipation lending,” was effectively banned by
federal regulators this month, but low-income filers still face an abundance of
rip-off schemes and high tax preparation fees, he said.
“It’s ‘What can I get today versus what’s coming tomorrow,’ “ said Brenda
Dozier, a payroll specialist who said her sister has relied on refund
anticipation loans. “I tell people, ‘You made it this far, just hold on.’ “
Ms. Spain said she paid a company $550 to do her taxes last year so she could
get them — and the refund — back fast, an expenditure she now regrets.
The credit may not permanently change people’s circumstances, but researchers
are finding evidence that many who receive it do not do so for very long. One
recent study found that 60 percent of those who got the benefit stopped claiming
it after two years. That is because people’s finances tend to be fluid, moving
them in and out of the program, said John Horowitz, an economist at Ball State
University in Indiana, one of the authors of the study, which examined tax
records from 1989 to 2006. One in two American families with children received
the credit at least once during that period, he said.
Ms. Spain yearns for a time when she will no longer be eligible for the credit
because she is earning more money. She remembers wistfully her former job at
Nortel that paid $85,000 a year and the feeling of going to a restaurant or a
movie without worrying about her budget.
“Someday we’ll wait and file in April,” she said. “And if we need money before
then, we’ll just go to the bank.”
Antipoverty Tax Program Offers Relief, Though Often Temporary,
Reform and Corporate Taxes
February 22, 2012
The New York Times
The corporate tax system is a mess. The United States has one
of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but too many businesses still
don’t contribute their fair share of revenue, in large part because of numerous
loopholes, subsidies and other opportunities for tax avoidance. While some
industries and companies pay little or no tax because they qualify for generous
breaks or have really good lawyers, others are taxed heavily.
There is no doubt that a system that is more competitive, more efficient — the
current mind-numbing complexity makes planning far too difficult — and more fair
would be a plus for the economy. President Obama’s framework for business tax
reform, released on Wednesday, is a welcome start for a much-needed debate on
comprehensive tax reform. But we already have two big concerns.
While the administration insists that business tax reform should not add to the
deficit, the country needs to raise more revenue to care for an aging
population, rebuild infrastructure, improve education and tackle the deficit.
Corporations, which benefit from all of those, should, as a matter of necessity
and fairness, pay more.
Our other concern is that like all tax reform, the potential for gaming the
process is ever present and unless it is vigilantly managed could actually
reduce revenue and add to the deficit.
Take the framework’s central reform: reducing the top corporate rate from 35
percent to 28 percent, while at the same time doing away with loopholes and
subsidies. In theory, it is a sound approach, which would reduce complexity
while bringing the rate in line with that of other advanced nations without
busting the budget. But, even if they made it past the lobbyists, the specific
loophole closers in Mr. Obama’s new framework — including ending subsidies for
oil and gas exploration, corporate jets and private equity partners — are far
too small to make up for dropping the top rate.
As for the big money subsidies that would have to be cut or ended to pay for a
lower rate — including less generous depreciation and reduced deductibility of
interest on corporate debt — the White House merely presents them as part of a
menu of options for “consideration.”
The framework’s call for a minimum corporate tax on the foreign earnings of
American companies is a step in the right direction. Under current law, various
tax provisions and tactics allow companies to reduce or defer taxes by shifting
ever more production and profits overseas. But the idea is blunted by the
framework’s failure to say what the minimum tax rate should be.
Nor does the framework broach other reforms like taxing foreign profits when
they are earned rather than when they are repatriated to the United States —
that could ultimately be more effective in getting multinationals to pay more.
Even with its shortcomings, Mr. Obama’s proposal presents a needed contrast to
the Republicans’ approach to corporate taxes. Last year, Dave Camp, the chairman
of the House Ways and Means Committee, proposed a top corporate rate of 25
percent without saying how he would pay for the tax cut. Mitt Romney has done
somewhat better, calling for a 25 percent rate to be coupled with “broadening”
the corporate tax base, which generally means closing loopholes. But he has yet
to say which tax breaks he would end.
Serious reform requires specific proposals, tough trade-offs and hard numbers
attached. Without all of those, this effort could too easily be hijacked by
powerful corporations and their high-paid lobbyists.
Reform and Corporate Taxes,
The New York Times
By PAUL KRUGMAN
supercommittee was a superdud — and we should be glad. Nonetheless, at some
point we’ll have to rein in budget deficits. And when we do, here’s a thought:
How about making increased revenue an important part of the deal?
And I don’t just mean a return to Clinton-era tax rates. Why should 1990s taxes
be considered the outer limit of revenue collection? Think about it: The
long-run budget outlook has darkened, which means that some hard choices must be
made. Why should those choices only involve spending cuts? Why not also push
some taxes above their levels in the 1990s?
Let me suggest two areas in which it would make a lot of sense to raise taxes in
earnest, not just return them to pre-Bush levels: taxes on very high incomes and
taxes on financial transactions.
About those high incomes: In my last column I suggested that the very rich, who
have had huge income gains over the last 30 years, should pay more in taxes. I
got many responses from readers, with a common theme being that this was silly,
that even confiscatory taxes on the wealthy couldn’t possibly raise enough money
Folks, you’re living in the past. Once upon a time America was a middle-class
nation, in which the super-elite’s income was no big deal. But that was another
The I.R.S. reports that in 2007, that is, before the economic crisis, the top
0.1 percent of taxpayers — roughly speaking, people with annual incomes over $2
million — had a combined income of more than a trillion dollars. That’s a lot of
money, and it wouldn’t be hard to devise taxes that would raise a significant
amount of revenue from those super-high-income individuals.
For example, a recent report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out
that before 1980 very-high-income individuals fell into tax brackets well above
the 35 percent top rate that applies today. According to the center’s analysis,
restoring those high-income brackets would have raised $78 billion in 2007, or
more than half a percent of G.D.P. I’ve extrapolated that number using
Congressional Budget Office projections, and what I get for the next decade is
that high-income taxation could shave more than $1 trillion off the deficit.
It’s instructive to compare that estimate with the savings from the kinds of
proposals that are actually circulating in Washington these days. Consider, for
example, proposals to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67, dealing a
major blow to millions of Americans. How much money would that save?
Well, none from the point of view of the nation as a whole, since we would be
pushing seniors out of Medicare and into private insurance, which has
substantially higher costs. True, it would reduce federal spending — but not by
much. The budget office estimates that outlays would fall by only $125 billion
over the next decade, as the age increase phased in. And even when fully phased
in, this partial dismantling of Medicare would reduce the deficit only about a
third as much as could be achieved with higher taxes on the very rich.
So raising taxes on the very rich could make a serious contribution to deficit
reduction. Don’t believe anyone who claims otherwise.
And then there’s the idea of taxing financial transactions, which have exploded
in recent decades. The economic value of all this trading is dubious at best. In
fact, there’s considerable evidence suggesting that too much trading is going
on. Still, nobody is proposing a punitive tax. On the table, instead, are
proposals like the one recently made by Senator Tom Harkin and Representative
Peter DeFazio for a tiny fee on financial transactions.
And here’s the thing: Because there are so many transactions, such a fee could
yield several hundred billion dollars in revenue over the next decade. Again,
this compares favorably with the savings from many of the harsh spending cuts
being proposed in the name of fiscal responsibility.
But wouldn’t such a tax hurt economic growth? As I said, the evidence suggests
not — if anything, it suggests that to the extent that taxing financial
transactions reduces the volume of wheeling and dealing, that would be a good
And it’s instructive, too, to note that some countries already have financial
transactions taxes — and that among those who do are Hong Kong and Singapore. If
some conservative starts claiming that such taxes are an unwarranted government
intrusion, you might want to ask him why such taxes are imposed by the two
countries that score highest on the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic
Now, the tax ideas I’ve just mentioned wouldn’t be enough, by themselves, to fix
our deficit. But the same is true of proposals for spending cuts. The point I’m
making here isn’t that taxes are all we need; it is that they could and should
be a significant part of the solution.
Things to Tax,
Millionaires Before Jobs
The New York Times
nothing partisan about a road or a bridge or an airport; Democrats and
Republicans have voted to spend billions on them for decades and long supported
rebuilding plans in their own states. On Thursday, though, when President
Obama’s plan to spend $60 billion on infrastructure repairs came up for a vote
in the Senate, not a single Republican agreed to break the party’s filibuster.
That’s because the bill would pay for itself with a 0.7 percent surtax on people
making more than $1 million. That would affect about 345,000 taxpayers,
according to Citizens for Tax Justice, adding an average of $13,457 to their
annual tax bills. Protecting that elite group — and hewing to their rigid
antitax vows — was more important to Senate Republicans than the thousands of
construction jobs the bill would have helped create, or the millions of people
who would have used the rebuilt roads, bridges and airports.
Senate Republicans filibustered the president’s full jobs act last month for the
same reasons. And they have vowed to block the individual pieces of that bill
that Democrats are now bringing to the floor. Senate Democrats have also accused
them of opposing any good idea that might put people back to work and rev the
economy a bit before next year’s presidential election.
There is no question that the infrastructure bill would be good for the flagging
economy — and good for the country’s future development. It would directly spend
$50 billion on roads, bridges, airports and mass transit systems, and it would
then provide another $10 billion to an infrastructure bank to encourage
private-sector investment in big public works projects.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican of Texas, co-sponsored an
infrastructure-bank bill in March, and other Republicans have supported similar
efforts over the years. But the Republicans’ determination to stick to an
antitax pledge clearly trumps even their own good ideas.
A competing Republican bill, which also failed on Thursday, was cobbled together
in an attempt to make it appear as if the party has equally valid ideas on job
creation and rebuilding. It would have extended the existing highway and public
transportation financing for two years, paying for it with a $40 billion cut to
other domestic programs. Republican senators also threw in a provision that
would block the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing new clean air
rules. Only in the fevered dreams of corporate polluters could that help create
Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, bitterly accused Democrats of
designing their infrastructure bill to fail by paying for it with a
millionaire’s tax, as if his party’s intransigence was so indomitable that
daring to challenge it is somehow underhanded.
The only good news is that the Democrats aren’t going to stop. There are many
more jobs bills to come, including extension of unemployment insurance and the
payroll-tax cut. If Republicans are so proud of blocking all progress, they will
have to keep doing it over and over again, testing the patience of American
Putting Millionaires Before Jobs,
Related > Anglonautes >
taxes > tax avoidance, tax evasion
economy, money, taxes,
housing market, shopping,
jobs, unemployment, retirement,
banks > off-shore
industry, energy, commodities