GOP attaches estate tax cuts to min wage bill

[George Gervin's Afro]

Republicans tie minimum wage to tax cut By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated


WASHINGTON - Republican leaders are willing to allow the first minimum wage increase in a decade but only if it's coupled with a cut in future inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates, congressional aides said Friday.

A package GOP leaders planned to bring to a vote Friday or Saturday in the House also would renew several popular tax breaks, including a research and development credit for businesses, and deductions for college tuition and state sales taxes, said a spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner.

The wage would increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next three years, said Kevin Madden, the aide to Boehner, an Ohio Republican.

The maneuver is aimed at defusing the wage hike as a campaign issue for Democrats while using its popularity to spur enactment of the Republican Party's long-sought goal of permanently cutting taxes on millionaires' estates.

The Senate could take it up next week before leaving on a monthlong recess.

"It's going to be one hell of a rumpus," predicted Eric Ueland, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's chief of staff.

Democrats immediately expressed outrage, saying low-income workers deserved a straight vote on increasing the minimum wage uncoupled to other measures.

"It's political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. "Members of Congress raised their own pay — no strings attached. Surely, common decency suggests that minimum wage workers deserve the same respect."

"It's outrageous the Republican Congress can't simply help poor people without doing something for their wealthy contributors," said Rep. Tim Ryan (news, bio, voting record), D-Ohio.

House lawmakers were to discuss the package at an early afternoon session, while the Senate GOP aide professed confidence the bill could advance through the chamber next week.

The aide asked not to be identified publicly because of the ongoing closed strategy sessions on the bill.

"It's the one chance for Democrats who want to get a minimum wage increase," the aide said.

The move comes after almost 50 rank-and-file Republican lawmakers pressed House leaders — who strongly oppose the wage hike and have thus far prevented a vote — to schedule the measure for debate. Democrats have been hammering away on the wage hike issue and have public opinion behind them

"We weren't going to be denied," said Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, a leader in the effort. "How can you defend $5.15 an hour in today's economy?"

It was a decade ago, during the hotly contested campaign year of 1996, that Congress voted to increase the minimum wage. A person working 40 hours per week at minimum wage makes $10,700, which is below the poverty line for workers with families.

In advancing the tax plan, GOP leaders excluded a measure popular with small businesses that would make it easier for small businesses and the self-employed to band together and buy health insurance plans for employees at a lower cost.

That idea was blasted as a "poison pill" by Democrats and labor unions. The small business health insurance bill exempts new "association health plans" from state regulations requiring insurers to cover treatments such as mental health and maternity care. And opponents fear they would offer inferior prescription drug benefits.

Democrats have made increasing the wage a pillar of their campaign platform and are pushing to raise the wage to $7.25 per hour over two years. In June, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to raise the minimum wage, rejecting a proposal from Democrats.

It's long been clear that there is wide support for the wage increase in the House, but Republican leaders have a general policy of bringing legislation to the floor only if it has support from a majority of Republicans. Perhaps one-fourth of House Republicans support the wage increase.

Inflation has eroded the minimum wage's buying power to the lowest level in about 50 years. Yet lawmakers have won cost-of-living wage increases totaling about $35,000 for themselves over that time.

Lawmakers fear being pounded with 30-second campaign ads over the August recess that would tie Congress' upcoming $3,300 pay increase with Republicans' refusal to raise the minimum wage.



what I find so humerous about those "small farmers" who pass along their farms is they are non existant. Less than .27% pay estate taxes every year but the GOP is determined to starve social programs..


http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/estate_tax_share_falls.pdf

[Yonivore]

Republicans tie minimum wage to tax cut By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated


WASHINGTON - Republican leaders are willing to allow the first minimum wage increase in a decade but only if it's coupled with a cut in future inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates, congressional aides said Friday.

A package GOP leaders planned to bring to a vote Friday or Saturday in the House also would renew several popular tax breaks, including a research and development credit for businesses, and deductions for college tuition and state sales taxes, said a spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner.

The wage would increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next three years, said Kevin Madden, the aide to Boehner, an Ohio Republican.

The maneuver is aimed at defusing the wage hike as a campaign issue for Democrats while using its popularity to spur enactment of the Republican Party's long-sought goal of permanently cutting taxes on millionaires' estates.

The Senate could take it up next week before leaving on a monthlong recess.

"It's going to be one hell of a rumpus," predicted Eric Ueland, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's chief of staff.

Democrats immediately expressed outrage, saying low-income workers deserved a straight vote on increasing the minimum wage uncoupled to other measures.

"It's political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. "Members of Congress raised their own pay — no strings attached. Surely, common decency suggests that minimum wage workers deserve the same respect."

"It's outrageous the Republican Congress can't simply help poor people without doing something for their wealthy contributors," said Rep. Tim Ryan (news, bio, voting record), D-Ohio.

House lawmakers were to discuss the package at an early afternoon session, while the Senate GOP aide professed confidence the bill could advance through the chamber next week.

The aide asked not to be identified publicly because of the ongoing closed strategy sessions on the bill.

"It's the one chance for Democrats who want to get a minimum wage increase," the aide said.

The move comes after almost 50 rank-and-file Republican lawmakers pressed House leaders — who strongly oppose the wage hike and have thus far prevented a vote — to schedule the measure for debate. Democrats have been hammering away on the wage hike issue and have public opinion behind them

"We weren't going to be denied," said Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, a leader in the effort. "How can you defend $5.15 an hour in today's economy?"

It was a decade ago, during the hotly contested campaign year of 1996, that Congress voted to increase the minimum wage. A person working 40 hours per week at minimum wage makes $10,700, which is below the poverty line for workers with families.

In advancing the tax plan, GOP leaders excluded a measure popular with small businesses that would make it easier for small businesses and the self-employed to band together and buy health insurance plans for employees at a lower cost.

That idea was blasted as a "poison pill" by Democrats and labor unions. The small business health insurance bill exempts new "association health plans" from state regulations requiring insurers to cover treatments such as mental health and maternity care. And opponents fear they would offer inferior prescription drug benefits.

Democrats have made increasing the wage a pillar of their campaign platform and are pushing to raise the wage to $7.25 per hour over two years. In June, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to raise the minimum wage, rejecting a proposal from Democrats.

It's long been clear that there is wide support for the wage increase in the House, but Republican leaders have a general policy of bringing legislation to the floor only if it has support from a majority of Republicans. Perhaps one-fourth of House Republicans support the wage increase.

Inflation has eroded the minimum wage's buying power to the lowest level in about 50 years. Yet lawmakers have won cost-of-living wage increases totaling about $35,000 for themselves over that time.

Lawmakers fear being pounded with 30-second campaign ads over the August recess that would tie Congress' upcoming $3,300 pay increase with Republicans' refusal to raise the minimum wage.



what I find so humerous about those "small farmers" who pass along their farms is they are non existant. Less than .27% pay estate taxes every year but the GOP is determined to starve social programs..


http://www.faireconomy.org/reports/2006/estate_tax_share_falls.pdf
Cool by me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Cool by me.


What I think is disgraceful is that the GOP is trying to starve the govt primarily social/entitlement programs and not owning up to it. Why don't they admit this is what they are trying to accomplish? Because they would be run out of office if they were honest about it..but no not the party of God they need to be dishonest about their intentions.. I would have much more respect for the GOP if they would be honest about their motives.. but they pull crap like this and of course blame the democrats for wanting to raise taxes..

[boutons_]

The Repugs want to cut loans for education, their lie being that banks are profiting. But why would Repugs beat up on rich Repug bankers?

In reality, it's nothing but covert, sinister culture war. The cost of education has been inflating way beyond the rate of inflation, for decades, putting education, esp private education at the best schools, out of reach of qualified students of limited finances. By cutting loans that are available to the non-rich, the rich Repugs are reserving the best education for themselves and their kids, contributing to widening gap in income distribution and in equality of opportunity.

And of course, if the govt provides less in loans/gurantees, there is more govt money available for even more tax cuts for the rich + corps.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If I were the democrats I would make this very well known through campaign ads detailing the only way the GOP controlled congress would help the poor is if we gave the top 1% TAX BRACKET MORE TAX CUTS.Then follow with a list what programs are being starved and pose the question " who does the GOP stand for?" The overwhelming majority of Americans support a minimum wage increase.

[Yonivore]

What I think is disgraceful is that the GOP is trying to starve the govt primarily social/entitlement programs and not owning up to it. Why don't they admit this is what they are trying to accomplish? Because they would be run out of office if they were honest about it..but no not the party of God they need to be dishonest about their intentions.. I would have much more respect for the GOP if they would be honest about their motives.. but they pull crap like this and of course blame the democrats for wanting to raise taxes..
They just recognize there isn't enough money in the universe to fund Social Security and other entitlements and there never will be, and every time they offer an alternative, like private accounts, Democrats go apoplectic and lie through their teeth about it.

I say whatever works.

[Crookshanks]

We don't need an increase in the minimum wage. It's ridiculous that a 16-year old, working his first job at McDonalds, should be making over $7 an hour!

The market takes care of itself. If an employer wants to be cheap, he won't get good workers, and those he does get will leave the minute they find a higher-paying job.

This whole sob story about heads of families only earning $5.15 an hour is bogus. If that's the case, then that person has no education or training and isn't qualified for a better job. That's his/her problem, not the govts!

[George Gervin's Afro]

We don't need an increase in the minimum wage. It's ridiculous that a 16-year old, working his first job at McDonalds, should be making over $7 an hour!

The market takes care of itself. If an employer wants to be cheap, he won't get good workers, and those he does get will leave the minute they find a higher-paying job.

This whole sob story about heads of families only earning $5.15 an hour is bogus. If that's the case, then that person has no education or training and isn't qualified for a better job. That's his/her problem, not the govts!


Oh the familes we generalize.. of course the heads of the families need more education or training..but they can't afford for anyone to watch their kids when they attempt to look for more opportunites.. so then they are stuck... but the compassionate conservatives want to gut the social programs that attempt to help these same families.. who then turn around and lecture all of us as to why social programs need to end.. see it's really cool on one hand that conservatives can tell us the poor need more training..yet they never offer up ways how to help these people get the training.. then the same conservatives can gut social services.. welcome to an america with a republican majority!

[Yonivore]

If I were the democrats I would make this very well known through campaign ads detailing the only way the GOP controlled congress would help the poor is if we gave the top 1% TAX BRACKET MORE TAX CUTS.Then follow with a list what programs are being starved and pose the question " who does the GOP stand for?" The overwhelming majority of Americans support a minimum wage increase.
Then, the Republicans should just explain to the people that it is that same 1% who reinvests those tax cuts into the economy through capital purchases, wages, employment, luxury items, services, start up ventures, etc so that there will be more of the minimum wage earners employed.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Then, the Republicans should just explain to the people that it is that same 1% who reinvests those tax cuts into the economy through capital purchases, wages, employment, luxury items, services, start up ventures, etc so that there will be more of the minimum wage earners employed.


Good luck explaining that to the masses.. and showing a direct coorrelation on how ending school lunches is actually a good thing for the poor..

[Yonivore]

Good luck explaining that to the masses.. and showing a direct coorrelation on how ending school lunches is actually a good thing for the poor..
Are you saying they're stupid? And what does tax policy that increases federal revenues while, at the same time, increasing investment in the workforce an the products and services they provide have to do with school lunches?

It may be that the school lunch program needs to be reformed. I know, from personal experience at my local elementary school that somewhere less than 10% of the those who "need" to be fed during the school year bother to show up during the summer? Do they hibernate?

And, where are all these hungry children for breakfast? Less than 40% of those who the taxpayer feeds at lunch bother to show up for breakfast. It's a wasteful and abused program just like every other entitlement.

It and all the others need to be reformed.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Are you saying they're stupid? And what does tax policy that increases federal revenues while, at the same time, increasing investment in the workforce an the products and services they provide have to do with school lunches?

It may be that the school lunch program needs to be reformed. I know, from personal experience at my local elementary school that somewhere less than 10% of the those who "need" to be fed during the school year bother to show up during the summer? Do they hibernate?

And, where are all these hungry children for breakfast? Less than 40% of those who the taxpayer feeds at lunch bother to show up for breakfast. It's a wasteful and abused program just like every other entitlement.

It and all the others need to be reformed.++


Reformed? I can live with that. Gutted? No. People who abuse these programs need to be prosectued under the fullest extent of the law.

[Yonivore]

++


Reformed? I can live with that. Gutted? No. People who abuse these programs need to be prosectued under the fullest extent of the law.
Oh yeah, I can see the six o'clock news now; "Parents arrested for trying to keep food on the table."

Government doesn't need to be in the charity business, period.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh yeah, I can see the six o'clock news now; "Parents arrested for trying to keep food on the table."

Government doesn't need to be in the charity business, period.


And there you have it America. You have 2 distinct choices between and Democrats and Republicans.

[Yonivore]

And there you have it America. You have 2 distinct choices between and Democrats and Republicans.
Yep, the Democrats who think you're too stupid to invest your own money and who believe government should forcibly take money from those who work hard to earn it and give it to others, many of whom don't do a damn thing but live off the government tit; and Republicans who think people know best how to handle their own money and who already give to charity and would give more if only they were allowed to keep more.

Your choice America.

[Ocotillo]

Then, the Republicans should just explain to the people that it is that same 1% who reinvests those tax cuts into the economy through capital purchases, wages, employment, luxury items, services, start up ventures, etc so that there will be more of the minimum wage earners employed.

Let's see estate tax repealed......yippie, now Paris Hilton can get that dog walker she has been wanting.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yep, the Democrats who think you're too stupid to invest your own money and who believe government should forcibly take money from those who work hard to earn it and give it to others, many of whom don't do a damn thing but live off the government tit; and Republicans who think people know best how to handle their own money and who already give to charity and would give more if only they were allowed to keep more.

Your choice America.


Notice how every Republican argument to social programs always has this component. Anyone know why? Because without this caveat they look like selfish, mean bastards.

[Ocotillo]

They just recognize there isn't enough money in the universe to fund Social Security and other entitlements and there never will be, and every time they offer an alternative, like private accounts, Democrats go apoplectic and lie through their teeth about it.

I say whatever works.

In the bolded area are you calling Social Security an entitlement? It is not. That is what the current bunch in the WH want to make it.

[Yonivore]

Notice how every Republican argument to social programs always has this component. Anyone know why? Because without this caveat they look like selfish, mean bastards.
That's because it's a huge fucking component. Fraud, waste, and abuse have at various times been said to comprise as much as 70% of entitlement budgets.

My point is private enterprise and charitable organizations could provide charity more efficiently, effectively, and less expensively than government.

I do my part. I put my money where my mouth is and I would put a lot more there if Uncle Sam wasn't out wasting it on things they have no business being involved in. How 'bout you?

[Yonivore]

In the bolded area are you calling Social Security an entitlement? It is not. That is what the current bunch in the WH want to make it.
Social Security is a legalized Ponzi scheme. People go to jail for operating pyramid schemes.

The administration wants to phase it out and let me invest that money.

[Ocotillo]

My point is private enterprise and charitable organizations could provide charity more efficiently, effectively, and less expensively than government.?

Won't happen.



I do my part. I put my money where my mouth is and I would put a lot more there if Uncle Sam wasn't out wasting it on things they have no business being involved in. How 'bout you?

Sure, but there are not enough like you out there.

[Ocotillo]

Social Security is a legalized Ponzi scheme. People go to jail for operating pyramid schemes.

The administration wants to phase it out and let me invest that money.

You're free to invest money in government retirement programs. I read in another thread you have a 401K and a Roth IRA. Social Security is an insurance program. It is not meant to be one's retirement, only a safety net if a person is unsuccessful in their retirement planning or their investments fail.

You are correct the administration wants to phase it out but they won't admit that publically because this is an overwhelmingly popular government program that works and the American people don't want it to go away.

[Yonivore]

Won't happen.
It's already happening. Unfortunately, wasteful government entitlement programs reduce the size of the pie and take money away from charitable enterprises.


Sure, but there are not enough like you out there.
Sure there are. Poor people just don't want to have to deal with charities that might actually ask them to prove they have a need or that might actually ask them to provide something in return.

It's all about stigma.

The poor in this country think they should be allowed to spend our tax money without anyone knowing it is our tax money they are spending. That is what creates the atmosphere where fraud and abuse flourish.

We've gone from food stamps, to Lone Star cards, to freakin' ATM cards that are indistinquishable from my ATM card that draws my money from my bank. The only difference is their ATM card draws my money from a government bank.

[Ocotillo]

The private funds raised for Katrina and the Tsunami were minscule compared to need and what the governments provided.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's because it's a huge fucking component. Fraud, waste, and abuse have at various times been said to comprise as much as 70% of entitlement budgets.

My point is private enterprise and charitable organizations could provide charity more efficiently, effectively, and less expensively than government.

I do my part. I put my money where my mouth is and I would put a lot more there if Uncle Sam wasn't out wasting it on things they have no business being involved in. How 'bout you?


I pay my taxes and I volunteer my time. Does this pass your litmus test?

[Ocotillo]

We've gone from food stamps, to Lone Star cards, to freakin' ATM cards that are indistinquishable from my ATM card that draws my money from my bank. The only difference is their ATM card draws my money from a government bank.

Actually as a liberal I don't have a problem with reforming the way this is done. Rather than the cards etc... that lend themselves to abuse, why not rations? Rather than using the Lone Star card to buy "premium" items, people receiving assistance should be restricted to what they get, basic necessities. Like flour, generic rather than name brand items, etc...

[Yonivore]

You're free to invest money in government retirement programs. I read in another thread you have a 401K and a Roth IRA. Social Security is an insurance program. It is not meant to be one's retirement, only a safety net if a person is unsuccessful in their retirement planning or their investments fail.

You are correct the administration wants to phase it out but they won't admit that publically because this is an overwhelmingly popular government program that works and the American people don't want it to go away.
What it's defenders fail to admit is that it will be insolvent in the future and there's not enough money in the universe to keep it solvent. It needs to be put to rest. It was never intended to be a permanent program in the first place.

And, you're right, I have a 401K and a Roth IRA. I also have an investment portfolio where I dabble some with mixed results and and emergency savings account. And, I've done all this on an income that qualifies me for many government handout programs from which I refuse to take.

I hate like hell that every month I watch my Social Security contribution go down the toilet -- probably never to be seen again by me -- when I know it could be working and earning interest, just like my other accounts have and do.

Social Security doesn't work. It's a Ponzi Scheme and in the very near future, there will be more people drawing from it than there will be people paying into it.

[Ocotillo]

^^ Insolvency can be addressed with reforms. Americans are living longer the age can be raised some. The ceiling of who pays can be raised. It is fixable.

[Crookshanks]

Oh the familes we generalize.. of course the heads of the families need more education or training..but they can't afford for anyone to watch their kids when they attempt to look for more opportunites.. so then they are stuck...

Here's a thought: stay in school and get an education, don't get married until at least age 20, and don't have kids before you get married. If you do these three things, you are almost guaranteed to live above the poverty level.

Those "poor" people you refer to probably didn't heed this advice - so it's their own damn fault they can't get a better paying job! Too many people want to sow their wild oats, have sex without any consequences, and shack up with whoever comes along - then they want the government to bail them out of their mess.

Sorry, I have no compassion for those "poor" people!!

[Yonivore]

Actually as a liberal I don't have a problem with reforming the way this is done. Rather than the cards etc... that lend themselves to abuse, why not rations? Rather than using the Lone Star card to buy "premium" items, people receiving assistance should be restricted to what they get, basic necessities. Like flour, generic rather than name brand items, etc...
I think you'd be interested in the Fair Tax Program then.

No more income taxes. No more IRS. Everyone; you, me, and the crack whore down the street (if we had a Social Security card) would receive a monthly check, in the form of a rebate, in the amount of sales taxes that would presumably be paid on basic necessities.

Check it out (http://www.fairtax.org/).

[Yonivore]

^^ Insolvency can be addressed with reforms. Americans are living longer the age can be raised some. The ceiling of who pays can be raised. It is fixable.
I think the elderly being forced to work is more punitive than welfare reform.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Here's a thought: stay in school and get an education, don't get married until at least age 20, and don't have kids before you get married. If you do these three things, you are almost guaranteed to live above the poverty level.

Those "poor" people you refer to probably didn't heed this advice - so it's their own damn fault they can't get a better paying job! Too many people want to sow their wild oats, have sex without any consequences, and shack up with whoever comes along - then they want the government to bail them out of their mess.

Sorry, I have no compassion for those "poor" people!!


That's a Christian attitude.

[Crookshanks]

That's a Christian attitude.

The bible says "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat." It also says that the church should take care of the widows and orphans - doesn't say anything about taking care of able-bodied men!

[Oh, Gee!!]

The bible says "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat." It also says that the church should take care of the widows and orphans - doesn't say anything about taking care of able-bodied men!


I bet you know all about able-bodied men.

[Guru of Nothing]

Too many people want to sow their wild oats, have sex without any consequences, and shack up with whoever comes along - then they want the government to bail them out of their mess.


You make it sound like sex without consequences is a bad thing.

[Clandestino]

when social security was first started 30 workers paid into it for every 1 person receiving benefits... now it is a 1 for 1 system... that is 1 main reason for social security going down..

[jochhejaam]

when social security was first started 30 workers paid into it for every 1 person receiving benefits... now it is a 1 for 1 system... that is 1 main reason for social security going down..
You're a little off but your point is stil well taken

Currently, there are 3.3 workers paying in for every one beneficiary receiving benefits, and the situation will worsen dramatically when the post-World War II "baby boom" generation begins reaching age 62 -- the age when many choose to begin receiving early retirement benefits -- in about three years.

And just as the ad says, within 15 years that ratio is projected to decline to 2.2 workers paying in for every one person getting benefits. And it is forecast to continue declining to 2.0 workers in 2040, when workers who are now in their 20's reach retirement age.
http://www.factcheck.org/article301.html

[Clandestino]

close enough... it is something that can't be fixed...

[Yonivore]

close enough... it is something that can't be fixed...
There's a good reason it's illegal outside of government.