General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOn second thought: This bill includes no spending cuts.
That's right. The bill doesn't offset any of the provisions.
Here's The Deal On The Fiscal Cliff Deal
<...>
However, not all taxpayers earning less than $450,000 come away unscathed by the deal as the agreement returns to the Clinton era limits on personal exemptions and itemized deductions for couples earning more than $250,000 and single filers earning in excess of $200,000.
As for estate taxes, the rates will rise from 35 percent to 40 percent for estates valued at over $5 million dollars, however the Republicans did succeed in building in a provision which allows the amount of the exemption (currently five million dollars) to be indexed to the rate of inflation.
But it isnt all just about taxes as the Senate bill addresses a number of additional and parallel issues that fed into the fiscal cliff fiascoincluding passage of a nine month extension of the farm bill, temporarily removing the threat of a radical rise in the price of milk.
Heres a roundup
- Unemployment benefits are extended for an additional year benefiting approximately 2 million out of work Americans.
- Tax credits for college tuition, created by the 2009 stimulus package, are extended for five year, benefiting some 25 million low income families.
- The doctor fix is included meaning that Medicare providers will not face a serious cut in pay.
- The Alternative Minimum Tax problem is permanently fixed removing a potential tax danger for middle class families.
- A number of existing business tax benefits will remain in place for another year, including renewable energy tax credit which is extended for an additional year.
- The $900 per year salary raise recently signed into existence by President Obama for members of Congress is revoked.
- more -
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/01/heres-the-deal-on-the-fiscal-cliff-deal/
Those are some damn good provisions, and Congress' pay raise is revoked. If the debt ceiling fight goes well (and it could since the deal is 1:1 taxes to spending), this is a damn good deal. The President can ask for more tax revenue if Republicans want spending cuts, which must also include defense cuts.
Roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00251
ProSense
(116,464 posts)details.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)$900 a year. A month.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)$900 for the year: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095402
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The optics matter. Anyone talking about debt and cuts to others should not take a dime in pay raises.
My own Representative, Peter DeFazio, does not take his raises anyway, he puts the money into a scholarship fund for Oregonians in need of career training.
I will say the $900 I'd not begrudge anyone, even by the month, if they were not crying poor so loudly.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I expect the new Congress may have some ideas of its own too.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)They took the $ from something else to pay for it, so that it's not an added cost.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)wryter2000
(46,051 posts)Income between 250K and 400K wasn't the problem. No cuts to Medicare/SS.
Liberal1975
(87 posts)This had more to do with avoiding a recession than anything else. Once again, Republican politicians have no problem putting a gun to the country's head so they can protect the plutocracy.
A recession would be bad. For everyone. So even though this deal is not the best from a progressive perspective, it is better than taking the risk of another economic meltdown.
As a liberal the Democratic Party really irritates me. To think if the Democrats would have demonstrated half the resolve to prevent a disastrous invasion/war in 2003 that the Republicans are showing to protect the wealthy I would have a lot more respect for my party.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)because the current Congress wasn't functioning well enough to get a comprehensive deal done.
This first part was a clear focus on tax rates. Work on additional spending cuts is to be addressed later.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)I know that most of you calling for "defense cuts" have really almost no idea what to cut. Just like when republicans call for "cuts" and then they can only think of defunding PBS. We've all seen the pie chart where DOD spending is 40% of the budget.
the problem is leaving it vague, leaves it wide open. And what I am seeing now in my battalion and brigade is loss of funding for soldiers to go to school, which basically means stalled wages since without schools, there is no promotion. They are also making things harder to get in, and have a HUGE discentive in the Guard right now - if you re-enlist after your IRR is satisfied, you enlist at a reduced rank. Keep in mind that for the MAJORITY of guard and reserve, this is also a second source of income. we're kinda getting beat up and nobody is noticing.
_defense contracting_ needs to be put through the ringer. Like the F35. yes there are jobs involved in producing them, but not killing that program is part of what is hurting our troops under contract right now. which btw is 0.02% of the population.
JEB
(4,748 posts)and job creation? Where if anywhere will these be?