Great piece from the awesome Peter Schiff at Townhall.com on how Congress avoided the fiscal cliff by selling out we the taxpayer. Click this link to read it. You won’t be disappointed.
Essentially, if you make less than $30K a year, you took a bigger hit from the recent fiscal cliff deal than those making over $500K a year.
Via The Daily Mail
Middle-class workers will take a bigger hit to their income proportionately than those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 under the new fiscal cliff deal, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Earners in the latter group will pay an average 1.3 percent more – or an additional $2,711 – in taxes this year, while workers making between $30,000 and $200,000 will see their paychecks shrink by as much as 1.7 percent – or up to $1,784 – the D.C.-based think tank reported.
Overall, nearly 80 percent of households will pay more money to the federal government as a result of the fiscal cliff deal.
‘The economy needs a stimulus, but under the agreement, taxes will go up in 2013 relative to 2012 – not only on high-income households, as widely discussed, but also on every working man and woman in the country, via the end of the payroll tax cut,’ said William G. Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center.
‘For most households, the payroll tax takes a far bigger bite than the income tax does, and the payroll tax cut therefore – as [the Congressional Budget Office] and others have shown – was a more effective stimulus than income tax cuts were, because the payroll tax cuts hit lower in the income distribution and hence were more likely to be spent,’ he added.
(Cross posted @ The Alexandrian)
Via GP
“I would raise the debt ceiling on one condition and that would be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Barring that, people in Congress, those who I’ve met up here they don’t deserve to manage any more money. They’re doing a bad job managing the money they have. We should not send them any more money. They’re not to be trusted with money.“
A terrific speech from the Conservative Congressman from Texas. Well worth a listen. Transcript available at this link.
Joe Scarborough with an excellent op-ed at Politico on the Tea Party. My favorite line:
If this trend keeps up, they might just win the White House and the Senate.
Let’s hope that holds true.
Can you imagine if the Republicans were in charge and the outrage there would be from Democrats if Senate Republicans went three years without passing a budget? Hugh Jidette explains what President Barack Obama’s campaign slogan should be in the video above.
Via Andrew Stiles @ The Washington Free Beacon:
Sunday, April 29, 2012, is an anniversary unprecedented in the history of American politics, marking three years since the Democratic-led Senate last complied with federal law by passing a budget.
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 stipulates that Congress must approve a budget resolution by April 15 of each year. In the Senate, only 51 votes are needed to pass a budget, as budgets are one of the few pieces of legislation invulnerable to a filibuster. Democrats currently control 53 seats. Democratic lawmakers have offered myriad excuses for their refusal to offer a budget, none of which hold up to scrutiny, critics say.
Read more at this link.
To find out more about how to solve our debt problems, join the campaign at OweNo.com by visiting this link.
Don’t our kids deserve a chance to have the same freedoms that we enjoyed growing up? Call Senator Mark Warner today and tell him and his fellow Democrats in Congress to stop fiscally abusing our kids and to work for serious reforms in spending.
Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying on Capitol Hill before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee, was stumped by a question from Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) on recess appointments.
The Constitution gives the President of the United States power to appoint people with the advice and consent of the Senate, meaning that the Senate must confirm the President’s appointments to the relevant offices. When the Senate is not available, or in a recess, the President can appoint people to those posts who remain in office until they receive the Senate’s confirmation or until the end of the next Senate session. These are what are known as ‘recess appointments.’
The Constitution also states that neither the House nor the Senate may recess without the consent of the other chamber. This is important as during the recess appointments the Attorney General is queried about below, to my knowledge the House never gave consent to the Senate to be in recess.
To prevent a recess appointment, the Senate can stay in session to prevent a time when their advice is not available. In 2007 and 2008, Senate Majority Leader Reid used a new tactic of pro-forma sessions to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments. As Senator Alexander notes below, President Bush didn’t like Senator Reid’s tactic but, he respected the Senate.
The new 2012 session of Congress began on January 3rd in a pro forma session, and the pro forma sessions were to be conducted until the House and Senate fully returned on January 23. On January 4, President Obama appointed 3 people to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and one to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is what led to Senator Alexander’s questions below.
The Justice department’s ‘OLC’ (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion that the Attorney General references below provided the legal justification for President Obama to make the appointments. That opinion concluded that although the Senate was conducting pro forma sessions, the fact remained that the Senators were not in town and not available for proper advice and consent. The opinion, which the Attorney General says was based upon precedence, should have taken into account President Bush’s actions which it did not.
Kudos to Senator Alexander for a great line of questioning.
(Video via Fox Nation)
Printed from: http://leehernly.me/?tag=congress
Scan to visit this page: