
Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin defended himself Thursday from harsh criticism for having renounced his U.S. citizenship in time to avoid paying a large sum in taxes.
In a statement to TPM from his spokesman Tom Goodman, Saverin said he'll pay the taxes on his earnings while a U.S. citizen.
"My decision to expatriate was based solely on my interest in working and living in Singapore, where I have been since 2009," the 30-year-old billionaire said. "I am obligated to and will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes to the United States government. I have paid and will continue to pay any taxes due on everything I earned while a U.S. citizen. It is unfortunate that my personal choice has led to a public debate, based not on the facts, but entirely on speculation and misinformation."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)This week Republicans will attempt to move the national political conversation back to a familiar theme with a series of attacks on President Obama over the national debt. The GOP released a web video Monday bashing his "broken promises" on the deficit and previewed a major speech Tuesday by likely presidential nominee Mitt Romney on the issue.
Divorced from context, the numbers are uncomfortable for the President and are ready-made for pointed partisan attacks. Under Obama's watch the national debt has risen from roughly $10 trillion to $15 trillion, a record high. But to what extent are his decisions while in office to blame? The answer: very little. The vast bulk of the debt is the result of policies enacted during the Bush administration coupled with automatic increases in federal spending and decreases in tax revenue triggered by the economic downturn.
Those are economic facts of life known to experts but that often gets lost in the political debate (and which Obama's opponents are willing to obscure). So with the GOP's push to return the deficit to the center of the political conversation, here's quick reminder of the basic facts that you may have forgotten.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Breaking Republicans' anti-tax absolutism is key to understanding just about everything Democrats have been doing for months now, both in Washington and on the campaign trail. It's the strategic underpinning of the Buffett Rule and the surtax on million-dollar earners; it's the purpose of the so-called "sequester" -- the deep cuts to defense and discretionary spending that will kick in next year if Congress doesn't pass a substantial deficit-reduction plan -- in the debt-limit deal, and it explains Democrats' reluctance to unwind the sequester until Republicans agree to significant new revenues.
So far it hasn't worked, and most elected officials don't expect any movement on the issue until after the election.
Even if President Obama wins re-election, though, what's to stop Republicans on Capitol Hill from linking arms and blocking any tax revenues?
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Now that the GOP has dropped its politically untenable objection to extending low-interest student loans, the legislative battle has entered a familiar realm, just weeks ahead of a scheduled rate hike: How should Congress pay for keeping the loans cheap?
It's familiar terrain for observers of the payroll tax fight, which ended with both parties simply agreeing not to pay for the holiday at all. But before they reached that point, the parties bickered over various financing schemes, while pushing ideologically opposed offsets. Republicans wanted cuts to domestic support programs, Democrats wanted to raise income taxes on income over $1 million a year.
This time around, though, the Democrats' opening bid is different -- and they argue that it reflects their willingness to set politics aside and extend the loan rates, currently set to double at the end of June, without a fight, while Republicans try use the coming cliff to eat away at President Obama's health care law.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A renowned congressional analyst thinks there's a good chance that the country could fall off a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1, no matter who wins this November.
At an American Enterprise Institute event on the future of Medicare Tuesday, AEI scholar Norm Ornstein outlined a scenario in which Congress falls on its face this winter, and fails to address the expiring Bush tax cuts and payroll tax holiday, automatic sequestration spending cuts, lapse of federal borrowing authority and other spending and tax provisions set to contract the budget automatically at the end of the year.
"Most of the cognoscenti in Washington say, Of course they'll reach an agreement because they can't not reach an agreement,'" Ornstein said. "Get inside the belly of the beast and you realize these days they can not reach an agreement."
House Speaker John Boehner wants the Conference of Catholic Bishops to rethink its stinging critique of the Republican budget, which it said "fails to meet ... moral criteria," of protecting human dignity, prioritizing the needs of the hungry and homeless and promoting the common good.
At his weekly Capitol press availability, Boehner cast the GOP's budget as a plan to preserve key federal support programs, which he said are growing unsustainable and will cease to exist without far-reaching reforms.
"What's more of a concern to me is the fact that if we don't begin to make some decisions about getting our fiscal house in order, there won't be a safety net, there won't be these programs," Boehner said. "When you look at the fact that we have to make hard decisions, it's about trying to make sure that we're able to preserve these programs that are critically important to the poorest in our society."
But the budget itself illustrates that the GOP has different priorities, reflecting the Bishops' concerns.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)It's been nearly seven months since President Obama introduced the Buffett Rule. He first described it at the White House last September, shortly after the GOP's persistent refusal to take any new tax revenue from wealthy Americans sank his bid to pass major deficit-reduction legislation and nearly turned the standoff over raising the debt ceiling into a full-blown economic calamity.
At the time the "rule" was only a principle: People who make over $1 million a year should pay at least as high an effective tax rate as middle-class Americans. In context, it served a clear purpose: With the parties poised for a major, unavoidable conflict over the budget and national priorities, Republicans needed to be broken of their anti-tax orthodoxy. The Buffett Rule was a politically bulletproof cudgel, and popular with President Obama's base to boot. It wouldn't on its own solve the country's long-run budget problems, but that wasn't the point -- this was a small piece of a broader package of fiscal policies Obama had introduced. But it served a huge symbolic purpose. The real point was to pull back the veil on the GOP's true vision for the country, force them to deal sensibly on key national priorities. And if Democrats reaped a political bounty in the process, all the better.
Fast forward to this week. Americans are paying their taxes, Mitt Romney -- a poster child for tax inequity -- has all but cinched the GOP presidential nomination, Obama has renewed his push for the Buffett Rule and the Senate will hold a vote on a Buffett Rule bill next week. The synergy is clear, and intentional -- part of a careful political strategy. But the upshot thus far isn't that Republicans are retreating from their anti-tax absolutism (they're not) but that high-profile members of the commentariat have forgotten all of this history.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Ahead of a Senate vote next week to put members on record supporting or opposing the so-called "Buffett Rule," the White House is rolling out a public campaign to tout the notion that people who make more than $1 million a year should pay a bigger share of their income in taxes than middle-class Americans.
The subtext is heavily political. On Monday, the Obama campaign hosted a conference call to pressure likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney to release years of tax returns after Romney revealed that his own effective tax rate last year was below 15 percent. And on Tuesday, Obama himself will travel to Florida to publicly push the Buffett Rule.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The National Education Association is ramping up a public information campaign to build support for closing big corporate tax loopholes and directing the revenue toward key education initiatives. The push comes weeks after the Obama administration released a framework for corporate tax reforms that would be revenue neutral, suggesting a schism between the powerful union and the White House. But in a Monday interview, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel applauded Obama's record on education and said his group's push is meant to raise awareness of one of many ways to finance more federal investment in education.
"One reason to look at corporate taxes is because it is so huge," Van Roekel said, citing the Center for Tax Justice, which concludes (PDF) that closing seven specific corporate tax loopholes could raise nearly $1.5 trillion over 10 years. NEA proposes using the money to raise the maximum Pell grant award to cover half the average cost of public higher education, fund Title I spending on students from low-income families and other initiatives.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)In the fieriest speech of his presidency Tuesday, Barack Obama lit into the Republican Party's vision for the country's future as outlined in the House GOP budget, and endorsed by his most likely election rival Mitt Romney.
Obama decried key planks of the Republican agenda -- particularly calls for large tax cuts for wealthy Americans, and a plan to phase out traditional Medicare -- which he took care to describe accurately, though in hostile terms.
And in response to questions from the audience, Obama urged the press not to confuse rancor over the parties' competing visions for the country as typical partisan bitterness for which Democrats and Republicans are equally culpable.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Members of Congress from both parties like to lament the opportunity missed when President Obama didn't embrace the budget plan his deficit-reduction committee co-chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles unveiled last year.
They may have an opportunity to turn preening into action.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)In a little-noticed exchange Monday, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts may have tipped his hand that he's entertaining the possibility that the health care law's individual mandate can be upheld on a constitutional basis that's different from the one supporters and opponents have made central to their arguments.
For over a year now, observers and experts have assumed that the court's final decision will hinge on the extent of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But the justices could also upend that conventional wisdom, and in a worrying sign for the plaintiffs on Monday, Roberts unexpectedly highlighted one way they could do that.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A senior White House official is disputing a key, but vague, detail in a weekend Washington Post article, which provided a number of new details about the final days of President Obama's unsuccessful attempt last summer to strike a grand bargain to stabilize the national debt with House Speaker John Boehner.
The two principals were nearing a framework that would have included higher tax revenues, unpopular cuts to Medicare and other spending reductions when the talks failed. That resulted in the debt limit deal and the ongoing fight between the parties over the federal safety net and taxes on the wealthy.
One of the Post's new details alarmed progressives.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)On Tuesday, House Republicans unveiled an updated version of their controversial long-term budget -- a sweeping plan that envisions dramatically lower tax rates on wealthy Americans, deep cuts to federal support programs for the poor and the eventual phase-out of the existing Medicare system, which would be replaced by a subsidized private insurance system, including traditional Medicare as an option.
You can read the GOP gloss on their plan here. Among its claims: The latest "Path to Prosperity" "Restores economic freedom and ensures a level playing field for all by putting an end to special-interest favoritism and corporate welfare" and "cuts government spending to protect hardworking taxpayers."
The reaction from the White House was swift.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A new Congressional Budget Office report has reignited the spin wars over President Obama's budget, and Republicans are eagerly blasting articles to reporters about how the administration would explode deficits and debt if left to its own devices.
But this line of attack is based on a questionable premise, familiar to veterans of the past year's budget wars.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Under fire from progressives for working with Republicans on legislation that would likely cut entitlements and raise taxes, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer told reporters Thursday he thinks there's an imperative to address long-run budget deficits rationally, before the end of the election, in a way that doesn't end the explicit guarantees of key government programs.
In a roundtable with reporters in his Capitol office, Hoyer said the group's still a long way from achieving broad consensus, but sought to reassure critics, constituents and other observers that he opposes the GOP's radical entitlement proposals.
"I want to emphasize, because I get beat up on, I'm for the Medicare guarantee, I'm not for a Paul Ryan alternative that eliminates the guarantee," he said. "[Some claim] I've said we ought to raise the age. I haven't said that. What I've said is I think everything ought to be on the table."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Progressives are escalating their campaign to warn House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer off cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as he quietly pursues significant deficit reducing legislation with members of both parties. On Thursday, they will deliver 148,000 petitions to his Capitol offices.
"Representative Hoyer is hearing from thousands of Americans letting him know that we will not stand for any back room deal that puts cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security benefits on the table," said Becky Bond, Political Director of CREDO Action, an online advocacy group. "[W]orking with Republicans on a deal which will preemptively cave on cuts to our social safety net is not acceptable from the second most powerful Democratic Leader in the House of Representatives."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Amid rumblings that House Republicans may break their end of a major budget agreement they struck with Democrats last fall, and possibly touch off another government shutdown battle later this year, a top Senate Democrat issued a stern warning to the GOP: Don't go there.
"We had a deal last August on the budget numbers, and we expect them to live with that deal," said Sen. Patty Murray (WA) -- a member of the Democratic leadership, high-ranking member of the Budget Committee and erstwhile co-chair of the Super Committee -- in an interview with TPM. "I have been astonished how many times they play with fire. Last August they almost shut the government down, a year ago they almost shut the government down, by trying to go to a place where most Americans don't believe we should be going."
On CNBC Wednesday morning, Mitt Romney was given a breather from political questions about his appeal to GOP primary voters and allowed to discuss substance. When it was all over, he probably wished it had been the other way around.
Brushing back a question about independent analyses, which conclude his plan will blow a huge hole in the budget, Romney accidentally hinted at a key fact about his fiscal policy: he left out all the hard stuff.
"I think it's interesting for the groups to try and score it because it can't be scored because those kind of details have to be worked out with Congress and we have a wide array of options," Romney said.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A senior administration official says the White House could support balanced deficit reduction legislation if Congress passes it before the end of the year -- but sees no evidence that Republicans have moved off their now higher tax revenue position, and thus doubt policymakers will be able to reach an agreement that President Obama can sign.
Here's the background.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)This post was updated at 1:15 p.m.
On Wednesday, Treasury Department officials briefed reporters on the current state of the economy, including official revisions showing that GDP grew faster in the last quarter of 2011 than previously estimated, and that savings are indeed keeping pace with renewed consumer spending.
The officials stressed they don't interpret the positive news of the past few months as definitive signs of a blooming economic recovery.
But one senior official made a key comparison -- one that provides insight into the potential magnitude of recent developments.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)When Mitt Romney unveiled his revised tax and debt plan last week, his camp sold it as a bid to preserve fairness to the middle class.
He proposed an across the board 20 percent cut to everybody's current rates, and to make up the lost revenue by limiting deductions, credits and other tax benefits for wealthy Americans. But he declined to specify exactly how he'd broaden the tax base. And a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center shows that without those details, his proposed cuts would actually be more regressive than his first plan.
The online, progressive advocacy group CREDO Action is targeting a top House Democrat and a leading advocate of far-reaching deficit reduction legislation, including both higher taxes and cuts to popular support programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
In a Monday speech, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer revealed that he's working with a bipartisan coalition of House and Senate members to fashion a "grand bargain" on deficits, in the hope of addressing the issue -- and possibly even passing legislation -- before the November elections.
Hoyer's made no secret of the fact that he wants to see significant long-term deficit reduction, in programs that put everything, including entitlements and taxes, on the table. Progressives worry that such entitlement cuts will undermine the integrity of the programs and are warning Hoyer and Democratic members to tread cautiously. The subtext here, and the source of CREDO's leverage, is that Hoyer may -- a big may -- need progressive help in a future leadership fight, if Democrats take the majority, or Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi retires, or another shakeup occurs in the Democratic ranks.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is looking to shake legislative politics out of unconsciousness as early as this spring, and force a vote on a bipartisan legislative proposal - which would include higher taxes and cuts to federal programs -- to reduce deficits by trillions of dollars over the coming years.
The push is intended to disrupt the consensus among most political leaders that Congress will punt budget consolidation efforts until after November -- when the election returns are in, and the January 1, 2013 expiry of the Bush tax cuts and deep across-the-board spending cuts make real action inevitable.
In a speech hosted Monday morning by Third Way, Hoyer revealed that he and other lawmakers are looking for the right moment to introduce a bill that would achieve the sorts of deficit reduction goals that have eluded Congress and the White House thus far.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A key test for the political establishment and the media this campaign cycle will be whether they accurately explain the Presidential candidates' budget plans to voters, or whether they allow the candidates to spin their way out of the severe implications of their own proposals. The election will hinge to a large extent on the two parties' visions for the role of the federal government and how to pay for it, and keeping the taxing and spending implication of those visions clear is the key to helping voters make informed decisions at the polls.
An event hosted Thursday morning by the fiscal discipline hawks at the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget offered this corner of the establishment an early critique of the GOP candidates' tax and spending plans -- all of which drew mixed reviews or worse.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
You'd think that with the economy growing, and indeed accelerating in its growth, the GOP would be setting itself up to claim all the credit come November -- rather than reluctantly embracing President Obama's call for a payroll tax cut, while talking down its efficacy as a tonic for the job market.
Instead they're obstinately digging in. And with all of the party's presidential hopefuls lukewarm on the payroll tax cut and leapfrogging each other with plans to cut taxes for wealthy Americans alone, Republicans are inadvertently clarifying for voters what they know to be unpopular economic policies.
"Let's be honest, this is an economic relief package, not a bill that's going to grow the economy and create jobs," said House Speaker John Boehner last week in a statement ahead of the passage of the payroll tax cut deal.
The package itself won a modest majority of Republican votes in the House and a significant minority of Republican votes in the Senate. But both stand in complete agreement with the GOP presidential field on the need to enact large, permanent tax cuts for the highest earners in the country. This is what Mitt Romney refers to as pro-growth tax policy. So to give you a clearer sense of what the GOP would have rather done than renew the payroll tax cut, here's a graphical breakdown.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A new Obama administration framework for reforming the business income tax code is touching off a brand new election-year policy debate in Washington. But this time around there's a great deal of consensus between the parties over the ideal nature of reform. And that means there will be two main obstacles to success. The first issue will be political concerns -- should Republicans hand President Obama a substantive victory with control of the White House on the line? The second will be the parochial concerns of powerful interest who stand to lose tremendous subsidies as a result of the reforms.
In a briefing with reporters Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner laid out the five principles underlying the proposed reforms. Any corporate tax reform should eliminate scores of loopholes and subsidies and use the savings to lower rates -- specifically from a current top rate of 35 percent down to 25 percent.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Just over a week ago, the New York Times ran an eye-opening story about a key paradox in U.S. politics: It turns out the biggest critics of federal spending -- Republican base voters -- are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the social safety net.
Expand on that irony, and you'll find that some of the most conservative states in the country are the greatest beneficiaries of transfer payments -- where residents pay on average less in taxes than they receive in federal benefits. Not all "taker" states are red, and not all "giver" states are blue.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The consensus among GOP leaders, and really leaders of both parties, is that the two biggest issues dividing the parties -- how much wealthy Americans should pay in taxes, and how the health care safety net should be structured -- will be decided by the elections in November.
The implication is that if Republicans win convincingly, the country will have provided them a mandate to further reduce taxes and roll back Medicare, Medicaid and the health care law.
But what happens if President Obama and the Democrats walk away with the prize? Will Republicans agree to increase, fairly significantly, the amount of money flowing into the Treasury?
Er, um. Maybe.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Turn on any cable news channel this week and you'll very likely hear a top Republican froth in anger over the fact that Senate Democrats haven't passed a budget in more than 1000 days.
This particular talking point has been around for months -- long before the Senate crossed the 1000 days threshold. Now that it's budget season, Republicans hope it pops, filters up into mainstream news coverage, and sows doubt in the minds of voters who don't understand the Congressional budget process, and don't realize how unimportant, and in most crucial respects false, the line is. Alternatively, they hope Senate Dems get spooked and move ahead with a budget document that exposes their differences and leaves them open to political attack -- but has no impact on policy whatsoever.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The GOP's accession to reality on the payroll tax cut is being cast as a key victory for Democrats and President Obama. Republicans caved, the payroll tax will almost certainly be renewed, and the economy won't take a tough hit just as the recovery's beginning to accelerate.
But it also reveals a flaw -- a potentially huge flaw -- in the conservative movement's generational strategy to roll back the federal safety net.
These might sound like two wildly disparate issues, but they're actually variations on a years-long theme. And the outcome of the payroll tax debacle bodes poorly for the GOP on the rest of their long-run goals.
Here's why.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)President Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget envisions the economy healing steadily after years of hemorrhaging and stagnation -- and key government services surviving mostly despite the violence done to the federal ledger by the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 2008 financial crisis.
It also shows federal deficits declining steadily over the coming decade, and the national debt stabilizing as a share of GDP over the same period.
These are the consequences of multiple, competing strategic ideas:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Reporters covering the GOP primary horse race may have moved on, but a key question continues to dog Mitt Romney's presidential campaign -- one that will loom large if he wins his party's nomination. Has he avoided U.S. taxes by investing a fortune offshore?
At a town hall event in Maine on Friday, an antagonistic questioner asked Romney, "Do you think it's patriotic of you to stash your money away in the Cayman Islands?"
In response, Romney correctly noted that money U.S. taxpayers invest offshore is largely taxed just as it would be if they invested it in the states. But he once again denied avoiding any U.S. taxes by investing offshore -- a claim tax experts openly doubt.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Though required by law, White House budgets are largely political documents that tend to become more and more political as reelection time gets closer and closer.
This year's will technically be no different -- but the long-term stakes will be much higher than they usually are and clarifying that fact for voters will be key to President Obama's appeal in 2012.
It's shaping up to be spring 2011 redux. Just under a year ago, Republicans -- euphoric after a midterm election landslide, and overzealous in their interpretation of their mandate -- passed a budget that called for phasing out Medicare over the coming years and replacing it with a subsidized private insurance system for newly eligible seniors.
The backlash was ugly. But Republicans seem to have forgotten how poisonous that vote really was, and remains...because they're poised to do it again. This time they're signaling they'll move ahead, with a modified plan -- one that, though less radical, would still fundamentally remake and roll back one of the country's most popular and enduring safety net programs.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)In light of Congressional Republicans' abandonment of a key part of the debt limit agreement, two senior administration officials briefing reporters at the White House Monday said automatic, across the board cuts to defense programs will happen as scheduled unless Republicans relent on their refusal to raise revenues.
The officials conducted the briefing under the condition that they not be quoted directly, but their position was unambiguous -- the White House will not support any effort to swap out scheduled cuts to defense programs (and other automatic cuts) unless Congress passes a balanced package of deficit reducing legislation of equal or greater measure. That means new tax revenue from wealthy Americans and corporate interests, which Republicans have routinely refused to consider.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Republican leaders in Congress have all but reneged on a key agreement they reached with the White House last summer rather than reconsider their unwavering stance against new tax revenue.
Relations between the Obama administration and the congressional GOP were already just about as bad as can be. But even so, this sets a precedent future Congresses and White Houses will remember when partisan mismatches force them to strike deals and govern.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Just over a week ago, Mitt Romney's top campaign and financial aides held an on-the-record press call to walk reporters through the former governor's 2010 tax return.
The briefing cleared up several questions, but left others unanswered -- including one from TPM that will either exculpate Romney from allegations that he's used investments in offshore entities to avoid U.S. taxes, or reveal that his campaign has not fully addressed those allegations.
On the call, Romney's trustee pledged get back to us with this information. But despite multiple inquiries in the days since the conference call, the Romney camp has not set the record straight one way or another.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)When Mitt Romney tries to avoid scrutiny for his exceptionally low effective tax rate by noting that, in absolute terms, he's paying "a lot" in taxes, he won't be fooling most of his political colleagues. It takes a special kind of affluence to reduce one's tax burden so dramatically. And despite their significant wealth most recent Presidential candidates have paid significantly more in taxes as a percentage of their incomes in the year (or two) before their campaign.
The exception is John Kerry. Though Kerry himself had a modest income (for a politician) his wife, Teresa Heinz, comes from great wealth and, like Romney, made millions in investment income in 2003 -- the year she and he both released their tax returns. Together, their effective tax rate was a bit lower than Mitt and Ann Romney paid in 2010.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Despite a brewing panic among Congressional Republicans (and some Democrats) over automatic, across-the-board defense cuts set to kick in on January 1, 2013, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee says those cuts must stand unless and until Republicans relent on their anti-tax absolutism, and agree on a balanced deficit reduction package that includes higher revenue.
"The purpose of the sequester is to force us to act to avoid the sequester," Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor roundtable. "It's like a nuclear weapon -- it's totally useless; it can't be used except to accomplish some other goal than its use. It's used to deter."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
