Rebane's Ruminations
December 2011
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

On the surface it just looks like more congressional bickering.  But the two current versions of the payroll tax bills have written in things which go beyond the 'kick the can' capers that the Dems are promoting and the Repubs are fighting.  Our congressman Tom McClintock peeled back a bit of the sleaze to quietly re-fund Fannie and Freddie through these pieces of legislative legerdemain.  (Some useful idiots still argue that Fannie and Freddie are not government departments.)  He made the following speech on the House floor today.

The Problem with Both Payroll Bills
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
December 20, 2011

Mr. Speaker:

In all this debate, I fear both parties have missed a critical point.  

Both versions of this bill impose a permanent new tax on every mortgage backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

To pay for an additional two months of tax relief under the Senate version or 12 months under the House version, more than $3,000 of new taxes will be imposed on every $150,000 mortgage backed by Fannie or Freddie.

A family taking out a $250,000 mortgage will pay $5,000 more in taxes – directly and solely because of this bill – hidden in their future mortgage payments.

This is atrocious public policy.  It shifts the burden for this bill to future homebuyers, kicks the housing market when it’s already down, makes it that much more expensive for home buyers to re-enter that market, and adds to the pressures that have chronically depressed everyone’s home values.

That’s the reason that both the Senate and the House versions need to go back for major revision.

Posted in , , ,

108 responses to “Both payroll tax bills stink”

  1. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory
    Are you saying that Tyson and the Clinton’s broke the law? Was anyone arrested and prosecuted? Please apply the same standards you asked me to use with the Koch bros. And be specific to Clinton. You set the rules.
    If you read the Bloomberg article you would have learned that
    “……… all offices had to go through a checklist for each estimate quoted for materials headed to Iran.
    “Your staff shall send this form to me since I have to send it to the lawyers in the USA as part of the compliance program,” Rigon wrote in the e-mail. “If somebody happens to find out that any U.S. persons are involved in this project or U.S. material is delivered to Iran you CANNOT quote.”
    So it was obvious that US operations knew what was going on because they set the rules

    Like

  2. Paul Emery Avatar

    Far from it Todd. I missed a verification and will try to rewrite my last post
    Gregory
    Please show me the arrest report for Tyson in the matters you cite. If there’s no arrest then no laws are broken right? Are you opening this up to general discussion about shady political contributions? That will be lots f fun with lots of material to go around from both sides. That’s why I call the political parties collection agencies for special interest money.
    Also it’s clear that Koch USA knew about the Iranian deal. If you would have read the Bloomberg piece you would have found this
    “In another e-mail, Rigon said all offices had to go through a checklist for each estimate quoted for materials headed to Iran.
    “Your staff shall send this form to me since I have to send it to the lawyers in the USA as part of the compliance program,” Rigon wrote in the e-mail. “If somebody happens to find out that any U.S. persons are involved in this project or U.S. material is delivered to Iran you CANNOT quote.”

    Like

  3. Paul Emery Avatar

    Sorry for the duplicate. It’s worth saying twice

    Like

  4. Gregory Avatar

    Remind me, in your hallucination, which law did the Koch’s break?
    The piece you keep quoting makes it clear that Koch Industries legal department was working to keep all within the law, and the only place the Koch Bros. appear is in the name of the company.
    If you’ve forgotten the Cattle Future’s fun, the wiki has a decent summary:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy
    One of the more interesting sentences is “Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion”.

    Like

  5. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory, I have repeatedly said that in the case of the Iran sales it appears that no law was broken. What I was referring to was the question you asked about whether they even knew about the transaction which was clearly answered in my response.
    Can you tell; me which law was broken in the Hillary story of nearly 20 years ago?

    Like

  6. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Koch is singled oput because they have chosen to enter the political arena from the farthest right gates possible, with the biggest band.
    “For decades, they were under the radar. They and their father had amassed an incredible fortune, mainly in the oil business. Their privately held company revenues last year were estimated at $100 billion. Each brother is worth $21.5 billion. That is a very big “B” in both cases.
    For many years, they have been involved in politics but not terribly open or transparent about it. It is true that David Koch ran as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket, to the right of Ronald Reagan. According to New York Times columnist Frank Rich, “his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the FBI, the CIA, and public schools.” Since the Libertarian party’s 1 percent showing in 1980, David Koch has very much been behind the scenes, until now. [See who donates the most to your member of Congress.]
    Jane Mayer, of The New Yorker, in her 10,000 word piece last August, peeled the cover off the onion of the Koch brothers’ empire. And she focused not only on their personal wealth and family, but on their political empire building.
    It was not, and is not, easy to get the details on the extent of their tentacles. They funnel money through 501c3 tax-exempt foundations, and they give money to other foundations, lobbying organizations, and right wing think tanks. They have PACs; they support candidates. Only a small portion of what they control do they divulge.
    But it has now come out how involved they have been in funding Tea Party groups, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and Citizens for a Sound Economy ($12 million). [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the Tea Party.]
    We do know, from Mayer’s reporting, that the Koch brothers have personally given over $2 million to candidates over the last 12 years, their PAC has contributed $8 million to candidates, and they have spent $50 million on lobbying. The Charles Koch Foundation has given $48 million, and another foundation they control gave $28 million. David Koch’s foundation gave more than $120 million. According to Mayer, $196 million dollars in total was distributed in the last 10 years to conservative causes and institutions.”

    Like

  7. Paul Emery Avatar

    Good summary Douglas of the bros involvement in funding Conservative causes. That makes the hypocrisy even more profound since Bush himself, the recipient of Koch bucks spoke out against the very Government that the Koch’s were trading with noting they were aiding in the killing of our troops. Illegal, no. Unethical, you bet.
    msnbc.com staff and news service reports
    updated 2/14/2007 9:53:54 PM ET
    WASHINGTON — President Bush said Wednesday he’s convinced that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons to fighters in Iraq, even if he can’t prove the orders came from the highest levels in Tehran.
    More important, Bush said in his first news conference of the year, is protecting U.S. troops against the lethal new threat. “I’m going to do something about it,” Bush said.
    And the president warned of “disastrous consequences” that would follow in the event of a U.S. military withdrawal.
    Bush in 2007
    “I concluded that to step back from Baghdad would have disastrous consequences in America,” Bush told reporters. And the reason why I say ‘disastrous consequences’ is, the Iraqi government could collapse and chaos could spread.”
    U.S. officials have said that Iran helped on attacks on troops in Iraq, an assertion denied by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Like

  8. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Gee, this tyhread came to a sudden halt….?

    Like

Leave a comment