Obama Kills Tax Cut Because It Didn’t Help Illegals

2:12 PM 11/28/2014
Neil Munro
The Daily Caller

President Barack Obama quietly killed a draft tax-cut because the GOP leadership wouldn’t agree to his demand that valuable tax breaks be given to millions of illegal immigrants, according to a Politico article about the secret negotiations.

Just before Thanksgiving, “the deal fell apart just as it seemed to be coming together… [because] Republicans worried undocumented immigrants targeted by [Obama’s Nov. 21 amnesty] would begin claiming the credits,” Politico reported.

The GOP leadership’s reluctance to award tax-breaks to illegals suggests top leaders may use the required December budget bill to deny funds to operate Obama’s promised amnesty. So far, GOP leaders have not said if they will block the amnesty funds — despite growing GOP grassroots pressure — partly because Democrats are threatening to block the complete budget if the amnesty is blocked.

The now-dead tax bill, dubbed the “tax extenders package,” is a grab-bag of tax breaks that are usually passed late in every congressional session. If the bill is not passed, businesses and voters will both face tax increases.

This year’s draft bill was expanded to include more tax-breaks for businesses, and was reputedly valued at more than $400 billion over 10 years.

Politico’s report said Democratic senators initially offered to approve the GOP’s demand for business-boosting tax cuts if the GOP agreed to extend the popular Earned Income Tax Credit for poor Americans.

But GOP leaders stepped back from the deal because they recognized that Obama planned to award the EITC money to illegals covered by his Nov. 21 executive order.

Senate leaders — such as Nevada Sen. Harry Reid and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer — then agreed to trade the business-tax breaks for tax breaks that would boost revenues for state and local governments.

But other Democratic senators denounced the deal, and also refused to reform the EITC system to exclude Obama’s illegals.

According to the IRS, two parents with three or more children would receive up to $6,143 in 2014 if they earn less than $46,997. Parents who earn less than the income threshold would get $3,305 if they have one child, and $5,460 if they have two children.

Most illegal immigrant households have very low income, and pay little in taxes. For example, in 2011, roughly 22 percent of immigrant households — both legal and illegal — were classified as living in poverty. In contrast, only 13 percent of American households were in poverty.

Also, the EITC program is already poorly monitored and may be subject to large amounts of fraud, according to critics.

GOP leaders reportedly refused to trade the EITC extension in exchange for the business tax cuts.

The tangled deal died when the White House demanded that the illegals should get the unreformed EITC tax payments. “An extender package that makes permanent expiring business provisions without addressing tax credits for working families is the wrong approach… Any deal on tax extenders must ensure that the economic benefits are broadly shared,” read a Nov. 24 statement from the Treasury Department.

Obama’s amnesty was blamed for the breakdown in Poltico’s story. “If the immigration announcement had been delayed, we probably could have gotten something done, a Hill aide told Politico.

But Democratic senators also played a role because they refused to reform the EITC rules to curb long-standing fraud or to exclude Obama’s illegals.

The crash highlights the the GOP’s increasingly assertive response to the president’s immigration policies.

Obama is offering work-permits, $2 trillion in taxpayer benefits and a quick route to citizenship to at least 4 million of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. He is also trying to win business support for his plan by boosting the inflow of guest-workers sought by blue-chip companies.

Polls show that Obama’s immigration politics are very unpopular among GOP voters, swing voters and some Democrats.

In the face of Obama’s radical policies, the GOP base has become increasingly determined to block his policies. In 2013, the base pressured House Speaker John Boehner to not pass the Senate’s amnesty bill that would have roughly doubled the flow of legal immigrants and guest-workers into the nation’s stalled economy.

Obama’s immigration policies are welcomed by the business community and by major investors, whose wealth rises as immigrants nudges down wages, according to a June 2013 report by the Congressional Budget Office.

The voter vs. donor fight is likely to escalate as GOP leaders try to win the presidency in 2016.

Obama’s immigration priorities have dominated U.S. national politics for two years, partly because a handful of GOP politicians — such as Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John McCain — have aligned themselves with business groups that want more low-wage foreign workers.

The business-backed focus on immigration has diverted GOP attention from other priorities that could have helped the economy, including tax cuts, careful deregulation and education reform.

The immigration fight has also widened the base vs. business split in the GOP. For example, the top Republican in the House, Rep. Eric Cantor, lost his seat in June 2014 when he was defeated in a primary by a local economics professor, Dave Brat, who campaigned against amnesty and and what he labelled crony capitalism.

The fight has now erupted in the Senate, where Sen. Jeff Sessions, the leading GOP voice against amnesty, is now facing a challenge by Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi for the chairmanship of the critical Senate budget committee.

The chairmanship is important because Sessions could use it to pass a 2016 budget plan. Once passed, the budget would allow the GOP majority more leeway in the complex Senate’s complex debating rules to curb progressive spending priorities.

The chairman will be picked by a secret vote among the GOP members of the committee. The committee members include Sen. Graham and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, both of whom supported the Senate’s 2013 amnesty bill.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/ob...help-illegals/

Quote:

---

The now-dead tax bill, dubbed the “tax extenders package,” is a grab-bag of tax breaks that are usually passed late in every congressional session. If the bill is not passed, businesses and voters will both face tax increases.

---

End tax credit grab bags for illegals. End tax returns for citizens. End the Century of Failure. Pass the FairTax and repeal the income tax top to bottom.

www.fairtax.org

We should consider advocating the FairTax as an ALIPAC anti-illegal immigration legislation, because of its direct influence on curbing the tax cost of illegal immigration and providing citizens with a hiring advantage over illegal aliens. Citizens receive the Rebate whereas illegals don't, so illegals who would pay the tax whenever they spend and not being able to receive the Rebate makes it much harder for them to undercut American workers on wages. The FairTax also levels the playing field on trade issues so much that there is no longer any tax advantage to producing overseas and back-hauling those products to the American market, and without that tax advantage, there really is no other advantage for companies to continue doing that since the labor savings alone isn't enough to warrant the other costs, expenses and management/quality control issues of foreign production.

Something to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean

So far, GOP leaders have not said if they will block the amnesty funds — despite growing GOP grassroots pressure — partly because Democrats are threatening to block the complete budget if the amnesty is blocked.

---

Me agrada este resultado. I like this result;-)

Let's see how the fanboy/fangirl press handles a government shutdown, now that the Demos are threatening to do it;-)

IMO if Jeff Sessions gets the chairmanship of the Budget Committee, he can make Demos choose between rethinking amnesty and shutting down the government. Either way, the Repubs will look like they care about Americans.
*****************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean

2:12 PM 11/28/2014
Neil Munro
The Daily Caller

President Barack Obama quietly killed a draft tax-cut because the GOP leadership wouldn’t agree to his demand that valuable tax breaks be given to millions of illegal immigrants, according to a Politico article about the secret negotiations.

Just before Thanksgiving, “the deal fell apart just as it seemed to be coming together… [because] Republicans worried undocumented immigrants targeted by [Obama’s Nov. 21 amnesty] would begin claiming the credits,” Politico reported.

The GOP leadership’s reluctance to award tax-breaks to illegals suggests top leaders may use the required December budget bill to deny funds to operate Obama’s promised amnesty. So far, GOP leaders have not said if they will block the amnesty funds — despite growing GOP grassroots pressure — partly because Democrats are threatening to block the complete budget if the amnesty is blocked.

The now-dead tax bill, dubbed the “tax extenders package,” is a grab-bag of tax breaks that are usually passed late in every congressional session. If the bill is not passed, businesses and voters will both face tax increases.

This year’s draft bill was expanded to include more tax-breaks for businesses, and was reputedly valued at more than $400 billion over 10 years.

Politico’s report said Democratic senators initially offered to approve the GOP’s demand for business-boosting tax cuts if the GOP agreed to extend the popular Earned Income Tax Credit for poor Americans.

But GOP leaders stepped back from the deal because they recognized that Obama planned to award the EITC money to illegals covered by his Nov. 21 executive order.

Senate leaders — such as Nevada Sen. Harry Reid and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer — then agreed to trade the business-tax breaks for tax breaks that would boost revenues for state and local governments.

But other Democratic senators denounced the deal, and also refused to reform the EITC system to exclude Obama’s illegals.

According to the IRS, two parents with three or more children would receive up to $6,143 in 2014 if they earn less than $46,997. Parents who earn less than the income threshold would get $3,305 if they have one child, and $5,460 if they have two children.

Most illegal immigrant households have very low income, and pay little in taxes. For example, in 2011, roughly 22 percent of immigrant households — both legal and illegal — were classified as living in poverty. In contrast, only 13 percent of American households were in poverty.

Also, the EITC program is already poorly monitored and may be subject to large amounts of fraud, according to critics.

GOP leaders reportedly refused to trade the EITC extension in exchange for the business tax cuts.

The tangled deal died when the White House demanded that the illegals should get the unreformed EITC tax payments. “An extender package that makes permanent expiring business provisions without addressing tax credits for working families is the wrong approach… Any deal on tax extenders must ensure that the economic benefits are broadly shared,” read a Nov. 24 statement from the Treasury Department.

Obama’s amnesty was blamed for the breakdown in Poltico’s story. “If the immigration announcement had been delayed, we probably could have gotten something done, a Hill aide told Politico.

But Democratic senators also played a role because they refused to reform the EITC rules to curb long-standing fraud or to exclude Obama’s illegals.

The crash highlights the the GOP’s increasingly assertive response to the president’s immigration policies.

Obama is offering work-permits, $2 trillion in taxpayer benefits and a quick route to citizenship to at least 4 million of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. He is also trying to win business support for his plan by boosting the inflow of guest-workers sought by blue-chip companies.

Polls show that Obama’s immigration politics are very unpopular among GOP voters, swing voters and some Democrats.

In the face of Obama’s radical policies, the GOP base has become increasingly determined to block his policies. In 2013, the base pressured House Speaker John Boehner to not pass the Senate’s amnesty bill that would have roughly doubled the flow of legal immigrants and guest-workers into the nation’s stalled economy.

Obama’s immigration policies are welcomed by the business community and by major investors, whose wealth rises as immigrants nudges down wages, according to a June 2013 report by the Congressional Budget Office.

The voter vs. donor fight is likely to escalate as GOP leaders try to win the presidency in 2016.

Obama’s immigration priorities have dominated U.S. national politics for two years, partly because a handful of GOP politicians — such as Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John McCain — have aligned themselves with business groups that want more low-wage foreign workers.

The business-backed focus on immigration has diverted GOP attention from other priorities that could have helped the economy, including tax cuts, careful deregulation and education reform.

The immigration fight has also widened the base vs. business split in the GOP. For example, the top Republican in the House, Rep. Eric Cantor, lost his seat in June 2014 when he was defeated in a primary by a local economics professor, Dave Brat, who campaigned against amnesty and and what he labelled crony capitalism.

The fight has now erupted in the Senate, where Sen. Jeff Sessions, the leading GOP voice against amnesty, is now facing a challenge by Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi for the chairmanship of the critical Senate budget committee.

The chairmanship is important because Sessions could use it to pass a 2016 budget plan. Once passed, the budget would allow the GOP majority more leeway in the complex Senate’s complex debating rules to curb progressive spending priorities.

The chairman will be picked by a secret vote among the GOP members of the committee. The committee members include Sen. Graham and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, both of whom supported the Senate’s 2013 amnesty bill.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/28/ob...help-illegals/

---

(
( FIRST OF ALL MONEY FOR EACH CHILD SHOULD BE OUT THAT) WHY THE ILLEGALS & THE AMERICAN WANT TO HAVE MORE BABY ONLY FOR THE MONEY & THAT SHOULD BE OUT THEY DID NOT HAVE YEAR'S AGO ? WAKE UP

DEFUND DEFUND DEFUND!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

End tax credit grab bags for illegals. End tax returns for citizens. End the Century of Failure. Pass the FairTax and repeal the income tax top to bottom.

www.fairtax.org

We should consider advocating the FairTax as an ALIPAC anti-illegal immigration legislation, because of its direct influence on curbing the tax cost of illegal immigration and providing citizens with a hiring advantage over illegal aliens. Citizens receive the Rebate whereas illegals don't, so illegals who would pay the tax whenever they spend and not being able to receive the Rebate makes it much harder for them to undercut American workers on wages. The FairTax also levels the playing field on trade issues so much that there is no longer any tax advantage to producing overseas and back-hauling those products to the American market, and without that tax advantage, there really is no other advantage for companies to continue doing that since the labor savings alone isn't enough to warrant the other costs, expenses and management/quality control issues of foreign production.

Something to think about.

---

Excerpt:

Quote:

---

Fair Tax Unfairly Burdens Lower And Middle Classes

CNN: "On Its Own, A National Sales Tax Would Be Extremely Regressive." According to CNN: "On its own, a national sales tax would be extremely regressive — that is, it would tax everyone who spent everything they earned (and that's a lot of us) at 23% of their income, while those who made enough money to set some aside would, in effect, pay a lower overall rate." [CNN, 2/21/08]
Businessweek: "The Fair Tax Would Weigh Heavier On Lower-Income Households." According to Businessweek: "The FairTax would weigh heavier on lower-income households, because they spend a larger proportion of what they earn. That's why Woodall's proposal calls for a 'prebate,' a monthly advance rebate that covers the cost of the tax up to the federal poverty level. Compared with the current system, the FairTax would be a boon to the highest earners, who spend a relatively low share of their income each year and would no longer have to pay taxes on capital gains." [Businessweek, 4/7/11]
FactCheck.org: Fair Tax Would 'Make The Tax Code Less Fair.' According to a FactCheck.org analysis of 2007 Fair Tax legislation: "It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year. It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair." [FactCheck.org, 5/31/07]
Under Fair Tax, Workers Currently Paying Less Than 23 Percent Of Income In Taxes Are Worse Off. According to former President Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett in a report for Tax Analysts: "But what if the worker is now paying less than 23 percent of his income in federal taxes? In this case, he is clearly worse off. The prices of the things he buys will rise by more than his income rises from the elimination of income and payroll taxes. Conversely, if one is wealthy and in a tax bracket above 23 percent, that person would be much better off. His income and payroll taxes would fall by much more than the prices of goods and services he consumes would rise." [Tax Analysts, 12/24/07]
CNN: Under Fair Tax Scenarios, "Burden Of Taxes In Any Given Year Likely Shifts To Lower Earners." According to CNN: "'Fair' is a value judgment, but a lot of people won't think this admittedly lurid scenario sounds fair at all: Let's say a hedge fund manager has a good year and earns $1 billion. If he can somehow manage to scrape by spending, say, $100 million, the other $900 million is tax free. He'll have paid about 2% of his income in taxes that year. If those who can afford to save a large chunk of their income pay less, the burden of taxes in any given year likely shifts to lower earners." [CNN,2/21/08]

---

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201104220008

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Excerpt:

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201104220008

---

Yes, that article for the most part is true with the exception that it's predicted result is false. Businesses no longer pay income tax on their earnings under the FairTax, nor do investors pay capital gains taxes on their profits under the FairTax, nor does any individual. Individuals are provided a Rebate if they want one and if they're a US citizen or permanent legal resident to pay the FairTaxes on their spending up to the poverty line which means they pay no FairTax on their low incomes. The middle class pays no income tax, no payroll tax, no capital gains tax, no interest or dividend tax, no inheritance tax.

Under the FairTax everyone goes home, businesses and individuals alike, with all the money they earned, and only pay federal taxes when they spend on new products or services which means all prices are now relieved of the cost of federal income taxation and replaced with the FairTax, a tax Rebated equally for any citizen or permanent legal resident who wants it regardless of income.

Furthermore, the FairTax is a voluntary tax paid only when a person chooses to spend on new products and services. Unlike the income tax, our citizens and permanent legal residents are afforded the liberty to choose what, when and where they spend their money and thus what FairTax they choose to pay.

Used homes, cars, furniture, clothes, appliances, equipment, etc., etc. ... all used goods are exempt from the FairTax. Savings and investment are free from the FairTax. Businesses posing as charities are on the same playing field as real businesses, neither pay any FairTax and neither collect it on goods or services they give away for free. Domestic businesses are on the same playing field with foreign businesses, leveling the playing field for US producers with foreign producers, except that foreign producers can and will continue to be subject to tariffs, excise and duty taxes which aren't affected by the FairTax.

The low and middle income groups will no longer be unemployed or face wage deflation because of illegal immigration, free trade, or business schemes to avoid or defer income tax.

If you want more earned income in the pockets of the low and middle class, then you want the FairTax but may not yet understand this simple solution to so many of our problems.

Those who don't should look up the replies to the studies cited by your source at www.fairtax.org, since FairTax found numerous oversights, errors and omissions in the "facts" they assumed when making these false claims about who pays the FairTax. Of course these organizations are funded by the income tax business, a huge lobby of tax preparers and attorneys, as well as the same group of businesses who promote illegal immigration and free trade and seek the destruction of our economy and the dissolution of our country.

As we know from the fight against illegal immigration and free trade, these folks are a very clever, sneaky, dishonest and despicable group of people and enterprises with goals and outcomes quite different from those of most low and middle income groups in our nation who want their wages and salaries protected by a healthy economy that includes trade protections and the freedom and liberty to go about their lives and business without intrusion in their personal affairs or money by the government as a function or collecting an income tax.

45 states and virtually all counties and cities within them collect sale taxes without any Rebate. Are they "regressive"? Well yes, without a Rebate, they are regressive. The FairTax is not regressive because of the Rebate. Are states being unfair to their low and middle income tax groups by having sales taxes instead of collecting all their revenue through income taxes?

Well, of course not. No one I know wants a higher state income tax to enjoy a lower sales tax rate. And, of course, rightly so.

Finally, for anyone who seriously wants to bust the oligarchy in the United States and return the power of the purse to the people from the grab bag lobbyists, they'll prefer the FairTax to the income tax, even if from time to time depending on how they freely choose to spend their money, they may on rare occasion or in a certain year pay more tax than they would have under the income tax, but those times will be very few over a life-time, and even then, you would have to discount it by the reflated wages, increased opportunities, more good jobs with benefits, and at the end of the day, everyone will pay less while the federal government actually collects more to cure budget deficits and start paying down this horrific debt. And of course when more Americans have better jobs with benefits, they're no longer on Medicaid, SCHIP and Welfare, which reduces the cost of government dramatically, which could theoretically eventually reduce the General Revenue portion of the FairTax. The FairTax is split with 8.07% earmarked for Social Security and Medicare and General Revenue 14.91%.

From one of the cited sources in the article:

Quote:

---

It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair."

---

I have to laugh. The whole purpose of "fair" is to make most people better off, isn't it? I would hope and pray that making most people better off through the FairTax can not somehow be construed as "unfair" in our language and culture. Perhaps for those who don't get it, we should deal with the words right and wrong instead of fair or unfair. The FairTax is right for a capitalistic economy comprised of freedom-loving citizens and I truly believe that still includes the United States.

It's a simple fact that we can't fix the US economy without reversing the policies that caused this disaster and keeping the costs, mandates and intrusions of the income tax sits tall and strong on the top of the list of those who want to destroy our economy and bankrupt our nation with illegal immigration, excess immigration, free trade, ObamaCare and all the other authoritarian issues that put citizens under mandates that are not in our best interest or that of our nation, and to me, makes it one of the most important policies that needs to be reversed.

The income tax has over a Century of Failure to its credit, both with the economy and holding the reigns on our government to secure our liberty. The income tax experiment has failed and it's time to return to a constitution based tax system, i. e., the FairTax.

www.fairtax.org