GOP VOTES TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS (2018 & 2020)

GOP WORKS TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS:

IS THIS HOW THE GOP PLANS TO WIN IN 2020?


Sources: NY Times, Bloomberg Politics, Youtube


****** Senate Weighs Changes to Tax Bill on the Same Day They Could Vote


• The Senate will convene at 10 a.m. Friday to continue the debate on taxes, ahead of a possible final vote later in the day.

• Republicans seemed to be inching toward victory on Thursday and picked up the support of Senator John McCain of Arizona.

• But they faced a setback late in the day when they were left scrambling to find hundreds of billions of dollars in extra revenue to satisfy concerns about the bill’s deficit effects.

• Lawmakers are now mulling options that would result in a tax increase down the road, including a possible increase in the corporate tax rate and the revival of the alternative minimum tax on wealthy individuals and some companies.

Republican leaders ended Thursday with the same problem they started with: They still need to secure 50 votes to be able to pass their tax bill.

Their effort appeared to be gaining momentum on Thursday, with talk of a final vote later that night or early Friday.

But by the end of the day, they were contending with twin setbacks, both involving how the bill would affect federal budget deficits.

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said in an analysis released on Thursday afternoon that the legislation would add $1 trillion to federal budget deficits over a decade, even after accounting for economic growth.

In addition, a provision meant to prevent ballooning deficits ran into parliamentary problems. The provision would have increased taxes if economic growth fell short of expectations, but it was deemed by the Senate parliamentarian to run afoul of budget rules that must be followed if the bill is to be shielded from a Democratic filibuster.

Without the so-called trigger, the votes of a handful of Republicans, including Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, appeared at risk.

“Senator Corker has been pretty clear he doesn’t want any deficit spending,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said on Thursday, adding that he did not agree with the Joint Committee on Taxation’s assessment.

To pass the tax bill in the Senate, Republican leaders can lose only two of their members, assuming Democrats are unified against the measure.

The Senate will convene on Friday morning and the debate on taxes will continue. At some point, the Senate will undertake a marathon of amendment votes known as a vote-a-rama. Eventually, there would be a final vote on the legislation.

But in the meantime, Republicans need to decide how they want to change their bill. To satisfy Mr. Corker, for example, Republicans were discussing putting in place tax increases that would take effect some years from now, a step that would soften the deficit effects of the legislation.

Will they decide to raise taxes?

The options under discussion to satisfy the deficit hawks could essentially result in a tax increase down the road. Lawmakers have talked about raising the corporate tax rate above 20 percent after a period of years. There’s also discussion about reviving the alternative minimum tax, or A.M.T., on high-net individuals and some companies.

Both of those ideas are unlikely to sit well with some Republicans, including those in the House, who could be criticized for essentially voting to increase taxes.

Lawmakers may decide that’s a risk worth taking or they could ultimately decide to jettison the deficit hawks’ concerns and lose their votes.

Several senators are worth watching.

As Republicans mull changes to their tax plan, the spotlight will focus on several senators with varying concerns.

Republican leaders do not need to win over all of these lawmakers. In fact, they could decide that some demands are simply not worth meeting — assuming they can satisfy other Republicans and therefore get the 50 votes they need. Vice President Mike Pence can also provide a tiebreaking vote.

At least a handful of senators have expressed concerns about the deficit, including Mr. Corker and Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and James Lankford of Oklahoma. Now that the trigger is dead, Republicans may need to come up with another idea to protect against piling up debt as a result of the tax overhaul.

Two Republicans, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Steve Daines of Montana, have objected to how the bill treats pass-through businesses, whose profits are distributed to owners and taxed at individual rates. In light of their concerns, Republicans plan to sweeten the tax treatment of these businesses.

Finally, there is Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican who has her own concerns about the tax overhaul. She wants the bill to allow individuals to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes, and adding that provision could help win her over.

VETERANS REMAIN JOBLESS & HOMELESS, COMPANIES CHEAT FEDS, RECEIVE FED $$$ & TAX BREAKS BUT WON'T HIRE VETS (AUDITS??)

VETERANS REMAIN JOBLESS & HOMELESS.......WHY??

COMPANIES RECEIVE FEDERAL TAX BREAKS FOR HIRING VETS YET MILLIONS OF VETS REMAIN JOBLESS & HOMELESS.

WHY ARE SOME COMPANIES RECEIVING FEDERAL MONEY & TAX BREAKS FOR VETS WHO ARE NOT ACTUALLY ON THE PAYROLL??

WHY DOESN'T THE VA CONDUCT AUDITS OF COMPANIES THAT RECEIVE FEDERAL MONEY FOR HIRING VETS??


Sources: SBA, US Veterans Magazine



***** Tax Credit for Hiring Veterans


~ Besides honesty, loyalty, and responsibility, veterans may bring you a tax cut.

Many employers have come to learn that veterans make excellent employees.

They usually are easily trainable and possess desirable characteristics, such as honesty, loyalty, and responsibility.

If these attributes were not enough to induce employers to hire veterans, the tax law offers even more.

The tax law encourages employers to hire certain targeted groups of workers by offering a tax credit tied to the wages of these new employees, and certain veterans are treated as a targeted group.

Here are the special rules to know when hiring so that you may take credit where credit is due.


Which veterans qualify?


As a small business owner, you qualify for the work opportunity tax credit (WOTC) if you hire a veteran who falls into any of the following categories:

• Having a service-related disability
• Unemployed for a specified period
• Receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits

However, even if a veteran does not fall within any of these categories, he or she may still be a member of another targeted group.

This would still allow you to take a tax credit. For example, a veteran who has been a member of a family that received TANF payments for at least 18 consecutive months is treated as a member of a targeted group for long-term family assistance recipients.

What is the tax credit amount?

The tax credit reduces your tax bill dollar-for-dollar, so each $1 of WOTC saves you $1 in taxes. The credit is based on the amount of wages paid to an eligible veteran in the first year of employment.

The maximum tax credit is based on a set percentage of maximum first-year wages, which is fixed by law, and the number of hours worked. For example, for veterans, the basic percentage of first-year wages is 25 percent for those who worked at least 120 hours but fewer than 400 hours; it is 40 percent for those who worked at least 400 hours.

The maximum credit for a veteran working at least 400 hours is:

• Service-related disability and unemployed at least 6 months in the year ending in the hiring year: $9,600 ($24,000 in wages × 40%).
• Service-related disability and hired within 1 year of discharge or release from active duty: $4,800 ($12,000 in wages × 40%)
• Unemployed at least 6 months: $5,600 ($14,000 in wages × 40%)
• Unemployed at least 4 weeks: $2,400 ($6,000 in wages × 40%)

• Receiving SNAP benefits: $2,400 ($6,000 in wages × 40%)

There is no limit on the number of eligible employees you can hire for the credit.

For example, if you hire 3 veterans with service-related disabilities who are unemployed at least 6 months, your credit is $28,800 ($9,600 × 3).

The WOTC is set to run through 2019, and you can take the credit year after year as you expand the size of your staff. Thus, even if you take a tax credit for hiring a veteran in 2016, you can do so again next year.

Other rules:

Being eligible for the credit isn’t enough to claim it on your return. To take the tax credit, you must submit IRS Form 8850 to your state workforce agency within 28 days of the first day of employment.

Also submit ETA Form 9061, or ETA Form 9062 if the employee has already been conditionally certified as belonging to a targeted group at the same time.

The purpose of these submissions is to confirm that your new employee is indeed a member of a targeted group.

The credit is claimed on IRS Form 5884, which is attached to the employer’s income tax return.

Something to think about:

When hiring, keep the WOTC in the back of your mind.
While it may not be a primary factor in making a hiring decision, it may just be the tipping point in favor of one applicant over another.

GOP vs Obama vs Oil Company Tax Subsidies: Bribes & Showdowns!!

Looks Like A Tough Political Showdown Between Pres. Obama & GOP Leaders Over Tax Breaks & Subsidies Is Headed Our Way.

You See The GOP Wants To Keep Throwing Money At Big Oil Companies In The Form Of Tax Subsidies In Exchange For BIG Campaign Checks From Oil Company Lobbyists.

President Obama On The Other Hand Wants To Cut Off Those Unfair Tax Subsidies & Tax Breaks.

In Fact GOP Lawmakers On Capitol Hill May Even Attempt To Use The Debt Ceiling As A Bribe Against Stopping Those Unfair Tax Subsidies To Big Oil Companies.

Excuse Me But Aren't Bribes What The GOP Accused Democrats Of Back In 2009 & 2010???

This Brutal Showdown Among Both Democrat & GOP Leaders Reveals One Of The Reasons Why Key GOP Lawmakers Are Trying To Kick Pres. Obama Out Of The Oval Office.

Can You Say: "The GOP Is More Likely Than Not As It Relates To Being Responsible For American Gas Price Gouging??"

That's Right!

It Appears As If The Republican Party Is Contributing To America's Current High Gasoline Prices, Yet NONE Of Them Want To Stop Giving Big Oil Companies Huge Tax Subsidies & Tax Breaks!

Just Another Logical Reason To VOTE OBAMA IN 2012!!






Big Oil's $4 billion tax break in doubt

President Obama repeated his call Tuesday for an end to $4 billion in oil industry tax breaks as gas prices approach $4 a gallon and after a top lawmaker indicated a possible shift in Republican policy.

In a letter to congressional leaders, the president said the oil industry is profitable enough without the tax incentives and that the money should be spent on alternative energy sources and conservation.

"CEOs of the major oil companies have made it clear that high oil prices provide more than enough profit motive to invest in domestic production without special tax breaks," said Obama. "As we work together to reduce our deficits, we simply can't afford these wasteful subsidies."

This week those profits are going to be front and center. BP (BP) is expected to report earnings on Wednesday. Exxon (XOM, Fortune 500) is slated to announce its results on Thursday. Some analysts expect the company's profits to jump 50% from last year. Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) is scheduled to make its earnings announcement on Friday.

The oil industry and many of its supporters in Congress have long argued that the tax breaks encourage domestic oil production and provide jobs for millions of Americans. Republicans in particular have resisted efforts to eliminate these tax breaks, something many Democrats have been trying to do since at least 2008.

But on Monday night, Speaker of the House John Boehner indicated he might be open to taking some of those breaks off the table.

Drill baby drill won't lower gas prices
"I don't think the big oil companies need to have the oil depletion allowances, but for small, independent oil and gas producers, if they didn't have this, there'd be even less exploration in America than there is today," Boehner said on ABC's World News Tonight. "It's certainly something we need to be looking at."

Depletion allowances let oil companies treat the oil in the ground as capital equipment, and they can write off a certain percentage for each barrel that comes out.

On Tuesday the speaker appeared to backtrack from those comments, with an aid telling CNN that "what the President has suggested so far would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump."

Nonetheless, Obama took the chance to pounce, saying in his letter that he was "heartened that Speaker Boehner yesterday expressed openness to eliminating these tax subsidies."

This all comes as the price of gasoline surges above $4 a gallon in many states, making it increasingly difficult politically to defend Big Oil.

As gas prices approach their record highs set in 2008 they are threatening to derail the nation's nascent economic recovery.

The tax breaks in question
The Obama administration is targeting nine tax breaks, according to a paper from the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Four account for the lion's share of the money:

Domestic manufacturing tax deduction: This is the largest single tax break, and would save over $1.7 billion a year if eliminated.

The tax deduction, passed in 2004, is designed to keep factories in the United States. Companies that manufacture here can deduct 9% of their income from operations that are attributed to domestic production.

But some question if that incentive is really appropriate for oil companies. "What are they going to do, move the oil field to the North Sea," said one staffer at the Center for American Progress said in an interview earlier this year.

No, but higher costs in the United States may make them move the drill rigs to the North Sea or some other place.

Eliminating the tax breaks "would actually discourage new energy projects and new hiring in one of the nation's most dependable job-creating industries," the American Petroleum Institute said in a statement at the time, noting the industry currently supports over 9 million jobs.

The percentage depletion allowance: This lets oil companies deduct about 15% of the money generated from a well from its taxes. Eliminating it would save about $1 billion a year.

The deduction essentially lets oil companies treat oil in the ground as capital equipment. For any industry, the value of that equipment can be written down each year.

But critics say oil in the ground is not capital equipment, but a national resource that the oil companies are simply using for their own profit.

The foreign tax credit: This provision gives companies a credit for any taxes they pay to other countries. Altering this tax credit would save about $850 million a year.

Foreign governments can collect money from oil companies through royalties -- fees for depleting their national resources -- and income taxes.

A royalty would be deducted as a cost of doing business, and would likely shave about 30% off a company's tax bill. Categorized as income tax, it is 100% deductible.

Foreign governments long ago grew wise to the U.S. tax code. To reduce costs for everyone involved and attract business, they agreed to call some royalties income taxes, allowing oil companies to take the 100% deduction on a bigger slice of their bill.

Intangible drilling costs: This lets the industry write off about $780 million a year for things like wages, fuel, repairs and hauling costs.

All industries get to write off the costs of doing business, but they must take it over the life of an investment. The oil industry gets to take the drilling credit in the first year.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Whitehouse.gov, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP 2012 = Grand Oil Party & Tax Breaks For Super Rich!!

Continuing To Give Gigantic Unnecessary Tax Breaks To Big Oil Companies Is Why The GOP Wants Pres. Obama Out Of Office!

That & To Keep Receiving Their BIG Checks From Oil Company Lobbyists.

Can You Say Gas Price Gouging??

VOTE OBAMA IN 2012!!




Big Oil's $4 billion tax break in doubt

President Obama repeated his call Tuesday for an end to $4 billion in oil industry tax breaks as gas prices approach $4 a gallon and after a top lawmaker indicated a possible shift in Republican policy.

In a letter to congressional leaders, the president said the oil industry is profitable enough without the tax incentives and that the money should be spent on alternative energy sources and conservation.

"CEOs of the major oil companies have made it clear that high oil prices provide more than enough profit motive to invest in domestic production without special tax breaks," said Obama. "As we work together to reduce our deficits, we simply can't afford these wasteful subsidies."

This week those profits are going to be front and center. BP (BP) is expected to report earnings on Wednesday. Exxon (XOM, Fortune 500) is slated to announce its results on Thursday. Some analysts expect the company's profits to jump 50% from last year. Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) is scheduled to make its earnings announcement on Friday.

The oil industry and many of its supporters in Congress have long argued that the tax breaks encourage domestic oil production and provide jobs for millions of Americans. Republicans in particular have resisted efforts to eliminate these tax breaks, something many Democrats have been trying to do since at least 2008.

But on Monday night, Speaker of the House John Boehner indicated he might be open to taking some of those breaks off the table.

Drill baby drill won't lower gas prices
"I don't think the big oil companies need to have the oil depletion allowances, but for small, independent oil and gas producers, if they didn't have this, there'd be even less exploration in America than there is today," Boehner said on ABC's World News Tonight. "It's certainly something we need to be looking at."

Depletion allowances let oil companies treat the oil in the ground as capital equipment, and they can write off a certain percentage for each barrel that comes out.

On Tuesday the speaker appeared to backtrack from those comments, with an aid telling CNN that "what the President has suggested so far would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump."

Nonetheless, Obama took the chance to pounce, saying in his letter that he was "heartened that Speaker Boehner yesterday expressed openness to eliminating these tax subsidies."

This all comes as the price of gasoline surges above $4 a gallon in many states, making it increasingly difficult politically to defend Big Oil.

As gas prices approach their record highs set in 2008 they are threatening to derail the nation's nascent economic recovery.

The tax breaks in question
The Obama administration is targeting nine tax breaks, according to a paper from the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Four account for the lion's share of the money:

Domestic manufacturing tax deduction: This is the largest single tax break, and would save over $1.7 billion a year if eliminated.

The tax deduction, passed in 2004, is designed to keep factories in the United States. Companies that manufacture here can deduct 9% of their income from operations that are attributed to domestic production.

But some question if that incentive is really appropriate for oil companies. "What are they going to do, move the oil field to the North Sea," said one staffer at the Center for American Progress said in an interview earlier this year.

No, but higher costs in the United States may make them move the drill rigs to the North Sea or some other place.

Eliminating the tax breaks "would actually discourage new energy projects and new hiring in one of the nation's most dependable job-creating industries," the American Petroleum Institute said in a statement at the time, noting the industry currently supports over 9 million jobs.

The percentage depletion allowance: This lets oil companies deduct about 15% of the money generated from a well from its taxes. Eliminating it would save about $1 billion a year.

The deduction essentially lets oil companies treat oil in the ground as capital equipment. For any industry, the value of that equipment can be written down each year.

But critics say oil in the ground is not capital equipment, but a national resource that the oil companies are simply using for their own profit.

The foreign tax credit: This provision gives companies a credit for any taxes they pay to other countries. Altering this tax credit would save about $850 million a year.

Foreign governments can collect money from oil companies through royalties -- fees for depleting their national resources -- and income taxes.

A royalty would be deducted as a cost of doing business, and would likely shave about 30% off a company's tax bill. Categorized as income tax, it is 100% deductible.

Foreign governments long ago grew wise to the U.S. tax code. To reduce costs for everyone involved and attract business, they agreed to call some royalties income taxes, allowing oil companies to take the 100% deduction on a bigger slice of their bill.

Intangible drilling costs: This lets the industry write off about $780 million a year for things like wages, fuel, repairs and hauling costs.

All industries get to write off the costs of doing business, but they must take it over the life of an investment. The oil industry gets to take the drilling credit in the first year.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

GOP Is Screwed In 2012! Eleven Important Questions!!

Here Are 11 Extremely Important Questions For GOP Lawmakers As It Relates To The 2012 Elections:

1) Where Are ALL Those Jobs Your Party Promised To Bring Back To America From Overseas After Winning Last November's Elections??

2) Why Do You Want To Kill Medicare, Thus Killing Off Elderly Americans & Hurting Many Senior Citizens?

3) Why Are You Opposed To Raising Taxes On Millionaires & Billionaires When Those SAME Millionaires & Billionaires Are Sending American Jobs Overseas While Benefiting From Huge Tax Breaks??

4) Why Do You STILL Want To Give Huge Tax Subsidies To Oil Companies?

5) Why Are You Engaging In Gas Price Gouging For Political Gain??

6) Why Are You Engaging In Such Ugly Racist, Divisive Behavior Prior To The 2012 Elections?

7) Why Do You Want To Kill Pell Grants Thus Hindering The Education Of Millions Of Black & Hispanic College Students??

8) Who Is The GOP's 2012 Presidential Race Frontrunner??

9) Did You Fire Michael Steele Because He Was Black? Why Does The GOP Appear To Hate Black People & Other People Of Color?? What Have We Done Wrong To Your Party??

10) Why Is Your Party Intentionally Choosing NOT To Raise The Debt Ceiling When You Did It So Nicely (Without Drama) When Pres. George W. Bush Was Still In Office??

11) Why Does The GOP Hate Labor Unions & Workers' Rights?? Is It Because The GOP Is For Paying American Workers Lower Wages And Providing Them With Little To No Benefits??

Inquiring Minds Would Like To Know.

As President Obama Said Today "We've Got Better Stuff To Do."

You're Screwed Dudes!!

VOTE OBAMA IN 2012!!!!!!

Sources: CNN

Richard Burr Votes "Yes" On Jobs Bill For Tax Credits...Its Pay Go

Burr Votes "Yes" On Jobs Bill


Today U.S. Sen. Richard Burr voted in support of a sweeping Jobs Bill estimated to provide $35 billion in Job-Related Tax Breaks and funding for Construction Projects.

Burr, a Winston-Salem Republican, recently boasted to GOP supporters that "it is impossible for any candidate to get to the right of me from an ideological standpoint," Barb Barrett reports.

But he was one of 11 Republicans to vote “yes” on the bill. The measure passed 68-29.

U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat, also voted yes.

Burr said he supports the tax credits to get employers hiring jobless workers, and that he liked that this bill is paid for but cuts elsewhere.

"According to (the Congressional Budget Office), this bill will not add to the deficit because it is paid for by cutting elsewhere in government, a fact that makes it much different from last year’s "stimulus" package that I opposed," Burr said in a statement.

"This bill ultimately serves as an admission that last year’s stimulus package was a very expensive missed opportunity."

The bill would offer tax credits to employers hiring long-term jobless workers, and extends the federal bridge and road program.

Earlier this month Burr was one of 19 senators to vote against a $10 billion extension of Unemployment benefits. He was criticized in an online ad by the Democratic party for that vote, and for the fact that he didn’t show up for a critical procedural vote on the Jobs bill.



The jobs bill passed Wednesday now goes to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The bill allows employers who hire workers who have been unemployed for at least 60 days an exemption from paying their 6.2 percent payroll taxes for the rest of the year.

If the employees stay on at least a year, employers also would receive a $1,000-per-worker tax credit.

The bill also extends the federal bridge and roads construction program through the end of the year.




View Larger Map

Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps

Pres. Obama Touts Jobs, Praises Pay-Go...Weekly Address

Sources: Whitehouse.gov

Obama Introduces New Jobs Bill At Ohio Town Hall Mtg

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Combative Obama Pushes Job Creation Bill


A combative President Barack Obama exhorted Congress Friday to pass a new job-creation bill, taking a populist appeal to America's recession-racked Rust Belt in an effort to recapture the excitement of his campaign.

Obama weaved us-against-them rhetoric into his appearances, telling a town hall audience that he "will never stop fighting" for an economy that works the hard-working, not just those already well off.

He said a jobs bill emerging in Congress must include tax breaks for small business hiring and for people trying to make their homes more energy efficient — two proposals he wasn't able to get into a bill the House passed last month. And he used the word "fight" or some variation of it over a dozen times. The House-passed $174 billion stimulus package faces a stern test in the Senate, in part because it is financed with deficit spending.

With the town hall meeting as well as tours and impromptu visits the people, Obama's day had the feel of a day from his campaign. He grinned, bantered and joked his way through the day, followed by campaign videographers.

After the upset win by Republican Scott Brown in a special Massachusetts Senate election this week — a victory spurred in large part by an anti-establishment sentiment — the White House was well aware that neither Obama's agenda nor the electoral prospects for fellow Democrats this fall can be taken for granted.

So in his at the town hall meeting at Lorain County Community College near Cleveland, the president assailed Washington and Wall Street alike, hoping to connect with public's frustration and position himself as the solution — not the problem.

He strongly defended unpopular actions he has taken to bail out banks and insurers and to rescue automakers from collapse. Such measures have not gone over well in many quarters, and have been derided as moves that expanded government intervention and swelled the deficit. The measures were seen as a helping hand for Wall Street while many on Main Street walked the unemployment lines.

Obama said that propping up the financial industry was as much about regular Americans as wealthy bankers. "If the financial system had gone down, it would have taken the entire economy and millions more families and businesses with it," he argued.

Similarly, allowing GM and Chrysler to go under might have satisfied calls to force businesses to reap the consequences of bad decisions.

But he also said, "Hundreds of thousands of Americans would have been hurt, not just at those companies themselves, but at other auto companies and at their suppliers and dealers, here in Ohio, up in Michigan, and all across this country."

Obama made a repeated point of criticizing Washington, too — saying that one can get a "pretty warped view of things" from inside the capital city, blasting special interest power and emphasizing repeatedly that he badly wanted to escape the confining nature of the White House.

He sought to demonstrate understanding for the economic uncertainty that lingers in many American homes and businesses despite some improvements in the economy overall.

"Folks have seen jobs you thought would last forever disappear. You've seen plants close and businesses shut down," Obama said. "I've heard about how the city government here is bare bones. And how you can't get to work or go buy groceries like you used to because of cuts in the county transit system."

He promised to help. "I'll never stop fighting for you," he said. "I'll take my lumps, too."

The choice of Ohio was no accident.

It has unemployment slightly higher than the national average, with the state reporting before Obama landed in Cleveland that its rate had ticked upward in December, to 10.9 percent from 10.6 percent the month before. The national rate was 10 percent in December.

Ohio is also a political must-win — a state Obama won in 2008 and probably must win again if he is to get a second White House term.

In northeast Ohio, where steel mills have given way to rust, Obama toured EMC Precision Machining, based in Elyria, and visited with some of the 44 employees still on the factory floor. A year ago, the family-owned maker of custom-made machine products had 77 employees.

En route to the plant, his motorcade whizzed by scores of building either for lease or sale, a reminder of the economic hard times.

The president also made an unannounced lunch stop at Smitty's, a working-class tavern with wood-paneled walls and Bud Light bottles on the bar. He talked with some patrons and had a $4.35 burger, with lettuce, tomato and mustard, for lunch.

Later, accompanied by Gov. Ted Strickland, Obama toured a classroom at the community college where students were designing wind turbines.

Leaving the room, Obama almost walked into a turbine propeller. "I almost sliced myself in half," he joked. "Secret Service would've been unhappy."

Across the street from the town hall location were groups of anti-Obama protesters.

"He's done a lot, but they are all negative things," said Ray Angell, 65, of Twinsburg, Ohio, a conservative active in the anti-tax Tea Party movement, mentioning the stimulus package and climate change proposals.



View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps

City, County Officials Review Corrupt Corporate Welfare Tax Breaks

Cities, Counties Take Back Corporate Tax Breaks


Cash-strapped communities have a message for corporations that promised jobs in return for tax breaks: A deal's a deal.

As the economy sputters along, municipalities struggling to fix roads, fund schools and pay bills increasingly are rescinding tax abatements to companies that don't hire enough workers, that lay them off or that close up shop. At the same time, they're sharpening new incentive deals, leaving no doubt what is expected of companies and what will happen if they don't deliver.

''We will roll out the red carpet as much as we can (but) they are going to honor the contract,'' said Brendon Gallagher, an alderman in DeKalb, Ill., where Target Corp. got abatements from the city, county, school district and other taxing bodies after promising at least 500 jobs at a local distribution center.

So when the company came up 66 workers short in 2009, Target got word its next tax bill would be jumping almost $600,000 -- more than half of which goes to the local school district, where teachers and programs have been cut as coffers dried up.

The newfound boldness comes from communities and states that have long bent over backward to lure companies and jobs by offering abatements and other incentives -- to the tune of an estimated $60 billion a year in the United States, according to the Washington-based economic development watchdog group Good Jobs First.

The willingness to write -- and enforce -- the ''clawback'' provisions comes even as companies across the country struggle and against a broader backdrop of governments getting tough on business practices.

What's more, the poor economy has communities thinking about how the tax breaks they dole out will play with residents who have grown increasingly angry at the thought of anything that hints of corporate welfare.

''The public is a lot more aware of tax abatements and there's a climate of skepticism about what can be perceived as corporate handouts,'' said Geoff McKimm, a member of the Monroe County Council in Indiana.

With that in mind, county officials drew up an agreement with Printpack, a packaging company, that includes a provision requiring the company to refund either $197,000 or that year's abatement, whichever is more, if the number of employees at a new factory falls below 140.

Another provision requires Printpack to refund the entire abatement if it employs fewer than 75 people -- a guarantee meant to prevent companies from leaving a ''skeleton crew'' at a location to avoid paying up.

''With so many businesses going to Mexico, communities are desperately trying to hold onto jobs,'' said Amy Gerstman, the county's auditor. ''This was a carefully put-together abatement.''

And businesses increasingly are being forced to hold up their end of the bargain.

In Texas, where companies can get money from the Texas Enterprise Fund if they promise to create a specific number of jobs, the number of clawbacks rose to nine in 2008, compared to a total of seven for the previous three years combined, the governor's office said.

In Illinois, the number of companies from which the state sought to ''recapture'' incentive money has steadily climbed, from six in 2005 to a total of 37 by 2008.

Meanwhile, more communities are contemplating similar action.

In St. Louis County, officials have told Pfizer Inc. that if it cuts 600 jobs, as planned, they'll rethink the $7 million in tax breaks they promised to give the drugmaker for the next 10 years.

And in Detroit, while the state was approving expanded tax credits in exchange for General Motors Co.'s promise not to move its headquarters, the city council was talking about cracking down on tax breaks for GM and other major employers.

''We know that there are more clawbacks getting triggered because more deals are falling short,'' said Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, who has written extensively on clawbacks.

It's unclear exactly how much is being recovered because nobody collects comprehensive statistics on clawbacks, LeRoy and others say. States that do keep statistics track only their own deals, not those initiated by local governments. Communities also may revoke the entire abatement or only a portion of it, while others sometimes simply rule out future abatements, LeRoy said.

Finally, some communities crack down on companies quietly, out of concern that they could scare off other potential employers, LeRoy said. He said that fear persists even though there is no evidence that having or enforcing clawbacks poisons the business climate.

''We were told that we were going to ruin Topeka's ability to attract businesses; we'd give Topeka a black eye,'' said James Crowl, assistant county counselor in Shawnee County, where last year officials approved a settlement that calls for Target to pay $200,000 a year for 10 years after failing to create as many jobs as it had agreed to.

So what happened?

''Last year we opened a Home Depot distribution center right next door,'' said County Counselor Rich Eckert.

In DeKalb, some officials were concerned about sending a bad message to other businesses considering locating there, said Gallagher, the alderman. But he didn't buy it.

''We are 65 miles from Chicago (and) if someone wants to locate 120 miles from Chicago, I can't stop them,'' he said.

Besides, he said, $600,000 means less to Target than to a struggling community, where he said the city alone is facing a $2 million revenue shortfall.

Target was disappointed, but understood the decision, spokeswoman Jill Hornbacher said.

''We are very committed to DeKalb and that distribution center and proud to be there,'' she said.

And don't expect communities to back down soon, officials said.

''There is much more (language) tied to jobs now because of economy,'' said Lee Garrity, city manager in Winston-Salem, N.C., which along with the surrounding county is sharing more than $26 million that computer giant Dell Inc. paid after announcing it will close its assembly plant next year.

Garrity said officials are thinking about provisions that are even more specific.

''We are discussing whether we need to require the jobs of the company go to people who live in the city,'' he said.







2 More Companies Pass Up Promised NC Incentives


A pair of specialty outsourcing companies won't collect job-creation grants from North Carolina taxpayers as the recession hits health care and financial services differently.

The state's Economic Investment Committee, which awards and oversees the major incentives program used to lure expanding companies, on Tuesday canceled a 2005 deal with Hewitt Associates Inc. The Lincolnshire, Ill.-based company had planned to bring 900 new jobs to Charlotte. Those human resources administration and information technology positions didn't happen as the global financial crisis hit the banking city hard.

But two years of recession hasn't slowed the expansion of Durham-based Quintiles Transnational Corp.

The global pharmaceutical testing firm decided to postpone collecting a Job Development Investment Grant payment of $299,000 in a gesture to help out the cash-strapped state budget, an offer the committee accepted Tuesday.

The company will defer collecting the money until the middle of next year, about when the state's budget for the current year closes out.

"Quintiles has been very fortunate that we have performed well and even in this downturn we have seen expansion in our business," spokesman Phil Bridges said. "We recognize that the current economy has put the state of North Carolina in a tough financial position. Quintiles made the offer to defer payment on the (grant) as a way of saying thank you, not only for investing in us but believing in us and our future growth in North Carolina."

Quintiles could receive up to $21.4 million over 12 years under a grant awarded in 2006 to create and sustain 1,000 new jobs. The grants come from taxes the company's employees pay the state.

Since 2006, the contract drug research company has spent $51 million to build a new headquarters and hired nearly 400 workers at salaries averaging nearly $81,000 a year.

Quintiles runs clinical drug trials for pharmaceutical companies, handles documentation necessary for regulatory approval, and recruits and hires drug company sales representatives.

Hewitt met its target to create at least 158 new jobs by the end of 2006 and was due to collect $181,000, a figure the state Commerce Department couldn't and Hewitt wouldn't confirm Tuesday.

But the global provider of human resources support and consulting services wasn't able to hire at least 630 additional employees by the end of 2008 or hit its target of 900 jobs by the end of this year.

Hewitt could have collected up to $8 million if it created the jobs and kept them for 10 years.

The company is the 14th to quit the JDIG program out of 100 approved for job-creation sweeteners since the program started in 2003.

Boat builder Chris-Craft Corp., computer builders Dell Inc. and Lenovo, and memory-chip maker Qimonda North American decided in recent years to cut staff rather than expand as their sales soured, ending their claims on promised incentives. After opening a $600 million data center near Lenoir, Internet giant Google last year turned down the grant it was promised in 2006.

Hewitt restructured its human resources business process outsourcing business in 2006, then was set back as some clients suffered when the financial crisis hit, Hewitt spokeswoman Amy Wulfestieg said. The company employs about 450 in Charlotte, she said.




Dell Shuts NC Plant Despite $300 Million in Tax Incentives


Despite winning more than $300 million in incentives and tax breaks from North Carolina and local governments four years ago, Dell Inc. has decided to shutter an assembly plant because of changing economic circumstances.

This fall Dell announced it would close the plant and lay off more than 900 employees. Company officials say they expect the shutdown to be completed in January.

In 2004 the North Carolina General Assembly was called into a special one-day session by then-Governor Mike Easley (D) to offer Dell $240 million of economic incentives to build a manufacturing facility. Coupled with what Forsyth County and the city of Winston-Salem added, the deal came to more than $300 million in tax breaks and benefits.


Rushed Package

During the special one-day session in 2004, Governor Easley’s senior advisor, Dan Gerlach, argued legislators needed to act quickly to prevent other states from getting the facility. The lawmakers did, and the state put together a complex assortment of incentives, grants, and tax breaks.

With layoffs already ongoing and Dell’s prospects worsening in July of this year, Department of Commerce officials continued supporting the deal. Secretary Keith Crisco told reporters, “We need three to four years to judge it in total. [Dell is] the kind of company we need to be all over [recruiting] in this state.”

With Dell’s plant closure, some critics are pushing for more broad-based approaches to corporate recruitment. Representative Marilyn Avila (R-Wake) thinks targeted tax incentives miss the point.


Simple Solution

“We should develop a statewide economic development plan, which is simply lowering corporate taxes,” she said.

Avila has long argued the state’s tax structure and regulations hinder job creation. She believes the use of incentives should be stopped.

Governor Bev Perdue (D), however, still equates such incentives with job creation.

“When 49 other states are using incentives, if you want to compete [you have to as well,” Perdue said in an interview with WRAL-TV in Raleigh.

Speaker of the House Joe Hackney (D-Orange) pointed out Dell did not use all the available money.

"While the bottom line is still being calculated, either we didn't lose money or we had a net gain in revenues for the state," he said.

Lawsuits Likely

Hackney’s comments illustrate another dimension of the state’s incentive policies. The complexity and myriad performance measures mean disputes between Dell and the state over money owed or needed to be repaid will likely end up in court at taxpayer expense.

Dell spokesman David Frink said recently in the Winston-Salem Journal, “Our belief and our understanding is that we met the performance thresholds required for those incentives during those years, and no, we are not obliged to repay those.”

North Carolina officials hold the opposite view. State Revenue Secretary Ken Lay says the state can require Dell to pay back the money because it no longer meets criteria used to receive it. He calls such a move a “look back.”

Half the Promised Jobs

Public officials promised taxpayers this deal would not lose money for the state. In spite of the much-publicized promise of more than 2000 jobs, the Dell facility never produced more than 1,100 jobs and still received millions of dollars from the state.

If it can be proven the state lost any money, public officials might well have serious problems on their hands from voters and legal challenges from groups like the NC Institute of Constitutional Law, which has challenged many of the state’s targeted tax incentives.

Former North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Robert Orr runs the NC Institute of Constitutional Law. In a letter to the Charlotte News-Observer newspaper, he wrote: “It's very tempting to think that economic development can happen by granting a few companies exceptions to a state's otherwise unattractive tax code. But it doesn't work that way. States should be welcome mats to all business, not just those the politicians have picked as a winner.”



View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, McClatchy Newspapers, News & Observer, Heartland.org, John Locke Foundation, Dell, GMAC, Hewitt, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Bailed Out Banks Receive Huge Tax Breaks For Christmas

Bailout Banks Keep Tax Breaks As They Repay Loans


Citigroup and other banks starting to repay the billions of dollars they borrowed from the government are getting another boost as they exit the bailout program: Billions more in tax breaks.

Tax law allows money-losing corporations like Citigroup Inc. and General Motors Co. to use current net operating losses to offset future taxable income, reducing their tax bills for up to 20 years after the losses occur.

Under ordinary circumstances, those tax breaks would be severely limited if the companies underwent an ownership change, much like many of them did when the government acquired big blocks of their stock.

Losing the tax breaks would have substantially reduced the value of the companies, even as the government was trying to prop them up with bailout funds.

The Treasury Department didn't want that to happen, so it started issuing tax guidance about a year ago that said the rules didn't apply when the government, through its bailout programs, caused the ownership change.

Last week, Treasury issued additional guidance saying that the rules also won't apply when the government sells its stock. The new rules mean that Citigroup and other bailout companies will still be able to take advantage of tax breaks worth billions of dollars, once they become profitable and start paying taxes again.

For tax purposes, it's like the government's ownership never happened, said Robert Willens, a corporate tax accountant in New York.

The size of the tax breaks will depend on how soon the companies become profitable, Willens said. "It's certainly in the billions," he said.

Citigroup announced this week that it was repaying $20 billion to the government's Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. Citigroup had taken a total of $45 billion in rescue funds – among the largest bailout packages received by any bank – but the government converted $25 billion of that amount into a 34 percent equity stake, which it is now selling.

The tax breaks will cost the government billions of dollars in tax revenue, but the government's stock in the companies is worth more because value of the companies is higher.

Treasury spokeswoman Nayyera Haq said the guidance issued last week was not targeted toward any individual company. It was released last week because Treasury was expecting a number of banks to start paying back their loans, exiting the bailout program.

"This guidance is the part of the government's orderly exit from TARP," Haq said.

She defended the overall strategy of helping bailout companies preserve their tax breaks, pointing out that the original law was intended to prevent corporate raiders from taking over money-losing companies simply to cash in on their tax breaks.

"This rule was designed to stop corporate raiders from using loss transactions to evade taxes, and was never intended to address the unprecedented situation where the government owned shares in banks," Haq said. "And it was certainly not written to prevent the government from selling its shares for a profit."

Willens said the Treasury Department's strategy makes sense. However, he said, it highlights an unprecedented government intervention in the private sector.

"We've never seen anything like this," Willens said. "The unilateral actions they are taking are unprecedented. This is just one of many."






Wells Fargo: "We're comfortable" with lower capital


To repay its government loans, Wells Fargo & Co. will make a trade-off: Its capital levels will fall below those of its competitors.

But in a call with analysts Tuesday morning, chief executive John Stumpf signaled that he wasn't concerned. And several analysts later said the fact that the government is letting Wells maintain a lower capital level is actually a good sign.

"It signals the government has confidence in the earnings power at the bank," Paul Miller, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients.

Also Tuesday, Wells sold $12.25 billion in stock to help repay its federal loans. That was more than the $10.4 billion it initially expected. Chief financial officer Howard Atkins said the bank was "very pleased with the positive reception from investors."

"We appreciate the confidence investors have demonstrated in Wells Fargo's strength and future prospects," he added.

Wells had announced Monday night that it intends to repay its $25 billion loan from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. It was anxious to avoid being the last big bank still holding TARP money, after rival Citigroup Inc. announced hours earlier that it would repay its loans.

After it repays TARP, Wells will have a Tier 1 common ratio of 6.2 percent. The ratio is a measure of a bank's ability to absorb losses, and it's closely watched by regulators. Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup all have or will have Tier 1 common ratios of 8 to 9 percent without TARP funds.

Stumpf said that his bank's capital needs are different from those of other banks, which might have riskier balance sheets. He also noted how Wells has already written down many of its potential losses from Wachovia Corp., the Charlotte bank that it bought last year.

"We don't have a big trading book, we don't have a lot of international assets, we're fairly meat and potatoes, and we have the industry's best margin of all the banks," Stumpf said, responding to a question from one analyst. "So you put all that together, we're comfortable with these ratios."

He also noted how his bank has historically maintained high levels of capital: "It allowed us to do something called Wachovia."

But the questions about capital levels weren't out of the blue. Last week, the House passed a massive financial regulation bill that would, among other things, require big banks to maintain higher levels of capital. Wells' Tier 1 common ratio of 6.2 percent is still well above the regulatory requirement of 4 percent

Stumpf declined to elaborate on the bank's repayment discussions with regulators. "I'm really not in a position to discuss the negotiations with the other party," he said. "I just don't think it would be productive."

Wells on Tuesday sold about 490 million shares at $25 each, raising the $12.25 billion. That better-than-expected amount eliminates a requirement where Wells would have had to sell a small number of assets in 2010.

However, issuing stock dilutes the value of shares held by current investors, since earnings have to be spread among more people. Miller, the analyst, estimated that Wells' stock raise will dilute shares by 11 percent.

But several analysts also said that, overall, getting rid of TARP will place Wells shares on firmer ground.

"The company still faces some headwinds ... but the TARP repayment certainly removes some concerns and eliminates some negatives to the story," R. Scott Siefers, an analyst at Sandler O'Neill + Partners, wrote in a note to clients.

Stumpf took the opportunity to praise the Wachovia deal, which he does in virtually every public appearance. He also mentioned Wells' announcement Monday, issued shortly after its TARP announcement, that it would use cash to buy out Prudential Financial's stake in the joint retail brokerage business. Wells had said this summer that it would use a combination of cash and stock to purchase Prudential's stake, which represented about a quarter of the joint business.

Stumpf said that paying totally in cash is "in our shareholders' best interest." That's because paying in stock would have diluted the holdings of existing shareholders. Wells said it would spend $4.5 billion.

Stumpf was joined on the call by bank chairman and former CEO Dick Kovacevich, who has been one of the most outspoken critics of the government's intervention in the banking industry. Kovacevich spoke briefly at the beginning of the 25-minute call, saying that Stumpf and his management are "the most talented team I've ever worked with."

Kovacevich is stepping down as chairman at the end of this month. He stayed on past the mandatory retirement age to help with the integration of Wachovia.



View Larger Map


Sources: Huffington Post, McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, Youtube, Google Maps

Charities Exploiting IRS Tax Breaks, Costing U.S. Billions Annually

Charities Rise, Costing U.S. Billions in Tax Breaks


The number of organizations that can offer their donors a tax break in the name of charity has grown more than 60 percent in the United States, to 1.1 million, in just a decade.

Experts say nonprofits are skillfully exploiting the tax code’s broad and elastic definition of what constitutes such a charity, making it difficult for the Internal Revenue Service, which must bless them, to say no. The agency approved 99 percent of the applications for public charity status last year, according to a new study by students at Stanford University — or more than one every 10 to 15 minutes.

Take the Woohoo Sistahs, a Social Club that won approval last year. Its 50 or so members meet regularly over drinks and dinner in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia and raise money for cancer research and other causes through walkathons and sales held in retailers’ parking lots.

What the Sistahs do is not so different from what the Shriners have done for decades to raise money for their hospitals — except that the Sistahs can offer their donors a tax break that the Shriners cannot because decades ago they registered as a different type of charity with the I.R.S. (Direct donation to Shriners hospitals are deductible.)

The $300 billion donated to charities last year cost the federal government more than $50 billion in lost tax revenue.

“Especially during these tough economic times, it’s troubling to hear we are increasing the number of these organizations at such a rapid pace,” said Representative Xavier Becerra, a California Democrat who is one of the few members of Congress to pay attention to the nonprofit sector.

“It’s not free,” Mr. Becerra said, “and so we need to do something to make sure taxpayers are getting a big enough benefit in return.”

Timothy Delaney, chief executive of the National Council of Nonprofits, agreed that the rapid increase in charities was an issue but said that addressing it would be extremely complicated.

“What are we going to do?” Mr. Delaney asked. “Have some bureaucrat establish a quota for arts organizations? Or after-school programs?”

Jacki Gerber, a member of the Woohoo Sistahs, said her group believed it needed to register as a public charity. “You can’t say the Woohoo Sistahs are going to have this big party and go around to corporate folks and ask for financial sponsorship and donated raffle items without becoming a 501(c)(3),” she said.

Last year, the I.R.S. approved such groups as a charity formed to ensure a “chemical free” graduation party at a high school in Monticello, Minn.; two donkey rescue organizations; and two new chapters of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of cross-dressing “nuns” who recently raised more than $25,000 for AIDS treatment and other causes with an event featuring a live S-and-M show.

Founders of new charities defend their value.

“There’s a real need for us,” said Ann Firestone, co-founder of Save Your Ass Long-Ear Rescue, a donkey and mule refuge in Vermont. “These days, people just can’t afford to keep these animals, and we take care of them until they find a new home. So I think we’re pretty worthwhile — though I can’t say that everyone who runs a nonprofit is.”

The tax code defines public charities as organizations that are “religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, to foster national or international amateur sports competition or prevention of cruelty to animals.” Almost any type of activity fits that definition, and most applicants seek that status because — unlike the more than 25 other categories of tax-exempt organizations — it allows their donors to take a tax deduction for their gifts.

Organizations in the other categories include groups like chambers of commerce, the National Rifle Association and private golf clubs. The I.R.S. received some 3,600 applications from those types of organizations last year, compared with more than 40,000 applications from those seeking designation as a public charity.

In most years, less than 5 percent of the applications for public charity status were turned down.

While no one contends that even a small portion of the new charities are fraudulent, critics argue that the I.R.S. and state regulators cannot keep up with the growth of charities — and therefore cannot possibly determine whether the applicants are adhering to state and federal regulations and laws.

Indeed, the students at Stanford found that while the I.R.S.’s electronic database records more than 40,000 new charities, its much more widely circulated annual Data Book puts the figure at more than 50,000, a discrepancy of more than 20 percent.

“It just seems utterly implausible that anyone can be doing due diligence in any way that constitutes a serious review of the applicant, let alone keeping an eye on them after they are approved,” said Rob Reich, an associate professor of political science at Stanford, whose students did the study on the growth of charities, titled “Anything Goes: Approval of Nonprofit Status by the I.R.S.”

“Why bother to have a review at all if you only reject 0.5 percent of the applicants?” he said.

Dean Zerbe, who in his former job as tax counsel to the Senate Finance Committee tried to curb expansion in the sector, shares that view. Mr. Zerbe says organizations seeking tax exemption should be urged to make sure they are not duplicating something others are already doing or to work through a charitable giving fund.

The I.R.S. sees things differently and is proud of its work toward streamlining the process of obtaining exemption as a public charity, which had been criticized by the agency’s own national taxpayer advocate, Nina E. Olson.

Lois G. Lerner, director of the I.R.S.’s exempt organizations division, said that when she came to the agency in 2001, “there was one approval process.”

“You submitted your application, it sat and sat on a shelf until someone was ready to take it up, and all the applications were worked in-depth, regardless of what kind of organization was seeking exemption,” she said.

“What we’ve learned,” Ms. Lerner added, “is that we don’t need to take the same kind of look at a large hospital and at a local soccer group.”

She said the agency had built scrutiny into its approval process. “We’re asking them questions and looking at things like whether they seem to be able to go forward as a compliant charity at the same time we’re educating them so they know what responsibilities they have if they’re approved,” she said.

Most new charities are more akin to the soccer group than the hospital.

The Red Nose Institute, a charity approved last year, needed donations to cover postage on the red clown noses it sends to American troops serving abroad. “We wanted to put smiles on their faces and relieve a little stress,” said Cheryl Herrington, a founder of the group and a psychiatric nurse who also works as a professional clown.

Ms. Herrington said the group considered working with established charities but “decided that we didn’t want to get lost in the shuffle of other groups.”

“We are pretty unique,” she said.




View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Youtube, Google Maps