Just days after offering some “interesting” tax advice on film, ACORN was hit with a House bill that would deny federal funds to the group. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) explained:
ACORN has violated serious federal laws, and today the House voted to ensure that taxpayer dollars would no longer be used to fund this corrupt organization.
The group touts itself as an advocate for low- and moderate-income people on fair wage, education and housing issues.
Earlier in the week, the Senate voted to block HUD funding to the group as part of an amendment to a larger bill. However, at least one Senator took issue with the vote: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) felt that the vote was merely ceremonial since the attached bill didn’t include any funding for ACORN in the first place. She said, “All of this is really, I guess, to show people.”
Sen. Feinstein was clearly in the minority with respect to opposing the bill. Both her colleagues in the Senate and those in the House voted overwhelmingly in support of withholding ACORN funding.
Of course, don’t expect the ban to take effect immediately. The bills are not retroactive and would apply to future funding, likely beginning in 2010. The funding could be significant: over the last 15 years, the group has received an estimated $53 million in federal aid.
ACORN’s chief executive officer, Bertha Lewis, noted that ACORN primarily relies on funding from private, not government sources, and indicated that the organization would continue to operate. Despite such optimism, concessions, including reduced hiring, are expected. And ACORN’s woes may not stop there – the FBI has made noise that it may be considering an investigation after the “tax tape” was made public.
I tried to see what kind of response ACORN would offer to the public but their web site was down for the evening (despite repeated attempts to access it). Funding woes already?
Last year, United States Representative Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), who heads up the powerful Ways and Means Committee, found himself in hot water when it came to light that he “forgot” to report some rental income on his personal taxes. Apparently, Rangel’s memory hasn’t gotten any better.
In an effort to comply with an ethics investigation, Rangel has amended tax and other disclosure forms. As it turns out, Rangel’s total net worth is somewhere between $1,028,024 and $2,495,000, about twice as much as he reported last year. Included in the list of previously omitted assets include property in Glassboro, NJ; as it turns out, Rangel is delinquent on his property taxes according to the Gloucester County Clerk’s office. While the outstanding amounts are small, records indicate that there were at least six tax liens levied against Rangel’s property during the past 16 years. All of those liens were eventually settled by Rangel.
While Rangel’s aides are blaming the bookkeepers, the GOP is calling for Rangel’s head. A spokesman for Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) has suggested that Rangel step down, saying, “This, again, raises serious questions about whether he should continue as chairman, given the multiple ethics investigations.”
At this point, Rangel has a number of matters, mostly financial, which are being investigated by various ethics committees. In each case, he has an excuse. In this case, it’s just forgetfulness, he claims.
C’mon, who can blame him? Pesky tax bills? He doesn’t have time to worry about paying his taxes… he’s busy chairing a committee that oversees other people’s taxes. Pish!
Technorati Tags:
Charles Rangel, Ways and Means Committee
One version of the health care reform bill has passed in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee with a vote of 13-10. And this one only costs $600 billion.
Committee Chair Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) wrote, about the bill:
We have done the hard work that the American people sent us here to do. We know, however, that our work is not over — far from it.
He’s not kidding. Notwithstanding that the bill just barely made it out of committee (the vote was along party lines), it is not likely to garner wide support in the Senate. Why? This version of the bill includes a federal health insurance program that would compete with private insurers, something that Republicans oppose, and requires companies with more than 25 employees to provide medical coverage for their workers, a provision which many say will disproportionately affect small to mid-size businesses.
What might appeal to the Senate, however, is the cost: just over $600 billion. That’s nearly a third less expensive than other versions of the bill. However, this figure doesn’t include an expanded version of Medicaid, which is likely to drive the cost up considerably.
Even if the Senate does agree on the components of the bill, a bigger question will be how to pay for it. The Senate Finance Committee is working to figuring that out and will likely introduce their own version of the bill. As reported earlier in the week, that is likely to include a boost in taxes. How much and who pays is still being debated.
House Democrats think they have a plan to pay for health care reform. And yes, it’s going to cost… somebody.
The 1000+ page health care plan as proposed by President Obama comes with a hefty price tag. Congress has been charged with coming up with the funds for the plan. That isn’t proving to be very easy.
But the Dems have an idea. They’re proposing a federal surtax on upper income taxpayers. Who fits the bill? Married couples who earn between $350,000 and $500,000 would see a 1% increase; married couples earning between $500,000 and $1,000,000 would see a 1.5% increase; and married couples more than $1 million a year would pay an additional 5.4%. For purposes of the surtax, income would include wages and capital gains. The new income tax would raise more than $500 billion over the next decade.
When the dust settles, upper class taxpayers or no, the plan calls for raising taxes. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel tried to soften the blow by explaining that the surtax “causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people.”
Again, still raising taxes. That worries some Dems in an election year. It especially worries House Dems since the rumor-mongers suggest that the Senate isn’t planning to offer a sister proposal. It would be a “yes” for higher taxes when the bill has no real chance of going anywhere. Don’t you just love Congress?
The proposed health care reform bill would not just affect individuals. Under the proposal, employers who don’t offer “affordable” (whatever that means) health insurance to their workers would face a penalty equivalent to a percentage of payroll. Businesses with payrolls of $250,000 or less than $250,000 would be exempt; the penalties would start at 2% and would rise to 8% of payroll, depending on the size of the employer. The US Chamber of Commerce claims that, based on U.S. Census data for average wages, a small business with between 10 and 14 employees would face a 4% tax under the plan, while one with 15 to 19 employees would be taxed at 6% of payroll.
Additional corporate tax provisions have been included because, um, I guess there wasn’t anywhere else to put them. Those provisions affect interest allocation and the economic-substance doctrine.
The good news? There’s enough in the health care proposals so far to annoy everyone!
Of course, the bill hasn’t even made it to committee yet. Don’t expect much.
