On a conference call about the small business bill today, Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) both strongly supported the Bush tax cut plan put forward by the President, and rejected any proposal for extending the tax cuts at the high end. They also said that the votes look to be there for the small business package when it gets a vote next week, though anything else in the September work period would be very difficult.
Sen. Reed said that the small business bill, which would provide some tax breaks for small businesses (like a write-off for capital gains and a “carryback” provision to move forward deductions on losses), along with a $30 fund to recapitalize community banks to lend to small business, would get a cloture vote on Tuesday. Both Reed and Merkley expressed optimism on the vote. Merkley stressed its importance. “I’ve had 36 town hall meetings this month, and in every one, I hear stories of businesses who have had credit lines cut, because of their traditional banking partner being constrained by leverage limitations,” he said. (UPDATE: Merkley’s office writes to clarify that he’s had 36 meeting this year, which he wrapped up this month.) He added that this lending fund, which got 60 votes in the Senate as a stand-alone measure, would “ship $30 billion from Wall Street to Main Street” and use the expertise of community banks to judge the best businesses in which to invest.
The problem remains aggregate demand more than a credit crunch, but for business that have seen their credit line reduced and struggle to make payroll or expand, this will help on the margins. You do have to look at the cumulative effect of these bills, too: between the HIRE Act, the extension of unemployment, the FMAP/education aid for states, the small business bill and any of these potential Obama plans on infrastructure and tax changes, you are looking at around $230 billion dollars in ongoing stimulus. That’s probably the difference between positive and negative growth right now, as well as positive and negative private sector hiring.
But no reporters on the call wanted to talk about the small business bill, but instead the rest of the work period, and the Obama Administration proposals from yesterday’s Cleveland speech. And here, despite wavering elsewhere in the caucus on the Bush tax cuts, Reed and Merkley would have none of it.
“We do have unity in the caucus,” Reed said regarding the tax issue. “I think the President’s right. We should continue to provide relief for those under $250,000. But we have to begin to recognize the deficit and take steps.” He said that the Republicans were saying that Congress must pay for every initiative except the Bush tax cuts, and that they won’t let most Americans get a tax cut unless the wealthiest do. “I think that logic will fail.”
Reed rejected the idea of extending the tax cuts temporarily, saying the resources would be better spent “reducing payroll taxes,” which was an interesting entry into the debate. Essentially, Reed would rather give a payroll tax holiday than lower taxes for the rich, which is a progressive taxation decision. “There’s some discussion about temporarily extending the tax cuts. Implicit in that discussion is that we will one day end these provisions. And I don’t hear anyone on the other side talking about ending the tax cuts,” Reed added, pointing to Republican dishonesty on the issue.
Merkley was even more honest. “Those who are affluent will still benefit from extending the other tax cuts on the marginal brackets at the lower end. In fact, they will get a larger tax reduction than from folks who make less.” Merkley seemed to realize the leverage in the debate; if nothing gets passed, everyone gets a tax increase. “It’s going to be very hard for them to deny a $7,000 tax cut for the wealthy, in addition to what it does for others. It’s a tough argument for them to make.”
Reed stressed that getting anything to pass requires Republican votes, and while they seem to have 60 secured for the small business bill, nothing else is assured. “After (the small business bill) we’ll have a debate about the Bush tax plans,” he said, “but because of the time constraints, and the campaign season, the ability to do anything major beyond that is very limited.” That would include the Obama proposals on business tax breaks and infrastructure, although Reed in particular expressed support for the latter, saying that there are bridges and highways that would have to be shut down in Rhode Island unless they get fixed, and this kind of investment is crucial to the long-term competitiveness of the economy.



16 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
2nd paragraph, first sentence “…$30 fund…”
I hope you are correct but I smell an extension compromise (read capitulation) in the air.
Obama has said he wouldn’t veto a compromise to keep the tax cuts on the top 1%. We’ve seen this game before. “Their hands were tied.” Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good etc.
I don’t believe anything these liars say. I’ll just wait to see what they do, which will be: same old rip off of the “small” people, different day. Ho hum… wake me when it’s ovah!
I really don’t spport any extension of the Bush tax cuts, but I understand the position these guys are in.
You don’t support cutting $350 in taxes for someone with AGI of $7,000?
Let their rate go back from 10% to 15%?
Why don’t you support that?
Bailing out Wall St banksters was one of the most unpopular crimes ever committed on the American people. Extending these tax cuts for the rich is the same.
I cannot imagine that continued bailouts of millionaire and billionaires while we lay off cops, fire fighters and teachers polls well with either Democratic or Republican voters. The millionaire and billionaires were the ONLY people that did better over the last two years.
How continued support of the Bush tax give away to the rich gets ANY traction with ANY Democrat in office is beyond belief.
One part of the Bush tax cuts essentially eliminates or substantially reduces Federal taxes for low incomes. Going back from 5 percent to 10 percent starts hurting people making as low as 12,000 a year. If memory serves, a couple making 40,000 a year had a 2,000 dollar tax cut.
Good observation by Merkley. even just extending the cuts for under 250,000 leaves the upper incomes with a 7,000 dollar tax break.
Has anyone asked math whiz Summers? Or deregulate Rubin? Or tone-deaf Tim? They want tax cuts for the rich continued, because they are rich and want more money to invest in Chinese bonds and Bangkok motels.
No one has a 5% marginal rate.
Rates on adjusted gross income start at 10% now, had been 15%.
I’m having some difficulty getting to $7000 in savings for a high earner – looks more like ~$4200.
Maybe when they finish with the Deficit Reduction Committee
they will…………Ha, ha
You got fooled again. You is fool. Rich boss smarter then you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/deficit-commissions-rumor_b_710612.html
The above reports that the catfood commission is locking in the progressive index (CPI instead of Wage index so you get 15% less in 2037 – equivalent to an increase in the retirement age of 2 years to age 69) – they offset this by a slight increase in the first factor of the 3 factor benefit formula so that the very lowest paid get a slight increase in their benefit.
Why is it the Democrats expect me to applaud and say “it could have been worse”
Of course the wage cap removal which the above link pushes appears to not be on their radar screen – or at least not in the article as a likely recommendation.
Wage Cap Removal will be the public option type bait to get it through Congress. Once it gets to Conference vote it will be switched because someone might throw a hissy fit. In this congress and senate it is better to leave a well functioning concept just as it is. Just ignore what this commission states since we all know what the commission will state. No surprises there with the way deck is stacked carefully, desired results guaranteed and the illogical agenda it is pursuing when it should have been looking into improving progressive taxation.
Social Security makes our Economy Depression Proof. Just leave it as it is.
Earth provides enough to satisfy every mans need, but not every mans greed- Mahatma Gandhi
Progressive Taxes and Estate Taxes are the only way we can keep being the worlds only super power. It is the only way we can provide opportunity to next generation, train them properly, improve our resources, make our economic pot bigger and have a peaceful society in future.
I just hope it is not another public option type bait and switch just to get congress have bill moving and then have a senator to be decided guide the final bill to desired another round of regressive tax conclusion. Our country cannot afford another decade of Pres. Bush tax cuts widening the opportunity gap creating instability in some parts and despair in other parts of our society.
What happens if CPI increases while average wages decline …. although average wages declining first has to be so bad as to overcome the problem of low wages disappearing altogether while high wages not subject to Social Security Tax keep going up.
It is an anomaly. It should not happen if the fiscal policy is sound with progressive taxation in place, FED managing the economy wisely but it will happen in a regressive taxation environment. It primarily reduces ones purchasing power, demand reduction, reduction of employment and eventually prolonging recession.
To address the question high wages not subject to social security will not go up in this environment but still can happen due to market anomalies introduced by government similar to health care mandate which can have a prolonging of the recessive effect.