drewhill.net

A few weeks ago I posted my thoughts on the Economic Stimulus Package being considered in Congress.

Read: Economic Stimulus Package held up by the Senate
Read: A Win for those who don’t pay Income Taxes and Families

Here is the response that I received from my U.S. Senator, Claire McCaskill concerning the Economic Stimulus Package passed by the Congress and signed by the President this week.

Dear Mr. Hill:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the economy and economic stimulus. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond.As our nation faces a mortgage crisis and an economy that looks more and more likely to be headed toward recession, I think it is appropriate that Congress take action to stimulate our economy and provide relief to struggling families, businesses and homeowners.

Economists have repeatedly advised that to be effective, a stimulus package must be timely, targeted and temporary. There were many proposals put forward, some with more merit than others. Some proposals I supported, such as extending unemployment benefits, were left out of the final package. I was pleased that Congress was able to act quickly and in a bipartisan way to approve a bill which, though not perfect, will do much to put money in the hands of the people who need it most and who are the most likely to spend it.

The stimulus package that the President signed into law contains tax rebates for individuals, including 20 million low income seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans, targeted tax breaks to companies for investment, and provisions to help increase affordable refinancing options to homeowners hit by the mortgage crisis. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has said that individual rebate checks could be sent out by the summer. Individuals with at least $3,000 in qualifying income (including Social Security benefits, Social Security Disability benefits, and veterans’ disability payments) will be eligible for a $300 rebate ($600 for married couples), and individuals who paid more than that in income taxes in 2007 would be eligible for up to $600 ($1,200 for couples). The rebates would be phased out for individuals earning more than $75,000 ($150,000 for couples). Individuals who pay income taxes and have children will also receive a $300 per-child tax credit. Illegal immigrants will not qualify for the rebate and, despite what some news organizations have reported, the rebates will not be deducted from tax returns in 2009. For more information, visit the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov.

While the passage of an economic stimulus passage is a significant achievement, Congress’s work is far from done. Significant challenges remain for our economy. I believe that we must reform our mortgage industry to prevent future crises in housing and credit markets. We need to invest in our workers through education and job training, and we need to invest in renewable energy to create good jobs and work toward energy security, just to name a few. As your Senator, I will be working hard to strengthen our economy and improve life for all Americans.

Thank you again for contacting me. I hope you will continue to reach out with your thoughts and advice in the future.

All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill

Now the Economic Stimulus Package is being held up by the Senate as they try to extend the tax rebates to those who have no earned income specifically the elderly living off of Social Security.  In addition they want to extend the rebates to wealthier taxpayers and extend unemployment benefit payments for 13 weeks for those whose benefits have run out, with 26 more weeks available in states with jobless rates higher than 6 percent.

What happened to this being a stimulus package designed for the middle class who pay taxes?  It seems that our elected Senators are pandering to special interest groups representing the elderly and labor unions.  The Senate Republicans are sticking up for the wealthy as they always do.

This stimulus package should not be a hand out or a form of welfare.  It should be a package designed to help working men, women and families that earn income and pay taxes.  It is on the backs of working America that this tax money is coming and it is on their backs it should be returned.

Read: Senators hone revisions to economic stimulus package
Read: Senate may add to stimulus package

Congress and the President have struck a deal that will provide a tax rebate to stimulate the economy. 

Individuals who pay income taxes would get up to $600, working couples $1,200 and those couples with children an additional $300 per child under the deal. Workers who make at least $3,000 but don’t pay taxes would get $300 rebates.

In comparison to the President’s original proposal which would have given tax payers $800/$1600 for individuals and families respectively, the new proposal appears to be a win for people how don’t pay any income taxes and families.  While the single tax payers are getting stiffed.  The net cost to us single tax payers appears to be $200 ($800 minus $600).  I wonder if we can claim this $200 on our tax return as a donation.  I guess we should just feel good about it and be happy that single people can subsidize the rest of America.

Read: Taxpayers would get checks under economic stimulus plan

I would like to commend Congress and the President in looking for ways to stimulate the economy.  However, I have been disturbed by the push to give rebates of $300 plus $300/child to families who don’t even pay income tax.  This appears to me to be just another welfare program.  The good intentions of those who want to help low-income Americans smack in the face of taxpaying Americans whose dollars keep this nation afloat.  I am very much opposed to any plan that would give sizeable rebates to Americans that don’t pay any income tax. 

I am in favor of the President’s plan to remove the 10% tax bracket on the first $8,000 for all tax payers.  This is a well balanced plan that would still get money in the hands of low-income Americans and would be fare to all those who pay income taxes.

Read: Lawmakers close to deal on a stimulus plan
Read: Lawmakers clinch a deal on tax rebates

I recently received this reply from my U.S. Senator, Claire McCaskill about the moratorium against federal, state, and local taxes on Internet access.

Dear Mr. Hill:

Thank you for contacting me regarding taxation of the Internet. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond.

It is clear that we need policies that will encourage continued growth and innovation on the Internet. Advances in technology have increased productivity and driven the expansion of many American companies over the past few years. E-commerce is growing rapidly, accounting for over $108 billion in retail sales in 2006, and a recent Brookings Institution study found that every 1 percent increase in broadband penetration (the number of broadband subscribers per 100 citizens), employment would rise by between .2 and .3 percent.

The growth of internet usage has undoubtedly benefited from a federal moratorium against federal, state, and local taxes on Internet access. Congress introduced this ban in 1998, and it has been extended twice. The second extension expires in November. S. 156, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, would make the moratorium permanent. The bill has been referred to the Senate Commerce Committee, of which I am a member.

I understand the importance of extending internet access, and increasing broadband penetration, especially in rural areas, is one of my top priorities in the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues to extend the moratorium in a way that serves the interests of consumers and promotes fair competition.

Thank you again for contacting me. I hope you will continue to reach out in the future with your thoughts and advice.

All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill

I recently received this reply from my U.S. Senator, Claire McCaskill about the cross-border trucking program. 

Dear Mr. Hill:

Thank you for your letter regarding cross-border trucking with Mexico. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond.Like you, I have serious concerns about the “long haul” cross-border trucking pilot program with Mexico, which began September 6th. I understand that the United States has certain obligations under treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. However, the federal government has the fundamental obligation to protect the safety of its citizenry. In my view, the Department of Transportation has not done enough to ensure that its pilot program will not endanger motorists on our highways. The Department of Transportation’s (DoT) plan would allow up to 1,000 Mexican trucks to make international deliveries to any destination in the United States, with the expectation that this program would be opened to all Mexican trucking companies when the pilot program ends after one year. The DoT said it will inspect every truck and check every driver in the program, both in Mexico and every time they crossed the border. However, the DoT’s Inspector General found that the agency did not have the plans in place to inspect all trucks at the border or adequate access to information in Mexico. In spite of this finding, the DoT cleared the first Mexican carrier to make U.S. deliveries within an hour of receiving the Inspector General’s report.

I recently received this response from my Congress woman, Jo Ann Emerson concening the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007.

Dear Mr. Hill:

Knowing of your strong interest in national security and the importance of keeping key assets under control of United States companies, I would like to update you on actions in the U.S. Congress.

On July 10, 2007, H.R. 556, the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 was considered on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the legislation was modified from the previous version which passed the U S House of Representatives unanimously. The former bill would have allowed any member on the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) to order an investigation when he or she fell national security interests may be compromised.  The new version inserts a provision in which the lead federal agency investigating the foreign purchase of U.S. assets must recommend an investigation, and that recommendation must be approved by a majority of the CFIUS. This is a fatal flaw in H.R. 556 which adds red tape to the investigative process and ultimately led me to oppose the legislation. When national security is at stake, there should be a thorough review of foreign investment in key assets here in the United States.

H.R. 556 passed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 10, 2007, The bill previously passed the U.S. Senate, therefore it was forwarded to President Bush where it is to be signed into law. Please know I will keep a watchful eye on legislation which aims to protect the nation’s national security interests, and I will not back proposals that fail to ensure vital assets are not controlled by hostile foreign governments.

Kind regards,
JO ANN EMERSON
Member of Congress