drewhill.net

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 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