FY2013 CR & 02/21/2013 Open Thread

Posted on February 21, 2013 by jnc4p

New NYT piece with some good info on the next stage of the budget fight, the continuing resolution to fund the government through the rest of FY2013 (i.e. through September 30, 2013).

“Taking steps to avoid a full government shutdown at the end of March, the House Appropriations Committee as soon as next week will introduce legislation to keep the government financed through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, but do nothing to stop the pending cuts.”

…

“The Senate next week will consider competing Democratic and Republican proposals to stop the automatic cuts. The Democratic plan would institute a 30 percent minimum tax rate on incomes over $1 million, cut farm subsidies, and institute military cuts delayed until most United States troops have returned from Afghanistan. Neither plan is expected to win the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster

Instead, attention will shift to the next deadline, March 27, when financing for the government runs out.

The House bill would maintain financing at presequester levels, $1.043 trillion, with detailed spending instructions for defense programs devised to give the Pentagon more flexibility. But a provision in the spending bill will say that all levels are subject to automatic cuts to be meted out by the White House Budget Office.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/us/politics/gop-resisting-obama-on-tax-increase.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&gwh=E1189D5B5E182F1909E62B46AA43A452&ref=politics

If the House is really going to let the baseline be set at pre-sequester levels for the CR, this could constitute a cave for the Republicans. I.e. the sequester was actually in effect for about 1 month tops and now spending is going to be held flat at the old levels.

Update: Good piece by Karl Rove on the various options. I agree with his proposal:

“My own recommendation is that House Republicans should pass a continuing resolution next week to fund the government for the balance of the fiscal year at the lower level dictated by the sequester—with language granting the executive branch the flexibility to move funds from less vital activities to more important ones.”

http://www.rove.com/articles/450

Filed under: 2013 and beyond, budget, Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

Hometown in the NYT

Posted on December 20, 2012 by novahockey

A new mixed-used town center that I frequent was featured in the NYT. Thought I’d pass along so those who are interested can get a sense of life inside (or in this case barely outside) the beltway. My home is about 10 minutes from here. With the new HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lanes on the beltway, it’s about 3 mins and 30 cents. Or free if the whole entire family is in the car. If the development continues, it will be accessible by bicycle. Too much traffic for that now.

The story neglects the best part of the movie theater: the full service bar.

We considered the town homes that are for sale, but decided to stick with our home.

Filed under: 2013 and beyond, fun stuff, Homebuilding, Open Thread | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

Article I wrote for the Scotsman Guide Dec issue.

Posted on November 30, 2012 by Brent Nyitray

http://www.scotsmanguide.com/default.asp?ID=5341

Filed under: 2013 and beyond, Economy, Federal Reserve, Financial Crisis, Foreclosure | 18 Comments »

WaPo analyzes HRC as SecState and as Methodist

Posted on November 26, 2012 by markinaustin

HRC

Most of you know that before her current stint as SecState I was not a fan. I had serious reservations about her as an unelected person with the sway of an elected one in the West Wing and I truly despised her health care plan upon reading through the 1200+ pages in 1993. That episode, and hearing her defend it, and her insistence that M.D.s play no part in the design, marked her as hopelessly arrogant, even reckless, IMHO.

Further, I remain convinced from the evidence that surfaced for me on Frontline, and from what I know commonly occurred with S&Ls in the southwest in the late 80s and early 90s, that she had indeed participated in fraud on behalf of her client. I have discussed this here and probably linked at other times. Suffice to repeat, I was not a fan, and would not have voted for her for POTUS under any circumstance.

She showed restraint and the ability to enter coalitions in the Senate, and I gave her points for progressing in that way, but my strong reservations remained.

The linked attempt to explain her, written with an uncritical eye, I think, probably contains much truth, and I do respect the job she has done as SecState.

The article suggests she will always want the power to actually do the UMC’s social gospel. It hints that this might lead her to run for POTUS. I, for one, think if the article has any truth to it, that she should get on with the Gates Foundation, an effective and focused charity. I think, if the article has any truth to it, she would do well using her skills in that way.

There are many Americans suitable to become POTUS. True, I have argued that former SecsState, SecsDef, NSAdvisors, flag officers with broad foreign theater experience, persons like Huntsman who had multiple experiences as a key ambassador and as a governor, and probably former CIA Directors, have a better chance at first term success than typical senators or governors or lawyers, or doctors, or businesspersons. That is b/c FP is the first concern of the POTUS. Thus HRC is among the group I nominally consider most qualified.

Qualified, but also disqualified, to pervert a phrase from probate law.

I cannot buy off on HRC for POTUS. I have not forgotten either her arrogance, when she thought she had a free hand, or what I believe to have been her criminal misconduct as an attorney. Let her be a force for social justice as she sees it. Let her career be golden. Just don’t try to do it in the White House.

Please?

Filed under: 2013 and beyond, hillary clinton | 7 Comments »

I like the kitchen, but I think it needs a new Cabinet

Posted on November 10, 2012 by Fairlington Blade

I was planning this post for the weekend, but then events overtook me. 

Secretary of State: John Kerry replaces Hillary Clinton

I’m going with the obvious choice for this post. Rice will be blocked by a filibuster, so she’s out. Kerry covets the position, worked hard for Obama, and is probably tired of the Senate. The only strike against him is that it opens up the seat to a Republican who would very much like to return to the Senate. Frankly, I’d like to see Scott Brown back in the Senate. I would have voted for Warren if I still lived in Massachusetts, but I’d take him over the typical Massachusetts pol. If the some of the teeth of the filibuster were pulled, I’d probably vote for him. Brown will probably run for governor of Massachusetts if Kerry stays.

Secretary of Defense: Chuck Hagel replaces Leon Panetta

Hagel is a natural for a cross-party appointment. The occasional endorsement of a Democrat doesn’t hurt.

Treasury: Jack Lew replaces Timothy Geithner

Too obvious to justify.

Attorney General: Who replaces Holder?

I’m interested in the thoughts of those with a legal background or interest. Occasionally listening to Supreme Court arguments on C-SPAN doesn’t qualify me. I did enjoy the oral arguments broadcast this morning on Clapper vs. Amnesty International.

CIA: Jane Harmon replaces David Petreaus

I didn’t have this one on my list of changes. Just goes to demonstrate the foresight of Harold Macmillan, who when asked what might blow his government off course responded “Events, dear boy, events.” Elevating acting director Michael Morell is an obvious choice, but he was denied the chalice in the past. Perhaps Obama will go for continuity over history.

Agriculture: Bob Kerrey replaces Tom Vilsack

I think Bob Kerrey is a dead lock for the cabinet. The question is where? Several possibilities occurred to me. He’s a Cornhusker (like me) and he served on the Agriculture Committee in the Senate. He also served on the Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission, so CIA and DHS are possibilities. He was president of the New School from 2001 – 2010, but I think Education won’t change.

Energy: Bob Chu is out. Who is in?

Here’s a chance for cross party work. I’m not sure who’s coming in here, but somebody with energy sector connections would be a savvy choice.

Anyone else have some thoughts on the cabinet?

BB

Filed under: 2013 and beyond | 12 Comments »

Tax Law Changes

Posted on November 8, 2012 by jnc4p

Now that the election is over, it’s time to turn to more important matters, namely avoiding being stuck with the bill.

I’m going to start compiling a list of links to the various tax law changes that are currently scheduled to take effect in 2013, both from the potential expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the implementation of the new Obamacare taxes. Comments on tax planning strategies are welcome.

We’ll start with wikipedia:

  • In 2008–2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends and long term capital gains is 0% for those in the 10% and 15% income tax brackets.
  • After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer’s ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket.
  • After 2012, the long-term capital gains tax rate will be 20% (10% for taxpayers in the 15% tax bracket).
  • After 2012, the qualified five-year 18% capital gains rate (8% for taxpayers in the 15% tax bracket) will be reinstated.

Wikipedia – Capital Gains

Marginal rate tables under three scenarios:

Scenario 1: Tax cuts under the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for all

Rate Single Filers Married Joint Filers Head of Household Filers
10% $0 to $8,950 $0 to $17,900 $0 to $12,750
15% $8,950 to $36,250 $17,900 to $72,500 $12,750 to $48,600
25% $36,250 to $87,850 $72,500 to $146,400 $48,600 to $125,450
28% $87,850 to $183,250 $146,400 to $223,050 $125,450 to $203,150
33% $183,250 to $398,350 $223,050 to $398,350 $203,150 to $398,350
35% $398,350 and up $398,350 and up $398,350 and up

Scenario 2: Tax brackets under the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts for all

Rate Single Filers Married Joint Filers Head of Household Filers
15% $0 to $36,250 $0 to $60,550 $0 to $48,600
28% $36,250 to $87,850 $60,550 to $146,400 $48,600 to $125,450
31% $87,850 to $183,250 $146,400 to $223,050 $125,450 to $203,150
36% $183,250 to $398,350 $223,050 to $398,350 $203,150 to $398,350
39.60% $398,350 and up $398,350 and up $398,350 and up

Scenario 3: Tax brackets under the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts for high-income

Rate Single Filers Married Joint Filers Head of Household Filers
10% $0 to $8,950 $0 to $17,900 $0 to $12,750
15% $8,950 to $36,250 $17,900 to $72,500 $12,750 to $48,600
25% $36,250 to $87,850 $72,500 to $146,400 $48,600 to $125,450
28% $87,850 to $183,250 $146,400 to $223,050 $125,450 to $203,150
33% $183,250 to $203,600 $223,050 to $247,000 $203,150 to $227,300
36% $203,600 to $398,350 $247,000 to $398,350 $227,300 to $398,350
39.60% $398,350 and up $398,350 and up $398,350 and up

Forbes Tax Table
Obamacare taxes:

Main individual ones are these:

A 3.8% surtax on “investment income” when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint-filers). What is “investment income?” Dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc. Taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to 18.8%–if Congress extends the Bush tax cuts. If Congress does not extend the Bush tax cuts, taxes on dividends will rise from 15% to 43.8%

A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more ($250,000 joint). You already pay Medicare tax of 1.45%, and your employer pays another 1.45% for you (unless you’re self-employed, in which case you pay the whole 2.9% yourself). Next year, your Medicare bill will be 2.35%.

Yahoo Finance

Business Insider

longinvestmentadvisory.com

Anyone know of any I missed?

Filed under: 2013 and beyond, taxes | 15 Comments »

Whew!

Posted on November 7, 2012 by Michigoose

well, jnc4p  was prescient.  And I’m glad it was as relatively clear cut as it was last night, in that Florida is still deadlocked but, as yello points out, irrelevant.  What do you want to see happen in the next four years–and for purposes here let’s not say gridlock (although I know a couple of you think that’s a good thing when it comes to federal government!  :-))

I, for one, am very glad that the PPACA is safe. . . although it’s too much to hope that it can be modified.  I’d like to see the DREAM Act actually become law and I’d like to see one actually liberal Justice get appointed to the SCOTUS.  I’m sure I’ll come up with more as the day goes on.

Plus, what happened with your various states?  I see that pot is now legal in Washington and Colorado (and that last I’m betting had something to do with CO going for Obama last night).

And about that fiscal cliff. . .

Forward!

P.S.  And I’m very glad that ATiM is around to see it happen.

Filed under: 2012, 2013 and beyond, Congress, Elections, Financial Crisis, Open Thread | 92 Comments »

Post Romney Options

Posted on October 31, 2012 by jnc4p

To start the Romney campaign postmortems a little early, I’ll throw this out:

Romney was a horrible candidate for small government conservatives because everything he targeted in the budget for cuts was either insignificant symbolism (PBS) or what a majority of people consider a core government function (FEMA). That coupled with holding entitlements sacrosanct and increasing defense made his plans implausible to begin with.

No where in a Romney campaign speech was the fact that the average senior takes out three times as much as they have paid in to the entitlement system (here meaning Medicare & Social Security combined) and that is unsustainable. This campaign was not about making tough budget choices.

How Lifetime Benefits and Contributions Point the Way Toward Reforming Our Senior Entitlement Programs

However, the Republicans do have a candidate available to make this argument, and it’s Chris Christie. This piece from the NYTimes magazine is worth a reread:

“How Chris Christie Did His Homework
Mark Peterson for The New York Times
By MATT BAI
Published: February 24, 2011”
…

How Chris Christie Did His Homework

If anyone can sell entitlment reform, he can:

“Christie, it turns out, has a preternatural gift for making the complex seem deceptively simple. Last month I saw him hold forth at a town-hall meeting in Chesilhurst, a South Jersey borough of about 1,600. Chesilhurst is about half African-American, and I sensed more curiosity than enthusiasm among the racially mixed crowd as it flowed into the little community-center gymnasium. An unusually large number of folding chairs were empty. About 20 minutes after the program was supposed to start, there came over the loudspeakers the kind of melodramatic instrumental that might introduce a local newscast, or maybe an Atlantic City magic show, and in came Christie, taking his position in the center of the crowd. The theme of the week was pension-and-benefits reform, and in his introductory remarks, Christie explained the inefficiency in the state’s health care costs not by wielding a stack of damning statistics, as some politicians might, but by relating a story.

When he was a federal prosecutor, Christie told the audience, he got to choose from about 100 health-insurance plans, ranging from cheap to quite expensive. But as soon as he became governor, the “benefits lady” told him he had only three state plans from which to choose, Goldilocks-style; one was great, one was modestly generous and one was rather miserly. And any of the three would cost him exactly 1.5 percent of his salary.

“ ‘You’re telling me,’ ” Christie said he told the woman, feigning befuddlement, “ ‘that no matter which one I pick, the good one or the O.K. one or the bad one, I’m going to pay 1½ percent of my salary?’ And she said, ‘Yes.’

“And I said, ‘Then everyone picks the really good one, right?’ And she said, ‘Ninety-six percent of state employees pick the really good one.’

“Which led me to have two reactions,” Christie told the crowd. “First, bring those other 4 percent to me! Because when I have to start laying people off, they’re the first ones!” His audience burst into near hysterics. “And the second reaction was, of course I would choose the best plan,” Christie said, “and so would you.

“Now listen, I don’t think this is groundbreaking stuff,” Christie added. “I don’t think this means that instead of being governor, you know, I should be at NASA, working on the space shuttle. I’m no genius. Just seems to me that if you give people an option to get something for nothing, they’ll take it.” Scanning the nodding faces around me, it seemed there wasn’t a person in the gymnasium, at that point, who wouldn’t have voted to make state workers and teachers pay more for the better plan.”

Filed under: 2013 and beyond, Republican Party | 16 Comments »

Why should my vote count more than yours?

Posted on October 23, 2012 by Fairlington Blade

We’re two weeks away from the election, which looks like it’s going to be a nail biter. Most of you, though, needn’t bother to vote. Mark is free to make a statement with his vote, because Texas is deep red. For the time being. A California Republican is useful as an ATM, but not much more. As a resident of Virginia, my vote is being heavily courted.

The electoral college is the appendix of our constitution, prone to getting infected from time to time. As I love irony, I was hoping for Kerry to win Ohio in 2004 so that Bush would lose the presidency while winning the popular vote. Right now, Nate Silver has a 6% chance of Obama winning the election while getting fewer votes than Romney. There’s a 2% chance of the converse result. That puts the total odds at about one in twelve.

My modest suggestion would be to reform, but not eliminate, the electoral college. As every congressional district is electing a representative, one can also tally presidential votes by district. Winner of a state’s popular vote gets the bonus two electoral votes. Nebraska does it this way; I think one other state does as well. Maine, perhaps? DC gets a number of delegates that reflect its population, rounded up to an even number to eliminate the possibility of a tie. We keep the pomp and circumstance of the electoral college, but effectively it’s a popular vote.

The bonus being that certain states don’t get lavish attention. I’m not worried about all the political ads. With Virginia being a deciding state for president and senator, we get a truckload of them. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Ohio has done very well in terms of federal contracts by being the swingiest of swing states.

As long as I’m proposing a significant change to elections, I would also suggest changing the terms of House members from 2 years to 4 years and having the entire House elected with the president. Or half and half if you’re into mid-terms. It’s interesting that the House has flipped only in mid-terms in my lifetime.

Well, I’m off to my bike. C’ya.

BB

Filed under: 2013 and beyond, democracy, states' rights | Tagged: | 12 Comments »

A Primer on War with Iran

Posted on September 30, 2012 by markinaustin

THIS DOCUMENT IS EASILY READ BY CLICKING THE FULL SCREEN ICON IN THE LOWER RIGHT CORNER.
 – Mark

Filed under: 2013 and beyond, budget, IRAN, Islam, Middle East, nuclear proliferation | 10 Comments »

« Previous Page