Corporate taxes

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Senate Version

hmoroz — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:24:04 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Unemployment rate in early 2010, if current laws and policies governing federal spending and taxes do not change, according to the Congressional Budget Office: 9.2%

Reduction in unemployment rate in 2010 if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is enacted, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, and White House economic advisers, respectively: 1.9%, 2.1%, 1.8%

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on extended unemployment insurance benefits, in dollars: 1.63

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on accelerated depreciation, which provides businesses a tax break for new investment, in dollars: 0.25

Percentage reduction in aid to states made by the Senate version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 50.1%

Percentage reduction in Head Start and Early Head Start funds made by the Senate version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 50%

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. Economic conditions are bleak. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the economy continues on its current course, both the length and depth of the current downturn will be the worst since the Great Depression. For middle-class Americans, this means job and wage cuts, loss of health insurance, and, simply, a daily struggle to keep up with everyday costs like mortgage payments and college tuition.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if current economic conditions persist the unemployment rate could reach as high as 9.2% by 2010. With 46 million Americans already uninsured, the Kaiser Family Foundation reckons that if unemployment averages just 7% in 2009 (the current rate is 7.2%), the number of uninsured will increase by 2.6 million with an additional 2.4 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP. Indeed, state governments are struggling to provide the increased services needed to keep the swelling ranks of unemployed, uninsured individuals from falling out of the middle class. But the current economic climate has left states with decreased revenue from income, sales, and property taxes: 45 states face budget shortfalls with combined budget gaps of $350 billion through 2011. To confront these gaping budget holes, more than 20 states have implemented or are considering cuts to health insurance programs; the same is true of K-12 and early education programs and of funds for public colleges and universities.

Beyond the decidedly dire short-term outlook, economic improvement is probably quite far off. Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, has testified that “economic recovery is likely to be slow and protracted.” Thus, programs that address longer-term concerns – investment in infrastructure and green technology are two primary examples – are as important as an immediate, stimulative jolt to the economy.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ties together measures designed to assist middle-class households struggling to make ends meet, provisions that will provide an immediate economic stimulus, and investment that can help set the stage for an economy built on energy efficiency and durable infrastructure. Economists generally agree that the legislation will save around 3 or 4 million jobs by 2010, while increasing economic output. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office , Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, and White House economic advisers all project that the legislation will reduce the unemployment rate by around 2%. Extended unemployment insurance will allow 6.7 million people to collect benefits. Importantly, aid to state governments for Medicaid and education programs would shore up budget gaps and help prevent cuts to vital services.

While assisting those most at need during the economic downturn, extended unemployment insurance and state fiscal assistance also generate the most “bang for their buck” in terms of stimulus because they funnel money into the hands of the people most likely to spend it. Extended unemployment insurance generates an estimated $1.63 in economic activity for each dollar spent; aid to state governments generates $1.38. In contrast, though they act more quickly than spending measures, tax cuts generate less stimulus. The Making Work Pay, Child, and Earned Income tax credits will help keep more than 2.1 million Americans out of poverty and the American Opportunity credit will make 3.8 million more students eligible for a higher education tax break. These are important measures that will assist aspiring middle-class and middle-class Americans struggling to make ends meet. But the expansions are temporary and tax cuts, even when refundable and directed at the low-income individuals most likely to spend them, are less effective stimulus measures. Worst of all, though, are tax cuts for businesses like accelerated depreciation and carryback loss provisions that have little economic benefit.

Despite concern that the spending included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be delayed, perhaps a valid concern due to the legislation’s size and complexity, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 78% of spending would occur between 2009 and 2010. Indeed, funds for investment in infrastructure and energy efficiency, though perhaps more complicated to spend, are a critical step in longer term economic recovery. Beyond its stimulative value – infrastructure spending’s “bang for the buck” is $1.59 – the United States desperately needs new infrastructure to compete in the global economy. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending is now necessary. The funding for infrastructure projects included in the legislation is a first step in addressing this deficiency. Similarly, spending on a modernized electricity grid, retrofitted low-income housing, and weatherized homes creates the framework for a future economy less reliant on fossil fuels and, indeed, based on green technology.

Requirements for application of TARP funds to foreclosure prevention and for limitations on executive compensation and bonuses are first steps in establishing the accountability that has been missing from the financial bailout. Still, the bill does not set forth a comprehensive plan to address the foreclosure crisis that includes a moratorium on foreclosures, a mechanism to require modification of mortgages, and a change to the bankruptcy code to permit modification of mortgages on primary residences.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Recession and Recovery,” from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

“The State of the Economy and Issues in Developing an Effective Policy Response,” Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf before the House Committee on the Budget

“Impact of Economic Turmoil on Health Coverage and State Medicaid Programs,” from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured

Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008

hmoroz — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:24:29 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Number of taxpayers subject to the alternative minimum tax in 1970: 20,000

Number of taxpayers projected to be subject to the alternative minimum tax in 2010, absent changes in current law: 33 million

Number of taxpayers subject to the alternative minimum tax in 2007, after Congress passed a temporary alternative minimum tax patch: 4.1 million

Amount of lost revenue by 2018 that would result from repealing the alternative minimum tax, assuming the 2001-2006 tax cuts expire: $960 billion

Percentage of the benefits of repeal that would go to households with income above $100,000 in 2009: 90

Average compensation paid to the 25 individual hedge-fund managers with the highest earnings in 2006: $570,000,000

Approximate loss of revenue to the U.S. Treasury in 2006 alone from taxing the carried interest of these 25 fund managers as capital gains: $1,995,000,000

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Supports. The Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act ensures that middle-class Americans are not overwhelmed by a tax that they were never intended to pay. An increase in tax payments for more than 25 million American homes – exposing fully 46% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 to the AMT – would be disastrous for families already reeling from home foreclosures, high gas prices, and nearly stagnant wages. The bill’s revenue-raising tax hikes target the appropriate group: extraordinarily wealthy hedge fund and private equity managers and corporations that have exploited loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Tax Topics: Individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), from the Tax Policy Center

The Taxation of Carried Interest, Testimony before the Finance Committee of the U.S. Senate

"Tax breaks for billionaires," from the Economic Policy Institute

Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008

hmoroz — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:49:06 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Percentage of the benefits of the child tax credit that went to families in the top 40% of the income distribution in 2005: 60

Maximum percentage of the benefits of the child tax credit that went to families in the lowest 20% of the income distribution in 2005: 1

Estimated number of children that the child tax credit provision in the legislation would benefit: 13 million

Estimated number of children who would become newly eligible for the child tax credit under the legislation: 2.4 million

Estimated industry revenues from renewable energy and efficiency in 2006, in dollars: 970 billion

Estimated lost investment if federal tax credits for solar and wind energy are not extended, in dollars: 19 billion

Estimated jobs in the renewable energy and efficiency industry in 2006: 8.5 million

Estimated number of jobs that could be lost if federal tax credits for solar and wind energy are not extended: 116,000

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Supports. While politicians are proposing short-term band-aids to deal with rising fuel costs, middle-class Americans are increasingly feeling the effects of an energy policy that harms the environment and favors large oil companies. The energy tax credit expansions and extensions in the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act are part of a long-term strategy to alleviate high fuel costs, make the country more energy efficient, and ensure that the economy retains jobs in renewable energy and technology. Indeed, a recent study demonstrated that failure to extend energy tax credits for solar and wind power could result in the loss of 116,000 jobs. With the middle class already feeling the effects of weak employment, Congress must strengthen a renewable energy and energy efficiency industry that benefits both the environment and the economy.

Aspiring middle-class families with children are in a particularly difficult situation in an economy of high food, fuel, and health care costs. The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act’s changes to the child tax credit would make 2.4 million additional children eligible for the benefit and would increase the benefit for 10.5 million more. Expanding the income floor for the credit means that very low-income aspiring middle-class families, who currently benefit less from the credit than higher-income families, will receive the support they need to make ends meet.

The revenue raising provisions of the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act not only make the legislation fiscally responsible, but make the tax code fairer by eliminating loopholes exploited by wealthy executives and multinational corporations.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Greener Pathways: Jobs and Workforce Development in the Clean Energy Economy,” from the Apollo Alliance

“Taxation and the Family: What is the child tax credit?” from the Tax Policy Center

“Families Helped by the Child Tax Credit Expansion Work Hard in Low-Paying Jobs,” from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 [Revised Bill]

atraub — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:37:17 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Amount of mortgage-related assets that the Federal Reserve assumed as collateral for a loan it made to facilitate the sale of Bear Sterns to J.P. Morgan Chase: $30 billion

Amount this bill provides in tax refunds for businesses that claim a loss: $6.1 billion

Amount this bill provides to state and local governments across the country to shore up neighborhoods devastated by mortgage foreclosures: $4 billion

Estimated number of foreclosures prevented if Congress lifted the ban on loan modifications by bankruptcy courts, a provision this bill does not include: 600,000

Amount of home equity saved if Congress lifted the ban on court-supervised loan modifications that would otherwise be lost because of foreclosures of neighboring properties: $72.5 billion

Amount that lifting the ban on court-supervised loan modifications would cost middle-class taxpayers: $0

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Supports. With two million families facing the loss of their homes over the next two years and large sectors of the U.S. economy destabilized by mortgage defaults, the foreclosure crisis and the wider turmoil it has caused are among the greatest threats to middle-class Americans today. This bill responds to that threat, although not in the most effective way. The bill is stuffed with costly and irrelevant provisions, while the positive steps it does include fail to go far enough to help struggling families. The single most effective measure proposed to address the crisis – a change in bankruptcy law that would prevent hundreds of thousands of foreclosures – was killed as an amendment. Meanwhile some provisions that did make it into the final bill could even make the foreclosure problem worse.

Positive measures in the bill include FHA modernization, which will enable more homeowners to refinance problematic mortgages. The block grants for communities hard hit by the crisis to reclaim foreclosed properties and turn them into affordable homes is another very positive step, but here too the amount of funding may be too little to revitalize neighborhoods in need. Funding for mortgage counseling is also beneficial, but inadequate. And while enhanced mortgage disclosures are helpful, they are no substitute for a genuine ban on deceptive lending practices along the lines enacted by some state governments. The tax exempt bonds for state agencies to refinance subprime loans is a modest effort which will inevitably bail out lenders, whose lax standards helped cause the crisis, along with struggling homeowners.

While provisions to help homeowners and devastated communities are stingy, home builders and other businesses facing economic losses due to the downturn reap $6.1 billion in tax breaks. This provision has little to do with helping prevent foreclosure and is not even a cost-effective means of economic stimulus. The property tax deduction for non-itemizers is similarly problematic. While many middle-class families might see a small tax break under this provision, the credit is not substantial enough to help families who face foreclosure or are having serious difficulties making mortgage payments and is not targeted at these homeowners. To make matters worse, the deduction is limited to people who live in areas that have not raised property taxes. This creates an incentive for states and municipalities to cut services that middle-class families rely on rather than raising the revenue needed to preserve them. Finally, the tax credit for buying a foreclosed home might, as the Washington Post point out, actually encourage more home foreclosures.

The alternative energy tax breaks, added at the last minute, are similar to those included in the House’s Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act. Providing the public investment necessary to jump start the development and promotion of renewable energy sources and ultimately mitigate global warming sweetens what is otherwise a unsatisfactory effort to deal with the home mortgage crisis. Middle-class Americans will ultimately see some benefit from this bill – but they deserve better.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Senate Housing Legislation Highly Disappointing” from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

Mortgage Lending page from the Center for Responsible Lending

Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008

atraub — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:43:06 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Cost of one barrel of crude oil the day this bill passed the House:$100.83

Date on which President Bush said, “With $55 [per barrel] oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent”: 4/14/2005

Date on which the Bush Administration nevertheless announced that the President would veto this bill: 2/26/2008

Average amount per gallon Americans paid for that gas the week this bill passed the House: $3.18

Profit made by oil company Exxon Mobil every minute in 2007, according to the Center for American Progress: $77,245

Percentage of total U.S. electricity demand that could technically be met by renewable energy resources by 2020, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: 100

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Supports: Today, as middle-class consumers struggle with the high costs of gasoline and home heating oil and are increasingly concerned about the threat of global warming, federal incentives that spur energy efficiency and promote renewable energy couldn’t be more timely. By reviving the abandoned provisions of the 2007 energy bill, this legislation offers the substantial public investment necessary to jump start the development and promotion of renewable energy sources and energy-efficient technologies. In the short term, this investment will create jobs producing renewable energy and technology. In the long term, new energy sources and more efficient technology promise environmental and public health benefits, as well as lower costs, for the American middle class. The bill also funds the investments in an appropriate way: by repealing taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry, which is already making booming profits at the expense of middle-class consumers.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

"New Energy for America: The Apollo Jobs Report for Good Jobs and Energy Independence,” from the Apollo Alliance

“Kick the Oil Habit: Stop the Subsidies” from the Center for American Progress

The Renewable Energy Policy Project

“Clean Energy,” from the Union of Concerned Scientists

Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008

atraub — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:06:08 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Amount of stimulus produced for every $1 in tax cuts targeted to low-income households: $1.19

Amount of stimulus produced for every $1 in tax cuts provided through a business investment write off policy: $0.24

Amount of stimulus produced for every $1 spent on extending emergency federal unemployment insurance benefits: $1.73

Amount of stimulus produced for every $1 spent on state government aid: $1.24

Minimum amount of revenue states are projected to lose as a result of the investment incentives, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: $4 billion

Percentage of businesses in a 2006 survey that said that bonus depreciation, a type of investment incentive implemented in the past, was an important factor in their decisions about investment level or timing: 10

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Supports. There is increasing evidence that the economy faces a high risk of recession which could throw millions of middle-class Americans out of work, reduce income and health insurance coverage, and increase poverty. A smart economic stimulus plan could prevent the downturn or soften its effects, but not just any stimulus package will do. To be effective, an economic stimulus package must direct money to those who will spend it quickly, boosting consumer demand and prompting increased production and economic growth. For this reason, the household tax rebates are likely to be effective, if the checks can be sent quickly. It is particularly significant that the rebates are targeted to cash-strapped middle-class and aspiring middle-class Americans, who are more likely than wealthier people to spend the money they receive immediately, rather than saving it. It is also important that Americans relying on Social Security or disability benefits be included, both as an issue of basic fairness and because these groups are likely to spend their rebates quickly.

The increases in FHA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae mortgage limits are also helpful because they help these entities keep up with the current housing market. By buying and insuring loans, the FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae create viable refinance options for middle-class Americans who have been targeted by predatory loan practices and would otherwise be trapped in unaffordable adjustable rate mortgages and other abusive loan products.

The business tax cuts, a product of negotiation between the Bush Administration and Congress, are less positive for the middle class because they provide little simulative effect but would deprive the public of significant revenue and increase deficits. Offering tax incentives for business investment frequently fails to generate substantial economic growth because many businesses use the tax cuts for investments they already planned to undertake anyway, costing the public lost revenue but creating no additional economic activity. Another drawback is that it takes considerable time for businesses to make new investments and for investments to result in increased employment or purchasing. Yet to be most effective economic stimulus should have a rapid impact on the economy. Finally, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out that business incentives harm state budgets, since state and federal tax codes are linked. Many states are already facing a revenue crunch due to the economic downturn and, unlike the federal government, they cannot run budget deficits. The result could be cuts in state and local services that middle-class Americans rely on, from education to road maintenance to public safety.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Strategy for Economic Rebound: Smart Stimulus to Counteract and Economic Slowdown,” from the Economic Policy Institute

“Options for Responding to Short-Term Economic Weakness,” from the Congressional Budget Office

“Assessing President Bush’s Fiscal Policies,” from Economy.com

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

atraub — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:37:08 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Amount this legislation would save U.S. consumers in 2020, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists: $22 billion

Barrels of oil per day that would be saved in 2020 due to this bill: 1.1 million

Metric tons of global warming pollution that would be prevented by 2020 due to this bill: 190 million

Number of states, including the District of Columbia, that have already adopted renewable electricity standards: 26

Corporate profits made by oil company Exxon Mobile in the first three quarters of 2007: $28.95 billion

Average cost of a gallon of gasoline the week this legislation passed the House: $3.11

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Supports. This legislation represents a major step toward redirecting U.S. energy usage in a cleaner, more sustainable direction. The bill will save American consumers money at the fuel pump and on their heating bills, reduce air and water pollution, and mitigate the threat of global warming. Like its earlier incarnation, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 this bill recognizes that fossil fuels are not a sustainable option for the nation’s growing energy needs, and that a substantial public investment is needed to jump start the development and promotion of renewable energy sources and energy-efficient technologies. In the short term, this investment would create jobs producing renewable energy and technology. In the long term, new energy sources and more efficient technology promise environmental and public health benefits, as well as lower costs, for the American middle class. The bill also funds the investments in an appropriate way: by repealing taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry, which is already making booming profits at the expense of middle-class consumers.

This legislation also goes beyond what the original CLEAN Energy Act attempted, by establishing a Renewable Electricity Standard and stricter fuel economy standards for cars. These improvements marshal even more of the nation’s resources in support of conservation and a shift toward renewable energy, building on advances already adopted in many states to create a more sustainable energy future for the nation.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Union of Concerned Scientists Energy Bill Resource Center

“Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?” from McKinsey and Company

Pew Center on Global Climate Change Policy Center

CLEAN Energy Act of 2007

atraub — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:20:53 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Total profits of top five U.S. oil companies from 2001-2007: $457.7 billion

Minimum amount the average annual household expenditure for gasoline has increased over the last five years: $1,000

Total new subsidies for the oil and gas industries in the 2005 energy bill: $6 billion

Percentage of Americans who are concerned that the nation’s reliance on foreign oil could negatively affect future price of gas and heating oil: 93

Percentage of total U.S. electricity demand that could technically be met by renewable energy resources by 2020, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: 100

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Supports. This bill represents an important step in the right direction for an American middle class that is both squeezed by high energy bills and prices at the pump and also concerned about clean air and water and the threat of global warming. Fossil fuels are not a sustainable option for the nation’s growing energy needs, yet substantial public investment is needed to jump start the development and promotion of renewable energy sources and energy-efficient technologies. In the short term, this investment would create jobs producing renewable energy and technology. In the long term, new energy sources and more efficient technology promise environmental and public health benefits, as well as lower costs for the American middle class. The CLEAN Energy Act also funds the investments in an appropriate way: by repealing taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry, which is already making booming profits at the expense of middle-class consumers.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

"New Energy for America: The Apollo Jobs Report for Good Jobs and Energy Independence,” from the Apollo Alliance

“Kick the Oil Habit: Stop the Subsidies” from the Center for American Progress

The Renewable Energy Policy Project

“Clean Energy,” from the Union of Concerned Scientists

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

atraub — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:13:12 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Opposes

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Percentage of the President’s 2003 tax cuts that went to the top 1% income earners: 40 percent
Average tax cut received by Americans with incomes of $1.4 million and up: $81,000
Average tax cut received by middle-class Americans with incomes of $35,000: $800

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Opposes: The Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003, enacted in May 2003, was initially portrayed as a tax cut for struggling working-class Americans, but has translated into a law favoring the rich at the expense of everyone else. While middle-class Americans with incomes of $35,000 enjoyed a tax savings of roughly $800 as a result of this law, according to the Economic Policy Institute, those with incomes above $1.4 million received a tax cut of $81,000–more than 100 times as much. In fact, over the next four years, the top one percent of income earners will receive almost 40 percent of the total tax relief from this legislation, while the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers will receive just nine percent. This law provides neither the economic support required by middle-class American families struggling with soaring fixed costs, debt, and unemployment, nor the surge in consumer spending required to stimulate the sagging economy because less than 10 percent of its benefits go to those most likely to spend it.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

American Jobs Creation Act of 2004

atraub — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:41:16 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Opposes

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Number of jobs the American Jobs Creation Act requires companies that get tax benefits to create: 0
Minimum tax cut General Electric will receive over the next ten years as a result of the Act: $8 billion
Tax break for manufacturers of archery products under the Act: $9 million
Amount the tax breaks in the Act would add to the deficit in the next ten years if they are extended: $80 billion
Value of the illegal corporate tax subsidy the Act was intended to repeal: $5 billion
Value of new corporate tax subsidies the Act provides: $137 billion

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Opposes: This legislation is portrayed as a job creation measure, but there is nothing in the 650-page law to assure or even encourage the creation of a single job. Instead, the bill is a massive tax giveaway to a series of closely-tailored special interests with serious consequences for the federal deficit and middle-class priorities. While repealing the tax subsidy banned by the World Trade Organization was an important step to prevent Europe from imposing trade sanctions on American exports, that measure provides little justification for the tremendous size of the new tax benefits littered throughout this bill. The bill will provide a tax cut to middle-class people in states with no income tax. But this benefit is minor compared to what could have been done with the huge amounts of revenue the government will forgo as a result of this pork-barrel bill. The money could have been used to fund middle-class priorities such as increased college aid, extended unemployment benefits or assistance to small businesses in providing health care for their employees. All of these would have improved the nation’s fiscal health, as well as bolstered the middle class. Instead this bill prioritizes massive tax cuts for the most profitable American corporations.

Corporate taxes

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Senate Version

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 [Revised Bill]

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007