Tax Fairness

Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009

hmoroz — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:04:32 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Number of uninsured Americans in 2008: 45.7 million

Estimated number of uninsured Americans after passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act: 18 million

Percentage growth in the uninsured between 2004 and 2007 that came from lower- and middle-income families: 70

Average annual worker contribution to health insurance premiums in employer-sponsored coverage in 1999: $1,543

Average annual worker contribution to health insurance premiums in employer-sponsored coverage in 2008: $3,354

Savings to a low-income family and a higher-income family, respectively, from the Affordable Health Care for America Act because they do not have to buy private, nongroup insurance: $9,000, $1,260

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. Skyrocketing health care costs have created a vicious and destabilizing trap for middle-class Americans in which employer-sponsored coverage is offered less frequently and private coverage is increasingly unaffordable. Meanwhile, successful public programs that effectively cover children (SCHIP), the poor (Medicaid), and the elderly (Medicare) are unavailable to middle-class adults. Almost 46 million nonelderly Americans lack health insurance, the majority of whom are low- and middle-income, and the rate of the uninsured has grown significantly since 2000. At the same time, the average worker’s health care premium has increased 128% (to $3,515) since 2009. One study has even found that just shy of two thirds of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses even though the vast majority of these bankruptcies involve families who have health insurance. Because employers, too, have had to absorb similar premium increases, employer-sponsored insurance – the type of insurance most middle-class Americans obtain – has declined significantly in each of the last eight years. The economic downturn has exacerbated this situation and experts estimate that each percentage point increase in the unemployment rate results in substantial increases in the number of uninsured Americans. Given the high costs of obtaining insurance in the private, non-group market, which is nearly impossible without steady employment, many Americans have simply given up coverage over the last several years. In short, a perfect storm of increasing health care costs and a down economy has undermined the financial stability and endangered the wellbeing of the middle class and the aspiring middle class.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act would do much to relieve the financial stress placed on these households by high health insurance costs while also extending health coverage to millions of Americans. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reckons that the bill would reduce the number of uninsured to 18 million, leaving just 4 percent of the population without health coverage. Expanding Medicaid to cover low-income adults is one of the most effective and cost-efficient means of covering more aspiring middle-class Americans. The expansion would enroll about 15 million individuals in Medicaid, providing an important public backstop for low-income families. Indeed, public programs have successfully kept millions of children from becoming uninsured, while the lack of such programs for low-income childless adults has led to increased numbers of the uninsured among this population. Similarly, coverage in the Health Insurance Exchange would reduce health care costs for tens of millions of households: the savings range from more than $9,000 for a low-income household of four which receives payment assistance to $1,260 for a higher-income family making more than $90,000 that does not receive such assistance. Such savings are targeted at the very groups that need the most help. The inclusion of a public option in the Exchange, in which a relatively meager 6 million individuals are expected to enroll, will create competition with the Exchange’s private insurance plans driving costs even lower.

At the same time as it helps reduce health care costs for middle-class and aspiring middle-class Americans, the Affordable Health Care for America Act greatly improves health coverage by enacting strict requirements for the type of insurance that is offered. The bill prevents the nightmare scenarios of being denied coverage just because you have become sick or being forced to pay higher premiums because of a preexisting condition (in many policies, being a woman is effectively considered a preexisting condition). Eventually, it will define minimum benefits and cost limits that must be included in all health insurance plans, not just ones offered by the Health Insurance Exchange. And it will ensure that health insurers do not use premiums to pay for administrative costs and profits, instead of medical care. In this way, affordable and adequate health insurance that protects individuals and their families during both normal medical events and extraordinary medical hardship will be available to all aspiring middle-class and middle-class households.

Finally, the Act contains cost-cutting strategies to reduce the impact of health care costs on the budget deficit and additional measures to reorient health care delivery to quality, preventive care and away from costly and unnecessary overtreatment. Eliminating overpayments to Medicare Advantage, the ill-advised, Bush-era privatization of a chunk of Medicare, and empowering the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate Medicare drug prices are effective ways to cut costs without weakening coverage. The tax surcharge on the wealthiest Americans, who benefited most from the economic growth of the 2000s and who are weathering the current economic downturn best, is a sensible method of increasing access to and the affordability of health insurance coverage in a fiscally responsible manner.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Health Reform,” from the Kaiser Family Foundation

“House Health Reform Bill Expands Coverage And Lowers Health Cost Growth, While Reducing Deficits,” from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

“Competitive Health Care: A Public Health Insurance Plan That Delivers Market Discipline,” from the Center for American Progress Action Fund

“The Treatment,” A Health Care Reform Blog from The New Republic

Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2006

hmoroz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:15:32 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Opposes

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Year the federal estate tax was introduced: 1916

Ratio of Americans who died in 2006 that paid any estate taxes: 5 in 1000

Percentage of the estate tax paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans: 90.3

Estimated amount raised by the estate tax in 2006: $18.3 billion

Estimated cost of completely repealing the estate tax from 2012 to 2021: $1 trillion

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Opposes. The estate tax falls only on the small number of individuals lucky enough to inherit a windfall – less than one percent of Americans ever pay it at all. Nearly half of all estate taxes collected by the government are paid by the most affluent 0.1 percent of Americans. By further increasing the amount of money heirs can acquire without paying a dime, this bill would shift more of the cost of the public services that benefit all Americans onto middle-class families, allowing accumulated wealth to be passed on for generations while obliging those who work for their money to pick up a bigger share of the tax bill, or suffer cuts in services essential to middle-class families and communities.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“The Estate Tax: Myths and Realities,” from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

United for a Fair Economy on the estate tax

Citizens for Tax Justice on the estate tax

“Estate Tax Facts,” from the Tax Policy Center

Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006

hmoroz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:35:25 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Opposes

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Year the federal estate tax was introduced: 1916

Ratio of Americans who died in 2006 that paid any estate taxes: 5 in 1000

Percentage of the estate tax paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans: 90.3

Estimated amount raised by the estate tax in 2006: $18.3 billion

Projected cost to the federal treasury of this legislation over the next ten years: $280 billion

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Opposes. The estate tax falls only on the small number of individuals lucky enough to inherit a windfall – less than one percent of Americans ever pay it at all. Nearly half of all estate taxes collected by the government are paid by the most affluent 0.1% of Americans – individuals who make $1.5 million a year or more. In this way, the estate tax continues America’s long tradition of honoring hard work and opportunity, rather than inherited privilege and wealth. But by abolishing the estate tax, this bill would deprive the public of hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue. In effect, estate tax repeal shifts more of the cost of public services onto middle-class and aspiring middle-class families, allowing accumulated wealth to be passed on for generations while obliging those who work for their money to either pick up a bigger share of the tax bill, or suffer cuts in services essential to middle-class families and communities.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“High Cost Of Thomas Proposal Reflects The Low Effective Tax Rates Estates Would Face,”
By Joel Friedman and Aviva Aron-Dine from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

United for a Fair Economy on the estate tax

Citizens for Tax Justice on the estate tax

“Estate Tax Facts,” from the Tax Policy Center

Vote To Raise the Minimum Wage without Cutting Estate Taxes of 2006

hmoroz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:15:12 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Number of workers who would benefit from the minimum wage increase included in the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act: 5.6 million

Approximate number of estates the estate tax reduction would benefit: 8,200

Percentage increase in the cost-of-living since September 1997: 26

Percentage increase in the federal minimum wage since September 1997: 0

Top estate tax rate and maximum exemption in 2001, respectively: 60%, $675,000

Top estate tax rate and maximum exemption in 2015 under the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act: 30%, $5 million

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle-Class Supports. At less than $11,000 a year for a full-time worker, the federal minimum wage is a poverty wage. It is a rate at which it is impossible for working Americans to independently pay their rent, feed their families or get needed medical care—much less save for the types of investments that make it possible to work one’s way into the middle class, like an education, a secure home or the chance to start a business.

Contrary to the stereotype of the minimum wage worker as a teenager with nothing to purchase but junk food and movie tickets, the typical minimum wage worker is an adult providing more than half of his or her family’s total earnings. According to the Economic Policy Institute, half of families with a minimum wage worker rely on his or her pay as the family’s only source of earnings. As many states have raised their minimum wages above the federal rate, economists have also had more opportunities to study the effects of minimum wage increases, concluding that raising the minimum wage does not lead to the loss of jobs.

In contrast, the estate tax provisions which this vote aimed to remove from the bill will only benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. The estate tax is the most progressive component of the federal tax code and applies only to Americans lucky enough to inherit substantial fortunes. By taxing inherited wealth, the tax preserves the American tradition of rewarding hard work, not inherited privilege and wealth. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the estate tax provisions would cost approximately $267.6 billion between 2007 and 2016. This significant reduction would adversely affect aspiring middle-class and middle-class Americans by burdening them with more of the cost of public services while allowing accumulated wealth to be passed on for generations. Those who work for their money would be forced either to pick up a bigger share of the tax bill or to suffer cuts in services essential to middle-class families and communities.

Roll Call Vote 424 would strip the provisions that are detrimental to middle-class households from the legislation, while preserving the minimum wage increases that are critical to expanding the ranks of the middle class.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Nine Years of Neglect: Federal Minimum Wage Remains Unchanged for Ninth Straight Year,” from the Economic Policy Institute

“States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level Have Had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth,” from the Fiscal Policy Institute

“Tax Topics: Estate and Gift Taxes,” from the Tax Policy Center

Estate Tax Cut Amendment of 2009

hmoroz — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:33:39 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Opposes

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Top estate tax rate and maximum exemption in 2001, respectively: 60%, $675,000

Top estate tax rate and maximum exemption in 2009, respectively: 45%, $3,500,000

Percentage of estates that will benefit from the amendment: 0.28

Estimated cost of the amendment between 2012 and 2021, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in dollars: $440 billion

Percentage of the estate tax paid by households in the top 1% of earners: 81.1

Percentage of the estate tax paid by households in the top 20% of earners: 99.7

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Opposes. The estate tax, the most progressive component of the federal tax code, applies only to Americans lucky enough to inherit substantial fortunes. In fact, only 0.6% of deaths result in taxable estates. By taxing inherited wealth, the tax preserves the American tradition of rewarding hard work, not inherited privilege and wealth. Although the amendment does not fully repeal the estate tax, as has been proposed in the past, the legislation would still cost approximately $442 billion over ten years compared to current law. This significant reduction in revenue would benefit only the wealthiest 3 of every 1,000 American estates worth millions of dollars. While conservatives argue that the estate tax harms small farms and business, very few such estates are subject to the tax.

The amendment would adversely affect aspiring middle-class and middle-class Americans by burdening them with more of the cost of public services while allowing accumulated wealth to be passed on for generations. Those who work for their money would be forced either to pick up a bigger share of the tax bill or to suffer cuts in services essential to middle-class families and communities.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

A Bill To Impose An Additional Tax On Bonuses Received From TARP Recipients of 2009

hmoroz — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:35:25 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Total amount of federal assistance authorized for AIG, according the Government Accountability Office, in dollars: 182,500,000,000

Minimum amount of bonuses distributed to employees of AIG’s Financial Products Subsidiary, the unit principally responsible for the firm’s collapse, in dollars: 165,000,000

Percent ownership stake in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG held by the United States government, respectively: 79.9, 79.9, 77.9

Value of assets received for every $100 the Treasury Department spent on the ten largest TARP investments in 2008, in dollars: 66

Value of securities received by Berkshire Hathaway for each $100 it invested in Goldman Sachs in September of 2008, in dollars: 110

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. Taxpayer bailout funds should be used first to prevent a collapse of the financial system and next to make the financial system work for current middle-class Americans by addressing the housing crisis and increasing the availability of loans. Under no circumstances should taxpayer funds pay exorbitant executive bonuses. The tax on bonuses imposed by H.R.1586 provides taxpayers with a measure of accountability by recovering taxpayer funds that are misused by financial institutions whose very existence is largely predicated on government assistance. The tax cannot excuse the government’s initial failure to limit executive compensation at firms propped up by taxpayers. However, the bill will protect middle-class taxpayers by holding firms accountable when they use public money inappropriately for bonuses.

As difficulties for middle-class Americans worsened at the end of 2008, Congress prioritized the country’s financial sector instead of struggling homeowners and the growing ranks of the unemployed. Legislators rushed passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), arguing that a failure to shore up the financial system would cause great pain throughout the economy. In exchange, they promised strict oversight and accountability for the $700 billion of taxpayer money that would be funneled to the very banks and financial institutions responsible for the current crisis. But strong measures to ensure appropriate use of taxpayer funds were not included in EESA. Despite a majority government stake and commitment of $183 billion of government funds, American International Group paid executives bonuses unthinkable to the vast majority of working Americans. Similar compensation payments are planned for executives of the housing finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are also under government control.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

TARP Oversight and Accountability Reports, from the House Financial Services Committee

TARP Congressional Oversight Panel

“Re: AIG 2008 Retention Bonuses,” Letter from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to Rep. Barney Frank

College Learning Access Simplicity and Savings Act of 2009

hmoroz — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 11:17:18 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Death Tax Repeal Act of 2009

hmoroz — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 11:06:06 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Conference Report

hmoroz — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:06:44 -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 of spending and tax cuts that will take effect by the end of 2010, according to the Congressional Budget Office: 74%

Percentage reduction in aid to states made by the conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act compared to the House version: 32%

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: 46 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 2.3 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 74% 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 and funds devoted to high-speed rail are particularly welcome. 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.

Limitations on executive compensation and bonuses are a first step 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. Funds for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program are a necessary, but insufficient, step in mitigating the widespread negative effects that foreclosures can have on entire neighborhoods and communities.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Recovery.gov, the official website of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

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

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

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%

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.

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

Tax Fairness

Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009

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

Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2006

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

Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006

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

Vote To Raise the Minimum Wage without Cutting Estate Taxes of 2006

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

Estate Tax Cut Amendment of 2009

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

A Bill To Impose An Additional Tax On Bonuses Received From TARP Recipients of 2009

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

College Learning Access Simplicity and Savings Act of 2009