Saturday, December 6, 2014

What Democrats just did (and should not be doing)

Want to know why voters are tuned out and turned off?  If you cannot tell the difference between parties based on objective measures, like roll call votes on corporate giveaways, why vote?

John Nichols reports at The Nation.   The House overwhelmingly passed corporate tax giveaways.

... the US House voted 378-46 for the so-called "Tax Increase Prevention Act."
Hailed by politicians and pundits as an example of Congress coming together to get something done, the measure—which still must be considered by a somewhat skeptical Senate—is better understood as a glaring example of what it wrong with Washington.
"There are a lot of things that Congress didn't get done in the last two years," explains Congressman Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin Democrat who cast one of the lonely "no" voters in the House. "The fact that this was a priority of this leadership at this point shows just how broken this Congress is."
The measure seeks to extend many of the most absurd tax breaks enjoyed by multinational corporations in a way that Congressman Keith Ellison says "gives away too much to big business, while doing little to help working families make ends meet."
The "bonus depreciation" merits special attention.
Georgetown University law professor David A. Super refers to that particular corporate tax break as a "license to steal"—because it "allows a business to pretend that its buildings and equipment wear out far faster than they actually do."
"As economic stimulus, bonus depreciation does not work. Studies of a similar measure enacted to combat the 2001 recession found that only a tiny minority of businesses even considered the new tax benefit as an important factor in making investment decisions," explains Super. Yet, he adds, "The cost [of bonus depreciation is] staggering: nearly $300 billion over the next decade, more than three times what we spend on nutrition supplements for pregnant women, infants and young children. That would wipe out roughly one-third of the deficit reduction from higher tax collections from the wealthy as a result of last year's 'fiscal cliff' deal."
Only the most sold-out, corporate-hack Republican could back such a fundamentally flawed scheme, right?

Wrong.  Click here to get a listing of the votes.  Totally disgusting.  Well, not totally.  Raul Grijalva voted "no".

BTW: Why is "bipartisan" defined as doing what GOPlins want?

No comments:

Post a Comment