Group items tagged

But for now, the top issue is whether to permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, set to expire on Dec. 31. In fact, the two parties are not far apart. Both Republicans and Democrats back extending tax cuts for some 97 percent of taxpayers. The catch is the last 3 percent, representing individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and families earning more than $250,000.

But for now, the top issue is whether to permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, set to expire on Dec. 31. In fact, the two parties are not far apart. Both Republicans and Democrats back extending tax cuts for some 97 percent of taxpayers. The catch is the last 3 percent, representing individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and families earning more than $250,000.The cost of extending tax cuts to this top income group would be $700 billion over the next 10 years.

House Republican leader John Boehner said on Sunday that he is open, if necessary, to renewing the Bush tax cuts for the 97 percent, even if it means not extending those cuts to the top 3 percent. But so far, no GOP leader has joined him.

President Obama is pushing for a permanent middle-class tax cut, but only if Bush-era cuts for top earners are eliminated. Republicans, in turn, want permanent tax relief for all income levels. The divide is rapidly becoming the marquee issue of the midterm election.

Given the lackluster recovery — with crucial housing and job markets still ailing — an expiration of tax cuts worth about $300 billion a year would be a huge hit to the economy, equivalent to 2% of the nation's total output. The potential economic fallout is far less clear if tax rates rose only for high earners.

The chances are small that Congress might address the issue before the November election. But there are ample opportunities for both parties to use their economic messages during the campaign.

On Wednesday in Washington, the House passed a $154 billion jobs bill. It includes $46 billion in aid to states, which would mostly go to help them in 2011. Half of the money is an extension of the increase in the federal share of the Medicaid program. The rest of the money is designated for jobs in education.

On Wednesday in Washington, the House passed a $154 billion jobs bill. It includes $46 billion in aid to states, which would mostly go to help them in 2011. Half of the money is an extension of the increase in the federal share of the Medicaid program. The rest of the money is designated for jobs in education. However, it won’t be enough for many states. According to the CBPP, 30 states have already enacted tax increases, raised tuition at state universities, or found other revenue methods. For example, only this week, the Missouri Department of Revenue told yoga studios to begin to collect a 4 percent recreation sales tax on class fees.At the same time, many states are looking at service cuts. According to the CBPP analysis, 28 states have enacted or implemented cuts to reduce the eligibility of low-income families for health coverage. Some 42 states and the District of Columbia have proposed or implemented cuts to the state workforce.

Cuba's communist government currently controls almost all aspects of the country's economy and employs about 85% of the official workforce, which is put at 5.1 million people. As many as one-in-five of all workers could lose their jobs.

To create jobs for the redundant workers, strict rules limiting private enterprise will be relaxed and many more licenses will be issued for people to become self-employed. Private businesses will be allowed to employ staff for the first time.

They will also have to pay tax on their profits and for each person they employ, something which could dramatically boost the government's income.

U.S. manufacturing firms spend almost three times as much per worker per hour for healthcare as our most important foreign competitors--$2.38 versus $0.96. Healthcare costs drive employers to move jobs overseas, grow jobs outside of the United States, and limit the ability of firms to invest to improve productivity [and] compete more effectively in the future.

Analysis also shows that the U.S. economy loses as much as $207 billion annually because of the lost productivity stemming from the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. Employers notice the workplace productivity loss, which for a full-time worker equals four days a month in lost work time.

On the budget front, the House bill would reduce deficits by $138 billion over the next decade and the Senate measure would reduce deficits by $130 billion over that period, says the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which predicts the two measures would continue to reduce deficits for at least a decade thereafter. The bills would achieve this goal through a combination of spending cuts (largely in Medicare) and tax increases that, together, exceed the costs of bringing health insurance coverage to about 95 percent of all legal residents. The House and Senate bills deserve much more credit for cost control than they have received. They [address] almost all areas that experts have identified as promising areas for reducing the growth of healthcare spending. Most important, both would create a health insurance exchange to promote competition among private health insurance plans based on price and quality, reduce administrative costs, and provide a platform for systemic change across the healthcare system.

At heart, the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation are very much the same. Both require virtually all Americans to have health insurance, while offering low- and middle-income people subsidies to make that mandate more affordable. Both would establish new marketplaces, called "exchanges," where individuals who don't get insurance from employers could buy coverage. Both would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years and pay for themselves via cuts in projected Medicare spending and tax and fee increases. Both would ban insurance firms from denying anyone coverage due to pre-existing health conditions.