News

Anna Eshoo opposes Obama tax deal

 

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is not happy about a White House tax proposal, crafted with Congressional Republicans, that would, contrary to President Obama's campaign promise, extend current tax breaks for individuals who earn more than $250,000 per year.

Noting that the bill increases the deficit by nearly $1 trillion, Eshoo said in a statement that she opposes the bill "for 900 billion reasons."

"While one can find items that are politically and practically attractive, in its totality it borrows just shy of one trillion dollars to pay for, amongst other items, expiring tax breaks for the top two percent (income bracket) of our country," she said.

"My fear is that the 2001-2003 Bush tax cuts will become permanent, and our fiscal future will dim as America struggles with the largest transfer of wealth and debt creation in its history," she continued. "We should instead be investing in capital formation, technological innovation, job creation and education -- the building blocks for a strong future for all Americans."

The package would also extend benefits for the long-term unemployed for 13 more months and cuts the estate tax, which resumes in 2011, from 55 percent on estates valued at $1 million or more to 35 percent on estates valued at $5 million or more.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 10, 2010 at 3:55 pm

I wonder how she voted on all of the entitlement programs and other boondoggles that got us into this mess in the first place? We're struggling with a "wealth transfer"? No, we're preventing further wealth transfer by allowing people to hang on to their money. It doesn't belong to the government! And I didn't think it was the government's job to "be investing in capital formation, technological innovation and job creation" - isn't that the job of the private sector?


Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 10, 2010 at 4:26 pm

What is killing Democrats is that they are arguing that this will somehow "hurt" the poor -- by allowing tax rates to stay as they have been for the past 10 years.

People aren't responding well to this silly rhetoric. Obama's plan is NOT to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. This is just a short extension of the current tax rate for another two years.

It isn't good for Democrats to come across as opposing this attempt to NOT raise taxes. Of course, there are other intangibles in all of this. However, the tax rate would simply remain the same for two more years when all is said and done.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 10, 2010 at 4:28 pm

Entitlements are our problem, and NOT the widening GULF between working families and the uber wealthy?!?

from the filibuster today:

"Mr. President, in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," Sanders said. "The top 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income--more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That is apparently not enough. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent."

fact checked:

"So, we're left with three studies that vary slightly but which all point in the same general direction -- showing the top 1 percent earning between 21.4 and 23.5 percent of the national income in 2007. The studies also show that this share exceeds what the entire bottom 50 percent of the United States earns. So we rate Sanders' statement True. "

Web Link

So that top 1% can't afford a return to the Clinton era tax rates that even they prospered under? In a time of national crisis?!?

A lousy four percent? Are ya kidding me?


Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 10, 2010 at 4:33 pm

BTW: Where is all of this sudden spin rhetoric about "transfer of wealth" coming from? This rhetoric appears to many people as both misleading and dishonest.

It seems that an extension of the status quo would actually PREVENT any transfer of wealth from one group that pays the most taxes to those who don't pay any but still use all of the programs paid for by others.


Like this comment
Posted by chris
a resident of University South
on Dec 10, 2010 at 4:34 pm

70% of Americans are opposed to the tax cuts for the rich.

Eshoo is taking a position that will endear her to her constituents.
The question is will she stick to her guns or will she get rolled by Obama?


Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm

@ anonymous:

Maybe if our elected legislators would STOP SPENDING SO MUCH, they wouldn't need to try and raise taxes.

Again: This is just an extension of a tax rate that has been in place for an ENTIRE DECADE. I wonder what would happen if our legislators stopped spending so much with the current tax rates?

:-\


Like this comment
Posted by chris
a resident of University South
on Dec 10, 2010 at 4:43 pm

Ten18,

You seem to forget that Bush wasted trillions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without any means to pay for it. At the seem time, Bush slashed the taxes on the rich and left office with the economy in shambles.

Delusion is a wonderful quality of Republicans.


Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 10, 2010 at 4:53 pm

@ Chris:

I think that it is quite a ssstttrrreeetttccchhh to say that Bush and the military "wasted" trillions on those wars. The Bush tax cuts came BEFORE the wars.

BTW, the economy was pretty sound for most of Bush's two terms too. If he was "wasting" all of that money and the economy was pretty sound...then it should get better if we keep the status quo tax rates since the war in Iraq is supposedly done.

Make sense? Or are you going to continue calling anyone who disagrees with your views "delusional?"


Like this comment
Posted by chris
a resident of University South
on Dec 10, 2010 at 5:39 pm

Nayeli,

You will only be credible if you can lay out the spending cuts that would balance the budget without raising taxes.

Even most Republican economists agree that it can't be done.
I'd be very interested in seeing your proposal.

Here's a hint: the biggest problem is health care. The average American is going to have to pay more. You may or may not call it a tax, but it has the same effect.


Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 10, 2010 at 11:49 pm

@ Chris:

Please don't question my "credibility."

I did not say WHICH specific areas of the record spending spree should be cut. I just think that it is obvious that politicians in the federal government should stop spending money that it doesn't have. In any business or household, people reduce spending when the money flow ends.

In my opinion, it is silly to constantly suggest tax increases as a "cure all" for an ever-expanding federal government. California is a perfect example of what happens when politicians can't stop spending and, instead, seek inventive new ways to take more of our money. We are paying enormous amounts of our income via taxes, tolls and fees in order to pay for a broken form of government. Unbridled pensions, runaway programs and legislators who are in the pockets of unions and special interest groups have bankrupted California...literally.

An obvious partial solution is to stop the expansion of spending by politicians. They continue to spend more on things that are NOT pressing needs -- except as promises offered in exchange for votes.

If I was given enough time, I think that I could find quite a few programs that need to be cut. Taxpayers just can't afford all of these "great and noble" ideas that some of these politicians constantly come up with. Yet this is how they are getting elected! They are trying to get more for certain segments of their constituents in exchange for promises of votes.

This has to stop.

Of course, I am short on specifics...just like you. A solution can't be to just take more money from the taxpayers -- because it doesn't curtail spending. If the taxes were to go up, some politicians would try and pretend that it is "patriotic" to take even more money and transfer that wealth to "good idea" programs that a certain group of politicians thinks is best.

Perhaps I am just ranting. I don't make $250,000 a year. However, I don't think that those who do should have to flip the bill just so some politicians can spend it on expanding entitlement programs and campaign promises. I was looking at the earmarks already being attached to this tax cut extension plan -- and some of those "programs" that are being funded are pathetically useless!


Like this comment
Posted by skur
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 11, 2010 at 5:57 am

Bush left the economy a wreck. He inherited a large surplus and then gave handouts to the rich, spent astronomical sums on the military, put us on track for a deregulated financial meltdown, and presided over the first recovery from recession that did not grow jobs the country has ever seen.

Despite the folksy comparisons to household spending, the government is not a household. The stimulus barely managed to push us out of recession, and states are now running out of money. Without more stimulus pending, we're headed for a double dip.

Those who are concerned about the national debt are being played for patsies by the republicans, who have zero interest in reducing the debt. They want lower taxes and to hold onto their entitlement programs (the military). Let's face it: Anyone who has concerns about the debt would certainly not back tax cuts--and especially not cuts for the fantastically wealthy.

Are public pensions out of control now? You bet. But that is a problem with massive implications for the future, not now. As for the "great and noble ideas" we are now funding, you must be living in a dream world. There is nothing noble, thoughtful, or far-sighted about anything America is doing today. We have crumbling infrastructure, failing schools, and widespread poverty.

The gap between the wealthy and the rest of us has not been this extreme since before the great depression. What has happened since the 1970s has been the greatest transfer of wealth this country has seen--from poor to rich.


Like this comment
Posted by Appalled
a resident of Meadow Park
on Dec 11, 2010 at 6:01 am

Of course Eshoo is opposed. It doesn't have anything in it which punishes the most successful earners in our nation. And socialist/marxists hate it when success isn't punished. The best thing in the Democrat book would be if we could simply just confiscate everything above..well, pick a number...$200,000 that any American makes.

Just give it up, everyone, and hand over everything above $200,000. Then the Democrats will finally be happy ( not!!). Me, I would just sit here and laugh, like I have been doing for 3 years, as the Dems get everything they want ( and up until recently, the RINOS went along) and we get worse, and worse, and worse economically.

Just end the arguing...just go back to the 2006 budget..or if that is too painful, the 2008 for a couple years, then the 2006 a couple years later.

Voila, not spending as much. Just cut every program, everything, everywhere, back to that level.

Or, just cut everything, everywhere, 10%.

Voila, no arguing on special interests. Everyone gets an equal cut. Finally business creators across the nation see that we are serious about letting them risk, create and win...and not risk, create and lose. Finally, we show our creditors around the world that we are serious about paying back our debts, and not going bankrupt.

or, just keep increasing the spending...I really hope the Dems kill this deal, and lets it roll over to the new Repub controlled House. WE won't have a "deal" that spends as much then,...

We just went through a 5% cut in medicare payments, with more to come...without a peep from anyone, ..we are having to adjust. So, time for everyone else to jump in.


Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 11, 2010 at 10:15 am

I agree with Nayeli, ten18 and Appalled.

The government doesn't have a revenue generation problem. It has an out-of-control spending problem. Since 1950, federal spending as a percent of GDP has averaged 18%. It is now north of 25%, having risen 60% in constant dollars since 2000.

I also agree with those who say that Bush bears major responsibility for the increase in federal spending and national debt. Bush is the reason the Republicans have close to zero credibility as fiscal conservatives. But the Obama administration is far worse. We are on course for a $20T national debt by 2020. If interest rates return to 5%, the interest on the national debt will be $1T/year, which will be about 25% of annual federal spending.

The solution is to cut federal and state spending back to historical-average levels. Abolish the Dept of Education, it costs $80B/year and contributes zero value. Means-test social security and medicare. Raise retirement age, since people live longer now. Reduce military spending. Eliminate public sector pensions. Eliminate any benefits for illegal aliens.

But don't punish success. And don't corrode property rights by taking my hard-earned cash by force and distributing it to corrupt government hacks for their graft and vote-buying, all in the name of "fairness".


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 11, 2010 at 11:11 am

""Please don't question my "credibility." I did not say WHICH specific areas of the record spending spree should be cut. "

Nay:

If you can't tell us what you want to cut, but only fall back on canards like "they should cut" then you haven't credibility.

Take the quiz about balancing the budget that was posted here awhile ago.
Web Link

Send us your link on who you will screw to balance the budget. The top 1%, whose % of TOTAL income tripled from 8 to ~25% in a few decades? Take away services from working Americans instead? Cut the Rumsfeld-outsourced-bloated military? Cut medicare and social security?

Show us, earn some credibility. Provide the link.

------------

"Abolish the Dept of Education, it costs $80B/year and contributes zero value. "

Wow. Haven't heard THAT ONE since Reagan put that "book of virtues" guy in charge of doing so. By the time Ronnie was done, he and Bennett had doubled it's budget, instead of eliminating it. What is it about republicans and their alleged fiscal conservatism?

William "book of virtues" Bennett. The guy who lost a million bucks in video poker. Wotta guy, telling us how to be virtuous on his way to Vegas. I feel bad for folks with addiction. Less so for pompous self righteous folks who tell us how WE should live.

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by With Anna
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 11, 2010 at 12:38 pm

Bravo Anna Eshoo.

Thank you for opposing this deal that would only be another step in destroying this country. Please stick to your guns and vote against it every time it comes up.

Shame on Obama. He has now morphed into GW Bush 2.0


Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 11, 2010 at 2:50 pm

@ Chris/anonymous (same person, I guess):

What an IGNORANT thing to say! Just because I don't specify which things need to be cut, you feel the "audacity" to question my credibility as a person? That is a bit...extreme.

I don't have to tell you SPECIFICALLY which programs need to be cut or cut back. In our family, if we are spending more than we are bringing in, then we realize that we need to CUT SPENDING. I don't have to specify which things need to be cut as long as I realize the obvious -- that some spending needs to be cut!

Not some people!

Their goal is to KEEP SPENDING. Some politicians are so hellbent on spending more of everyone else's money -- that they come up with new and creative ways to TAKE it and spend it on what THEY think is best!

Why do certain people on the FARRRRRRRRR LEFT so fanatical about taking the money of the rich? Using the silly rhetoric that Anna Eschoo borrowed from the DNC, they want to "transfer wealth" from those who worked hard to those who did not but will promise to vote for them as a result.

If the status quo ax rates stay the same as they have over the last decade, what will happen? Contrary to the propaganda from the Left, the answer is NOTHING. Yes, Obama has built a MONSTER DEFICIT and NATIONAL DEBT. The deficit has increased 300% and the national debt has increased 1000% since Obama took office. The answer is to STOP SPENDING SO MUCH when we don't have the money!

BTW: I am not rich. In fact, I am quite poor according to Palo Alto and San Francisco Bay Area standards. My federal tax liability is zero. We would certainly benefit from all of those expensive federal programs that Democrats think that we need (but we simply do not use).

I also don't think that it is the federal government's right to spew scorn at good people and attempt to vilify corporations with demeaning rhetoric such as "Big Oil," "Big Insurance" or "Big Auto" that obviously employ the majority of hardworking Americans (but oddly, they forget "Big Trial Lawyers" and "Big Media") -- and then do everything possible to take more of their money. Yes, we should take care of the poor. However, we shouldn't try and force others to have the poor live a fancy middle class life -- just because they are "poor!" Where is the incentive to WORK HARD and stop being poor?

It is funny, but the same people defending this monster deficit are the same ones who nagged about deficit spending under Reagan. Pot calling kettle?


Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm

BTW, Anna Eschoo:

How do you "transfer wealth" away from people who supposedly don't have any to begin with because they are poor and contribute $0 to the federal tax burden?

You don't.

However, the programs that need to be cut are NOT those that feed and clothe those who cannot do so for themselves. Rather, we need to stop all of the earmarks and pork barrel spending. We need to cut welfare benefits to those who REALLY need it. We need to make social security available only to those who need it.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 11, 2010 at 3:50 pm

"Just because I don't specify which things need to be cut, you feel the "audacity" to question my credibility as a person? That is a bit...extreme"

Wow, talk about a jump to extreme!!!

Your *ideas* and postings lack credibility if you can't recommend a solution. I see you ignored the offer and the link and went on ranting.

Keep comparing your family and the government of 300 million Americans.... that's pretty relevant. Not.

You consistently ignore reality when you make your statements about wealth transfer. It has ALREADY HAPPENED. From above:

"Mr. President, in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," Sanders said. "The top 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income--more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That is apparently not enough. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent."


Like this comment
Posted by Chris
a resident of University South
on Dec 11, 2010 at 10:40 pm

By loading this bill with tax cuts for the rich and estates by the Republicans and cuts to the payroll tax by Obama, both the Republicans and Obama are causing the deficit to further skyrocket.

Anna Eshoo is right is calling for a defeat of this nonsense.

The best plan keep the deficit manageable is to extend the tax cuts for the middle class and dump the budget killing cuts.

Republicans have lost all credibility as serious deficit hawks.
Even previous supporters like the Concord Coaltion (founded by Peter Peterson) pretty much scoff at their plans. They support the proposal of the debt commission, which only the brave Dr Coburn was willing to support from the Republican sides. The other Republicans are charlatans.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 12, 2010 at 10:28 am

"Republicans have lost all credibility as serious deficit hawks."

+1. Republican "second Santa Claus" theory is killing America in the name of politics.

Bring back Slick Willy's surplus.


Like this comment
Posted by no hero's in this.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 12, 2010 at 1:36 pm

"Anna Eshoo is right is calling for a defeat of this nonsense"

she only objects to the tax cut extention for the "rich".

Noboby is objecting to the fact that this compromise increases the debt, non of these proposals is paid for. A pox on both their houses.

They can tax me to fix the debt problem once they demostrate that they can cut spending. I'll do my part gladly, if they do theirs. I wont hold my breath. Both parties dont have the spine to fix this.


Like this comment
Posted by chris
a resident of University South
on Dec 12, 2010 at 11:06 pm

Mr No Hero,

Eshoo is opposed to the wild increase in the deficit. Did you read her full statement. If the tax cut for the rich were eliminated and a similar amount were eliminated from the payroll tax cut, I'm sure she would be satisfied.

Why don't you ask her and let us know what you find out?
Or are you afraid to ask?

The hard-core right like you seem to develop your ideology in isolation from the real world. Name any of the top 10 developed countries in the world that collects less taxes than the US.


Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 13, 2010 at 1:17 am

From "skur": " What has happened since the 1970s has been the greatest transfer of wealth this country has seen--from poor to rich."

This phrase is one of the most often stated but completely moronic statements/arguments used when discussing the extension of the tax cuts. For the record, I'm for going back to the Clinton era tax rates, as long as the government does it's part by reducing spending as well - but I cannot stand the above argument.

There has been absolutely zero transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. The percentage of total income has increased - but the poor didn't give any of their income to the wealthy.

Why do some people vilify those who are successful? This country was built and survives today on the premise that working hard and creating wealth for you and your family is a noble pursuit. Why the hate?


Like this comment
Posted by no hero's in this
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2010 at 4:44 am

@chris

"Eshoo is opposed to the wild increase in the deficit. Did you read her full statement."

I see no objection to the tax cuts for the non-rich
I see no objections to the extension of unemployent insurance.

This compromise is just a give away to both sides, the democrates are just objecting that both sides get to participate in the give away.

"The hard-core right like you"

Presumptious aren't you? I see no virtue in either party in this or did you bother to read what I wrote before you reacted.


Like this comment
Posted by Appalled
a resident of Meadow Park
on Dec 13, 2010 at 6:14 am

To No Heros: We conservatives are appalled..unfortunately we are still led by RINOS...we voted in " cut spending", but we are getting more spending.

We voted in "stop punishing success"...we still have the threat of punishment in 2 years looming over employment creators. Brilliant maneuver.

We voted in "stop redistributing wealth", and we get more of it in this bill ( estate taxes rise...taxed when we earn it, taxed when we invest it, taxed when we spend it, taxed when we die and try to gift it onward).

NO!!! Just stop it!!!

I really hope the Dems kill this bill, the RINOs don't have the spine to do it.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 13, 2010 at 11:07 am

"We conservatives are appalled..unfortunately we are still led by RINOS"

Appalled:

Are there ANY republican fiscal conservatives, or are they all for this deficit busting measure?

I submit that if you think they are all RINOs and are voting for increasing the deficit by 900 billion, that in fact they are republicans in both name and DEED.

After all, when they controlled the house senate and executive, they presided over one of the largest expansions of government during the bush years (medicare part D giveaway to Big Pharma, two wars and huge bloated military contractor fueled giveaways to Halliburton, etc...) while -

* * *doubling the national debt* *

- and leaving us on the precipice of the Second (republican) Great Depression. Amazing. Blow thru 5 trillion in debt and can't even BUY a good economy!!!

Why do you think this is NOT normal for republicans?

What republican president last ran a surplus?

Are they all a RINO? Or just doing the natural republican thing? I ask, but you already know, deep in your heart, the answer. Just look at the flip flops on earmarks by the good ol' gop.

Web Link

"So some Republicans are discussing exemptions to the earmark ban, allowing transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water projects. While transportation earmarks are probably the most notorious — think “Bridge to Nowhere” — there is talk about tweaking the very definition of “earmark.”

“It’s like what beauty is,” said Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.). “Everyone knows what a bridge to nowhere is, or an airport that lands no airplanes, or a statue to you — everyone knows that’s bad. It’s easy to say what an earmark isn’t, rather than what an earmark is.”

Rino? or just a hypocritical natural born fraud, er, I mean, republican?


Like this comment
Posted by Jo Ann
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 13, 2010 at 11:30 am

Good for Eshoo. And shame on Obama for this move which under-funds social security and Medicare. He should have just let Bush's "temporary" tax cuts expire.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 13, 2010 at 11:48 am

Bloomberg poll released today.

Americans are more concerned with getting our country and it's families back working. We all know that tax cuts for billionaires do NOT create jobs - if they did, why did Slick Willy have great job creation numbers and dubya's sucked?

"employment creators"

What a load of hooey. Just another Frank Luntz/Fox creation to try and fool folks. Tax cuts for Paris Hilton create jobs? Eliminating the estate tax saves the Walton family $30 billion. Much of that money has never been taxed (good accountants and lawyers are worth the money, eh?) And the Waltons saving $30B doesn't create any significant jobs. It just gives them more to create their next generation of future Paris Hilton's to sit by the pool.

* * * * *

Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now? (Read list. Rotate.) Sorted.

50 Unemployment and jobs
25 The federal deficit and government spending
9 Health care
7 The war in Afghanistan
5 Immigration
1 Other (VOL) (specify:)
3 Not sure

Do you think now is the time for bold and fast change to bring down the federal deficit, even if it means more sacrifice for more people, or is it more important to minimize sacrifices for the American people?

40 Bold and fast change
51 More important to minimize sacrifice
9 Not sure
Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Not Rich
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 13, 2010 at 1:03 pm

The U.S. is not a communist country. Everyone is not suppose to be equal. The rich is already taxed at a higher rate, plus AMT tax, they are already paying for their success. Why are we penalizing success and hardwork? If the tax rate keeps going up, I might as well stop working since the after tax income I receive is not worth the stress and time I put into my work. Is that a good way to encourage productivity?


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 13, 2010 at 2:01 pm

not rich:

"Why are we penalizing success and hardwork?"

What on earth are you talking about? Liberals, the real fiscally responsible folks, just seek to return to the tax rates for the top 2%, millionaires and billionaires, during the Clinton era, which was much lower than Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, etc..

from above, the wealth transfer HAS been going on, away from hard working American families, TO the top 1%:

"Mr. President, in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," Sanders said. "The top 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income--more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That is apparently not enough. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent."

fact checked:

"So, we're left with three studies that vary slightly but which all point in the same general direction -- showing the top 1 percent earning between 21.4 and 23.5 percent of the national income in 2007. The studies also show that this share exceeds what the entire bottom 50 percent of the United States earns. So we rate Sanders' statement True. "

Seems we're penalizing working American families by borrowing money from China to subsidize billionaires.

Return tax rates for billionaires to Clinton era rates.


Like this comment
Posted by daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 13, 2010 at 2:21 pm

How can so-called conservatives claim to be opposed to excessive government spending but can't find even one war, one billion dollar bomber or one multi-billion dollar weapon system they don't like? Mindless right-wingers foam at the mouth at any attempt to help the weak in our society, but are appalled, just appalled, when we ask billionaires, our own oligarchy, to return to the Clinton years tax rates, the Clinton years, when we all had it so bad.


Like this comment
Posted by Norman
a resident of Menlo Park
on Dec 13, 2010 at 5:32 pm

We wanted compromise and bipartisanship and we finally got it. You let the other party get what they want and you get what you want. Lets be grownups about it.

This also affords me the opportunity to complain about Eshoo's phony town hall meetings. First she gives her little speech then she has her underlings filter all of the questions. No face-to-face with Anna. She's a little dictator and she gets away with it. Shame on her.


Like this comment
Posted by chris
a resident of University South
on Dec 13, 2010 at 8:40 pm

There is a need for austerity, sacrifice, AND putting the country back to work.

Unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans belong to parties of
ME, ME, ME all the time.

Neither recoginize the debt crisis the country is facing and are only interested in telling their constituents they can have anything they want.

No Heros and Nayeli apparently do not understand the requirement for shared sacrifice, but that is typical of self-centered people.


Like this comment
Posted by skur
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 14, 2010 at 4:12 am

Crescent Park Dad,

"There has been absolutely zero transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. The percentage of total income has increased - but the poor didn't give any of their income to the wealthy."

Talk about moronic statements. Wow.

We have a system that hands 23.5 percent of income to the top 1 percent (up from 8 percent in the 1970s), although middle-class families have shifted from one-earner to two-earner.

Is there anything about those numbers you don't get? The system is handing vast wealth to the already vastly wealthy and handing very little to the rest. You are witnessing the return of the robber barons and their vast looting fortunes. They are living on the backs of the middle class.


Like this comment
Posted by daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 14, 2010 at 7:41 am

The GOP negotiators got a two year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
They also got the elimination of the Making Work Pay tax credit, which was developed as part of a broad plan to stimulate the economy without breaking the bank. The tax credit will be replaced by a far more expensive, and more fiscally unsound - two percentage point reduction in the payroll tax.

Perhaps most unsettling was the administration's acceptance of a Republican proposal to establish a new estate tax exemption of up to $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples - a huge concession that will be in place for at least two years.
And what did Democrats get in return? A 13-month extension of unemployment insurance benefits.

What this trade-off means is that, while billionaires will be enjoying their tax breaks until after the 2012 presidential election, the unemployed will be threatened with another benefit cut just after Christmas 2011.
The greediest of he greedy, the corporations, create jobs for the sweatshops of China and elsewhere to be filled with exploited children and adults who work 60 to 100 hours per week and may be paid only $125 per month, well below the stated wage minimum of $0.43 per hour to $1.01 (2010 figures depending upon administrative area.)
Why should we cave in to the demands of the millionaires and billionaires?

It's because they're greedy and psychopathic and they always will be. They don't care about anybody or anything, just as long as they get richer and richer and richer.


Like this comment
Posted by no hero's in this
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2010 at 8:25 am

@chris,

Read reread what I wrote for comprehension.
You apparently agree with me.


Like this comment
Posted by Don G
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 14, 2010 at 10:22 am

Not surprised by Anna Eshoo's stance. This is part of the Obama Administration's plan to spread the wealth. The rich invest and provide jobs. I've never received a paycheck from a poor person.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 14, 2010 at 10:41 am

Don G:

Have you read any of the above?

"The rich invest and provide jobs"

Investing in Exxon stock doesn't create jobs. It's just moving around stock as speculation. Investing in offshore banks to avoid taxes and speculate in other currencies doesn't create American jobs.

And tax cuts for billionaires doesn't create jobs - see Clinton vs Bush in job creation.

"...the Obama Administration's plan to spread the wealth."

The wealth has ALREADY been redistributed, long before the president took office, AWAY from working American families, to the Paris Hilton's of our society:

"Mr. President, in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," Sanders said. "The top 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income--more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That is apparently not enough. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent."

fact checked:

"So, we're left with three studies that vary slightly but which all point in the same general direction -- showing the top 1 percent earning between 21.4 and 23.5 percent of the national income in 2007. The studies also show that this share exceeds what the entire bottom 50 percent of the United States earns. So we rate Sanders' statement True. "


Like this comment
Posted by Joel
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 14, 2010 at 11:02 am

Yea for Anna. Stay Strong!


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 14, 2010 at 11:17 am

And for all those moaning about billionaires returning to Clinton era rates as -
* * class warfare * *
- take it from a capitalist who actually invests in working companies (opposed to the wall street banksters and Paris Hilton's...)

Warren Buffett, November 26, 2006:
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

and

"Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser..., Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion, said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by daniel
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 14, 2010 at 12:53 pm

We need to dispel the myth that billionaires create jobs. They speculate in virtual money that doesn't create any jobs and make only the very few who are extremely wealthy, even wealthier. They move American jobs to sweat jobs in China and the 3rd world, where workers work 60-100 hours per week for miserable pay, no benefits and under deplorable conditions, all so they can display higher profit margins to Wall Street and increase their stock value. Here we would call it slave labor. They shelter their money offshore to avoid paying taxes in the society that created the stable business environment that made it possible for them to become wealthy. Because they were allowed to keep so much of their profits, they managed to buy the political system, that now belongs exclusively to them and allows them to become the oligarchy while screwing everybody else. They are taxed at a much lower rate than middle class people who make a tiny fraction of their income. Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind, an oligarchy?


Like this comment
Posted by Don G
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 14, 2010 at 5:09 pm

"Have you read any of the above?"

Oh, I read it, I just haven't drank the Koolaid. There are plenty of examples of Palo Alto residents with well-known companies who employ locally. Hats off to them and their businesses which employ people here in Silicon Valley and abroad.

I also applaud the many small businesses who are trying to do well and this kind of broad brush will not help them or the employees of small and large companies alike.


Like this comment
Posted by Appalled
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Dec 15, 2010 at 7:35 am

All I can do is lmao when I hear that it is a "myth" that the rich employ people.

I guess only the poor and unemployed employ people. Those horrid rich, gotta steal more of their money to give to government bureacrats to use as they wish..y'know, government being so very excellent at creating wealth. Obviously, much better to just confiscate everything above the "rich" line..whatever that it is in the eyes of the powerful, and give it to them to use.

Right up there with the insane belief that somehow those on unemployment help the economy. With that same thinking, we should all do our patriotic duty and go on unemployment to help the economy.

And, the idea still persists that somehow we have a system that "hands" money to the rich. No..that is what dictators do, take from the people and keep it. In our system, so far, the wealthy got there by work, risk, and innovation. We were, and hope return soon, to being the country with the best chance for a poor person to get rich.

I truly am shocked, even after all these years of paying attention, to the level of pure insanity on the left. I have concluded that what I used to think was a mean statement "Liberalism is a mental disorder"..is, in fact, nothing less than the truth.

I can't wait for insane to be outnumbered again in Congress.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 15, 2010 at 9:38 am

Obama needs to be removed from office - impeachment sounds good to me - we should find some excuse and fire him. What a disaster.

First, this piles another trillion on the debt instead of taking a trillion off, making any recovery even more of a joke.

Second, this tax deal actually raises taxes on poor people. Those making under 20K the poorest members of our working economy and stepped over again.

Thirds, this defunds Social Security making resolving problems with Social Security even more difficult, and pushing us towards ending that very popular program.

Fouth, the reasoning behind this is specious and dishonest, Obama is not what he claimed when he ran, he is a liar.

This is really awful, the country could not be worse off if the Mafia ran it, and I am not sure they don't.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 15, 2010 at 11:08 am

"Posted by Appalled,
All I can do is lmao when I hear that it is a "myth" that the rich employ people."

Nice try. Read what I said, not slant it to your viewpoint.

***Tax cuts*** for the rich do NOT CREATE jobs, if it did, Bush would have had better job creation than Slick Willy.

Read the SF Chron business section today. Top 25 hedge fund managers take home $25 BILLION between them and pay 15% on it, not even the 36% that you and I pay on top income.

And you tell me that creates jobs? Hedge fund managers at a BILlION a year.

Raise the top rate 3% to the Clinton rates.

That's all.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 15, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Or borrow the money from China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others to give it away to those poor ol' billionaires.

Let our kids pay for the giveaways to Paris Hilton and hedge fund managers.

Where ARE the fiscal conservatives?!?


Like this comment
Posted by Appalled
a resident of Meadow Park
on Dec 15, 2010 at 3:30 pm

I realize this is a waste of time, but I have a perverse optimism that maybe, just maybe, a word will sink in past the kool-aid into a few neurons and something will connect.

Highest tax revenue EVER in real dollars 2006 before Democrats took over Congress.. after 9/11 and the "Bush tax cuts".

What would happen to us right now if we had another 9/11? (God forbid). The Democrat reaction would be to throw everyone into a panic and raise taxes...the exact wrong thing to do. They fought the right reaction then, and they fight it now. Democrats solutions: panic, sky is falling, raise taxes and give Democrats more power to "fix" the problem. Republicans: calm, keep moving, don't give in, lower taxes, get out of the way and let people fix the problems themselves.

Which way do we prefer?

I say again, if it is true that raising taxes is good for our economy, then why haven't the Democrats done it with their full power in all areas, not one bit of ability from anyone to oppose them for the last 2 years?

Because, for all the flapping lips to appease the far left base, even the leading Dems know that raising taxes hurts the economy in the short and long term.

I really don't care how many super filthy rich there are in this country. I haven't one tiny bit of envy, nor one tiny bit of desire to steal anything from them for any reason, even for my top goal of caring for the disabled in our country.

I care only that each of us is free to pursue our dreams in whatever way we wish toward wealth, or not ..free to reap the benefits when we succeed and pay the price when we don't. No more bailouts for anyone AND no more punishing success.

Those with the incredible amount of envy driving them to believe they have the right to steal from anyone else..well, I think it is time to examine yourself if you are one of them. If you weren't so intent on destroying the next generation of this country, I would feel sorry for this cancer eating you up.

BTW..check out the Clinton recession that the media dares not name that we were in before the 9/11..and the incredible recovery we made in just a couple years in spite of the Clinton recession and the economic shock of 9/11.

Or, just keep believing that a nation ruled by class envy that wants to steal from the successful somehow promotes economic growth.... ( this has worked so well so far, hasn't it?).

Better yet.. in your righteous rage, please insist on the Democrats killing the bills in Congress and the Senate right now because they simply don't steal enough from those making over $250,000/year. I wish we made that much also, but I have no desire to steal from those who do..but please, I beg you, I am counting on you Democrats to kill the bills.


Like this comment
Posted by no hero's in this
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2010 at 9:32 pm

And in the end, the deal unchanged, Anna Eshoo voted yes.


Like this comment
Posted by anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2010 at 10:21 pm

Eshoo voted No...

here's the roll call

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by no hero's in this
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2010 at 11:07 pm

sorry I looked at another site that has her voting yes, but I think yours is the definitive one. I stand corrected.


Like this comment
Posted by Appalled
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Dec 17, 2010 at 6:23 am

Sigh...too bad the Repubs had no spine. A 2 year temporary deal will do nothing to inspire confidence in those with money to spend it....and at the same time we now have 3 years..THREE YEARS...of unemployment payments. ( Yet another historical moment), and some silly giveaways to those who don't pay any taxes, and a one year "vote buying" give out of social security tax decrease.

What silly Repubs. This is why the RINOs leaving got voted out, and why the Dems lost in a washout. None of them had the cojones to just extend to February everything as it is now, then let the people's will speak in January.

They HAD to give that last middle finger to the American people before they left. Purposefully...the Dems controlled absolutely everything and still do in this Congress..they could have not put this off until the week before Christmas..they did it on purpose and with malice.

I will never, ever forget the games these ruling elites ( and I put about 6 RINOS in the Senate and about 20 remaining RINOS in the Congress in that category) have played on my children and grandchildren. I will never stop telling them what the, mainly, Democrats did to them and how to watch the Repubs.

Let's hope that DeMint pulls off the filibuster for the Omnibus bill..And let's hope that businesses trust that the new wave of Repubs taking over all branches in the coming years will permanently extend all tax rates for them and us so they can start planning, buying and hiring again.


Like this comment
Posted by Appalled
a resident of Meadow Park
on Dec 17, 2010 at 7:08 am

The massive, over a trillion dollars, Christmas wish candy-filled spending Omnibus bill Reid was trying to cram down our throats died. A pity so much power is in the hands of just a few fickle RINOS, but in this case they swayed back away from the dark side.

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 17, 2010 at 10:36 am

"and I put about 6 RINOS in the Senate and about 20 remaining RINOS in the Congress in that category"

Do another count. Far too many republicans voted for this compared to your count of 6 & 20.

Too many Democrats, too.

Trading <$20 billion for temporary UI for American working families harmed by a recession so we can borrow a trillion from China, Saudi Arabia, etc.. and hand it as a gift to Paris Hilton and hedge fund managers?

Great deal, Mr President.

Warren Buffett was right.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 17, 2010 at 10:53 am

My bad: $50B for temp UI out of $800 Billion borrowed from Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, etc..

As someone wrote: "Surely there are other ways to encourage small businesses to expand their payrolls without giving tax breaks to movie stars, professional athletes, law firm partners and hedge fund billionaires. "

(and in a hat tip to the late great Leslie:) Yes, there are, and quit calling me Shirley.


Like this comment
Posted by Appalled
a resident of Meadow Park
on Dec 17, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Anonymous:

If I weren't a purist, I would agree with you...tax the heck out of anyone who makes 100 million a year..that would be a lot of the movie stars and athletes and those 25 hedge fund managers you are so upset about. But, of course, that would just be a drop in the bucket, and it would still be THEFT. It doesn't belong to anyone but them.

But, it isn't really about that, is it? It is about raising taxes on anyone who makes $200,000 or $250,000 per year..( this year...and $150,000/year next year, and $100,000 per year the year after..just pick a number).


This tax extension bill did not "cost" 800 billion. It cost about 150 billion to our children and grandchildren for a historic 3 rd year of unemployment. ( ANOTHER HISTORIC MOMENT THANKS TO DEMOCRATS!!)

The other 650 billion don't belong to the government, therefore aren't a cost. That is like saying we didn't raise taxes to 90%, so it cost us ..pick a number, say..3 trillion...in "government revenue".

It is false to say that not raising taxes "costs" the government. It doesn't belong to the government in the first place, so it is not a cost.

In fact, raising taxes always actually "costs", because every time we raise taxes, our IRS revenues decrease.


Like this comment
Posted by anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2010 at 1:45 pm

email sent out by Rep. Eshoo this morning.

Dear xxx,

Thank you for contacting me about the recently negotiated tax cut package by President Obama and Congressional Republicans. It's important to me to have heard from you.

While one can find items that are politically and practically attractive in the deal -- in its totality it borrows just shy of one trillion dollars to pay for, amongst other items, expiring tax breaks for the top two percent of our country. I opposed these costly tax breaks when they were first proposed in 2001 and 2003, arguing that they would add $1.8 trillion to our national debt over ten years. And they did. The promise was they would create jobs. They didn't. Now we're repeating history, charging all this to the national debt, borrowing from the Chinese, and borrowing from America's future. That's why I voted against the legislation.

I fear these tax cuts will ultimately become permanent, dimming America's fiscal future as the country struggles with the largest transfer of wealth and debt creation in its history. I believe we should be making investments in capital formation, technological innovation, job creation, and education -- which are the essential building blocks for a strong future for all Americans.

I'm also deeply concerned about the policy of borrowing from the General Fund to cover the reduction of Social Security payroll taxes. This is the first time in our history that we have broken the firewall between the Social Security Trust Fund and other funding -- a dangerous precedent for the Social Security system itself, and one, I believe, we will come to regret.

So, for over 900 billion reasons, I voted to oppose this bill.

If you have any questions or comments, I'd really like to hear from you. I value what my constituents say to me because I always need your thoughts and benefit from your ideas.

I've created an ongoing e-newsletter to keep constituents informed on a variety of congressional issues and legislation. Many constituents tell me how much they value reading it, and if you would like to as well, you can go to my website at Web Link and click on "E-Mail Sign-Up." Your email address will never be used by anyone except my office to communicate with you, and your tax dollars will be conserved by using electronic communications rather than traditional mailings.

Sincerely,

Anna G. Eshoo
Member of Congress


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 17, 2010 at 2:31 pm

appalled: gotta call ya on the beck/hannity/limbaugh koolaid

"It is about raising taxes on anyone who makes $200,000 or $250,000 per year.. "
No, you are wrong. Both dems and repubs were NEVER going to touch anything below $250K. Only one I heard that wanted to let the tax cuts expire for the 98% below $250K/year was David Stockman (ronnie's guy.) If you insist otherwise - show us the links and quotes.

"This tax extension bill did not "cost" 800 billion. " How is increasing the deficit $800 Billion, borrowing it from Iran, China and Saudi Arabia, not a cost to our kids?!?

"In fact, raising taxes always actually "costs", because every time we raise taxes, our IRS revenues decrease"

"EVERY" time?!? Bull. Another Laffer curve, supply side myth. Show me any study that covers a decade (not just the first year afterwards, where the wealthy jump on a cap gains cut to unload,) and I'll be happy to read it. Hint: start at Heritage or any of the other rightie thinktanks funded by the Kochs or Scaiffe.

Otherwise, if tax cuts really increased revenue, how did Reagan's tripling of the debt, and Bush's doubling of the debt occur?!?

"( ANOTHER HISTORIC MOMENT THANKS TO DEMOCRATS!!)"
How many times did repugs vote to extend in this recession? I lost track, four, or five? And how many repubs voted for this deal? As said before, there are NO heroes in this.

Well, at least for the next couple years, we don't have to listen to the alleged "fiscal conservatives" (read: "gop") that just agreed to borrow another trillion from countries that hate us.

Hypocrites. That includes republicans, and Barbara and Dianne, both of whom voted for this deficit buster.


Like this comment
Posted by Appalled
a resident of Meadow Park
on Dec 17, 2010 at 4:01 pm

Good idea, anonymous. I like your suggestion to start reading Heritage.org ( Heritage Foundation).

We agree on that point.

How does debt occur? By spending too much, and/or squashing the economy. It is at its worst when both occur at the same time. A growing number of us are understanding we have to ENCOURAGE economic growth by encouraging creative, risk taking entrepeneurs to develop private wealth, and DISCOURAGE spending. We've had almost 50 years of consistent growth in government spending, combined with 2 huge and long recessions and a couple short ones, offsetting any prior growth..



Glad we agree on the question, also.

Making excellent progress together.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 17, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Well played, appalled.

After my highlighting the errors you post as "facts", you deftly ignore trying to justify your your previous myths and fallacies.

Cuz ya can't. Fox news talking points are a pain to prove, being baseless, and all.

Thanks for the validation.

re: spending - sure, we can agree on tons of cuts: let's start with corporate welfare, bloated war contractor spending, to name a few.

But seriously, thanks again...

Merry Christmas.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Salt & Straw Palo Alto to open Nov. 23
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 4,186 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,439 views

Can we ever improve our schools?
By Diana Diamond | 8 comments | 1,262 views