Tag Archives: Build Back Better

Ten Lies Told

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Federalist posted an article listing ten lies President Biden told during his press conference.

This is the list of lies:

1. The Nation’s Problem Is COVID

2. Wages Are Up

3. Biden Created Jobs

4. The Supply Chain Crisis Isn’t That Bad

5. Inflation Was Already A Thing Before I Took Office

6. Republicans Want To Steal Minorities’ Right To Vote

7. Schools Aren’t Closed

8. Build Back Better Will Save Americans Money

9. White House Reporters Are The Most Informed Americans Of All Time

10. I Didn’t Compare My Democrat Colleagues To Racists

Please follow the link above to read the details. Some of these statements are such obvious whoppers I don’t even want to comment on them. I remember how often the press accused President Trump of lying with no evidence. Now we have a President who truly struggles to tell the truth and the media is generally silent. It is my hope that American voters are smarter than the press thinks they are.

Remember When The Democrat Party Represented ‘The Little People’?

Posted on by

The days of the Democrat party representing the working American are long gone. A recent item in the Build Back Better Bill illustrates where the Democrat party’s priorities truly lie. The Epoch Times posted an article today about the tax cut for the rich included in the bill.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden repeatedly said he would raise taxes only on the rich to pay for his Build Back Better plan, but now he’s backing a tax break for millionaires and billionaires, contradicting his past promises.

While the White House calls it a “compromise” to move the president’s agenda forward, this is a big deal, according to critics, as Biden and Democrats will likely face a messaging problem heading into 2022 elections.

House Democrats on Nov. 19 passed Biden’s nearly $2 trillion social and climate spending plan. The bill, called the Build Back Better Act, contains a wide variety of tax provisions, including an increased federal deduction for state and local taxes, or SALT.

The plan allows taxpayers to deduct up to $80,000 of state and local taxes against their federal income taxes, a sharp increase from the current $10,000 cap. This means many among the rich would pay lower federal income taxes than they currently pay.

President Donald Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act limited individual’s deduction for SALT payments to $10,000 a year. This cap on deductions, the studies showed, has increased the tax bill for residents of high-tax states, especially those who earn more than $500,000.

Blue states with higher individual income and property tax rates, such as New York, New Jersey, and California, objected to the cap imposed under 2017 tax overhaul, saying that it’s unfair to their residents. Since the passage of tax reform, they’ve tried various tax maneuvers to avoid this limitation.

Critics on both sides of the aisle, however, have said for years that eliminating or raising the SALT deduction cap would be a handout to the rich.

Under the House plan, roughly a third of the tax benefits would go to the richest 1 percent and three-quarters would go to the richest 5 percent, according to an analysis by the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Another analysis by the right-leaning Tax Foundation found that “the top 1 percent of earners would experience a 0.8 percent increase in after-tax income in 2022 due to a more generous SALT deduction.”

Pay attention, Democrats–you  have been hoodwinked by your own party. The Trump tax cuts actually helped those in the middle class. The Biden tax cuts are tax cuts for the rich. It’s a pretty safe bet that no one in the middle class in paying $80,000 in state and local taxes, although California may be looking for a way to make that happen.

Getting Rewarded For Your Political Support

Posted on by

Traditionally the unions have supported the Democrat party. Periodically they are rewarded for their support. Yesterday Red State posted an article that illustrates how that system works.

The article reports:

In yet another example that powerful teachers unions and labor unions enjoy joint custody of Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, the ridiculously named socialist monstrosity “Build Back Better” Act contains a provision that provides a tax credit of up to $12,500 to purchasers of electric vehicles — other than Teslas.

Why not Teslas? Three words: United Autoworkers Union.

That’s right, America, as reported by CBS News, only electric vehicles made in unionized U.S. factories qualify for the full $12,500. However, if Tesla it must be, your tax credit would be capped at $7,500.

The article lists the criteria for the tax credit (note that it is a tax credit–not a refund–the government doesn’t want you to keep too much of your own money):

  • A credit of up to $7,500 for an electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle, defined as a car with a battery capacity of at least 40 kilowatt-hours and a gas tank, if any, under 2.5 gallons.
  • An additional $500 credit for a car with a battery pack made in the U.S.
  • An additional $4,500 credit for cars assembled at a unionized U.S. plant. (Currently, only plants owned by GM, Ford, and Stellantis qualify [formerly, Fiat-Chrysler].)

The information above comes from CBS News.

The article continues:

In addition, to qualify for tax credits under Biden’s BBB (Build Back Broke), electric vehicles must fall under a price limit. Vans, sports utility vehicles, and pickup trucks need to be under $80,000 to be eligible for the credit; for all other cars, the price limit is $55,000.

The article concludes:

The worst part about the Democrat Party in situations like this — blatant pandering to labor unions — is the complete disingenuousness of the whole thing. We know — and they know we know — that “climate change,” “green energy,” and fossil fuels have less to do with this provision, along with taxpayer relief and “good-paying jobs,” and more to do with delivering to the UAW exactly what it expects.

Doubt it? One look at the Democrat coddling of teachers’ unions should eliminate any doubt.

I guess the unions are simply getting what they have paid for.

How Things Actually Work

Posted on by

On November 5th, The Daily Signal posted an article about the proposed child care subsidies and universal pre-kindergarten.

The article reports:

Proposed federal spending on these two early-childhood programs add up to $400 billion through 2028, a large chunk of the newest framework of the so-called Build Back Better legislative package released by the Biden administration totaling about $1.75 trillion.

The universal preschool provision would fund and regulate government-approved pre-K available for all 3- and 4-year-old children in states that apply for the funding. The child care subsidies cap the amount that families would pay at no more than 7% of their income on day care by giving families certificates to pay for government-approved providers.

While these policies are undesirable for all parents and children for many reasons, one of the arguments from those who favor universal pre-K and child care programs is that the costs will be more than offset by the tax dollars paid by mothers who will then be able to join the formal labor force and who otherwise would not have.

Note that only government-approved providers will be subsidized.
I wonder if that will include church-related daycare. The argument that these programs would pay for themselves does not take into account the fact that many mothers would prefer to stay home with their children. Unless the program provided for that option, it could be considered discriminatory against stay-at-home mothers. The obvious question is, “Why does the government want to be the one to raise our children?”

The article concludes:

Gallup polling shows that half of mothers with a child under the age of 18 would prefer to stay home with their children if they could. And 57% of families prefer for a parent or relative to be the main source of child care.

These new programs stack the deck against those preferred options.

Speaking of what parents want, families of about 1.5 million school-aged kids decided they want more control of K-12 education and less government interference in schooling.

The recent winning gubernatorial campaign of Republican Glenn Youngkin in Virginia pressed hard on the pain point parents have with their government-run schools. All of the evidence points to a desire for less government intervention in the lives of their children, not more.

Of course, any talk of child care programs should center around children. And the same 2008 Quebec study that government child care proponents tout for finding positive effects on the maternal labor force also finds significant negative health and behavioral outcomes for the participating children.

The notion that central planners have found a “free lunch” in child care and pre-K is not supported by the evidence. Universal pre-K and child care subsidies would be bad for children, families, and taxpayers.

The main beneficiary would be the teachers unions, who would have a steady new supply of union members, thanks to what would effectively amount to the K-12 system becoming a P3-12 system.

This is another example of follow the money. The teachers’ union funnels a lot of money into Democrat campaign coffers. They are looking for a return on that investment.