Tax Cuts

I was not surprised in theory that Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said recently that "a million dollars was not a lot of money" in a disucssion at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. He was responding to President Obama's plan to let Bush tax cuts expire for families making over $250,000 a year. I am surprised, however, that Mr. Steele had the nerve to say this out loud. Given that so many people are out of work, how could he say "a million dollars is not a lot of money?"

A city councilwoman is challenging Baltimore's plan to charge businesses some of the highest stormwater fees in the state - and divert some of the money that had gone to Chesapeake Bay cleanup to help fund property tax cuts. Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke says the Rawlings-Blake administration's stormwater plan would create a financial hardship for many local businesses. And Clarke and environmental groups object to raising revenue intended for pollution abatement to help pay for property tax relief.

I support the Obama administration's proposal to extend Bush tax cuts except the ones applying to the top 2 percent of earners, who average $8 million per year in earnings. To extend millionaires' tax cuts would cost the treasury over $700 billion in the next decade, an increase in national debt that would be unacceptable. Eliminating the tax cuts on the nation's wealthiest would return their tax burden to what it was under President Clinton, the last president who gave us job growth and a balanced budget.

Regarding your article about the $5,600 Maryland spent on security for Gov. Martin O'Malley's visit to the Super Bowl , why couldn't Mr. O'Malley have stayed at the governor's mansion with his two tax buddies, House Speaker Michael Busch and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, and watched the game there? Staying home would have saved Maryland taxpayers a lot of money. Messrs. O'Malley, Busch and Miller have passed so many new taxes on Marylanders that where we live is now known as "The State that Taxes Anything that Moves.

I want to applaud the House of Delegates members who stood up for Marylanders and opposed the tax cuts for casino operators ("Slots déjà vu," June 21). While the governor seems perplexed by this issue, the matter is quite clear. You can't cut taxes for wealthy individuals while you just raised them on everyone else. Dels. Sheila Hixon, Pete Hammen and Frank Turner and House Speaker Michael E. Busch should be thanked by the people of Maryland for standing up for what is right.

In his column, Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.neglects to identify the real causes of the nation's debt ("Debt without end?" May 27). It is due to financing two wars off the budget and by providing welfare - the Bush tax cuts - to the 1-percenters that are the real causes. In his ignorance, he praises Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal which the CBO has analyzed and found financially irresponsible. Additionally, he is ready and willing to throw granny over the cliff because she will not be able to purchase a cost-effective medical insurance policy using a voucher.

Sure is encouraging to hear Senate Democrats supporting reducing taxes for small businesses by $29 billion until you realize they want to cut taxes for only those businesses that hire new workers, or give their current workers raises, or invest in new equipment this year. They believe this will encourage businesses - especially small ones - to hire again. Not likely. From the fourth quarter of 2007, when the recession officially began, to the end of 2009 (official end of the recession)

Finally, a sign that Congressional Republicans may have some flexibility after all. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner's recent disclosure that he'd be willing to vote for President Barack Obama's proposed tax break for families earning $250,000 or less demonstrates that a compromise over Bush-era tax policy is possible. It appears Mr. Boehner has recognized that outrage and extremism only gets you so far. The GOP's all-or-nothing approach to tax cuts — reminiscent of the party's oppose-at-all-costs philosophy toward the president's agenda generally — wasn't going to play well with working class Americans.

Regarding the Congressional Republicans' threat to stall all legislation until tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent are extended, I say to the president, hell no. Thank heaven there are still grown ups in the White House and Senate to deny all this foolishness. Jack Kinstlinger, Baltimore

In your recent editorial ("Compromise possible on tax cuts", Sept. 13), you claim that "Democrats want to preserve the cuts for the middle class but oppose extending the tax break to the wealthy, and rightly so. What was a mistake in 2001 would be just as great a mistake today. " You fail to explain is why this is "rightly so" and why this would be a "mistake. " Is it because you believe the oft-repeated fallacy that tax cuts have to be "funded," or because you actually believe your own rhetoric about the GOP only caring about tax breaks for the rich?

All those who have been scared by the gloomy talk that preceded Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's 10-year plan for Baltimore's finances should find some comfort in her first concrete steps to implement it through her new budget proposal. It contains a number of controversial elements that may be difficult to achieve through legislation or bargaining with the unions. But if all goes according to plan, the biggest change most residents will see will be a reduction in property taxes. Homeowners' rates would go down by 8 cents per $100 in assessed value next year, to $2.168, and everyone else would see a 2-cent cut. For most people, that will more than offset a new, state-mandated storm water management fee that goes into effect July 1. The other tax increases included in the budget will be little felt by residents and don't amount to much anyway: new taxes on billboards ($1 million a year)

Tax season officially kicks off Wednesday, later than usual because lawmakers only this month passed legislation to address expired tax cuts. The IRS needed time to update its forms and systems. Not a problem for procrastinators, but a problem for others used to the tax season starting in mid-January. "It is very painful and very inconvenient" for early filers counting on refunds to pay off holiday credit card bills or other debt, said Mark Steber, chief tax officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Service.

With all the moaning coming from the Tea Party Express and their loyalists in the House Republican Caucus, you would think conservatives had lost everything, including their virtue, in the fiscal cliff parlay with President Barack Obama because taxes are going up on the wealthy. However, if they could just get past their prudish sensibility about backroom compromises, they might recognize that their side actually did rather well in the dead-of-night deal making. Yes, Democrats can claim some good results in the last-minute bargain that was struck to avoid the immediate across-the-board tax hikes and budget cuts that were set to begin on January 1. The Bush era tax cuts for people making more than $400,000 a year were eliminated, and capital gains taxes and estate taxes were raised, providing new revenue sources that Democrats insist are necessary.

By all accounts, President Barack Obama won the fiscal cliff showdown. Why anyone would take much pride in this kind of "win" is beyond me. It's a bit like being the least filthy toddler in the mud pit. One of the main reasons Mr. Obama won, according not only to Mr. Obama but an at times cheering press, is that he had a mandate. He ran on the need for the wealthy to "pay their fair share. " To his credit, Mr. Obama never said raising taxes on the "rich" will solve all of our problems.

A drive through Baltimore reveals signs of economic optimism as well as severe poverty. If the economy is to fully recover from the worst recession in decades, Democrats and Republicans must accept that sacrifices are necessary from both sides ("GOP cancels vote on Plan B," Dec. 21). Unfortunately, the GOP is inexplicably proposing that the poorest and neediest Americans sustain severe cuts to vital services, while the highest income earners are allowed to benefit from continued Bush-era tax cuts.

President Barack Obama expects the Republicans to give into his tax-hike demands ("Progress elusive in fiscal talks," Dec. 14). "I'm pretty confident that Republicans would not hold middle-class taxes hostage in trying to protect tax cuts for high-income individuals," he told Barbara Walters in a recent interview. However, now it seems Mr. Obama's busy party schedule can't accommodate the fiscal cliff talks. Since returning from a trip to Southeast Asia on Nov. 12, Mr. Obama has managed to play three rounds of golf but has met only once face to face with House Speaker John A. Boehner, the man with whom he is trying to strike a deal on taxes and spending to prevent another recession.

I read with glee and marvel Peter Morici's Opinion piece, "Keep all the Bush tax cuts" (Aug. 1). It made me wonder: has Mr. Morici derived his opinion (to preserve the tax cuts for those making more than $250,000) from a charitable disposition to return jobs to America's workers with a wholesome, red, white, and blue belief in the rich's inclination to create well-paying jobs for those making less? Does he possess a sincere belief that through tax cuts for the wealthy, the poor and middle class will find employment – because the wealthy will use those tax cuts to create jobs?

I urge fellow Marylanders to contact their senators and representatives concerning the Bush tax cuts. Extending them for the middle class makes sense because those dollars will be spent immediately for the basics of life. However, extending them for the wealthiest Americans makes no sense, especially since this only adds to our national debt. During our economic crisis, the wealthiest Americans have increased their income more than enough to offset the loss of having their tax cut ended.

With President Barack Obama holding his ground on tax increases for the wealthy, congressional Republicans appear intent to make a tactical retreat from the fiscal cliff to an issue where they believe they have more leverage: the nation's debt ceiling. It's the same trick they pulled to disastrous effect in 2011, and they try it again at their - and the nation's - peril. As we lurch toward the automatic tax increases and spending cuts that go into effect on Jan. 1, it's worth a brief recap of how we got here.

Every kid knows that falling off a cliff is never good, but what about a "fiscal cliff" - how would that feel? Americans may indeed find out, if Congress is unable to pass a budget plan prior to Jan. 1. So, what's at stake if such an event occurs? Plenty. First, some background. Members of both political parties have spent beyond the nation's means for many years. This economic fact of life is a bit more embarrassing for Republicans, since most GOPers at least try to talk a good game of fiscal sense.