Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I Oppose the Tax Deal (DeMint)
Senate Conservatives.com E-mail ^ | December 10, 2010 | Jim DeMint

Posted on 12/10/2010 8:36:41 AM PST by SharpRightTurn

Dear Fellow Conservatives:

Many of you have contacted me about the bipartisan tax deal reached between President Obama and Republican leaders. I've carefully reviewed the legislation and I wanted to explain to you why I cannot support it.

First, I do not want to see anyone's taxes go up and I have been fighting for years to permanently extend all the tax rates. I disagree with the President that we cannot afford to extend these rates for everyone. It's the people's money and we should not raise taxes on hardworking American families.

But this bill does much more than simply extend tax rates.

For starters, it includes approximately $200 billion in new deficit spending and stimulus gimmicks. That's a lot of money that will have to be borrowed from China and repaid by our children and grandchildren. If we're going to increase spending on new programs, we must reduce other spending to pay for it.

The bill also only extends rates for two years. We don't have a temporary economy so we shouldn't have temporary tax rates. Individuals and businesses make decisions looking at the long-term and we're not going to create jobs without giving people certainty as to what their taxes will be in future.

The bill also fails to extend all of the tax rates. It actually increases the death tax from its current rate of zero percent all the way up to 35 percent. One economic study shows that this tax increase alone will kill over 800,000 jobs over the next ten years.

Finally, the bill now includes dozens of earmarks for special interests, including ethanol subsidies, tax breaks for film and television producers, give aways for Puerto Rican rum manufacturers, favors for auto racing track owners, and a hand out for businesses in American Samoa.

The President called Republicans "hostage takers" this week but he should be pointing his figure squarely at himself. We've known for years that these tax rates were going to expire but he did nothing about it until the last minute. Now Americans are being told they have to accept hundreds of billions in new spending and stimulus gimmicks, an increase the death tax, and a bunch of unnecessary earmarks or their taxes will go up.

I'm not going to be bullied into voting for things that will hurt our country because politicians in Washington ignored the problem until it was a crisis.

Many of you fought hard to elect new leaders to the Senate this year with the expectation that they would fight deficit spending, tax hikes, and backroom deals. I take that commitment very seriously and I'm prepared to vote against this bill even if I'm the only one in the Senate to do so.

I appreciate the efforts made by my party's leaders to negotiate this deal but I believe Americans deserve much better. This deal should be rejected and then fixed. We can easily extend these tax rates without increasing spending once the new crop of Republican senators, including Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Johnson, are sworn in. The President has already conceded that taxes cannot go up and we'll have more Republicans in Congress in a few weeks to fight for a better deal.

Thank you for supporting the principles of freedom and for your continued encouragement. I will continue to do my very best to be your voice in the United States Senate.

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint United States Senator Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: deficits; demint; earmark; earmarks; pork; spending; tax; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: SharpRightTurn
I agree with DeMint.

Why in hell do our feckless GOP “leaders” need to cave in to this weak d!ck deal the first place? They have the electorate solidly behind them and the moral wind at their backs. Why bail the Democrats out of their sinking boat?

It's obvious the GOP didn't earn the name “The Stupid Party” for nothing. They are so anxious to “make a deal”, they will make any deal as long as they can stay buddies with their "friends" across the aisle and get nice media reviews.

They have been in Washington way too long. They need to return to America.

21 posted on 12/10/2010 9:14:30 AM PST by Gritty (Never bet against Republicans being outwitted - Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

DeMint gets it.

It’s a shame that so many others don’t and apparently never will.


22 posted on 12/10/2010 9:17:43 AM PST by Gator113 (Sarah Palin can win, and she will win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

“Bi-partisan” means the pubbies caved. I do not want bi-partisanship. I want what is good for all the citizens of this country.

Any pubbie or so-called conservative who embraces bi-partisanship should be rejected as a candidate for or voted out of office.


23 posted on 12/10/2010 9:20:58 AM PST by dools0007world
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; SharpRightTurn

DeMint ping.


24 posted on 12/10/2010 9:23:52 AM PST by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

I agree with DeMint.

The Republicans will be in a much better position to get a better bill when the new Congress convenes next year.


25 posted on 12/10/2010 9:27:55 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

No, no, no.

Cutting tax rates encourages wealth production and grows the economy.

Increasing taxes punishes wealth production and shrinks the economy.

Here’s the thing. Whatever the tax regime, the Govt ends up with about 18% of GDP. That’s the empirical amount, that’s what happens in economies as different as e.g. Mexico, Sweden, Dubai - and America. 18% is about all that can be squeezed out of a country while keeping it as a going concern.

So the solution to improving the economy AND reducing the deficit are the same solution. Reduce taxes, reduce regulation, reduce legal vulnerability - and let the wealth producers do what they’re best at. 18% of a bigger pie will pay down that deficit.

Hope this is helpful.


26 posted on 12/10/2010 9:40:28 AM PST by agere_contra (...what if we won't eat the dog food?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn
Here is all DeMint needed to say:

It's not our money, and I will not be a party to theft.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

27 posted on 12/10/2010 9:45:23 AM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

bflr


28 posted on 12/10/2010 9:45:23 AM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dools0007world
I swear, the Establishment GOP acts like it lost seats in November. I'm fine with the GOP not gloating about victory, but geez, the Repubs weren't elected to become place-mats for status quo beltway politics.
29 posted on 12/10/2010 10:20:52 AM PST by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

“I swear, the Establishment GOP acts like it lost seats in November.”

Heh. They did.


30 posted on 12/10/2010 10:28:17 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans - don't read their lips. Watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

I want to see that study. almost no one would actually pay that tax (it is 35% on inheritances only over 5 million dollars) and it is a significant decrease compared to every year except 2010. I think between 2003-2009 it was 45% on more than 3 million dollars, and before 2001 it was 55% on more than one million, which is much higher than the compromise rate for 2011

2010 is the only year in recent times that has had no estate tax and it has made virtually no impact at all on the economy.

If Demint wants to filibuster this and destroy the deal, we will have a 55% estate tax on all inheritances over 1 million dollars starting on Jan. 1.


31 posted on 12/10/2010 10:28:44 AM PST by ChurtleDawg (voting only encourages them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

I want to see that study. almost no one would actually pay that tax (it is 35% on inheritances only over 5 million dollars) and it is a significant decrease compared to every year except 2010. I think between 2003-2009 it was 45% on more than 3 million dollars, and before 2001 it was 55% on more than one million, which is much higher than the compromise rate for 2011

2010 is the only year in recent times that has had no estate tax and it has made virtually no impact at all on the economy.

If Demint wants to filibuster this and destroy the deal, we will have a 55% estate tax on all inheritances over 1 million dollars starting on Jan. 1.


32 posted on 12/10/2010 10:31:55 AM PST by ChurtleDawg (voting only encourages them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Believe what you wish, but the historical link between taxation of higher income individuals at anything below confiscatory levels and economic growth is tenuous at best.

In the meantime, we continue to run structural deficits due to the voters demands for services that we cannot afford at current levels of taxation; this is the problem with “starving the beast”: we end up with BOTH “Tax and spend Democrats” AND “Spend and borrow” Republicans.

Of course, people are free to believe that eventually voters will see the light and accept much lower levels of spending, or that eventually we will experience a salutary economic collapse which will force them to do so.

This did not work out so well for conservative in the 1930s.


33 posted on 12/10/2010 10:51:48 AM PST by M. Dodge Thomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

It’s Bush II.

Increases spending.

Cuts Taxes.

Hastens the day we default on our debt and all our savings are ruined and no one can have anything but the most basic barter-system job.

I’m so glad I get to vote for Demint.


34 posted on 12/10/2010 11:08:59 AM PST by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChurtleDawg

“I want to see that study. almost no one would actually pay that tax...”

—Why does the number of people paying the tax matter? If you have an estate tax that only applies to a few family businesses/farms who hire thousands of people (who will be let go because of this), is this somehow better??

“2010 is the only year in recent times that has had no estate tax and it has made virtually no impact at all on the economy.”

—How can you measure what would have happened in the alternative? (Besides, because of the tax rules, the negative effects of estate taxes often carry forward to the following year after the individual dies.)

“If Demint wants to filibuster this and destroy the deal, we will have a 55% estate tax on all inheritances over 1 million dollars starting on Jan. 1.”

—No. The GOP makes it clear now it will fight to make this retroactive when it takes up the issue with much stronger numbers in January.

I believe this is the study referenced (even a modest 15% estate tax will kill over 350,00 jobs in that timeframe):

http://www.nodeathtax.org/uploads/view/2028/economic_impacts_of_estate_tax_reform_9-13-10.pdf


35 posted on 12/10/2010 11:10:32 AM PST by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

I was just saying that these employment numbers don’t really ring true to me. we have had generations paying a much higher estate tax than the 2011 rate, with much higher employment numbers than we have in a non estate tax year. The estate tax would be paid by so few people even in the event that none of them do any estate planning, it’s effect would be negligible.

Even then, I don’t understand why inherited money should be treated so much better than money I earned at work. If I have to pay taxes on my income then why should people inheriting millions of dollars pay none?


36 posted on 12/10/2010 11:36:00 AM PST by ChurtleDawg (voting only encourages them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ChurtleDawg

“I was just saying that these employment numbers don’t really ring true to me. we have had generations paying a much higher estate tax than the 2011 rate, with much higher employment numbers than we have in a non estate tax year.”

—You can’t simply view this issue in a vacuum. The estate tax involves a multitude of economic factors. And it’s just basic conomics that a higher tax on small businesses will create more unemployment. It would be one thing if the tax was truly designed to pay down the debt and spending was frozen...but Obama and the Dems have shown absolutely no interest in that happening.

“Even then, I don’t understand why inherited money should be treated so much better than money I earned at work. If I have to pay taxes on my income then why should people inheriting millions of dollars pay none.”

—Because it’s earned: And it’s not like the small family businesses subject to the estate tax weren’t paying taxes on earnings all those years it had income, just like you. Would it be better if we had a $250,00 exclusion limit on the estate tax or something to that effect, and allowed the government to basically take over a slew of middle-class individuals’ wealth, as well, to be consistent with your argument?


37 posted on 12/10/2010 11:57:37 AM PST by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric; 506Lake; alrea; Amanda King; americanophile; Artemis Webb; Babsig; be-baw; ...
Thanks for the ping Gene Eric.

Jim DeMint is whaling on that nail again.

  
Jim
DeMint
Ping!

Want on or off this ping list? Just FReepmail me.

Follow Sen. DeMint on Twitter.

38 posted on 12/10/2010 3:16:25 PM PST by upchuck (When excerpting please use the entire 300 words we are allowed. No more one or two sentence posts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

With the exception if the UI extension, I was going along okay with the tax bill until they cluttered it up with all the POS frigging earmarks. Completely unnecessary.

Jim DeMint, as usual, is 100% correct; let’s take it up in January.


39 posted on 12/10/2010 3:17:14 PM PST by upchuck (When excerpting please use the entire 300 words we are allowed. No more one or two sentence posts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Senator DeMint will find a way to filibuster or to stop this monstrosity from coming to a vote. I so pray.


40 posted on 12/10/2010 3:24:46 PM PST by onyx (If you truly support Sarah Palin and want on her busy ping list, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson