Analysis: Democrats' discord undercuts Obama estate tax push

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Divisions among Democrats are undermining President Barack Obama's push to raise the U.S. estate tax on inherited wealth, just weeks before the arrival of the "fiscal cliff" could drive the present estate tax rate even higher than Obama proposes.
Action on the estate tax could be postponed. But in his successful re-election campaign, Obama called for wealthy Americans to pay more in taxes - and it is overwhelmingly the wealthy who pay the estate tax.
The outcome may hinge on whether Obama insists on his estate tax proposal - or something close to it - as forcefully as he has insisted on raising individual income tax rates for high income-earners, or whether he lets the issue be put off.
If a single facet of the complicated partisan stand-off over taxing the wealthy best captures Capitol Hill's fiscal gridlock, it may be the estate tax - a long-standing and volatile issue - that may finally be coming to a head.
"If you look at where the public is on tax issues compared to the last time this was debated - it is night and day," said Frank Clemente, campaign manager for left-leaning Americans for Tax Fairness. "They are deep into this tax fairness position."
The "fiscal cliff" is a collection of federal tax increases and automatic government spending cuts that, if allowed to take effect as scheduled early in 2013, could push the U.S. economy into recession, according to economists' forecasts.
Part of the picture is the estate tax.
Under laws signed a decade ago by former Republican President George W. Bush, the estate tax is applied to inherited assets at 35 percent after a $5 million exemption. That means a deceased person can pass on an inheritance of up to $5 million before any tax applies.
Inherited wealth passed to a spouse or a federally recognized charity is generally not taxed.
Obama wants to raise the rate to 45 percent after a $3.5 million exemption. If the Bush rates are allowed to expire and Congress does nothing, the rate will shoot up next year to the pre-Bush levels of 55 percent after a $1 million exemption.
SCHUMER ON ESTATE TAX
New York Senator Charles Schumer on Thursday said the Democrats' proposal to avert the "fiscal cliff" involves $1 trillion in immediate deficit reduction that includes new revenue from raising the estate tax to the level proposed by Obama.
No less a power broker than Democratic Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said this week, however, that he wants to hold the estate tax steady at current rates.
Baucus is up for re-election in 2014 from Montana. He says ranch and farm owners in his state would stand to lose if federal taxes rose on passing property to heirs.
"Rural Montana is much different than urban America," Baucus told Reuters in a brief interview in the U.S. Capitol.
He told a Montana newspaper on Sunday that he would even support scrapping the estate tax altogether, as most Republicans favor. A spokesman for Baucus - the Senate's top tax law writer - said he will seek as much estate tax "relief" as he can get.
At least three other rural-state Democratic senators have proposed extending current estate tax rates: Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Spokesmen for Pryor and McCaskill said everything is on the table as Congress struggles to deal with the "fiscal cliff."
But one thing is clear: the voice of farming lobbyists is registering with Democrats on the volatile estate tax issue, although it is only marginally about farms and ranches.
BEYOND FARMS AND RANCHES
The estate tax's impact extends beyond farmers and ranchers. It applies mostly to very wealthy Americans, whose taxes have been specifically targeted for increase by a president whom voters returned to the White House just three weeks ago following a tough campaign in which taxes were a key topic.
Of the 3,600 estates subject to the estate tax this year, only 100 are classified as farming estates, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans pay nearly all of the estate tax under current rates, according to the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan fiscal policy think tank.
The number of estates subject to the tax would double under the plan proposed by Obama. About 300 farming estates would be subject to the tax under Obama's terms, which would raise about $100 billion in new revenue for the government over 10 years.
Republicans have benefited previously from Democratic division over the tax. In July, Senate Democrats shelved a plan to raise the estate tax with a symbolic extension of the Bush tax rates for the middle-class.
A senior Senate Democratic aide said the tax was pulled from the bill because Obama felt strongly about boosting the tax. It is unclear how hard he will fight for his position this time.
BY ANY OTHER NAME
The divide between the political parties over the tax is so wide that they cannot even agree on a name for it. Democrats call it the estate tax, as it is described in law.
Republicans, who generally want to repeal it, have another, more provocative name. They call it the "death tax" and characterize it as a penalty on being wealthy and successful.
First enacted nearly a century ago to combat the rise of dynastic wealth and check income disparity, the estate tax is the most progressive tax there is. That means it hits the wealthy much more than lower income groups.
It was a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, that proposed the first permanent inheritance tax, arguing that inheritance of "enormous fortunes" does a society no good.
"No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax," Roosevelt said.
Another decade passed before it was adopted in 1916, partly to fund World War I. The rate has waxed and waned, hitting a high of 77 percent prior to World War II.

Read More..

Canadian year-to-date budget deficit narrows in September

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's federal budget deficit dropped in the first six months of the fiscal year, falling to C$8.9 billion ($9.0 billion) in April to September from a C$11.8 billion shortfall in the same period of last year, the Department of Finance said on Friday.
The monthly deficit in September fell slightly to C$2.69 billion from C$2.75 billion in September 2011.
Revenues in the first six months of the fiscal year were up by 2.8 percent, compared with the same period in 2011, reflecting higher income tax revenues, excise taxes and duties, the finance department said.
Program expenses rose by 1.4 percent, mainly due to higher transfer payments.
September revenues fell by 0.1 percent from September 2011 while program expenses increased by 0.6 percent. Public debt charges fell by 7.6 percent.

Read More..

Number of ND 'income millionaires' jumps by 102

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A record number of North Dakotans reported seven-figure incomes last year, many of whom are benefiting from the state's oil bonanza, the state Tax Department says.
Figures released to The Associated Press show a record 634 people reported incomes of more than $1 million on their 2011 individual tax returns, up from 532 in 2010 and 384 in 2009. In 2006, while North Dakota's oil boom was in its infancy, there were 339 so-called "income millionaires."
About 90 percent of the drilling in western North Dakota occurs on private land.
Tax Department analyst Kathy Strombeck said the increase in the number of North Dakotans with million-dollar incomes comes largely from royalties paid to mineral owners by oil companies.
"Oil has a lot to do with it," she said. "I imagine we'll see growth for a while as we ratchet up projection."
Through September, North Dakota already has set an oil production record for the fifth consecutive year and the state is on pace to best the previous mark by more than 50 million barrels. The state Department of Mineral Resources said crude production through September totaled more than 173.9 million barrels, up from the record 152.9 million barrels set last year.
Tax Department records show the average adjusted gross income in the state increased from $53,036 in 2010 to $60,947 last year. The average adjusted gross income on 2006 returns was about $43,300.
The number of returns has jumped from 339,000 in 2006 to 403,625 last year. The total reported income has increased from $14.6 billion to $21.9 billion during those years, data show.
Tax Commissioner Cory Fong said the higher incomes and the increase in the number of people filing tax returns in the state "adds to the narrative of what we've got going on here in North Dakota."
The oil industry has helped grow wages throughout the state and created hundreds of high-paying jobs. It also has an effect on other industries, including wholesale trade and manufacturing, he said.
"In a way, it's lifting all boats," Fong said.
A strong overall economy and healthy agriculture sector also are factors, Fong said.

Read More..

Obama says Republican "fiscal cliff" plan out of balance

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama rejected a Republican proposal to resolve a looming fiscal crisis on Tuesday as "still out of balance" and insisted any deal must include a rise in income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.
Obama told Bloomberg Television that the Republicans' reliance on eliminating tax deductions instead of letting taxes rise on Americans making more than $250,000 a year would not raise enough money to fund the government.
House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, the top Republican in Congress, laid out a proposal on Monday that called for spending cuts but did not give any ground on Obama's call for an increase in tax rates for the top 2 percent of U.S. earners.
"Unfortunately, the Speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance. You know, he talks, for example, about $800 billion worth of revenues, but he says he's going to do that by lowering rates. And when you look at the math, it doesn't work," Obama said.
Obama, who won re-election last month, said it was important for Republicans to acknowledge that tax rates had to rise for top earners to raise revenue sufficient to balance spending cuts.
"We're going to have to see the rates on the top 2 percent go up. And we're not going to be able to get a deal without it," he said.
Obama said on Tuesday that while tax rates must go up for a "fiscal cliff" deal, it may be possible to lower rates at the top end of the scale late next year as part of tax reforms that would close loopholes and limit deductions.
"Let's let those go up," Obama told Bloomberg in an interview, referring to tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.
"And then let's set up a process with a time certain, at the end of 2013 or the fall of 2013, where we work on tax reform, we look at what loopholes and deductions both Democrats and Republicans are willing to close, and it's possible that we may be able to lower rates by broadening the base at that point."
Obama acknowledged there were more spending cuts that could be made and he pledged to work with Boehner to trim what he called excessive healthcare costs in the budget but that a deal was not possible without raising tax rates on the wealthy.
"There's probably more cuts that we can squeeze out, although we've already made over $1 trillion worth of spending cuts," he said.
Obama said there was not enough time this year to come up with an overhaul of the U.S. tax system and entitlement programs that Republicans want as a condition for an agreement to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts set to start in 2013 that economists predict will throw the economy into depression.
He said that despite weaknesses in Europe and Asia, he believed the U.S. economy is "poised to take off."
Obama added he is considering bringing a top business executive onto his economic team, but that the Senate confirmation process can be so difficult that some business executives shy away from government service.

Read More..

Republicans see some leverage in "fiscal cliff" talks

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Republicans may have some leverage in their fiscal cliffhanger with President Barack Obama: the threat of forcing a disproportionate number of Democrats to pay the so-called alternative minimum tax.
Under U.S. law, taxpayers each year must pay the greater of regular federal income tax, or the AMT. The latter requires taxpayers to give up certain tax breaks, typically exemptions and deductions for state and local taxes and medical costs.
Only about 4 million taxpayers pay the AMT because Congress routinely passes a law to adjust for inflation, to spare middle-income and upper-middle income taxpayers. Without this legislative fix, called a "patch" by lawmakers, up to 33 million taxpayers will have to pay an AMT liability for 2012, according to the Internal Revenue Service.
That is one in five taxpayers.
The number of taxpayers affected by the AMT would jump because the AMT exemption amounts and income brackets do not automatically rise with inflation and also because across-the-board individual tax cuts a decade ago did not cut AMT rates.
States with the wealthiest taxpayers and the steepest state taxes, which typically cannot be deducted under the AMT, include New York, California and Illinois - Democratic strongholds.
That may make the threat of a lapse one of the Republicans' strongest cards after Obama's re-election last month on a theme of tax fairness.
"The AMT is one of the more significant pieces of leverage that the Republicans have," said Evan Liddiard, a former tax adviser to Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. "It will pinch harder in the blue states."
That may make Republicans less likely to agree to a bill that addresses only the AMT.
Obama's Democrats and Republicans, led by House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, have been battling while trying to keep from falling over a $600 billion "fiscal cliff" - a combination of tax increases and spending cuts due to be implemented early next year.
Now at a standstill, talks on how to avert the fiscal cliff have been largely focused on whether to renew low tax rates for the wealthiest taxpayers along with everyone else.
In a brief interview in the Capitol, Hatch said voters in the Democratic-leaning states will not be amused if their taxes go up unexpectedly.
"When they find out they are going to get hammered because of the AMT and the lack of plan by this administration to resolve that problem, yes, I think that will cost them (the Democrats) a few votes," Hatch said.
Because the latest AMT patch expired in 2011, it is in some ways more urgent to address the AMT than the Bush-era tax cuts expiring at the end of December.
Congress last patched the AMT in the lame-duck session in 2010. A bipartisan bill passed by the Senate finance committee to patch AMT for 2012 and 2013 was estimated to cost $132.2 billion.
The cost is one reason the AMT never gets patched permanently. Republicans generally want to scrap the AMT altogether; Obama's latest budget calls for adjusting it for inflation.
IRS WARNINGS
Further complicating the AMT picture is the chaos predicted for the tax-filing season due to begin on January 22, the first working day after Obama's inauguration ceremony in Washington.
A letter from the tax-collecting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller on potential agency problems related to the fiscal cliff focuses almost exclusively on the AMT.
Failure to "patch" the AMT could lead to 60 million taxpayers not being able to file tax returns or get a refund, in addition to a software nightmare for the IRS computer systems.
Miller wrote lawmakers on November 13 warning them of serious repercussions for taxpayers, including 28 million with a "very large unexpected tax liability," and delays in refunds for millions.
"Consistent with past practice, I have instructed IRS staff again this year to leave our core systems "as-is" with respect to the AMT, and hold off on the substantial design and engineering work" required otherwise, he wrote.
Miller last briefed the Senate Finance Committee about the need for action late last month, according to a Senate source.
Representative Richard Neal, a senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee who represents parts of Massachusetts, said fixing the AMT was an absolute must.
"It has to be done. It reaches too many people if it's not," Neal said. "I think it is again being used as (a) bargaining (chip)."
Republicans say they are holding out for a bigger deal.
"That is not going to solve the fiscal cliff," said Republican Representative Pat Tiberi, who leads the revenue sub-panel of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
"It is a very important part of the tax code but once you start picking winners and losers in the tax code, how do you get ... the big deal done?"

Read More..

Obama Meets With Wounded Troops at Walter Reed

President Barack Obama has met with wounded service members during a visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
The president traveled to the hospital just outside Washington by helicopter a few hours before the House was expected to consider a Republican proposal to address the "fiscal cliff."
The White House says the president met with 10 wounded troops during his stay. It was Obama's first visit to the hospital since Sept. 11.
Obama has frequently visited service members wounded in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars during his presidency.

Read More..

Cliff Poses Tiny Dollar Gap, Wide Political Ravine

When it comes to resolving their "fiscal cliff" impasse, the dollar gap between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner is tiny in federal terms. That masks a monumental political ravine the two men must try to bridge, with most of the burden on the now beleaguered Boehner.
Short of support from his own Republican Party, a chagrined speaker abruptly canceled a House vote Thursday night on his so-called Plan B. The measure would have prevented looming tax increases on everyone but people earning over $1 million annually, but was opposed by rank-and-file Republican lawmakers unwilling to vote for any tax increases at all.
Now Boehner, R-Ohio, and Obama seem likely to bargain anew over a broad package of tax increases and spending cuts, with Thursday night's GOP retreat weakening Boehner's leverage. Ticking ever louder is the start of the new year, which by law will usher in hundreds of billions in tax increases and spending cuts — the "fiscal cliff" — unless the two men avert it by crafting a compromise deficit-cutting package that can get through the GOP-run House and Democratic-led Senate.
Despite the impassioned political clash that the "cliff" has prompted, weeks of intermittent bargaining between Obama and Boehner have left them facing relatively miniscule dollar differences by Washington standards.
Obama wants to raise taxes by about $20 billion a year more than Boehner. The two men differ over spending cuts by roughly the same amount.
By almost any measure, $20 billion is real money. Yet compared to the $2.6 trillion the government expects to collect next year and to the $3.6 trillion it plans to spend, $20 billion barely registers — less than 1 percent of what the government already is on track to raise and spend. Relative to the U.S. economy, which should weigh in at well over $15 trillion next year, $20 billion is even smaller.
"The policy implication is very slight," Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a non-partisan anti-deficit group, said of the $20 billion gaps between Obama and Boehner. "It's not worth the price of not getting a deal. And the impact on the economy is totally insignificant."
On the other hand, economists have warned that the "cliff's" massive tax boosts and budget cuts would heave the economy back into a recession, although likely a brief one.
Though the numbers separating them are small, Obama and Boehner have real policy disputes. Yet their inability to strike a compromise so far underscores that their problem is more than arithmetic: It's largely driven by the difficult politics that Obama and Boehner face in firming up support from their own parties.
Boehner's clout was weakened by the Plan B debacle, and it remains unclear how many GOP votes he could deliver for any compromise he might reach with Obama. Yet while his Plan B would have received virtually no Democratic votes, a bipartisan accord with Obama likely would get significant backing from House Democrats, lightening Boehner's load.
Even before Thursday, the president and the speaker each faced formidable political challenges.
Chastened by Obama's re-election, Boehner has violated a quarter-century of Republican dogma by offering to raise taxes, including boosting income tax rates on earnings exceeding $1 million annually.
Eager for a budget deal that would bolster his legacy and let him address other issues, Obama would cut the growth of Social Security benefits, usually off-limits to Democrats. He also would impose tax increases on a broader swath of people than millionaires — those with incomes over $400,000. That figure is a retreat from what he campaigned on: a $200,000 income ceiling on individuals and $250,000 on couples.
Those concessions mean that both men have angered lawmakers and staunch supporters of their respective parties. Neither wants to risk his political capital by embracing a deal his own party rejects.
"When you walk into a room and represent a group and you have to give ground to get a deal, you have to stay in that room as long as you can and you have to walk out with blood on your brow," said Joseph Minarik, research director for the Committee for Economic Development and a veteran of grueling budget talks as a former Clinton White House and House Democratic aide. "Otherwise, the people outside the room don't believe you've fought hard for them."
In their talks, Obama has proposed raising taxes by $1.2 trillion over the coming decade by boosting the current top 35 percent rate to 39.6 percent for income over $400,000, plus other increases on the highest-earning Americans.
He also says he's offered about $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, including slowing the growth of benefits from Social Security and other programs. His proposed spending cuts also include $400 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid, the health care programs for the elderly and poor whose defense Democrats consider precious priorities.
Boehner has offered about $1 trillion in tax increases and roughly the same amount in spending savings. An earlier Boehner offer included $600 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings — well more than Obama — but it's unclear whether the speaker is still seeking that figure.
Because of a dispute over how some savings are classified, Boehner says Obama's offer is really $1.3 trillion in higher taxes and only about $850 billion in spending cuts.
The House speaker says Obama's offer is not balanced because its new taxes and spending cuts are unequal. And he complains it does too little to control fast-growing benefit programs like Medicare, a chief driver of the federal government's mushrooming deficits.
Yet while their offers are relatively close, another obstacle they face is that even slight changes in the numbers could force politically significant policy alterations.
Adding, say, another $100 billion to the tax increase over 10 years could mean that people with incomes well below $1 million a year would get a tax increase, something Boehner wants to limit.
On the other hand, adding $100 billion more in spending cuts could mean a deeper hit than Obama wants to Medicare. The president prefers to limit Medicare cuts to the reimbursements that doctors and other health care providers receive, but ever deeper cuts could mean more doctors would be likely to stop treating Medicare patients — an outcome Democrats don't want.

Read More..

Texas cancer agency's nonprofit defends privacy

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A foundation that boosts executive salaries at Texas' troubled $3 billion cancer-fighting effort defended to critical lawmakers Thursday a policy that keeps donors confidential while being lectured over appearances of pay-to-play politics.
Facing pointed and occasionally combative questions from state budget-writers, officials with the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas appeared before a public panel for the first time since prosecutors announced a criminal probe into the beleaguered agency and Gov. Rick Perry called for a moratorium on new awards.
Not all members of the influential House Appropriations Committee were happy with who showed up to testify. Absent were the three top agency executives who have resigned in the past eight months: Executive Director Bill Gimson, Chief Commercialization Officer Jerry Cobbs and Chief Scientific Officer Alfred Gilman.
All three are principal players surrounding $11 million in taxpayer funds that were awarded in 2010 to a private startup despite the project bypassing an independent review. Republican Jim Pitts, chairman of the House committee, left the door open to the agency's former leadership being hauled in front of lawmakers as soon as January.
That left Barbara Canales, vice president of the nonprofit CPRIT Foundation and a member of the agency's governing board, answering recurring and tough questions about the role of the nonprofit arm. One of the foundation's chief purposes is to supplement the salaries of top institute executives, including Gimson, whose annual salary was $300,000.
The foundation has denied media requests to make its donor list public.
"We have a balancing act to weigh here as board members, and to protect the privacy of our donors so they're not unfairly solicited," Canales said.
Rules prohibit donors from being awarded institute grants, Canales and CPRIT officials testified. But Democrat Rep. Sylvester Turner — who said, "We want an organization with integrity, not a slush fund" — and other lawmakers pressed for certainty that foundation donors were not connected to grant winners.
"What I can tell you is: To the best of my knowledge, it is not our policy to accept donors who are also grant" recipients, Canales said.
Republican Rep. Myra Crownover and other board member said the mere appearance was problematic.
"The pay-to-play potential — maybe there should be more division," Crownover said.
The foundation has raised around $700,000 in each the last two years, according to Canales.
Thursday's hearing came a day after Perry and other state leaders called for a moratorium on new grants until confidence is restored in a once-celebrated agency that has been thrown into upheaval in just three years. The institute controls the nation's second-largest pot of cancer research dollars, behind the National Institutes of Health.
The federal department's cancer-research arm, the National Cancer Institute, also has said it is reviewing the troubles surrounding the Texas agency.
Turmoil has beset the Texas agency practically all year, but prosecutors didn't take notice until the revelation of an $11 million award to Dallas-based Peloton Therapeutics that was approved without an independent review. Gimson has chalked up the award as an honest mistake and has said that, to his knowledge, no one at the agency personally profited from the award.
Peloton received its funding in 2010. Lawmakers asked agency officials whether any of its leadership had known for the last two years that Peloton's proposal had never been scrutinized.
"I can't look into the mind of employees," said Kristen Doyle, the agency's general counsel. "But there are investigations that are going to answer those questions,"

Read More..

Fiscal Cliff 'Plan B' Is Dead: Now What?

The defeat of his Plan B - Republicans pulled it when it became clear it would be voted down - is a big defeat for Speaker of the House John Boehner. It demonstrates definitively that there is no fiscal cliff deal that can pass the House on Republican votes alone.
Boehner could not even muster the votes to pass something that would only allow tax rates on those making more than $1 million to go up.
Boehner's Plan B ran into opposition from conservative and tea party groups -including Heritage Action, Freedom Works and the Club for Growth - but it became impossible to pass it after Senate Democrats vowed not to take up the bill and the president threatened to veto it. Conservative Republicans saw no reason to vote for a bill conservative activists opposed - especially if it had no hopes of going anywhere anyway.
Plan B is dead.
Now what?
House Republicans say it is now up to the Senate to act. Senate Democrats say it is now up to Boehner to reach an agreement with President Obama.
Each side is saying the other must move.
The bottom line: The only plausible solution is for President Obama and Speaker Boehner to do what they have failed repeatedly to do: come up with a truly bi-partisan deal.
The prospects look grimmer than ever. It will be interesting to see if the markets react.

Read More..