topnav

Home Issues & Campaigns Agency Members Community News Contact Us

Community News

Open dialogue among community members is an important part of successful advocacy. Take Action California believes that the more information and discussion we have about what's important to us, the more empowered we all are to make change.

Showing posts with label fiscal state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fiscal state. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Corporate Taxes on Table in Cliff Talks

By DAMIAN PALETTAJANET HOOK and CAROL E. LEE—Jared A. Favole contributed to this article.
Via the Wall Street JournalThe White House has told Republicans it would include an overhaul of the corporate-tax code as part of any deal to reduce the deficit, people familiar with the talks said, a move to court business groups as budget negotiations intensify.

Corporate taxes hadn't until now been part of budget talks aimed at averting spending cuts and tax increases set for January. Much of the focus has instead been on the expiring individual income-tax rates.

The offer from the White House came amid a fresh round of proposals from both sides, as President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner exchanged counteroffers to address the so-called fiscal cliff. Big gaps remain between Democratic and Republican negotiators, and while talks are continuing, there is no guarantee a deal will be struck, with or without a corporate-tax revamp.

On Wednesday, Mr. Boehner criticized Mr. Obama's latest plan, saying it is unbalanced by focusing too much on tax increases. "His plan does not begin to solve our debt crisis; it actually increases spending," Mr. Boehner said.

The White House's corporate-tax suggestion wasn't specific, according to officials familiar with the offer, other than committing to overhaul the corporate tax code in 2013. White House officials, in making the suggestion, cited a corporate-tax plan the administration unveiled in February but said they weren't wedded to any specifics.

Left unclear is the crucial question of how any revamp would affect companies' overall tax burden. That is one reason why Republicans considered it a tactical offer only, and not one that might help seal a deal.

As part of its budget proposal, the White House also slightly lowered its target for new tax revenue to $1.4 trillion, down from Mr. Obama's initial offer of $1.6 trillion, officials said. It retained items from an earlier offer that had irked Republicans, included new stimulus spending and an increase in the U.S.'s borrowing limit.

Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, responded Tuesday with a proposal that wasn't "dramatically" different from the one he made to the White House last week, according to an official familiar with the talks, who declined to elaborate.

The flurry of activity showed the talks were moving along, albeit haltingly. Messrs. Boehner and Obama discussed the negotiations by phone Tuesday evening. The White House in recent days also has been talking with Democratic leaders about the types of spending cuts that might accompany any deal, to calm increasing queasiness in the party over the direction of the talks.

In a brief update on the House floor earlier Tuesday, Mr. Boehner asked, "Where are the president's spending cuts?" He added: "We are still waiting for the White House to identify what specific cuts the president is willing to make." He accused the White House of "slow-walking" the talks. Republicans viewed the White House's latest offer as not that different from its first—heavy on new taxes and light on ideas to trim spending.

Political reaction to the corporate-tax idea split along party lines. A senior Democratic aide described the addition as a smart way of making concessions without having to touch entitlement programs.

Republicans said they didn't consider the move a concession at all, given their assumption that the corporate tax code would be tackled at some point. "It's a red herring," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. He said keeping individual rates low was a more immediate priority because of its impact on small businesses, many of which aren't structured as corporations, and whose owners pay taxes through the individual tax system.

The White House earlier this year proposed lowering the corporate rate to 28% from 35%, and even lower for manufacturing companies. Lower rates would be combined with eliminating some tax deductions in the White House plan, with the net effect being that the tax burden on companies would remain about the same. But it would be a simpler and clearer system, which many CEOs have sought.

Many Republicans have offered similar proposals, though their proposals call for lowering the corporate rate to 25%. Neither plan gained any traction.

An overhaul of the corporate-tax code came up repeatedly during Mr. Obama's recent meetings to discuss the fiscal cliff with chief executives at the White House. Some CEOs signaled a willingness to accept higher individual tax rates to bring in more revenue, but they said the corporate code needed to be redrawn because it hurt U.S. competitiveness. By agreeing to include an overhaul of the corporate-tax code as part of these discussions, the White House could be trying to further attract business groups to its deficit-reduction plan.Democrats and Republicans involved in the cliff talks are trying to design a two-phase timetable. If a deal is reached, it would lock in some changes to taxes and spending rules by the end of 2012 and then require a number of more significant changes next year to entitlement programs and the tax code. The White House's corporate-tax plan would fit into the second phase, giving lawmakers, White House officials and business groups time to work through the details.
The White House's February proposal to redesign the corporate tax code received a lukewarm reception from business groups. Many were supportive of the proposal to lower rates but worried about which industries might get hurt by an accompanying elimination of tax breaks. Many large businesses were also unhappy the White House didn't back a proposal to shield profits from foreign affiliates from U.S. taxation.

Still, business groups saw that early proposal as a starting point, and hoped it would lead to a comprehensive deal, a point several echoed on Tuesday during a conference call organized by the Business Roundtable trade group.

"Start at wiping out all of the deductions, figuring out where that tax rate is—whether it's 25%, 22%, 15%, whatever it is," said Douglas Oberhelman, the chief executive of construction-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. CAT +0.71% "I think all of us are on that wavelength today to begin the process."

Corporate income taxes make up about 10% of revenue collected by the government. In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the government received $2.449 trillion in revenue, with $242 billion of that coming from corporate income taxes.

Big differences remain between the two sides, and in public the Republicans and Democrats continued to hammer at each others' ideas.

The administration's new proposal made no major concessions on entitlements such as Medicare, which it is withholding until Republicans give up ground on tax rates. Republicans likewise want first to see more details on spending cuts.

The Business Roundtable for the first time Tuesday backed the possibility of higher tax rates as part of a broader package of changes to reduce the deficit. The group previously called for extending all the Bush-era tax rates.

John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable, an influential trade group that represents large corporations, said he thought a proposal to overhaul the corporate tax code would be well-received by Democrats and Republicans, but wouldn't be enough to replace Republican demands for spending cuts. Still, he said it would help expand the scope of the package, which could ultimately draw more backers.

A small but growing number of Republicans have argued that the party should give up on blocking any rate increase on higher-income Americans and instead shift focus to securing spending cuts as part of the deal.

Some Democrats regard Republicans' eventual concession on taxes as a foregone conclusion, and they have begun to talk among themselves about which concessions on entitlement programs they might be asked to make.

The three leading proposals floated by Republicans include increasing the eligibility age for Medicare, requiring wealthier people to pay more for Medicare and changing the formula for calculating Consumer Price Index adjustments to slow the growth of Social Security benefits.Many Democrats are especially concerned about looming Medicare cuts if they include a GOP proposal to raise the eligibility age. "If people are working in coal mines in West Virginia, it's really inhumane to talk about raising the eligibility age," said House Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, who is close to Mr. Obama. "For those of us in air-conditioned offices to talk about raising the age, that's fine for us to say."

Many Democrats acknowledge that any deficit-reduction package will include proposals they don't like. "There's no way to do this without both sides giving up something," said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.).

Administration officials have been engaged in conversations with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to bring them along as Mr. Obama negotiates with Mr. Boehner. Those conversations have picked up in recent days as the White House takes soundings from Democratic leaders on what might be possible for the party to stomach in a final deal.

Republicans are frustrated that they haven't secured larger spending-cut commitments from Mr. Obama in exchange for what they see as a major and early concession from Mr. Boehner on tax revenue, said people familiar with the talks.

In his speech Tuesday, Mr. Boehner argued that Mr. Obama's proposed tax increase barely scratches the surface of the deficit problem.

"Even if we did exactly what the president wants, we would see red as far as the eye can see," Mr. Boehner told the House. Aides said Mr. Boehner decided to make the speech because he believed recent reports of tentative progress in his talks with Mr. Obama played down differences that remain on spending.

The White House rejected Mr. Boehner's complaint that Mr. Obama hadn't put forward detailed spending cuts.

"What we haven't seen from Republicans to this day is a single specific proposal on revenue," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "And in fact, we've seen less specificity from Republicans on spending cuts than the president himself has proposed."


Wednesday, November 21, 2012

California's budget shows signs of a surplus, analyst says



SACRAMENTO, CALIF. -- The state's fiscal analyst said Wednesday that California's long-tattered budget is on the verge of producing surpluses, but he cautioned that Gov. Jerry Brown and lawmakers must first avoid a spending spree.

The improved outlook comes after voters approved two tax initiatives last week, and the California economy and housing market showed signs of perking up. State leaders have also cut programs in recent years.

It was the nonpartisan legislative analyst's most optimistic fiscal forecast since the dot-com boom 12 years ago. It shows a relatively small $1.9 billion deficit through June 2014 against a $97.7 billion general fund, followed by annual surpluses that grow beyond $9 billion in 2017-18.

"For the first time since about 2001, we actually show us being in the black," Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor said. "This is a dramatic turnaround."

Those numbers, however, rely on assumptions that few Capitol veterans expect to hold – namely that Democratic lawmakers will keep programs at current spending levels after years of forcing allies to accept cuts and no cost-of-living increases. It also assumes steady economic growth and no broad federal tax hikes or deep spending cuts.

Spending demands are already hitting Sacramento. University of California officials made clear Wednesday they want more money next year, warning that tuition hikes may occur otherwise. Social service advocates have clamored to restore programs such as dental care for low-income adults in Medi-Cal.

Brown said in a statement that he intends to "continue to exercise fiscal discipline and pay down debt." But Democratic lawmakers will have a two-thirds supermajority, gaining the ability to increase taxes and fees on their own as well as greater leverage in negotiations with the governor.

"It's difficult to imagine anyone on the short end of those types of budget cuts accepting them without a fight," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. "If you're a legislator who has a battalion of interest groups outside your door trying to drag you in one direction and the governor on the phone trying to convince you to hold firm, it's not a fun place to be."

In the immediate budget cycle, the state faces a $1.9 billion deficit through June 2014, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. Just one year ago, it predicted a $13 billion gap over a comparable time period, and a $25 billion shortfall the year before that.

Voters last week approved Brown's tax initiative, Proposition 30, to increase income taxes on top earners and sales taxes by a quarter-cent on the dollar to generate $6 billion annually through 2018-19. They passed a separate initiative, Proposition 39, to permanently raise taxes on some corporations by $1 billion a year.

Despite those new taxes, the analyst's office believes the state faces a short-term deficit largely because it will not receive about $1.8 billion that Brown expected from eliminating redevelopment agencies. The analyst also says state leaders can't use $400 million in cap-and-trade revenues to plug the budget, and California faces higher than predicted wildfire costs.

The immediate deficit would have been higher had Brown's Department of Finance not discovered a surprising amount of additional money this month. Finance officials said they revised their accounting of past revenues – mostly income taxes – to reveal an additional $1.4 billion available for the budget.

That money was not reported to the Legislative Analyst's Office until the afternoon of June 6 – the same day voters approved Proposition 30. Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said his department found the money as part of an annual review that assigns revenues to past budget years.

The legislative analyst's fiscal forecast serves as the unofficial kickoff to the budget season. Brown will set things in motion when he releases his 2013-14 budget in January.

Taylor hinted Wednesday the governor may believe he faces no deficit at all if he uses a higher estimate of redevelopment funds and cap-and-trade revenues.

As state revenues increase, K-12 schools and community colleges will receive more money under a funding formula in the state constitution. Schools may use the money to hire additional teachers, increase salaries or restore subject matter that had been cut.

But Taylor said the state's finances are not yet strong enough to enable similar expansion in public programs such as Medi-Cal, universities and in-home care – all of which lack the mandated spending increases that K-14 schools have.

"I think it's a little bit of a tale of two budgets there," Taylor said.

As lawmakers and Brown enjoy an influx in revenues and possibly surpluses in years to come, the analyst's office offered advice that mirrored the wisdom commonly dispensed to consumers by personal finance experts. It suggested that state leaders build an emergency reserve, pay off debt, devote more cash to retirement costs and be very selective about buying back programs.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D–Sacramento, told The Bee's editorial board Wednesday that he wants to do all of that, though he didn't commit to how he would divvy up the budget.

"Obviously we're not going to be able to reinvest dramatically in year one and year two or in year three," Steinberg said. "Obviously we're not going to be able to make up for all the losses that have occurred in education, higher education, public safety and health and human services in the short run."

But Steinberg added that he wants to pursue a "medium- to long-term investment plan" that would devote funds to a rainy-day fund, program restorations and paying off debt.

The legislative analyst's forecast relies on a steady economic recovery in California. Its projections show the state unemployment rate dropping from 10.6 percent in 2012 to 6.7 percent in 2017. It also assumes that personal income will grow by between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent annually.

Taylor warned that the state and national economy could suffer if federal leaders do not avert the so-called fiscal cliff in which taxes increase and spending cuts would occur. His projections assume that President Barack Obama and Congress will reach a deal that avoids the most severe impacts.

Posted on Thu, Nov. 15, 2012 06:20 AM

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/15/3918200/californias-budget-shows-signs.html#storylink=cpy