> Subject: [PEN-L:11442] Child tax credit
> If I read yesterday's WSJ correctly, it seems that Clinton has agreed that
> whatever the upper limit on income for qualification for this $500 per
> child tax credit, so-called "very poor" families (<$19,000yr) will not be
> able to receive it putatively because they already receive other offsets.
The tax bill remains entirely in flux. The Administration and the
GOP could compromise on the extent of refundability of the tax
credit. There will be no deal without at least some gains for the
working poor. The Administration has been pretty strong on this
particular point so far.
The real problem with the tax bill for the Administration is the
proposed indexation of capital gains. That's the only feature that
they've indicated would trigger a veto. That's unfortunate because
there is lots of other garbage in the bill which Clinton would let
pass in order to get his budget.
I have two journalistic pieces on this topic on my web page, if
anyone is interested (URL is below).
The Republicans have been passing appropriations bills
rapidly. This means the President is gaining enormous
leverage in the negotiations because every bill that is
passed is another chunk of the government that can't
be shut down. With no deal, the so-called entitlement
programs (e.g., social insurance, welfare) go on as under
current law. It's getting to the point where the White
House could walk away if they don't get what they want
and suffer no ill consequences at all. Even the deficit
is projected to go into surplus in two years under the
status quo. A great opportunity for a Democrat in the
WH, if only we had one.
> As if those who will qualify for this credit don't receive other kinds of
> offsets! This is just a war on the poor, a violent eugenics of the type
> sanctioned by The Bell Curve. And Clinton has agreed to it. Clinton stands
Not exactly, see above.
> here to the right of some Democrats in the House and the Senate who have
Did you just sail in? Clinton is to the right of the median
Democratic Member of Congress.
> . . .
> Of course the headline should have read "Bipartisan Support for Negative
> Eugenics Prompts Less Outrage Than In Nazi Germany"
I would say that whether or not low-income families with
children get a few hundred dollars per kid in tax credit
refunds is not quite on a par with 'Eugenics.' Save your
energy for when we really need it.
Cheers,
Max
"People say I'm arrogant, but I know better."
-- John Sununu
===================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
http://epn.org/sawicky
Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===================================================
