Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Michael Arcuri on Tax Reform

Democrat


Tax cuts should be aimed at the working middle class

Mike on the Bush Tax Cuts... “I believe tax cuts should be aimed at the working middle class. Tax cuts should be aimed first at the working middle class, and the child tax credit should be made permanent. But I oppose tax credits to big oil companies, corporations and the wealthiest Americans at a time when we cannot balance the budget and are forced to make drastic cuts in student aid and health care.”
Source: Campaign website, www.arcuriforcongress.com, “Issues” Nov 7, 2006

Voted YES on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Internal Revenue Code to:
  1. increase and extend through 2008 the alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amounts;
  2. extend through 2008 the offset of personal tax credits against AMT tax liabilities; Reference: Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act; Bill H.R.6275 ; vote number 2008-455 on Jun 25, 2008

    Voted YES on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes.

    H.R.4351: To provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), via an offset of nonrefundable personal tax credits. [The AMT was originally intended to apply only to people with very high incomes, to ensure that they paid a fair amount of income tax. As inflation occurred, more people became subject to the AMT, and now it applies to people at upper-middle-class income levels as well. Both sides agree that the AMT should be changed to apply only to the wealthy; at issue in this bill is whether the cost of that change should be offset with a tax increase elsewhere or with no offset at all. -- ed.]

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    Rep. RANGEL: We have the opportunity to provide relief to upward of some 25 million people from being hit by a $50 billion tax increase, which it was never thought could happen to these people. Almost apart from this, we have an opportunity to close a very unfair tax provision, that certainly no one has come to me to defend, which prevents a handful of people from having unlimited funds being shipped overseas under deferred compensation and escaping liability. Nobody, liberal or conservative, believes that these AMT taxpayers should be hit by a tax that we didn't intend. But also, no one has the guts to defend the offshore deferred compensation. So what is the problem?

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    Rep. McCRERY: This is a bill that would patch the AMT, and then increase other taxes for the patch costs. Republicans are for patching the AMT. Where we differ is over the question of whether we need to pay for the patch by raising other taxes. The President's budget includes a 1-year patch on the AMT without a pay-for. That is what the Senate passed by a rather large vote very recently, 88-5. The President has said he won't sign the bill that is before us today. Republicans have argued against applying PAYGO to the AMT patch. In many ways PAYGO has shown itself to be a farce.

    Reference: AMT Relief Act; Bill HR4351 ; vote number 2007-1153 on Dec 12, 2007

    50-25-25 budget formula for debt-tax cuts-spending.

    Arcuri adopted the Blue Dog Coalition press release:

    The 33 member Blue Dog Coalition applauds Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for his commitment to fiscal responsibility. In a floor speech today, Senator Lieberman called for a budget framework that would devote half of the budget surplus to debt reduction, a quarter of the remaining funds to tax cuts, the final quarter to targeted spending increases in America’s priority programs. Senator Lieberman touted a mantra long held by the Blue Dogs that “our top priority must remain debt reduction.”

    Senator Lieberman’s position closely reflects the “50-25-25” equation for responsible budgeting long advocated by the Blue Dog Coalition. The Blue Dogs’ formula would extract the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds from the projected budget surplus and use half of the remaining funds to pay down the national debt. After committing 50 percent to debt reduction, 25 percent would be allocated to tax cuts and the remaining 25 percent would fund increases in priority programs, such as education, agriculture, defense, and health care. “The 50-25-25 budget framework is a common sense, fiscally conservative approach that will provide for a healthy economy, lower taxes, and reduction of our national debt. I am pleased that Senator Lieberman stressed the need for fiscal discipline,” said Blue Dog Budget Task Force Co-Chairman, Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS).

    “Senator Lieberman got it exactly right,” said Blue Dog Co-Chairman Rep. Jim Turner (D-TX). “We need a budget that meets our commitments and lives up to our responsibilities. Most importantly, we need a budget that adds up. The 50-25-25 framework is a smart, conservative, approach that prioritizes paying down the debt and still leaves room for real tax relief.”

    Source: Blue Dog Coalition press release 01-BDC3 on Feb 8, 2001

    2010 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Tax Reform: Michael Arcuri on other issues:
    NY Gubernatorial:
    David Paterson
    NY Senatorial:
    Charles Schumer
    Jay Townsend
    Joe DioGuardi
    Kirsten Gillibrand

    Special elections
    in 111th Congress:


    GA-9:Deal(R)
    Jun.2010:Graves(R)

    PA-12:Murtha(D)
    May 2010:Critz(D)

    HI-1:Abercrombie(D)
    May 2010:Djou(R)

    FL-19:Wexler(D)
    Apr.2010:Deutch(D)

    CA-10:Tauscher(D)
    Nov.2009:Garamendi(D)

    NY-20:McHugh(R)
    Nov.2009:Owens(D)

    CA-32:Solis(D)
    Jul.2009:Chu(D)

    IL-5:Emanuel(D)
    Apr.2009:Quigley(D)

    NY-20:Gillibrand(D)
    Mar.2009:Murphy(D)


    Senate races in 2010:
    AK:Miller(R) vs.McAdams(D)
    AL:Shelby(R) vs.Barnes(D)
    AR:Lincoln(D) vs.Boozman(R)
    AZ:McCain(R) vs.Glassman(D)
    CA:Boxer(D) vs.Fiorina(R) vs.Lightfoot(L)
    CO:Bennet(D) vs.Buck(R)
    CT:Blumenthal(D) vs.McMahon(R)
    DE:Coons(D) vs.Castle(R) vs.O`Donnell(R)
    FL:Rubio(R) vs.Crist(I) vs.Meek(D) vs.DeCastro(C) vs.Snitker(L) vs.Bradley(V)
    GA:Isakson(R) vs.Thurmond(D)
    HI:Inouye(D) vs.Cavasso(R)
    IA:Grassley(R) vs.Conlin(D)
    ID:Crapo(R) vs.Sullivan(D)
    IL:Giannoulias(D) vs.Kirk(R)
    IN:Ellsworth(D) vs.Coats(R)
    KS:Johnston(D) vs.Moran(R)
    KY:Conway(D) vs.Paul(R)
    LA:Vitter(R) vs.Melancon(D)
    MO:Carnahan(R) vs.Blunt(D)
    MD:Mikulski(D) vs.Wargotz(R)
    NC:Burr(R) vs.Marshall(D)
    ND:Potter(D) vs.Hoeven(R)
    NH:Alciere(R) vs.Ayotte(R) vs.Hodes(D)
    NV:Reid(D) vs.Angle(R)
    NY6:Schumer(D) vs.Townsend(R)
    NY2:Gillibrand(D) vs.DioGuardi(R)
    OH:Fisher(R) vs.Portman(D) vs.Deaton(C)
    OK:Coburn(R) vs.Myles(D)
    OR:Wyden(D) vs.Huffman(R)
    PA:Toomey(R) vs.Sestak(D)
    SC:DeMint(R) vs.Greene(D)
    SD:Thune(R) vs.Berry(D)
    UT:Lee(R) vs.Granato(D)
    VT:Leahy(D) vs.Freilich(D)
    WA:Murray(D) vs.Rossi(R)
    WI:Feingold(D) vs.Johnson(D)
    WV:Manchin(D) vs.Raese(R)
    Abortion
    Budget/Economy
    Civil Rights
    Corporations
    Crime
    Drugs
    Education
    Energy/Oil
    Environment
    Families/Children
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    Govt. Reform
    Gun Control
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Immigration
    Infrastructure/Technology
    Jobs
    Principles/Values
    Social Security
    Tax Reform
    War/Iraq/Mideast
    Welfare/Poverty

    Main Page
    Profile
    NY politicians

    Page last updated: Sep 15, 2010