Audit: Obama Administration Ignores Asset Limits to Enroll More Americans into Food Stamp Program

Just part of Obama’s fundamental transformation of making us all poorer and more dependent upon the government taxpayers.

From Judicial Watch:

As if it weren’t bad enough that a record number of people—46 million and growing—get food stamps from the U.S. government, a federal audit reveals that many who don’t qualify receive them under a special “broad-based” eligibility program that disregards income and asset requirements.

As a result American taxpayers are getting stuck with a multi-million-dollar tab to feed hundreds of thousands who can well afford to feed themselves. Here is the nutshell version of how it came to this; the Obama Administration has promoted food stamps like there’s no tomorrow, asserting that it’s the government’s duty to eradicate “food insecure households.”

In the last few years the administration has spent millions of dollars on ad campaigns to recruit more food-stamp recipients, even doling out hefty cash rewards to local governments that sign up the most people. One state even bragged about a $5 million performance bonus it got from the feds for its “swift processing of applications.”

As a result a record 46.3 million people—including some illegal immigrants—get taxpayer-funded food stamps at an annual cost of $76 billion, according to the agency that distributes the welfare benefit, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This represents an increase of more than 16 million over the previous year, according to USDA figures. It’s only a matter of time before an out-of-control government program like this becomes infested with fraud and corruption.

A few months ago the USDA’s Inspector General revealed that many food-stamp recipients use their welfare benefit to buydrugs, weapons and other contraband from unscrupulous vendors. Some trade food stamps for reduced amounts of cash. The fraud has cost taxpayers nearly $200 million, according to the USDA watchdog, who provided various examples during testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Another Side Effect from ObamaCare will be felt at Tax Time

Thanks to Democrats, who refused to read a bill before voting YEA on it, ObamaCare’s side effects are already taking hold. Insurance premiums and medical costs are increasing, not decreasing as promised. As if these realizations aren’t enough, just wait until April 15th….tax time.

The National Center for Policy Analysis reports:

Due to ObamaCare, millions of Americans may need to spend even more time on the income tax returns that they file in 2015 and beyond — and many will discover they owe the tax man more than before, says Investor’s Business Daily (IBD).

• Beginning in 2014, individuals and families earning 100 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for a federal tax credit to buy insurance via a health insurance exchange.
• The amount of the credit is based on a sliding scale and decreases as income gets closer to 400 percent of the poverty line.
• Ultimately, the size of the tax credit an individual or family receives in 2014 will be based on 2014 income, but initially it will be based on the income reported on the 2012 tax return, filed in 2013.

“In the meantime, your income may have risen or fallen,” said Devon Herrick, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.  ”If it’s risen, then you may have gotten more of subsidy than you deserve and you’ll owe money on your next tax return.  If your income has fallen, you could apply for a tax rebate on your return.”

How many Americans will see their income taxes affected could be substantial, says IBD.

According to Stephen Shore, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University:

• Most households have income changes bigger than 5 percent to 10 percent year to year, up or down.
• About 20 percent of households had an income change of at least 50 percent, up or down, over a one-year period, according to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
• These aren’t necessarily big lifestyle shocks — they are often due to bonuses, a spouse leaving work to have children, or a person leaving school and entering the workforce.

Making sure the tax credit is properly applied will pose serious challenges for the IRS, say some experts.

Read Full Post »

CBO “Extend Bush Tax Cuts would raise output, income and employment”

Even the CBO is pointing out that the Bush Tax Cuts for EVERYONE will raise output, income and employment. No wonder Obama and the Democrats are against it.

CBO reports:

CBO’s Analysis of Fiscal Policy Options

To assist policymakers in their decisions, CBO has quantified the effects that some alternative fiscal policy options would have on the economy. In a January 2010 report, CBO estimated the effects of a diverse set of temporary policy options. The agency reported the results in terms of the two-year effect on the economy per dollar of total budgetary cost, what one might informally call the “bang for the buck.” The overall effects of those policies on the economy would depend also on the scale at which they were implemented; making a significant difference in an economy with an annual output of nearly $15 trillion would involve a considerable budgetary cost.

CBO’s key conclusions from that analysis are as follows:

• A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have a significant positive short-term effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost. Such an increase would slightly raise unemployment among the affected individuals, but it would also raise people’s spending and thereby increase output and employment in the economy overall.
• A temporary reduction in payroll taxes—especially in the share of taxes paid by employers—would also have a significant positive short-term effect on the economy. This approach would boost output and employment both by increasing demand for goods and services and by providing an incentive for additional hiring.
• A number of other temporary policy options, including the expensing of business investment and providing aid to states, would have smaller positive short-term effects on output and employment.
• A temporary increase in infrastructure investment and a temporary across-the-board reduction in income taxes would have still smaller short-term effects on -output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost.

In its January study, CBO also explained that those policy actions would lead to the accumulation of additional government debt that would reduce income in the longer term unless other policies with offsetting effects on future debt were enacted. However, CBO did not quantify those future reductions in income.

At the request of the Chairman, CBO has now estimated the short-term and the longer-term effects of certain tax policy options being considered by the Congress. In particular, CBO studied the effects of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts; extending the higher exemption amounts for the AMT that were in effect in 2009 (adjusted for inflation) for 2010 and subsequent years; and reinstating the estate tax, which expired completely in 2010, for 2011 and subsequent years at the rates in effect in 2009 and with the exemption amounts (adjusted for inflation) that applied in that year. CBO examined four alternative approaches to making those changes: a permanent change affecting all provisions (labeled a “full permanent extension”), a permanent change but without extending certain provisions that would apply only to high-income taxpayers (labeled a “partial permanent extension”), a change affecting all provisions but only through 2012 (“full extension through 2012”), and a change through 2012 but without extending certain provisions that would apply only to high-income taxpayers (“partial extension through 2012”).

The methodology for this analysis was quite similar to the methodology that CBO uses in analyzing the President’s budget each spring. CBO used several models that make different simplifying assumptions about people’s behavior. The models used to estimate the effects on the economy in 2011 and 2012 focus on the policies’ impact on the demand for goods and services, because CBO expects that economic growth in the near term will be restrained by a shortfall in demand. All else being equal, lower tax payments increase demand for goods and services and thereby boost economic activity. In contrast, the models used to estimate the effects on the economy in 2020 and later years focus on the policies’ impact on the supply of labor and capital, because CBO believes that economic growth over that longer horizon will be restrained by supply factors. All else being equal, lower tax revenues increase budget deficits and thereby government borrowing, which crowds out investment, while lower tax rates increase people’s saving and work effort; the net effect on economic activity depends on the balance of those forces. Because the responsiveness of people’s work effort to changes in their after-tax compensation is uncertain, CBO produced estimates based on alternative assumptions about such behavioral responses.

Notwithstanding CBO’s use of alternative models and assumptions, the actual effects of the policy options studied could fall above or below the estimates that CBO reports. With that caveat, the key findings are these:

• All four of the options for extending the expiring income tax cuts would raise output, income, and employment during the next two years, relative to what would occur under current law. A full permanent extension or partial permanent extension would provide a larger boost to income and employment in the next two years than would a temporary extension, and a full extension would provide a larger boost than would the corresponding partial extension.
• But the effects of those policy options on the economy in the longer term would be very different from their effects during the next two years. For some of the options, the estimates based on different models and assumptions cover a broad range. Still, the estimates indicate that all four of the options would probably reduce income relative to what would otherwise occur in 2020. Beyond 2020, and again relative to what would occur under current law, the reductions in income from all four of the policy options would become larger. Either a full or a partial extension of the tax cuts through 2012 would reduce income by much less than would a full or partial permanent extension.

In sum, and as CBO has reported before, permanently or temporarily extending all or part of the expiring income tax cuts would boost income and employment in the next few years relative to what would occur under current law. However, even a temporary extension would add to federal debt and reduce future income if it was not accompanied by other changes in policy. A permanent extension of all of those tax cuts without future increases in taxes or reductions in federal spending would roughly double the projected budget deficit in 2020; a permanent extension of those cuts except for certain provisions that would apply only to high-income taxpayers would increase the budget deficit by roughly three-quarters to four-fifths as much. As a result, if policymakers then wanted to balance the budget in 2020, the required increases in taxes or reductions in spending would amount to a substantial share of the budget—and without significant changes of that sort, federal debt would be on an unsustainable path that would ultimately reduce income. Similarly, even temporary increases in government spending would add to federal debt and reduce future income, and permanent large increases in spending that were not accompanied by other spending reductions or tax increases would put federal debt on an unsustainable path. Compared with the options examined here for extending the expiring tax cuts, various other options for temporarily reducing taxes or increasing government spending would provide a bigger boost to the economy per dollar of cost to the federal government.

Read Full Post »