1. Five Percent Across the Board Income Tax Cut – This provision would reduce the six federal income tax rates by 5% beginning with 2008, and make the new rates permanent.

If the purpose of an economic stimulus is to provide individuals and families with some relief so that they can more confidently participate in our economy, then a tax cut is clearly a good idea.

2. Increase child tax credit from 1,000 to 5,000 – Under current law, families are eligible for a $1,000 tax credit for each child under the age of 17.  This provision would increase, and make permanent, an increase in the child tax credit to $5,000 beginning in 2008.

I am in favor of anything that provides relief to families with children.  However, I feel that there needs to be some oversight for this kind of thing, to ensure that families are not exploiting this benefit.  I am not certain how it could be implemented, but it needs to be mandatory for families receiving this tax cut to spend a certain percentage of their income only on goods and services that directly benefit the children.  I fear the American tendencies towards excess that would see this money being spent on things that are unnecessary, with no change in the livelihoods of the children.

3. Make the Lower 15% Rate on Capital Gains and Dividends Permanent – Under current law the lower rates (15%) currently in effect expire at the end of 2010, which means that the top capital gains rate will go back to 20% and the top tax rate for dividends will be 39.6%.

I fervently disagree with this provision as it appears to only benefit the wealthy.  If it were amended to benefit only those making beneath a certain income – say $200,000, then perhaps it would be more reasonable.  Although everyone is suffering in these harsh economic times – relatively speaking – the extremely wealthy are still at least very wealthy and will manage even with the capital gains tax increase.

4. Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax on Individuals  – The AMT was created in 1969 to prevent 155 wealthy taxpayers from using loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying taxes altogether.  Under current law, the tax will hit more than 30 million people in 2009.

Again I disagree, because I am skeptical of completely eliminating something for the sake of the wealthy.  However, after reading about the AMT, pros and cons, I agree with those who think that it needs to be examined and perhaps reformed.  It can’t hurt to take a look and revise it for our current economic needs.

5. Permanently Repeal Required Distributions on Retirement Accounts – Under current law, senior citizens, beginning at the age of 70-and-a-half, are required to make mandatory withdrawals from their IRAs and 401(k)s.

If anyone’s suffering during these times, it’s the elderly.  My job has made me quite aware of the the ridiculously high costs of eldercare, and the insufficiency of medicare and medicaid to cover their expenses.  If this provision will truly provide them with relief, then it is a good thing.  Furthermore, I do not even understand why seniors should be forced to do anything with their money that they do not wish to do.  The reasoning behind the required distributions escapes me.

6. Make All Withdrawals from IRAs Tax- and Penalty-Free During 2009 – As a general matter, the purpose of 401(k)s and IRAs is to incentivize retirement savings. However, individuals who are facing foreclosure or some other financial emergency during the current recession should have penalty-free access to all of their savings.

It is easy to see how this relates to economic stimulus, so I agree with it for the same reason that I agree with the across-the-board tax cut.  While this will do virtually nothing for the lower class, who for the most part do not have IRAs and 401(k)s, it will be worth it for the middle class who have invested well.

7. Increase by 50% the Tax Deduction on Student Loans and the Tax Deduction on Qualified Higher Education Expenses -this would increase by 50% the tax deduction of for interest on student loans and higher education expenses to $3,750 and $6,000 respectively.

As a member of the [lower] middle-class who can personally attest to the crippling burden of student loans, I have to agree with this provision.  I didn’t even know until now that I could claim these deductions at all.  Too bad I’ve already filed for 2009.  In any case, this will most certainly help struggling families, since colleges and universities, regardless of the economic climate, only see fit to raise the cost of education.

8. Full Immediate Expensing – would allow all businesses to immediately expense—or fully
deduct on their tax returns—the costs of assets (including buildings) they purchase for their business in the year that they buy such assets.

I agree with this provision in principle, but only businesses with revenue below a certain amount, so that it cannot be exploited by wealthy and greedy corporations the same was as the  the bank bailout.  Furthermore, it should have a statute of limitations, and be extended only so long as it is necessary for fixing the economy.

9. Significant Reduction in the Top Corporate Income Tax Rate – The bill would immediately cut the top corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%

Here’s where the Republicans show their hand as pro-corporate.  Still, I can agree for businesses making beneath a certain amount (say $500,000), for the reasons mentioned above, but there must be rigorous oversight to ensure that this is not exploited.  It also should not be permanent.

10. End the Capital Gains Tax on Inflation – Under current law, the capital gains tax is based on the difference in the original purchase price of the asset and the sale price of the asset. However, some of this difference, or “gain,” can be attributed to inflation

I think this needs to be analyzed thoroughly to determine just how much gain can be attributed to inflation, so that this is not just another tax-cut for the wealthy and corporations disguised under a separate pretext.  Unless individuals are taking a major hit (relative to their wealth) as a result of this tax, then I don’t think it needs to be repealed.

11. Simplify the Capital Gains Rate Structure – allow corporations to benefit from the
15% capital gains rate.

Absolutely not, unless accompanied by a strict limitation on employee raises/bonuses, to prevent CEOs and the like from pocketing the extra money or the company from splurging on unnecessary expenses like executive hotel parties.  Did we learn nothing from the unlawful excesses of AIG executives?

12. Make the R and D Tax Credit Permanent – The Research and Development tax credit is currently due to expire at the end of 2009.  Originally enacted as party of President Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, it has since been extended on 13 separate occasions without being made permanent. The purpose of this tax provision is to spur research and development in the private sector.

I completely disagree with this provision.  The tax credit should continue to be observed and extended where plausible, to prevent exploitation.  A company could feasibly categorize nearly any expense as “R&D”, and so oversight is required before any tax credits can be given.  Were our current financial burdens not the result of the disgraces of wealthy corporations, then perhaps we could be more lenient, but as things stand now – especially in light of how the bailout was handled – tax credits for companies need to be streamlined and tightly regulated.

There are a few provisions in ERMCRA that I do not understand, and as such I will not comment on them.  Overall, I’d say that the bill is strong for how it proposes to stimulate the economy and provide families with immediate relief, but as with all things Republican, I am skeptical of any provisions that mostly (or only) benefit the wealthy and corporations.  And it seems that much of this bill involves tax cuts for those very groups, only under given a variety of different names.

To be clear, I am not necessarily opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy – which is why I have no problem with the 5% across the board cut. After all, it is only fair.  But those things which only benefit the wealthy, the country – the majority of which are not wealthy – can do without.  The wealthy always have the option of giving tax-deductable donations to charities, which allows them some greater measure of control of where their money goes.  If they are not inclined to give, then neither should the rest of the country be inclined to shoulder their tax cuts.

I am also not necessarily opposed to tax cuts for businesses, especially not small businesses which for in many cases are merely self-employed individuals.  As for the larger corporations, any tax cuts granted to them must come with mandatory oversight – I can’t state that enough – and with the expectation, if not obligation, that they use the money to create new jobs for Americans.

So while ERMCRA has some fine provisions, it is in need of some serious revisions, so that its purpose remains economic stimulus, and not libertarian-style deregulation – which has only proven to broaden the socioeconomic gap between the rich and poor, and completely ignore the middle.  This may all be moot, however, as the Republicans probably lack the support to see this bill pass the House.  Still, one would hope that whatever form the final stimulus package takes, that it takes some of the more useful items of ERMCRA into consideration – in the name of bipartisanship, and for the sake of the economy.

So that we’re clear, that would be communism. And it is even further from what Obama is proposing than libertarian free-market capitalism. One need look no further than Obama’s surrogates (a practice the right is obsessed with when it suits their agenda) to determine whether or not his economic policies evoke communism. Cue Warren Buffett, currently the richest man on the planet Earth, and one of Obama’s campaign advisors. Buffett would have more to lose than anyone were the United States to somehow become communist, so I doubt that he would support a candidate running on such a platform.

In my view, there is at least one vein of socialism which is appealing, and that is one where all citizens are entitled to a basic level of fundamental services (food, shelter, medical care) – something that out of necessity would require government intervention. The downside, of course, is that the taxes would be crushing by comparison to our current system, but when you consider that the money lost in taxes is going to paying for the things you’d spend it on, anyway, it doesn’t seem so bad.

But what’s important to note is that in such a system, there would not be any cap on income potential, meaning that after the baseline was established for all citizens, any individual could be expected to make income above and beyond the baseline for any additional comforts or flat-out indulgences they see fit. In other words, socialism in this sense would be just like capitalism, except that everyone would be taken care of at least on the most basic level.

I understand the arguments of people who don’t want their money going into a pool that benefits people they deem lazy – including people who are actually lazy, but here I would appeal to their better natures, and point out that where society is better as a whole, we can strive to be better as individuals. In the current system, you may deny the lazy man the food for his table while you splurge on a new car to keep up with Mr. and Mrs. Jones, but that lazy man may then be desperate enough to shoot you and steal your new car. Now that is not to say that there is a cause and effect relationship between poverty and crime, but there are certainly strong correlations.

Anyway, I’m not about to go into any more detail about the prospective ideals of this brand of socialism. What’s important to point out, though, is that what Barack Obama is proposing is nare a degree closer to socialism in any form than the system we currently have in place. And so, were I a socialist (the jury is out as I continue to investigate the pros and cons), Barack Obama would not be my candidate.