If you use Zandi’s analysis, the programs eliminated have a stimulative effect equal to more than $100 billion, while the AMT proposal that replaces them has a stimulative effect of only $35 billion. That $65 billion loss could cost the economy something on the order of half a million jobs over the next several years. Full Story »
Posted by Lynn Caporale
Excellent look at the impact of Senator Charles Grassley's $70 BILLION insistence on 'fixing' the annual 'alternative minimum tax problem' as part of the "economic stimulus package." Lost in the process: $40 million for fiscal relief to the states, $20 billion for repair and maintenance for local schools, $10 billion for other programs including early learning programs for children.
I would like to know Senator Grassley's personal obligations under the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax), and why he believes that his own personal concerns--proven not to provide any economic stimulus--outweigh the other needs. The article contains a fascinating "bang for the buck" chart that indicates Senator Grassley's pet project is one of the worst options on the table, and one of the least "stimulative." Perhaps Grassley's Iowa needs no federal stimulus funds?
But there is one huge provision in the package passed by the Senate today that fails utterly and completely to meet any rationale measures of job creation. That provision ... More »
Retrieving Comments
