Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Okay, I'm being lazy--but is the proposal wrt Health Insurance benefit deductibility *just* wrt the Employer's half of FICA? Individuals would still get to exclude the value of the benefit from income for both FICA and PIT purposes?

Good point. I looked it up. The bullet point is : "Fully or partially tax employer-sponsored health insurance"

It sounds more focused on taxing the employee's receipt than eliminating the employer's deduction. I don't get why you'd ever deny an employer a deduction, since it's a reasonable business expense, and I don't quickly see why that was proposed.

So did Fox even screw up these simple facts? I wasn't planning on criticizing their reporting standards with that post, but am willing to reconsider.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

This was reporting and not an editorial?

Read my third sentence.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Good point. I looked it up. The bullet point is : "Fully or partially tax employer-sponsored health insurance"

It sounds more focused on taxing the employee's receipt than eliminating the employer's deduction. I don't get why you'd ever deny an employer a deduction, since it's a reasonable business expense, and I don't quickly see why that was proposed.

So did Fox even screw up these simple facts? I wasn't planning on criticizing their reporting standards with that post, but am willing to reconsider.

It would be deductible by the business in any case, as a salary cost. But if it is deemed taxable salary, then the EE'R would need to pay their half of FICA/Medicare on top of the cost of the coverage, as would the EE. Could still be an exclusion from AGI to the EE, so not subject to PIT.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Read my third sentence.

Missed that. I may have to start giving daily reports from the NYT. You know, point counterpoint kind of thing.

[sgtclub]

Where's the outrage?

The Obama administration said the U.S. Supreme Court should let the military continue to bar openly gay people under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, arguing that a change in the law should come from Congress, not the courts.

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, the administration’s top courtroom lawyer, today urged the justices not to reinstate a federal judge’s order that had temporarily suspended the law

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Where's the outrage?

I'm outraged that the administration hasn't given the Rs another BS talking point!!!!!

How's that?

Or do you think that the Admin should abdicate its obligation to uphold the law because they disagree with it?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Where's the outrage?

I don't get it. Congress should make the laws governing the grounds for discharge from the military, and the President should comply with those laws and defend them in court when called upon to do so.

This seems a bad time in history for you to assert the supremacy of the Executive Branch.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I don't get it. Congress should make the laws governing the grounds for discharge from the military, and the President should comply with those laws and defend them in court when called upon to do so.

This seems a bad time in history for you to assert the supremacy of the Executive Branch.

Nevermind, AG fixed his quotes.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Look at my bolding, and my note that they led with the cut.

Look at your post, with my bolding:

"but Fox leads with an attack on those same cuts."

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I don't get it. Congress should make the laws governing the grounds for discharge from the military, and the President should comply with those laws and defend them in court when called upon to do so.

This seems a bad time in history for you to assert the supremacy of the Executive Branch.

I thought don't ask don't tell was by EO?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I thought don't ask don't tell was by EO?

the thing i think weird, or actually promising, was DADT was a nod by clinton to gay rights. that was what he "gave" as payback for gay support. now it's an evil.

it's cool that we evolved to the point that it's backward, but all these "politically aware" people that talk like it is a pure evil thing leave me, wait for it, SMH.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

i thought don't ask don't tell was by eo?

10 u.s.c. § 654

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I thought don't ask don't tell was by EO?

Maybe back in the day, but I think Congress has enshrined it into law, and an executive order cannot undue it.

eta:

Can the policy be changed by an executive order or does it need the sign off by Congress?

The plaintiffs’ lawyer we talked to on Tuesday who’s challenging the law, White & Case’s Dan Woods, told us he thinks the Obama administration should be doing more to put its objection to the law into practice, which got us thinking about executive orders. President Truman desegregated the military with one swift signature back in 1948. Why can’t Obama do the same with gays and lesbians?

We checked in with our old executive order expert, University of Wisconsin political science professor Kenneth Mayer, for a little help.

Mayer told us that a change in DADT likely requires congressional action because the law is currently codified in a federal statute, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654.

Section (b) of the law states the following:

This explicitly and clearly, says Mayer, “puts the law on statutory footing.”

That said, Mayer thinks there’s some “wiggle room” in the statute. As far as federal statutes go, Congress hasn’t delegated to the executive branch all that much authority. But it has assigned to the secretary of defense a certain flexibility in enforcement. The notes on the implementation of the law state, for example, that: “the Secretary of Defense should consider issuing guidance governing the circumstances under which members of the Armed Forces questioned about homosexuality for administrative purposes should be afforded warnings . . . ”

In any event, Mayer predicts that Congress will overturn the 1993 law, predominantly because military leaders, like Adm. Mike Mullen (pictured) are pushing in that direction. “And they weren’t in 1993,” he adds.

“The only justification those in favor of keeping the law have is that homosexuality makes some soldiers uncomfortable,” he says. “The military believes there are ways of dealing with that, just as there were with some of the initial resistance to desegregation and to allowing women to serve.”

WSJ

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the thing i think weird, or actually promising, was DADT was a nod by clinton to gay rights. that was what he "gave" as payback for gay support. now it's an evil.

it's cool that we evolved to that point, but all these "politically aware" people that talk like it is an evil thing leave me, wait for it, SMH.

My boyfriend was a Marine (corps birthday and veteran's day in the same week!) in 1993 who served with a LOT of gay and lesbian servicemembers. He didn't like it then when it was just a proposal, and he certainly doesn't like it now.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe back in the day, but I think Congress has enshrined it into law, and an executive order cannot undue it.

eta:



WSJ

I stand corrected.

Still, the point is that the administration is playing politics because they don't want to take the political hit; rather, they want to push the issue on to congress. It's sheepish IMO.