Republican Constituent Schools Ayotte on Actual Impact of Tax Breaks for Wealthiest 2%

By Zandra Rice Hawkins on December 20, 2012 in

Tags: ayotte, Boehner, fiscal cliff, granite state progress, Kelly Ayotte, middle class, millionaires, NH Citizens Alliance for Action, Obama, tax break

U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte probably wasn’t expecting this during her town hall in Canada* last week, when a long-time Republican stood up and pushed back on her declaration that she couldn’t end tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% because it will impact “small businesses”:

“Senator, I’m a lifetime Republican, and have usually voted Republican, however this year I didn’t. The main reason I didn’t was because of the Republican platform that said no tax increases, even for those people who make over $250,000.
I think that is really a problem in the Republican Party … I know you have said and the Republicans have said, ‘Oh, we want to really support small businesses.’ I think it’s important to support small businesses too.
But there’s a lot of people here who are in small business and I don’t think any of us in small businesses here have a bottom line where we’re making over $250,000. And I don’t think that raising the tax rate on a small business that’s making over $250,000 is really going to negatively influence those small businesses.”

(Video & more below the fold)
The constituent in question is a man named Wendell Woodward, a tax accountant who, according to the public voter file, wasn’t kidding when he indicated that he is a long-time Republican. Woodard also knew what he was talking about when he refuted the small business red herring: ending the Bush-era tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year wouldn’t affect 97% of small businesses.

Yet Kelly Ayotte and other GOP leaders continue to fight for tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, even if it means having to use misleading claims, jeopardize needed investments, or throw our seniors and most vulnerable under the bus.

Make no mistake, these backwards policies hurt conservatives during the November 2012 elections and they will continue to hurt them going forward. Just look back above: that exchange came from a Republican constituent. There are a growing number of Americans – Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike – who are concerned about the deficit but fed up with Congress putting millionaires ahead of the middle class.

There’s a lot happening on the fiscal cliff right now, and it’s easy to miss it amid the holiday rush or the devastating news out of Connecticut last week. But if you need a good reminder of what’s at stake and why we should care, see this short interview Granite State Progress did with Wendell after the Ayotte town hall on Friday:

NH Old Timer Republican on Why Congress Should End Tax Breaks for the Wealthiest 2%

And if you’ve got any space to help hold Ayotte – and the rest of the delegation – accountable, there are phonebanks running out of NH Citizens Alliance for Action and other planned activities, as part of New Hampshire’s contribution to www.theaction.org, a national grassroots movement pushing for an end to the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2%.

(If you also attended the town hall, please add more to this diary below. You can also see the full exchange between Mr. Woodward and Sen. Ayotte here.)

* Well, maybe not quite Canada, but it was held in the northern most municipality in our state. And while Pittsburg itself is great I’m sure, with town halls far and few between having an elected official schedule one at the very edge of a district in a town that borders Canada seems a little odd, don’t you think?

ayotte, Boehner, fiscal cliff, granite state progress, Kelly Ayotte, middle class, millionaires, NH Citizens Alliance for Action, Obama, tax break

mevansnh

is also opposed to restrictions on assault weapons. Just what everyone should get for Christmas…a military style assault weapon. The day will come when this fool and the other in this clown-car will eat those bullets.
lidlvr5

I have been giving people the real numbers and people on the right still do not listen. If a couple who own a small business make $260,000 a year in take home income they would keep $169,000 if they paid the complete 35% taxes on it. Under President Obama’s tax plan they would keep $168,500 roughly. I figured it at 40% for the extra $10,000. The Republican argument is that this couple would rather make $6,500 take home less than pay the extra $500. My belief is that they would rather work to increase their income by about a thousand a year than take the loss. Raising the tax on their income would more likely help the economy and jobs than hurt it.
hannah

first place, the only purpose for collecting taxes is to keep the currency circulating through the economy. There is an assumption that as money accumulates, people will spend it on their own to promote the development and creation of needful things. Also, more recently, there has arisen an assumption that people who are good at accumulating money are, ipso facto, best qualified to decide which things are needful and which not.
Both of these assumptions have proved to have no basis in fact. Not only is accumulation most easily accomplished via theft, but accumulation tends to evolve into hoarding and that means the currency is permanently removed from the stream. And hoarders haven’t a clue what other people need. So, the end result of letting some people accumulate and hoard all the money they want is that there is not enough to go around–unless our federal government keeps issuing more and more.
But, even that doesn’t address the systematic hoarding. And, because it has become systematic, there has to be a multi-pronged solution to get the currency moving AND paying for the needful projects we all know have been too long delayed. Congress’ failure to understand the problem, as evidenced by the fact that their response to not enough is to provide even less, is an additional complication. The irony is that it is Congressional intransigence which make it necessary to agitate the citizenry and upset all our accounts in order to counter the hoarding and sequestration by the private sector.

Why? Why is the Congress intransigent? Because they are more intent on feeling potent than in carrying out their obligations. “Let George do it,” is the sentiment of a lazy man.

Navigation