Jared Polis makes an impression

You have to hand it to Jared Polis: For a freshman Congressman to be quoted in the the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal within 24 hours (and not for some misdeed) is an achievement.

Polis, who represents my district, is no doubt a “Boulder liberal", but I nevertheless give him credit for having a better-than-average understanding of economics (for a Democrat, at least) and a willingness to stand up for his views. It took some courage for Polis, along with 21 other Democrats, to sign a letter (which I believe Polis wrote) explaining to Nancy Pelosi that trying to pay for health care “reform” with large surcharges on personal income taxes for incomes above $350,000, $500,000, and an especially large tax on income over $1,000,000 could be extremely damaging economically because so many American businesses are organized as S-Corporations which pay tax based on the personal, rather than the corporate, income tax schedules.

While it is unfortunate that Congressman Polis begins his letter to Pelosi by saying that the Democrats’ health care bill “could not come at a better time” (obviously false, since any later time would be a better time, with never being the best time) and ends his letter by saying that with some modifications the bill “should be good for small business” (in the way that cancer is good for a human?), it’s too much to expect a Boulder Democrat (much less a freshman) to call out ObamaCare for the fascist enterprise it really is.

Still, despite his flawed premise about the value of government-run health care overall, Polis makes some accurate and very important points in his letter (the following are all quotes from the letter):

• Small businesses create 60 to 80 percent of new jobs, which is even more important when times are tough.
• According to the IRS, 64 percent of households filing individual tax forms with AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) above $250,000 filed as an S-Corporation or partnership or filed a Schedule C sole proprietor tax form. Further, of all small businesses, 75 percent are S-Corporations where the business income is passed through to the businesses owners’ individual tax return, increasing the chances that it will be impacted by the proposed surcharge.
• The proposed surcharge will also have a direct negative impact on manufacturers…
• A surcharge would tax income above $1 million at a new rate of 45 percent. Combined with state taxes, many successful small businesses – the very kind of business that should lead in creating new jobs and help us emerge from this recession – will be taxed at over 50 percent.
• (And finally, this extremely important point) The proposed surcharge would put successful family-owned companies and closely held midsize S-Corp businesses at a major tax disadvantage to their larger corporate competitors which would continue to enjoy the favorable 35 (sic) corporate tax rate. Multinational corporations will be paying 35 percent for the same economic activity and profit that a family owned S-Corp would be paying nearly 45 percent federal taxes on.

Think about that. The US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the OECD (and only about 1/4% from being the highest) and Polis can accurately say that if Pelosi’s plan passes as written, US corporations paying that exorbitant rate will have an advantage over other American businesses!

Consider this “Fiscal Fact” from the Tax Foundation (from August, 2008), with emphasis added by me):

Amid rising concerns about the state of the U.S. economy, new data compiled by economists at the OECD shows that for the 17th consecutive year the average rate of corporate taxes in non-U.S. countries fell while the U.S. corporate tax rate stayed the same. As a result, the overall U.S. corporate tax rate is now 50 percent higher than the OECD average.

Combined with another new OECD study that calls the corporate income tax the most harmful type of tax for economic growth, the implications for U.S. policy are clear. The long-term prospects of the U.S. economy are at risk as long as our corporate tax rate remains out of step with the rest of the world.

The U.S. continues to have the second-highest combined federal-state corporate tax rate among industrialized countries at 39.3 percent. Only Japan has a higher overall corporate tax rate at 39.5 percent. By contrast, the average corporate tax rate among OECD countries has fallen a full percentage point in the past year, from 27.6 percent to 26.6 percent.

So not only would Pelosi’s proposed surcharge make many thousands of US small and mid-sized businesses uncompetitive versus larger American C-corporations (the standard type of stock-based ownership structure, including almost all companies which trade on stock exchanges), but it would also make these thousands of mostly family-owned businesses absolutely uncompetitive versus foreign competition.

I presume Congressman Polis is sincere when he begins and ends his letter with praise for the concept of government-run medicine. And I surely hope I have the opportunity to discuss the issue with him and disabuse him of the notion that what is essentially a massive increase of our Medicare system – a system that is already well on the way to bankrupting the nation – is in any way a good idea.

But I have to give him credit, not least because he’s a freshman from a rather left-wing district despite the fact that the district includes me, for leading a charge against the most job-destroying aspects of the current Democratic plan and for having the courage to vote his convictions, being one of only three Democrats on the House Education and Labor Committee to vote against the bill as written. (Three Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee also defied Pelosi.)

Jared Polis’ policy positions are far from perfect, but I’m pleased to see his leadership on this extremely important issue. It’s probably too much to hope that his uber-liberal Boulder constituency will see the critical economic arguments Polis is making rather than being blinded, as Boulderites tend to be, by a desire to “soak the rich.” Seeing “soaking the rich” as a lofty ideal is one thing; but destroying your own job opportunities in the pursuit of that soaking is just senseless.

  • Walter Heidenfelder
    Comment from: Walter Heidenfelder
    07/22/09 @ 10:26:45 am

    We are truly disappointed in Jared Polis' attitude toward payment for health care reform. It's not unreasonable to have the wealthy who have enjoyed the Bush tax cut to pay for this.

    We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to provide an affordable health care system.


  • Comment from: Rossputin
    07/22/09 @ 02:40:44 pm

    Walter,

    Even putting aside the fact that the wealthy's share of the total tax burden INCREASED under Bush, how can you assert that because someone earns more than you, he is responsible to pay for your health insurance? What a reprehensible, unAmerican position to take!

  • Jane Paudaux
    Comment from: Jane Paudaux
    07/28/09 @ 06:21:12 pm

    I'd disagree. Polis' actions mark him as anything but what he is touting. He is running a political cover masquerade and most likely getting political brownie points from other conservative Blue Dogs who are going to need political cover as they sink the Obama Administration.

  • Jane Paudaux
    Comment from: Jane Paudaux
    07/30/09 @ 04:27:28 am

    Why am I responsible for the pollution in the air corporations make considering my contribution to that pollutiion is minimal? Why am I responsible for paying taxes that keep public park systems open (unless we are talking about California) when I do not use them? Why must I foot a share of the bill for the bombs we blow other people up with if I am a pacifist? Why am I responsible for paying Amtrack subsidies when I never take the train?

    It is called the public good.

    On the other hand, another idea, call Karl Marx.

    Take your pick. I prefer the first version.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    07/30/09 @ 06:41:11 am

    Jane,

    I'm not sure I follow you.

    But "the public good" is not a good excuse for government theft of our money because it's almost impossible to define -- or rather anyone can define anything as a public good.

    The only one of the items you mention that, depending on the situation, I would argue you do have responsibility for is the military because a national defense is the only legitimate function of government in the items you list. As far as pollution, it should be paid for by polluters. (But to be very clear, CO2 is not a pollutant, and our air quality is extremely high except in a few big cities and that's mostly not due to corporations.

  • Jane Paudaux
    Comment from: Jane Paudaux
    08/10/09 @ 02:11:56 pm

    Is the argument you are making that the initial directives of national government were to facilitate commerce between the states and provide national security? Therefore they have no business spending money on public goods. (There is a third but I always forget that one.)

    Public goods are all about national security. They are fairly easy to define and very restricted by economic definition. Public goods are the backbone/infrastructure of society--the basic needs to keep a human living, breathing, and functioning. It allows a human being to go beyond spending each day working to survive but to provide value to society. A value more than to one's self. A value to the community and nation as a whole. This is societal expectation and society tacitly requires individuals to be healthy and functional in order to support the nation as a whole. Can a nation truly be secure without a functional and healthy populace?

    But beyond this thought--the entire beauty of the structure of our republic was based on the idea of flexibility in the system so that small changes could be made over time without revolution. Society is dynamic and the system has to be flexible to change or it breaks. Nonhuman systems are static unless the humans interacting with the system are allowed to make small changes as needed. This was power was written into the constitution along with a system of checks and balances to keep the changes small to avoid instability in the overall system.

    We are not living in 1776 where citizens were required to do public service including tending to the health and well-being of other citizens. If trained and education people want to go back to that system I'd be fine with it--but I don't see that happening. There is too much demand and not enough supply.

    I think the public good is what taxpayer money should be spent on because it floats all boats--not just those with political power. The public good is not a special interest it is OUR interest as a nation. There isn't a citizen on the face of the nation that doesn't require or use access to public goods. I don't think of that as theft but as investment.

    Was the Hoover Dam project theft?

  • boog
    Comment from: boog
    03/20/10 @ 11:29:22 am

    We need to do whatever we can to make Jared Polis a 1 term Congressman that was a mistake to elect. Much like what is going to happen to Obozo when the next election happens in 2012. Polis home in 2010 and Obozo back to Chicago in 2012.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in now!

If you have no account yet, you can register now... (It only takes a few seconds!)