WEALTHY ELITE AMERICANS PAST, CURRENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE BUSH TAX BREAKS COST TENS OF MILLIONS OF THE OTHER 99% OF AMERICA THEIR HOMES, LIVES, FREEDOMS, HEALTH,,,


EVERYONE IN LAW IN AMERICA TODAY KNOWS DARN WELL THAT OUR LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD (U.S. CONGRESS) HAVE NEVER LIVED UP 2 EVEN PROPERLY FINANCING the 1963 U.S. SUPREME COURT GIDEON LEGAL DECISION. THAT LEGAL DECISION STATED ALL AMERICANS HAVE A RIGHT TO RECEIVE FREE LEGAL COUNSEL IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD ONE IN ALL CRIMINAL LEGAL CASES ALL ACROSS OUR WEALTHY AMERICA..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TODAY IN AMERICA THE MIDDLE~CLASS & WORKING POOR ARE IN DIRE & DESPERATE NEED OF CIVIL LAWYERS IN FAMILY COURTS,DIVORCE COURTS, ESTATE COURTS,BANKRUPTCY COURT, ETC...WHILE...

OUR AMERICAN WEALTHY ELITE'S LOBBYISTS ARE CONTINUING IN THEIR BEHIND THE SCENE ATTEMPTS TO PRESSURE ALL IN THE PEOPLES U.S. CONGRESS TO CONTINUE GIVING TAX BENEFITS AND BREAKS TO THEIR cabal of BILLIONAIRE FAMILIES, ESTATES ETC...

THEY DENY TENS OF MILLIONS OF OUR MIDDLE~CLASS & POORER AMERICANS PROPER LEGAL COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL COURTS,CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND CIVIL COURTS THROUGHOUT OUR WEALTHY COUNTRY WHILE THEIR HIGH PRICED LOBBYISTS BARTER WITH OUR PEOPLES U.S.CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES FURTHER ENRICHING THEMSELVES ???

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WILL THIS FLORIDA GRANDMA NEED 2 RIDE THE ROSA PARKS BUS INTO A FLORIDA PRISON TO BE LEGAL IN FILLING OUT COURT PAPERS 4 HER FELLOW PARISHONERS PRESIDENT OBAMA ???

FLORIDA NEEDS TO BE SUED BY THE ACLU 4 DENYING GRANDMA KATIE VICKERS EQUAL RIGHTS TO ASSIST OTHER FELLOW CHURCH PARISHONERS WITH THEIR LEGAL PAPER~WORK !!!

**WEALTHY ELITE AMERICAN'S AND THEIR HIGH PAID LOBBYISTS DO NOT CARE IF GRANDMA KATIE VICKERS OF FLORIDA EATS CAT FOOD NEXT MONTH **

WILL GOD'S AMERICAN RELIGIOUS LOBBY HELP OUR LITTLE FLORIDA GRANDMA KATIE VICKERS BEAT OUR U.S. WEALTHY ELITE'S BIG $$ LOBBYISTS ?

MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CALIFORNIA PRISON SYSTEM AND ALL OUR OTHER AMERICAN PRISON INMATES NATIONWIDE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED AND ENCOURAGED TO RECEIVE OTHER PRISON INMATES LEGAL ASSISTANCE REGARDING THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS ??

FLORIDA NOW DEEMS THAT GRANDMA'S CAN'T ASSIST THEIR FELLOW NEEDY AND POORER SICKLY CHURCH GOERS WITH THEIR PAPERWORK ??

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* THIS U.S. LOBBYI$T HOR$E~TRADING in OUR PEOPLES U.S. CONGRE$$ NOW REQUIRE$ BIG $$$ AND MIDDLE~CLASS AND POORER AMERICANS LIKE KATIE VICKERS OF FLORIDA DO NOT QUALIFY FOR OUR WEALTHY ELITE LOBBYISTS ASSISTANCE or INTEREST *

OK,OK NOW WE GET IT~ THE MIDDLE~CLASS & POORER AMERICANS NEED BIG $$ TO LOBBY THE PEOPLES U.S. CONGRESS 2 ALSO BE FAIRLY REPRESENTED ....... SO PUT UP OR $HUT UP ALL YOU little American people WHO EXPECT HONE$T CONGRE$$IONAL REPRE$ENTATION WITHOUT PAYING THE PIPER....

THEY CONTINUE TAKING BILLIONS U.S.TAX FREE FOUNDATIONS $$ OUT OF AMERICA & AT THE SAME TIME HAVE THEIR HIGH PRICED ELITE LOBBYISTS DEMANDING THEIR CONGRESS TO SEND MANY MORE BILLIONS OF U.S.TAX $$ TO EXIT AMERICA FOR UNKNOWN LOCATIONS WORLD~WIDE DEPRIVING OUR OWN U.S. MIDDLE~CLASS AND POORER AMERICANS OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, HEALTH~CARE, DENTAL~CARE,PROPER LEGAL PROTECTIONS IN CIVIL,CRIMINAL, FAMILY COURTS ...

WHY WOULD MILLIONS OF OUR NEEDY MIDDLE~CLASS AND POORER AMERICANS WANT TO CONTINUE HEARING ALL ABOUT OUR WEALTHY ELITE BRAGGING TO ANYONE INTERESTED IN THEIR OWN INTERNATIONAL CONQUESTS IN CONTINUING TO ASSIST THE INTERNATIONAL POOR WITH OUR AMERICAN GOVERNMENT'S TAX FREE $$$ ???

~ JUST 1 MORE PERFECT EXAMPLE PRESIDENT OBAMA OF WHY U.S. SLUSH FUND FOUNDATIONS NEED NEW FEDERAL GUIDLINES~

~ MIDDLE~CLASS AMERICANS AND WORKING POOR AMERICANS CONTINUE PAYING MORE TAX $$$ THEN OUR U.S. WEALTHY ELITE AND OUR UNEMPLOYED HAVE TO BEG THE PEOPLES U.S. CONGRESS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ???

WEALTHY ELITE AND THEIR FAMILIES OWN 90% OF OUR AMERICAN WEALTH AND TOTAL ONLY 1% OF U.S. TOTAL POPULATION .

SADLY THIS ELITE CABAL APPEAR TO HAVE COMPLETE FINANCIAL CONTROL OVER THE PEOPLES U.S. CONGRESS SPENDING $$ (PURSE) THROUGH THEIR HIGH PRICED PAID LOBBYISTS.

LAWYERS FOR POOR AMERICANS WILL CONTINUE POINTING OUT VARIOUS MONETARY NEEDS HERE IN AMERICA FOR ALL OUR SINCERE CARING WEALTHY ELITE TO PONDER PRIOR THEIR TAX FREE SLUSH FUND FOUNDATIONS INTERNATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WORLDS POOR.

WE BELIEVE THAT ALL THESE BILLION $$$ TAX FREE SLUSH FUND FOUNDATIONS OF OUR SINCERE ELITE AMERICANS SHOULD ONLY BE USED FOR AMERICAN NEEDS AND NOT TAKEN OUT OF AMERICA.

**THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THEIR TAX FREE $$ STATUS IN AMERICA & THOSE $$ SHOULD ALSO BE SPENT IN AMERICA **

OUR AMERICAN GOVERNMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE LEADING COUNTRY IN THE WORLD FOR CONTRIBUTING TAX $$$ TO THE INTERNATIONAL WORLD'S POOR. FOR OUR LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD(CONGRESS) TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW UNTOLD BILLIONS $$ TO ALSO ESCAPE OUR COUNTRY WITH THESE WEALTHY ELITE SLUSH FUND FOUNDATIONS,CAN ONLY MAKE ONE WONDER IF THIS IS WHAT MANY REFER 2 AS "THE NEW WORLD ORDER " ???

*** OUR AMERICAN WEALTHY ELITE LOBBYISTS R NOT PAID $$ 2 HELP little Americans like KATIE VICKERS OF FLORIDA WRITTEN ABOUT IN in the WALL STREET JOURNAL & KATE HOWARD'S ARTICLE'S FOUND BELOW.

LAWYERS FOR POOR AMERICANS (424-247-2013)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)

More Strapped Litigants Skip Lawyers in Court

Article Wall Street Journal Newspaper

By NATHAN KOPPEL
July 22,2010

The economic downturn has left more Americans with the daunting prospect of fighting court battles without a lawyer.

The Florida Times-Union/Bruce Lipsky
Katie Vickers helped a friend in court and now faces legal woes herself.

A growing number of people have found themselves in court facing costly financial proceedings such as declaring bankruptcy, fighting foreclosure and litigating employment fights. Adding to the challenge, for many: The high cost of legal representation often prompts them to go it alone.

Jillian Edgar of Brooklyn, N.Y., is one example. The 32-year-old, who says she has been unsuccessfully looking for work since October, is fighting an eviction notice that claims she owes more than $2,800.

Last week in Kings Country Housing Court, she said she didn't know the steps to take to qualify for free legal aid. Still, she said, "I think I can handle myself." Her plan: to say that she withheld rent because her apartment had fallen into disrepair.

Legal experts say many people are likely losing claims and paying penalties they could have avoided with a lawyer at their side. Litigants often don't understand the sort of evidence they need to present in legal proceedings, said Florida state Judge Claudia Isom.

She said she has seen a jump in people defending against mortgage-foreclosure proceedings without the aid of counsel, for instance, and they are "definitely at a disadvantage."

"People will gather legal information from the Internet, from friends, or leaflets at a courthouse and think, 'I can play checkers, I'm ready,' " said Raymond Brescia, a professor at Albany Law School, who has written about tenants' struggles to afford legal representation. "But when they get to court they realize it's a game of three-level chess, and they don't have the first idea of what's happening."

Legal representation is expensive, and some critics say lawyers have created quasi-monopolies in some areas that raise the cost of their services.

"You can hardly find a lawyer who charges less than $150 per hour, which is out of reach for most people," said Gillian Hadfield, a law professor at the University of Southern California.

In many areas, from immigration and family law to bankruptcy and housing disputes, she said, nonlawyer specialists could be trained to provide useful legal assistance. But nonlawyers who represent clients in court or provide other legal help face prosecution for the unauthorized practice of law, a violation of state bar rules.

"The U.S. is unusual in how restrictive the rules are on who can give you assistance in court," Ms. Hadfield said.

Many who go without a lawyer are too well off to qualify for free legal aid, even if they can't foot the bill for private lawyers, attorneys said. "The problem is growing for the middle class," said Larry Tribe, who heads the U.S. Justice Department's Access to Justice Initiative.

Most legal-aid organizations, which provide free legal services to people at or near the poverty line, have cut back as they have absorbed cuts in the funding they rely on from governmental and private sources just as demand for their services has risen. The Legal Aid Society in New York City, for instance, this year lost nearly $1.8 million in funding from its budget of about $30 million because of state and city budget cuts.

"We can only help one out of every nine people who solicit our help," said Steven Banks, the head of the organization, which assisted about one in seven people who asked for help before the recession.

There are no comprehensive statistics on how many people represent themselves in court. But nationwide, 60% of state judges reported increases in the number of civil litigants who appeared in court last year without counsel, the American Bar Association said in a July 12 survey. Parties were hurt by not having a lawyer, 62% of the surveyed judges said.

Katie Vickers, a 70-year-old Florida retiree who isn't a lawyer, said she agreed in 2008 to help a church friend petition for workers' compensation benefits. She said her friend, who didn't have an attorney, needed help typing legal documents and answering questions in court. The friend lost his claim, she said.

Now, Ms. Vickers is facing legal problems of her own. The Florida Bar filed a court petition in March claiming that Ms. Vickers had engaged in the unlicensed practice of law and should be fined $1,000.

The bar has a duty "to protect the public from incompetent or unethical representation," said Florida bar counsel Lori Holcomb. Ms. Vickers denied that she had practiced law and said she would vigorously defend herself—without a lawyer.

Write to Nathan Koppel at nathan.koppel@wsj.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)

Defiant Jacksonville retiree charged with practicing law without license

She helped a sick friend with workers comp.

Posted: June 16, 2010
BRUCE LIPSKY/The Times-Union

Katie Vickers sits with the paperwork alleging she has been practicing law without a license after she assisted a church friend with workers compensation motions. The Florida Bar has filed a charge against Vickers, 70. “I’m not breaking the law,” she says.

By Kate Howard

Katie Vickers says she was helping a sick friend when she typed some documents for his court case and signed her name at the bottom.

The Jacksonville retiree claims she wasn’t trying to act as an attorney.

Now she really is — defending herself against a charge of practicing law without a license.

The Florida Bar accuses Vickers of portraying herself as an attorney by helping a friend from church type motions and request hearings in his workers compensation case. He didn’t have a computer or a lawyer.

“I’m not breaking the law,” Vickers said. “It’s a stretch.”

But the Bar believes she went beyond just typing, assisting her friend the way a lawyer would. They asked her to sign a cease-and-desist order and promise not to do it again, but Vickers refused.

“I felt like that would be admitting I did something wrong,” she said.

Why is the Bar pursuing costly sanctions again a 70-year-old woman?

“To protect the public,” said Bar counsel Lori Holcomb. “Our committee that investigated it felt that she would continue, and perhaps do this for someone else.”

Vickers is familiar with the courtroom, because she worked for many years in a state office that attempted to collect child-support payments.

But she’s never worked in the legal profession nor aspired to. She spends most of her time now at church or with her husband at their home in a tidy Mandarin subdivision.

The subject of the workers comp case, Artemias Rivers, is a member of her church, and Vickers wanted to help. He was sick, suffering from lung problems he believed were developed on the job and had recently undergone surgery that caused more pain. Rivers said he knew she wasn’t a lawyer, and she didn’t give him legal advice or ask him for any money. He suffers from pulmonary fibrosis, interstitial lung disease and sarcoidosis, and is considered disabled. He’s currently at home, living on disability checks and dealing with the pain.

“It’s outrageous the Bar would come after her when I had four or five attorneys who didn’t do their job,” Rivers said of the lawyers who dropped his case. “I’m not saying Mrs. Vickers was acting as my attorney, but why don’t they go after those attorneys?”

Attempting to help

Vickers signed the bottom of one document, “Katie Vickers for Artemias Rivers,” and in 2008 began going with him to court hearings held inside the judge’s chambers. She said she tried to help him answer questions he didn’t understand.

Soon, she was not allowed in the chamber, and neither was the court reporter. She was prevented from taking notes and said in her court filing early this month that she was escorted out of the courtroom in handcuffs.

Cary Braswell, the lawyer representing JA-RU, the Jacksonville branch of a toy company that employed Rivers, filed a formal request that she stop helping Rivers with his case. Braswell could not be reached for comment.

The judge granted their request, and Vickers stopped going to the courthouse. Rivers lost the case. They both thought it was over.

But Braswell had also filed a complaint with the Bar.

That’s when the Bar sent the cease-and-desist letter. A year later, Vickers was served with the charge that could bring up a $1,000 fine.

“I was shocked,” she said.

According to Holcomb, the Bar has brought lawsuits in 45 complaints for practicing law without a license so far this fiscal year. She said most of the cases are similar to Vickers’.

“If you think of the things that lawyers do, we investigate cases of non-lawyers doing the same thing,” Holcomb said. “As soon as you tell someone, 'I can represent you,’ or 'I can help you with your legal matter,’ and then you actually help them, that would be crossing the line.”

An 'obscure line’

Vickers likely crossed some lines, said Stetson University of Law professor Lee Coppock, but he’s baffled as to why the Bar would bring charges.

He teaches professional responsibility courses that focus on this issue, mainly to ensure that law students don’t try to help friends and loved ones before they’re qualified to do so.

“It’s a fairly obscure line,” Coppock said. “I would be shocked if they didn’t have some basis to believe she did cross that line, but why go after this if she isn’t likely to do that again? ... This lady doesn’t sound like a threat to anybody, unless she gave someone bad advice.”

The Florida Bar has brought cases like this before, one of which drew national attention. In 1976, the Bar sued Rosemary Furman of Jacksonville for selling do-it-yourself divorce kits and helping clients fill out legal forms for a small fee.

Furman was eventually ordered to shutter her business, but she became renowned as an advocate for improving access to justice.

Vickers is hesitant to hire an attorney for herself, afraid costs will skyrocket if the case drags on. For now, she’s researching — solidifying her defense, documenting everything she can and hoping for the best.

She has asked for a court date to defend herself against the charges, which she intends to take to trial.

“I think what they’re doing is a vendetta against me to make sure I shut my mouth and never help anybody again,” Vickers said. “If someone needed help and asked me to type something for them, I probably would type it. There’s no law against it, I don’t think.”

kate.howard@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4697
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAWYERS FOR POOR AMERICANS IS A VOLUNTEER WWW LOBBY THAT SINGS OUT FOR OUR MIDDLE~CLASS & POORER AMERICANS SUCH AS THIS BEAUTIFUL AND CARING GRANDMA KATIE VICKERS OF FLORIDA.PUNISHING SPECIAL AMERICAN'S LIKE KATIE WHO ATTEMPT TO ASSIST OTHER LESS FORTUNATE AMERICANS IN OUR TROUBLED JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS A CRIME IN ITSELF.

lawyersforpooreramericans@gmail.com
(424-247-2013)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFUSING THE TAX TIME BOMB ~ WALL STREET JOURNAL



Defusing the Tax Time Bomb
By DAVID WESSEL
WALL STREET JOURNAL
JULY29,2010

President George W. Bush left behind a ticking time bomb that is set for Dec. 31, 2010. If Congress does nothing, taxes on wages, capital gains and dividends will leap, the estate tax will be resurrected at a 55% rate and the pesky alternative minimum tax will hit an additional 21 million taxpayers on 2010 returns.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans have an interest in letting that happen. Doing nothing would, Goldman Sachs economists estimate, amount to a tax increase equal to 2.5% of gross domestic product, the value of goods and services produced each year. But what Congress will do and when…well, as one official puts it, this has become a gigantic Rubik's cube that everyone is twisting at the same time.

This is Washington, so take the politics first.

Despite misgivings from some Democrats, the Obama administration is pressing to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone with an income under $250,000 a year and to raise taxes on those above. Taxing the rich is red meat to the Democrats' left. Energizing them for the November congressional elections is key for the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. A recent Pew/National Journal poll found that only 11% of Democrats favor extending all the Bush tax cuts.

Republicans are happily staking out the no-new-taxes turf, playing to their traditional constituency. Pew says 52% of Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts. Republicans are convinced they can win votes by simultaneously blaming Democrats for the deficit and accusing of them of being tax raisers.

House Democrats are torn between taking a vote before the elections (so members can boast of having stopped a middle-class tax increase) and waiting for the Senate (so Democrats from rich suburban districts don't get stuck voting to raise taxes on over-$250,000 voters only to find the Senate will extend them for everyone.) Senate Democratic leaders promise a September vote, but it's far from clear they have the needed 60 votes.

The smart money in Washington says nothing gets done before a postelection lame-duck session.

Given the distressingly sluggish economy recovery, few see this as a propitious moment to increase taxes on anyone. But given the pressure to do something to reduce the budget deficit and the political appeal to Democrats of socking it to the rich, the argument is over how much damage raising upper-bracket taxes would do.

"Extending the tax cuts would provide some demand-side stimulus," says Donald Marron, who sat on the Bush Council of Economic Advisers and now heads the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "All else equal, the cuts that go to middle- and low-income taxpayers are likely to provide more demand-side stimulus in the near term, because they are less likely to be saved."

Republicans focus less on consumer demand, and more on the impact of taxes on business hiring and investment. They observe loudly that raising upper-bracket tax rates hits ever-popular small businesses, whose profits show up on their individual returns. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, accuses President Barack Obama of pushing "job-killing tax hikes." But Leonard Burman, a Syracuse University economist who worked in the Clinton Treasury, counters that academic evidence "suggests strongly that higher marginal income-tax rates on high-income entrepreneurs are unlikely to result in significantly less employment or risk taking."

In fact, fewer small businesses would be hit than the rhetoric implies. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that only 3% of taxpayers who show business income on their returns would be touched by the Obama tax increase, though these 750,000 taxpayers account for half of the $1 trillion in business income reported on personal tax returns.

And then there's the deficit. Raising taxes on the over-$250,000 crowd isn't going to cure it. The price tag on the Obama-backed extension of Mr. Bush's middle-class tax cuts and stopping the alternative minimum tax from reaching down into the middle class is $2.5 trillion over 10 years, the Joint Tax Committee says. Unofficial estimates circulating on Capitol Hill say that's about 85% of the price tag for extendingall the Bush tax cuts.

The administration argues that symbolism matters as much as dollars. It'll be hard for the U.S. government to persuade anyone that it takes the long-term deficit seriously if it won't even let a tax cut on the best-off Americans expire on schedule. Though he doesn't say so explicitly, Mr. Obama knows he is unlikely to wrestle down the deficit without also raising taxes on folks making less than $250,000 at some point.

So what happens? Political gridlock, wavering Senate Democrats, deficit angst and a gnawing sense that the tax code is due for an overhaul could combine to make a one- or two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts—perhaps all of them, perhaps only those Mr. Obama likes—likely.

This could tee up a massive tax and deficit package after the 2012 presidential elections. But one problem with that politically expedient solution: It would exacerbate the already overwhelming uncertainty hanging over the economy and discouraging business hiring and investment.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A2

MIDDLE ~ CLASS & POORER AMERICANS ENLISTED MILITARY CHILDREN PROTECT our WEALTHY ELITE'S U.S. BUSINESS INTERESTS WORLD~WIDE...SO LETS ALL NOW HOPE OUR U.S WEALTHY ELITE AND THEIR BILLIONAIRE FAMILIES DECIDE TO START PROTECTING ALL OF OUR TENS OF MILLIONS OF NEEDY AMERICAN FAMILIES HERE AT HOME !!!

MIDDLE ~ CLASS & POORER AMERICANS ENLISTED MILITARY CHILDREN PROTECT our WEALTHY ELITE'S U.S. BUSINESS INTERESTS WORLD~WIDE...SO LETS ALL NOW HOPE OUR U.S WEALTHY ELITE AND THEIR BILLIONAIRE FAMILIES DECIDE TO START PROTECTING ALL OF OUR TENS OF MILLIONS OF NEEDY AMERICAN FAMILIES HERE AT HOME !!!

why don't you take your spamming sorry asses back to your lice infested TV couch and stop trying to self promote your useless excuses for anything.

How is it that richer Americans are obligated to pay our bills?

I don't see it.

What? You can't pay your own way, so the richer Americans
are destroying you by not paying your bills?

That is one of the most stupid things that anyone could ever come up with. the only thing more stupid would be people who buy into such nonsence.

THESE BUSH TAX CUTS R JUST A COVER 4 SAVING A FUTURE WALTON ESTATE FROM BEING FULLY TAXED ......

LETS CALL THEM THE WALTON WALMART~BUSH TAX CUTS 4 ELITE AMERICANS AND THEIR LUST TO KEEP ONES VAST ESTATE WEALTH FOR THE NEXT LIFE...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senators Are Pushing To Cut Taxes For Paris Hilton

BY PAT GARAFALO

Should tax breaks be given to the richest percentile while unemployment continues?

Unemployment is near 10 percent. Long-term unemployment is at a record high. Teachers are being laid off across the country and state governments are slashing services to the bone. $80 billion could do a lot of good addressing any of these problems.

However, the U.S. Senate is considering spending that much money on something else: cutting taxes for the richest 0.2 percent of households in the country.

For months, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) have been on a quest to cut the estate tax, or the tax that the federal government levies on inheritance. And despite its serious impact on the budget and negligible effect on the electorate at large, their proposal is being taken seriously.

Before getting into the merits of their proposal, here’s some background. The 2003 Bush tax cut included a gradual phase-out of the estate tax, from its 2001 level of 55 percent with a $1 million exemption to its complete repeal this year. However, to make the long-term cost of the cut seem less severe, the legislation stipulated that the tax come back in 2011 at the 2001 level. At the time, Bush’s team believed that Congress would never reinstate the tax, after having lived for at least one year without it.

Proving Bush’s strategy at least partially incorrect, the House of Representatives has already passed a bill permanently setting the estate tax at the 2009 level, which is a 45 percent rate with a $3.5 million exemption. But Kyl and Lincoln want to cut this to 35 percent with a $5 million exemption. Their cut costs $80 billion more than the House bill and $440 billion more than the budget baseline.

And all of that money would go to cut a tax that 99.8 percent of households in the U.S. will never pay. In fact, 62.5 percent of estate tax revenue comes from estates worth more than $20 million. Another 35 percent of the revenue comes from estates worth between $5 million and $20 million. The simple fact is that only the ultra-wealthy — the Paris Hiltons of the world — are subject to the estate tax.

The estate tax receives so much attention because there is a significant amount of misinformation circulating about it. This is due to a concerted effort by conservatives and wealthy corporate families to re-label it the “death tax,” with the intent of fooling everyone into thinking that the IRS will be looming over them on their death bed, demanding payment. One organization in particular, the Policy and Taxation Group, has fueled this campaign, funded by money from the Gallo and Mars family fortunes.

Even Lincoln herself helped spread this tall tale, saying “I don’t think there’s any American out there who believes you should work all of your life to find that when you die, 55 percent of [your estate] has got to go to the government.”

I bet she’s right that no one believes that. But no one is trying to make it the law either.

Because the estate tax is levied on marginal income, it is only paid on the amount in excess of the exemption. To put it plainly, if the exemption is $3.5 million, the first $3.5 million of the estate is passed on entirely tax free. Tax is only paid on the first dollar above that amount. So an estate worth $3,500,001 would have a tax bill of .45 cents under 2009 law.

The average effective rate — the amount paid as a percentage of the entire estate — for those subject to the estate tax is about 14 percent. There isn’t a mass of grieving widows who have to hand over half of everything they own to the government.

Critics of the estate tax also contend that it adversely affects small businesses and family farms. This, too, is untrue. If 2009 law were made permanent, only 140 estates that could be considered farms or small businesses will owe any tax at all, and “all but a handful would have sufficient liquid assets on hand (such as bank accounts, stocks, and bonds) to pay the tax without having to touch the farm or business,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Lincoln-Kyl plan would spend tens of billions to cut this already small number down to 40.

Kyl and Lincoln have said that they plan to find spending offsets for the $80 billion difference between their cut and the 2009 law, raising the prospect that Congress will actually increase revenues — which could be spent on any number of things — in order to cut taxes for the richest of the rich. It’s an absurd notion, but it garnered the attention of Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Finance Committee.

Fortunately, some progressive lawmakers have started to push back against Lincoln and Kyl, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) saying “the idea that we would make significant exemptions within the estate tax to give more tax breaks to the top three-tenths of 1 percent is nauseating.” And he’s absolutely right. Adopting the Lincoln-Kyl cut would be a sad indication of where Congress’ priorities truly are.

Pat Garofalo is the Economics Researcher and Blogger for WonkRoom.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. His writing has also appeared in The Nation, the Guardian, the Washington Examiner, and at AOL News.

Tags: Paris Hilton, Tax Cuts, Wealthy

Read more: www.businessinsider.com/senators-are-pushing-to-cut-taxes-for-paris-hilt...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Lincoln Intervenes for Arkansas Bank Article

By DAMIAN PALETTA

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, one of the chief architects of the financial-regulation overhaul nearing completion in Congress, is pushing for a change that would benefit a bank in her home state of Arkansas.

The bank, Arvest Bank Group Inc., of Bentonville, Ark., is predominantly owned by the Walton family, of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. fame, perhaps the most influential family in the state and one of the richest in the U.S.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln is pushing for a change in the financial-overhaul bill that would benefit an Arkansas bank owned by the Walton family.
Under Ms. Lincoln's proposed change, Arvest would be excused from a provision that could require banks to raise more capital, in Arvest's case about $115 million. Other Senate Democrats had intended only to exempt banks with less than $10 billion in capital from the provision. Ms. Lincoln wants to raise that to $15 billion, a threshold that would exempt Arvest. It is the only bank in Arkansas with between $10 billion and $15 billion of assets, though there are some in other states.

White House officials have said they don't want changes that benefit specific companies, leery of the horse-trading that nearly sank their health-care overhaul. But the administration also can't afford to alienate Ms. Lincoln, head of the Senate Agriculture Committee, whose support on the broader overhaul is vital to its success.

Lawmakers routinely do things to benefit organizations in their home states, often seen as "constituent service." But Ms. Lincoln's move could cause headaches for other Democrats because Arvest is owned by such a wealthy and politically influential company. Other Democrats in Congress are considering making a change to satisfy the senator, people familiar with the matter said.

A spokeswoman for Ms. Lincoln said she was pushing the change to make sure "no Arkansas bank—no matter its owner—is punished" by the provision." She didn't discuss the issue with anyone from the Walton family but did meet with Arvest officials, her office said.

Experience WSJ professional Editors' Deep Dive: Financial Regulation WatchBEST'S INSURANCE NEWS
Conference Committee Agrees on Federal Insurance OfficeChicago Tribune
Auto Dealers Get a Pass in Reform BillNational Post
Canada as Derivatives HavenAccess thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More Arvest officials and the Walton family declined to comment. The company is the largest of 96 bank holding companies in Arkansas and has more than 200 branches in four states.

Lawmakers from the House and Senate, including Ms. Lincoln, are currently hashing out a new financial-regulation bill.

The issue concerns dividend-paying instruments some banks issue to raise money called trust-preferred securities, a mix of debt and equity. Banks can convert them to capital for regulatory purposes.

The Senate version of the financial overhaul would bar the securities from being counted as part of banks' capital reserve, the cushion that absorbs losses when loans go bad. So some banks may have to raise fresh funds to meet capital minimums.

Senate Republicans last week proposed a provision, supported by House conferees, that would let all banks continue counting existing trust-preferred securities as capital. Ms. Lincoln broke with other Democrats on the conference committee and voted with the Republicans.

Journal Communitydiscuss“ This is exactly what is wrong with American politics today. ”
—David Stoneman Senate Democrats then proposed allowing banks with less than $10 billion in assets to continue to count existing trust-preferred securities toward capital. What Sen. Lincoln is doing now is pushing to raise that threshold to $15 billion.

This would include Arvest among banks "grandfathered." Arvest, with $11.3 billion in assets, is the only bank-holding company in Arkansas with more than $10 billion in assets, and thus the only one that would benefit form such a change.

There are about 20 other banks in America with between $10 billion and $15 billion in assets that could also be helped.

Ms. Lincoln "believes the threshold should be high enough to ensure no bank in Arkansas is subject to these new rules on existing capital, which would hinder their ability to generate lending for consumers and businesses at a time when access to credit is already difficult to come by," said Ms. Lincoln's spokeswoman, Marni Goldberg, "These banks did not cause the near-collapse of our financial system and should not be punished for Wall Street's actions."

The change would benefit Arvest because of the way it has structured its capital. Of the $920.4 million Arvest held as capital at the end of March, about $115 million was in trust-preferred or similar securities, a high proportion compared with some other banks.

If the financial overhaul passes without any change, and Arvest can no longer count these securities as capital, the Walton family could be forced to raise fresh funds to fill the hole.

Arvest's chairman, chief executive and president is Jim Walton, one of the four children of the late Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton. From 1992 through the first quarter of 2010, Wal-Mart employees and the company's political-action committee have been among Ms. Lincoln's most generous supporters, giving her $85,700, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign finance. The Waltons have owned Arvest for decades.

The provision barring banks from counting trust-preferred securities in their capital has the backing of Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair, who says the securities do little to protect banks from losses during economic downturns.

Scramble to Finish Bank Rules This Week Auto Dealers Stand to Benefit in Financial Bill Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), sponsor of the provision to bar the securities from being counted in capital, is inclined to agree to raising the exemption threshold to win Ms. Lincoln's support, a spokesman for Ms. Collins said.

Ken Hammonds, chief executive of the Arkansas Bankers Association, said his group supports Ms. Lincoln's proposed change because it could also allow the state's smaller banks to merge and grow beyond $10 billion in assets without being penalized.

This isn't the first time a lawmaker has pushed for changes that would help a home-state company. Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) inserted a derivatives-related provision into the Senate bill that had been pushed by Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. The change could have saved the company several billion dollars, according to analysts. It was removed after the lawmaker's involvement was disclosed in The Wall Street Journal.

Sen Scott Brown (R., Mass.), has said he'd vote against the financial-overhaul bill if it forces Massachusetts-based companies to stop certain asset-management practices.

—Dan Fitzpatrick contributed to this article
Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta (at) wsj.com

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
& WE ALWAYS THOUGHT ARKANSES SENATOR BLANCHE LINCOLN ONLY SHOPPED AT TIFFANY'S POORER AMERICANS....

LAWYERS FOR POOR AMERICANS IS A VOLUNTEER WWW LOBBY THAT SINGS OUT FOR MIDDLE~CLASS & WORKING POOR AMERICANS.WE CAN BE FOUND WITH ANY AND ALL WEB SEARCH ENGINES BY OUR NAME,TELEPHONE NUMBER OR E MAIL ADDRESS.

lawyersforpooreramericans (at) gmail.com
(424-247-2013)

*** WE ENJOY BRINGING ALL our fellow little people in America the good life ON THE WEB !!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COME COME POOR HUNGRY KIDS IN ARKANSAS ALSO SHOP AT TIFFANY'S S

#ARSenate: Arkansas Leads Nation in Number of Children Hungry
On July 2, 2010, In 2010 arkansas senate race, Arkansas, Local News, By Blake

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, the chairperson of the influential Senate Agriculture Committee, made much ado about the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, a bill that called for the investment of $4.5 billion in new child nutrition funding over ten years. The bill was introduced on March 17, 2010, almost six months after she took control of the committee.

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a report concluding that Arkansas has the highest percentage of children under the age of 18 that are hungry in the nation. Notably, the report is based on data from 2006 – 2008, which was before the economic recession began. Ken Kupchick of the River Valley Regional Foodbank told Stephens Media that he expects the numbers to get much worse.

Is this a campaign problem for Ms. Lincoln? Her current bill speaks the the devastating nature of this report. According to Lincoln’s campaign website, the allocation “is a significant increase over previous efforts. The highest previous increase was $500 million over ten years.” But if the numbers are accurate, Arkansas has led the nation in the number of hungry children per capita for four years. Should there have been a battle cry from Arkansas’s senior senator earlier?