text: Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) remarked: "Their [tax] package eliminates enough revenue to fund life-saving medical research through the National Institutes for Health for more than two years. Instead of a bipartisan commitment to comprehensive tax reform, they continue on a partisan path to promote the privileged.”
  Last year a very wealthy self-described "venture capitalist" named Mister Hanauer wrote a widely circulated article for Politico: The Pitchforks Are Coming … For Us Plutocrats — and he is credited as a key force behind Seattle’s recent decision to adopt a $15 minimum wage (the highest in the nation.) He once said: "Somebody like me makes hundreds or thousands as times much as the median American, but I don't buy hundreds or thousands of times as much stuff."
  But the Republicans (who usually listen to billionaires) were never listening to Mister Hanauer. A number of Republican-led states are now considering tax changes that would (in many cases) have the effect of cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor. Republican governors now hold office in 31 states — and of the Republican governors who have proposed tax increases, virtually all have called for increases in consumption taxes, which hit the poor and middle class much harder than the rich. Much harder than for billionaires such as Mister Hanauer, who says: "My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and shirts a year like most American men. Occasionally we go out to eat with friends."
  Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan urged voters to support a ballot measure that would raise $1.9 billion by increasing the sales tax and gas tax. Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas called for raising cigarette and liquor taxes. Governor Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota proposed an increase to the gas tax and several taxes and fees related to motor vehicles. Governor Gary R. Herbert of Utah has increased the tobacco tax and proposed extending it to e-cigarettes, while also saying he was open to an increase in the gasoline tax. Governor Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina said she would allow the state to raise its gas tax. Governor Paul R. LePage of Maine called for increasing the sales tax and subjecting more goods and services to taxation (such as movie tickets and haircuts) to offset the cost of eliminating the estate tax.
  A new report by Keystone Research Center suggests that these states could be creating financial problems down the road. The strategy of shifting from income taxes to consumption taxes has caused huge budget shortfalls in Kansas — and more recently, North Carolina, which announced a budget shortfall of nearly half a billion dollars. One reason, according to the report, is that just as the tax burden has shifted away from the wealthy, the wealthy have received the lion's share of income growth in recent years. The Keystone report’s authors argue that a less regressive tax structure is the answer to state budget woes.
  As it is now, the poor already pay more than the rich in taxes — that's to say, as a percentage of their income. According to another recent report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, in nearly every state, low- and middle-income families pay a bigger share of their income in state and local taxes than wealthy families. According to that report, in 2015 the poorest fifth of Americans will pay on average 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes, the middle fifth will pay 9.4 percent and the top 1 percent will average 5.4 percent. (And that doesn't even account for the huge tax advantage that the wealthy have with federal taxes if their only income is derived from capital gains).
  The Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), is leading the charge for "reform" in the food stamp program: “A family that depends on their own work is more secure. There’s a dignity in taking care of yourself.”
  More than 20 states are preparing to reinstate time limits on SNAP benefits that most states had waived during the Great Recession (although, judging by their circumstances, millions wonder if the recession has ever ended). Food stamp "reform" will mean that healthy adults without children will be limited to three months of benefits every three years unless they are working or enrolled in job training for at least 20 hours a week. The GOP's attempt to change the eligibility requirements could affect 1 million low-income people. Republicans assume recipients don’t want to work, although many are employed. USDA data show nearly 43% of recipients live in a household where someone is working.
  The USDA's website says that a single person who NETS more than $973 a month doesn't quality for SNAP. According to the Agriculture Department, the average recipient receives about $125 a month. Nearly 40% of recipients are able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 60, according to 2013 government data — but the other 60% are children, elderly or disabled adults. The average gross income for all recipient households is a mere $758 a month.
  Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a member of the House Agriculture Committee, said “We cannot balance the budget on the backs of poor people.”
  Instead of reforming farm subsidies, the GOP always goes after the poor. The Washington Post reports that for decades farm subsidies have disproportionately benefited richer Americans. USDA spokesman Cullen Schwarz said, "It’s a loophole some folks not actively engaged in farming are using to collect farm benefits."
  The Heritage Foundation claims that of those who aren't millionaires, the bottom 80 percent of farm subsidy recipients in Iowa collected an annual average of $1,565 or less. If that's true, it's not very much. But according to the Heritage, the majority of agricultural subsidies nationwide go to commercial farms with average incomes of $200,000 and net worths of nearly $2 million — so why would they need any subsidy at all? Especially if those with incomes of less than $758 a month are going to be penalized just for being poor?
  But with a GOP rule change for SNAP, a single man or woman of any age (without children) with a meager monthly income of only $973 or less can only receive an average of $125 a month for 3 months. They will be able to eat for 90 days — then after that, they're on their own.
  FLASHBACK 2007 (USA Today) "Members of the House who crafted a controversial $286 billion farm bill up for a vote today comprise about a tenth of the chamber, but their districts have reaped 42% of the benefits of past crop subsidies." And yes, Rep. Mike Conaway, who is pushing for cuts in food stamps, is on the list — over $300 million times.
  The Tea Party tool (Dr. Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon and Fox News regular) is building a campaign team for a potential 2016 presidential run. Yet he too was once on food stamps. But while Ben Carson himself may have grown up on welfare, he's now espousing policies that make sure other people can't get on welfare.
  The GOP also wants to drug-test people (like Dr. Ben Carson) who apply for food stamps and public assistance, even thought drug testing shows a decline in positivity rates. But the GOP won't drug test Tea Party members of Congress who get farm subsidies. Why is that? And for that matter, members of Congress get their salaries ("government benefits") from tax revenues as well, so shouldn't they also be drug tested? After all, not too long ago one Tea Party member was busted for selling cocaine!
  Even the former vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan supported himself with Social Security benefits from his deceased father. But just like all the other GOP hypocrites — now Paul Ryan and the GOP wants to cut Social Security for everyone else — while also cutting taxes to the bare bone for the very rich — to starve our government of revenues to achieve their ultimate goal. This has always been the typical GOP way of governing — feed the rich to starve the poor.
  "After decades of bogus proposals, how will we know when Washington begins to talk real tax reform, rather than more tax favors for the wealthy and politically connected? When they propose to scrap the whole system and start from scratch."
  [My comment] Besides the fact that half the members of Congress are millionaires themselves (and benefit from the low capital gains tax rate), they already rate in the top 1% with their annual congressional salaries of $174,000 a year.
  So it's hard to imagine they'd want to raise taxes on themselves. You can't even get them to raise the $118,500 income cap for Social Security payroll taxes because THEY TOO would have to pay more.
  Congress works for themselves, not the American people. Even well-meaning "newbies" get quickly corrupted by the system after they are first elected — when humbleness is quickly replaced by narcissism.
  As my longtime accountant and financial advisor (a conservative) has stated many times to me privately over the years..... "strip away all the social issues and partisan politics and put them aside.........................and then based on a purely economic level.............anyone who votes Republican who makes under 150 grand is absolutely VOTING AGAINST THEMSELVES."
  U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts (the new chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee) says, “We have two people to be concerned about. One is the taxpayer. The other is the person receiving food stamps” — but also says a top priority of his committee is maintenance of the federal crop insurance program.
  Question from the HuffPo Hill newsletter: "With states already cutting benefits for childless able-bodied adults -- the GOP's easiest target for the past few years -- what other population of the undeserving poor do Republicans have in mind?"
  If you are one of those people who earns the median wage or less; or fears you might one day get laid off from your job; or believes that it's possible that one day you could become disabled or too sick to work; or think you'll work long enough to survive on a meager Social Security check in your old age; then these 5 articles are for you...
  The rich own our democracy: The donor class opposes policies that favor the middle-class and poor, and they have sway over our representatives