Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Democrats Seek Unpaid Taxes, Setting Up Clash

ny times
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — Congressional Democrats, hoping to finance an ambitious agenda without raising taxes, are on a collision course with the Bush administration about pursuing the potentially vast amount of money that people hide from the Internal Revenue Service.

House and Senate Democrats say the government could collect as much as $100 billion more a year by whittling the tax gap — the unpaid taxes, mostly on unreported earnings, that the I.R.S. estimated was about $300 billion a year.

But the Treasury Department, which oversees the I.R.S., says it cannot realistically recover one-tenth as much as Democrats suggest.

On Monday, as part of President Bush’s budget proposal, the Treasury Department will unveil more than a dozen proposals to pursue tax cheats. But officials said those ideas would bring in less than $10 billion a year in extra revenue.

Mark W. Everson, the I.R.S. commissioner, has expressed far greater optimism. At a hearing of the Senate Budget Committee a year ago, he told lawmakers that the government could recover “between $50 billion and $100 billion without changing the dynamic between the I.R.S. and the people.”

Recouping unpaid taxes is a perennial concern in Washington. But the issue may have new urgency with the Democrats now in power and driving the considerable momentum behind it. Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has cited the tax gap as a top priority for increasing revenue, ahead of any discussion about rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts.

Democrats badly want the money because they have adopted strict “pay as you go” budgeting rules that require Congress to pay for any new programs or tax cuts with revenue from other areas.

“The tax gap is the logical place to go,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “It’s also the fair thing to do. When you have a number as high as $300 billion in unreported and uncollected income taxes, that puts a burden on everybody.”

Administration officials contend that Democrats have exaggerated the amount of money they can recover.

“At this point we have to do more research to understand where this money is,” said Michele Davis, a Treasury Department spokeswoman. “We are very mindful of the compliance burden on taxpayers who do follow the law.”

The Democrats have offered only a few specific proposals, and lawmakers have conspicuously refused to comment about proposals that could raise money but also provoke a political reaction from legions of self-employed people and family businesses.

Based on an analysis of audited tax returns from 2001, the I.R.S. recently estimated that the government lost $290 billion that year as a result of underreporting and underpayment of taxes.

More than 80 percent of that loss stemmed from underreporting by individuals, not corporations.

And the biggest problems were with people in business for themselves, who earned income that was not reported to the I.R.S. on W-2 forms or on the Form 1099 that businesses file when they pay independent contractors.

The I.R.S. estimated that it lost $109 billion on unreported business income, almost all of that from sole proprietors, like painters, plumbers, dry cleaners, florists, limousine drivers and restaurant owners.

Small-business lobbying groups have begun to mobilize against proposals intended to reduce the tax gap.

Two of the biggest trade associations in Washington, the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, organized the Coalition for Fairness in Tax Compliance in December to address lawmakers about proposals that might burden law-abiding business owners.

“I’m focused on avoiding the wrong solutions,” said Macey Davis, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents more than 600,000 small companies, half of which have fewer than five employees. “We’re not out to protect noncompliance. We’re out to protect those who are compliant and whose businesses could be hurt.”

Small-business groups have provided powerful support to President Bush and to Republican lawmakers. But they are poised to fight at least one proposal by the Treasury Department, which would authorize the I.R.S. to obtain information about a business’s revenues from credit card companies.

The proposal would allow the I.R.S. to compare the credit card payments made to a business with the revenues the business owner reports on his or her tax return. If the credit card payments were suspiciously high compared with what the business owner reported to the government, the I.R.S. could begin an audit.

Opponents of the proposal contend that it would catch very little wrong-doing because it would not examine payments made in cash or by check. They warn that it could have disruptive side effects on business operations. (A similar idea proposed by the Bush administration last year received virtually no attention from the Republican-led Congress.)

The Democrats’ biggest obstacle is that the tax gap is in some ways as amorphous as “waste, fraud and abuse” — everyone is against it, but no one is sure how to go about dealing with it. Many tax experts agree that increasing compliance would require an array of tactics, from increased auditing to tougher reporting requirements, to address scores of different practices.

Many such efforts would probably prompt political resistance, whether from small-business lobbying groups or from the credit card companies that might be ordered to provide the I.R.S. with transaction data at no charge. And some efforts may not yield much extra revenue. Another proposal that could lead to organized political opposition is a plan to crack down on investors who understate their profits when selling stocks.

The I.R.S. estimated that it lost about $11 billion in 2001 from people who understated their capital gains after selling stock. According to the agency’s review of tax returns that year, a year when the stock market was plunging and losses were more common than gains, about 38 percent of all people underreported their capital gains.

The problem, I.R.S. officials said, is that brokerage firms report only how much money a person receives from the sale of stock, not how much the person paid for it. Without an audit, the government has no way of verifying the profits that people report.

Nina Olson, the I.R.S.’s independent taxpayer advocate, has proposed that Congress require brokerage firms to report a person’s purchase cost as well as sales proceeds to the government. Mr. Emanuel has introduced a bill based on the idea.

The Bush administration is also planning to ask Congress to provide more money for enforcement efforts, including money for more auditors. But the I.R.S. currently audits fewer than one out of 435 tax returns. Doubling the number of auditors would mean that the I.R.S. would still audit less than 1 percent of all returns.

Democratic lawmakers contend that the Bush administration has been dragging its feet on efforts to track down underreporting.

“I know they can’t recover every dollar of the tax gap, but the I.R.S. needs to make an aggressive effort, and an honest one,” said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee. “Treasury shouldn’t lowball their estimate.”

But in an interview last week, Mr. Baucus declined to propose any of his own ideas for reducing cheating. “I’m leaving it up to them,” he said, referring to the Treasury Department.

Some Treasury officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because President Bush had not announced his proposals, said that Democrats had exaggerated the amount of money they could recover. But in his testimony before the Senate budget committee last February, Mr. Everson said the government could recover much more than it has been collecting.

“What we’ve said is, between now and 2009, we want to get the compliance rate from 83.5 percent to 85 percent,” Mr. Everson said. “That gets you about $30 billion in improved compliance.”

Ms. Olson, the I.R.S. taxpayer advocate, said it was not implausible to recover something in the neighborhood of $100 billion a year.

“There’s no silver bullet,” Ms. Olson cautioned, noting that the government had to use an array of tactics to address scores of different compliance problems. But she added, “I think there’s a significant amount of money that’s left on the table and that’s not hard to recover.”

Bush seeks big hike in Iraq, Afghan wars budget

daily india
Washington, Feb 6 (ANI): US President George Bush has reportedly sought a record 784 billion dollars for national defence as part of the annual and supplemental budget requests he sent to the US Congress.

In his 2.9 trillion-dollar budget requests for fiscal year 2008, Bush is seeking 481.4 billion dollars for the Department of Defence, which shows a 62 per cent boost in defence spending since he took office in 2001 and a 10 per cent increase over this year's spending.

The Bush administration is seeking 235 billion dollars more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2008 which begins on Oct. 1. Most of these funds will be spent on Iraq but President Bush warned that even more funds may be needed for this increasingly unpopular war, reported the Dawn.

"As commander in chief, my highest priority is the security of our nation. The budget will support a new strategy in Iraq that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives American forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete the mission," the paper quoted Bush as saying in a budget message to the US Congress.

The 784 billion-dollar proposed defence budget is the total of four separate requests covering three fiscal years - a base budget for 2008, supplemental budgets for 2007 and 2008, and a partial supplemental budget for 2009, said the House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, a Democrat from South Carolina.

He added: "That is a huge sum of money for one budget cycle. The President calls for us to rein in spending and then calls for a 784 billion dollar increase in spending."

President Bush is also learnt to have sent to the Congress a request for additional funding to continue his global war on terror, including funds needed to address extraordinary emergency requirements. (ANI)

US officer who refused to deploy to Iraq on trial

eitb 24
The judge barred several experts in international and constitutional law from testifying about the legality of the war on Monday. The officer called the US occupation morally wrong and a horrible breach of American law.

The judge in the case against the first US officer charged with refusing to deploy to Iraq barred several experts in international and constitutional law from testifying about the legality of the war on Monday.

In the Fort Lewis court martial, the military judge, Lt. Col. John Head refused almost all the defence witnesses in the case against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada (wuh-TOD'-uh), 28, of Honolulu, who is charged with missing movement for refusing to ship out with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

Watada also faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for accusing the Army of war crimes and denouncing the administration for conducting an "illegal war" founded on "lies."

The judge agreed with the military that the international and constitutional law experts would be irrelevant. Head has already ruled that Lieutenant Ehren Watada cannot base his defence on the legality of the war.

Demonstrators supporting Watada paraded near Fort Lewis, some calling for the President George W. Bush to be impeached. If convicted on the charges, Watada could receive four years in prison and a dishonourable discharge. He has requested that his case be heard by a military panel of officers, the equivalent of a jury. It had not yet been selected on Monday.

"Illegal and immoral war"


Last June, Watada refused to go to Iraq with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, based at Fort Lewis. He then publicly discussed his reasons for not deploying, including his belief that the war was both illegal and immoral.

Watada, who joined the Army in March 2003, has called the US occupation of Iraq morally wrong and a horrible breach of American law.

Charges later filed against the soldier did little to quell his actions. In August, he spoke at a Veterans for Peace rally in Seattle, in which he again criticised the war.

Following Monday's court session, Watada's attorney Eric Seitz spoke with reporters. Seitz noted that the judge was not allowing the defence to call witnesses who questioned the legality of the war or other efforts to contradict war time policies.Seitz said the courtroom atmosphere was tense as the judge had been denying defence motions."I would suggest that this is a typical kind of military case where the military doesn't want to hear what you want to say and we're battling to say even the simplest things," added Seitz.

Watada is expected to take the stand on Wednesday. One of Watada's superior officers will also be called to the stand to testify on his behalf.

GOP filibuster frustrates Senate debate on Iraq war

SF Gate
(02-06) 04:00 PST Washington -- Senate Republicans on Monday blocked debate on the Iraq war, stymieing efforts by Democrats to send even a weak bipartisan message opposing President Bush's order of 21,500 more troops into an intensifying civil war in Baghdad and Anbar province.

Senate Republican leaders pressured their most vocal anti-war critics into a test of party loyalty, using a procedural vote to save the administration a major embarrassment and stall Democratic plans to ratchet up pressure on the White House to begin pulling back from Iraq. The move also saved wavering Republicans from casting a difficult vote revealing their stand on the war.

Unless the Senate impasse can be broken, the war debate will turn next to the House, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, has promised to begin debate next week. House Democrats had hoped that the Senate would move first, demonstrating a strong, bipartisan resistance to Bush's war plans, but that does not appear likely.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said no decision had been made yet on what kind of resolution would be brought up -- whether it would be one similar to the bipartisan nonbinding Senate version offered by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., or a straight up-or-down vote on Bush's plan.

"We will have a vote,'' Daly said. "Clearly the American people and a bipartisan majority of the House and Senate want to have a discussion and a vote on Iraq."

The Senate debate was to be the first on the war since Democrats took control of Congress after the November elections. Instead, the impasse demonstrates that Senate Republicans, despite their widespread misgivings about Iraq and their new minority status, still lend critical support to Bush's handling of the war.

At least eight Republicans were prepared to vote for the Warner resolution stating the Senate "disagrees" with the troop increase. But the motion to end a filibuster and begin the Senate debate failed 49-47, with all Republicans and Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent-Conn., voting no.

Democrats, with the backing of Lieberman and Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent-Vt., hold a 51-49 majority, in the Senate where the minority wields enormous power through the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to break.

The question is how long the Republican support, already fracturing, can hold. Republicans routinely describe the troop increase as Bush's last chance in Iraq. Twenty Senate Republicans face re-election in 2008, and with public support for Bush and the war reaching new lows, the party is not expected to hold together much longer unless the troop increase quickly improves the situation.

Bush continues to meet with wavering Republicans to shore up support. "Believe me, I felt the love," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, of a Friday meeting with the president.

Despite voicing criticism of the troop increase, Murkowski said she remains undecided on a resolution opposing it.

"I am still working over the message that is sent and the recognition that you've got different audiences that are viewing this," Murkowski said. "This is not just a message to President Bush, though there are some who would have it be that simple. It is also a message to (Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-) Maliki, it's a message to our troops, it's a message to the Iraqi people, it's a message to our allies, it's a message to our enemies."

Republicans said Monday they were willing to debate the war, but insisted on more amendments than Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was willing to consider, particularly one by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., saying the Senate should not cut off funding for troops in the field.

"The Republican side is ready for this debate," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "We're anxious to have it."

McConnell said Republicans were not resorting to any special tactics, calling it "ordinary" to require 60 votes before an item can move forward on the floor of the Senate and pointing to the Democratic use of the filibuster against Bush's judicial appointments when they were in the Senate minority.

McConnell made clear that he would insist that any war measures meet a 60-vote threshold.

A frustrated Reid angrily promised a relentless pushback on requests by the White House for money and other measures supporting the war.

"You can run but you can't hide," Reid said. "I'm telling everyone within the sound of my voice ... we are going to debate Iraq."

Citing the deaths of more than 3,100 U.S. troops, Reid said, "They are dead! We are not going to allow the situation in Iraq to continue."

Reid said he was under time pressure to pass by Feb. 15 a spending plan left over from last year to avoid a government shutdown. He accused the Republicans of draining the time needed for the debate over the Iraq resolutions, possibly forcing a postponement that could last weeks.

McConnell accused Democrats of trying to avoid a debate on the Gregg amendment, which might have secured more votes than the Warner resolution and muddied the anti-war message Bush's opponents had hoped to send.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., dismissed the Gregg amendment as a "shibboleth," because the vast majority of Democrats oppose cutting funding for the troops. "It's going to come up again and again and again," Feinstein said. "It's just dreadful that you can't debate a resolution on the No. 1 topic facing the nation."

Opponents of the president's war policy -- including Warner, a longtime Republican supporter of the military and a former Navy secretary -- leaped on a devastating report by the government's intelligence agencies released Friday that portrayed a far grimmer situation in Iraq than the president has acknowledged.

The National Intelligence Estimate said the term civil war "does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq," which includes a "sea change" in violence among groups jockeying for power, a hardening of sectarian divisions and rising extremism.

Warner said 323,000 Iraqi troops have been trained by the United States at great expense and they should be the ones inserted into Baghdad because they understand the language and culture.

"How does an American GI being thrust in the darkened alleys of this city, with all of the cross fire between the Sunni and the Shia, Shia upon Shia, Sunni upon Sunni, decide whom to shoot," he said.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., made clear that he would have supported the Warner resolution and that the war needed to be debated.

Iraq "is engulfing the work of this body, and the House and all of Washington," Specter said. "There is no oxygen left in this town" for anything else.

Lieberman, who voted with Republicans, has been a consistent supporter of the war and the president's policy. He argued Monday that Bush's plan and the "decisive battle for Baghdad" should be allowed to work, and if senators don't believe it can, they should "have the courage of your convictions" and vote to cut off funds or give the White House a binding timeline to withdraw.

Iran said to have set up centrifuges

reuters
VIENNA — Iran has set up two cascades of 164 centrifuges each in its Natanz nuclear plant, laying a basis for full-scale uranium enrichment, European diplomats said Monday.

The cascades were to be vacuum-tested shortly, without uranium feedstock inside, and fuel material would then be added if the trial runs were successful, they said.

The 328 centrifuges would be the vanguard of 3,000 planned for installation in coming months.

Tehran recently finished installing piping, electrical cables and other equipment needed to begin so-called industrial-scale enrichment in the vast subterranean complex, which is fortified and ringed by antiaircraft guns, in the central Iranian desert.

Starting the cascades would dramatically sharpen Iran's confrontation with Western powers that pushed through limited United Nations sanctions on Tehran six weeks ago to try to curb what they suspect is a disguised effort to produce atomic bombs.

The Islamic Republic, the world's No. 4 oil producer, says it wants to produce electricity.

Diplomats said the launch of the cascades may be the gist of Iran's planned announcement on nuclear progress Sunday.

"Two cascades have been installed in the underground plant, but they are not running yet," said a European Union diplomat in Vienna, headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.

Iran plans to rig up a total of 54,000 centrifuges at Natanz over the longer term.

There was no comment from Iran. On Friday, it denied reports abroad that it had begun installing the 3,000 centrifuges.