Get Ready for Congress to Tell Us ...

[Si modo]

Did you guys weep when Enron executives had to appear before Congress? Did you cry about the constitution then?
....

*typing slowly for you*

Was there damage to property? Yes. Is that worthy of an investigation for wrongdoing? Yes.

What is the wrongdoing here? Talking to the press.

.... Assholes.

If my concern for diminishing rights to freedom makes me an asshole, I am proud to be one rather than a cult member. Just make sure you let me know where the Newspeak lexicon can be found so that I know these Newspeak definitions.

 

[Si modo]

Just so that we can put a face to Waxman for anyone who doesn't know:

 

[Ravi]

AT&T is subsidized by taxpayers' money. As long as they are they are obligated to open their books to the taxpayer. That si modo claims this is unconstitutional makes her either extremely stupid or a liar.

Tough call.

 

[Murf76]

I think people are missing the larger picture here. The whole purpose for the subsidy was to encourage private business to offer prescription drug coverage. The subsidy was 28%, with private corporations paying the other 72%. But the government, in order to further encourage employers to participate, allowed corporations to deduct 100% off their taxes.

Now... bear in mind that these incentives were designed to keep employers from dumping their retirees into Medicare Part D. So, if these big corporations decide it's no longer worthwhile to continue providing coverage, not only is Obamacare defunded by the amount they thought they'd be raising on closing this deduction... but they'll be paying for the dumped seniors that end up in Medicare Part D.

 

[Si modo]

AT&T is subsidized by taxpayers' money. As long as they are they are obligated to open their books to the taxpayer. ....

Again, you state the obvious. The financial statements ARE open to the public.

They are being asked to justify (that's JUSTIFY) their comments to the press (that's COMMENTS to the PRESS) - comments that put a new bill in a bad light.

The rest of your post is not worthy of any comment.

 

[Immanuel]

Doesn't anyone find it shocking that taxpayers are giving AT&T 1 billion in corporate welfare and then they get to turn around and write that off as an EXPENSE?

It's quite possible that Waxman knows they are lying about the amount and that is why he wants to see their bookkeeping.

I am not so sure you know what you are talking about. I read the link and from what I see this is a write off of future tax deductions, not the ones received in the past.

First of all, the charges are estimates. They reflect the elimination of a tax deduction on money the companies receive from the government.

In other words, the new law prevents the companies from double-dipping at the federal trough. They don't represent increased costs, they reflect the end of a benefit that's been bolstering corporate incomes for the past seven years.

To understand what's going on here, we have to go back to 2003, when Congress expanded prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients. To keep the cost to about $400 billion — and to discourage companies from dumping their retirees into the government program — lawmakers offered federal subsidies to cover 28 percent of what employers set aside for future retiree drug costs.

Then they added a tax break that allowed companies to deduct the entire amount of their drug costs, including the portion they got from the government.

Under the new law, companies can only deduct the 72 percent they pay themselves, not the amount of the subsidy.

I honestly do not understand this well enough to discuss it, but I don't think you do either.

From what I am understanding, basically the companies are being encouraged to create a trust fund to guarantee prescription drug coverage to retirees. For doing so, rather than dropping it in the government's lap, Congress gave subsidies to companies of 28% of the amount put into the trust fund and then allowed the companies to expense 100% of the costs. Did they have to record the subsidy as income? If the company is being allowed to write off the entire amount of the cost of prescription drug benefits yet not record the subsidy as income, then I have no problem with the elimination of the write off of the amount of the subsidy. That is only fair. However, if they have to record the amount of the subsidy as income, then they should be allowed to write off the entire 100% of the costs. Those companies should not be allowed to write off the expense without recognizing the revenue associated with it from the subsidy. Question is did they have to recognize the revenue as well? If they did, it would only be a wash.

All that being said, it is irrelevant. If the companies have had to put the estimated value of the future subsidies onto the balance sheet for some accounting reasons, and the value of those future subsidies have been reduced then it is the responsibility of the corporation to make the fact known to its shareholders and potential shareholders.

Oh and yes, I do find it shocking. I find it shocking that Congress allowed them to write off the full costs of prescription drug coverage and not recognize the revenue generated by the subsidy in the first place. If that is the case and it has happened since 2003, then it is the fault of Congress not the fault of the corporations that received the benefit. Whether or not that is actually the case, I will have to find out later.

Immie

 

[Murf76]

AT&T is subsidized by taxpayers' money. As long as they are they are obligated to open their books to the taxpayer. That si modo claims this is unconstitutional makes her either extremely stupid or a liar.

Tough call.

Yet another good reason for employers to STOP providing this coverage, wouldn't you say?

 

[Ravi]

Okay. Extremely stupid wins.

 

[Care4all]

AT&T is subsidized by taxpayers' money. As long as they are they are obligated to open their books to the taxpayer. That si modo claims this is unconstitutional makes her either extremely stupid or a liar.

Tough call.

Yet another good reason for employers to STOP providing this coverage, wouldn't you say?

Or another good reason for Corporations to not suck off the government tit?

 

[Ravi]

Tissue, si modo?

 

[Claudette]

I think people are missing the larger picture here. The whole purpose for the subsidy was to encourage private business to offer prescription drug coverage. The subsidy was 28%, with private corporations paying the other 72%. But the government, in order to further encourage employers to participate, allowed corporations to deduct 100% off their taxes.

Now... bear in mind that these incentives were designed to keep employers from dumping their retirees into Medicare Part D. So, if these big corporations decide it's no longer worthwhile to continue providing coverage, not only is Obamacare defunded by the amount they thought they'd be raising on closing this deduction... but they'll be paying for the dumped seniors that end up in Medicare Part D.

This is also what I have heard on several news shows.

Wonder how Waxman will deal with the truth of the matter??

Should be intereting.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is just another example of the shortsightedness of government.

The government extended the enticement for companies to give retirees a benefit so the government wouldn't have to pay for it.

A deal was struck that saved the government tons of dough, saved businesses a ton of dough, gave retirees a nice benefit and cost half of what it would of cost the government if these people were on the medicare drug program.

That's what I call a win, win, win situation.

But now the government takes away the incentive and when businesses say that without the incentive that providing the benefit would cost them money the crybabies in the government accuse businesses of somehow lying because there is no way that the health care bill can cost anyone money.

So now instead of having retirees from businesses covered at the bargain basement price the government will now have to spend twice as much to cover these people.

Looks to me like the ones who fucked up here are the politicians.

 

[saveliberty]

I think people are missing the larger picture here. The whole purpose for the subsidy was to encourage private business to offer prescription drug coverage. The subsidy was 28%, with private corporations paying the other 72%. But the government, in order to further encourage employers to participate, allowed corporations to deduct 100% off their taxes.

Now... bear in mind that these incentives were designed to keep employers from dumping their retirees into Medicare Part D. So, if these big corporations decide it's no longer worthwhile to continue providing coverage, not only is Obamacare defunded by the amount they thought they'd be raising on closing this deduction... but they'll be paying for the dumped seniors that end up in Medicare Part D.

This is also what I have heard on several news shows.

Wonder how Waxman will deal with the truth of the matter??

Should be intereting.

Not to worry Mr. Waxman, I know how to get the worms back in the can. We vote in November. New worms.

 

[Ravi]

The subsidy isn't going away. Just the ability to claim it as an expense.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The subsidy isn't going away. Just the ability to claim it as an expense.

Same difference. Either way it costs the company money.

So the government is still the fuck up here.

 

[saveliberty]

The subsidy isn't going away. Just the ability to claim it as an expense.

Takes me about half a second to make that business decision. Good bye benefit.

 

[Murf76]

AT&T is subsidized by taxpayers' money. As long as they are they are obligated to open their books to the taxpayer. That si modo claims this is unconstitutional makes her either extremely stupid or a liar.

Tough call.

Yet another good reason for employers to STOP providing this coverage, wouldn't you say?

Or another good reason for Corporations to not suck off the government tit?

Or another good reason not to trust the government.

 

[Si modo]

The subsidy isn't going away. Just the ability to claim it as an expense.

Takes me about half a second to make that business decision. Good bye benefit.

Right. Is the benefit required by law, though? It is to get the benefit, so that's gone. So, now there is more load on Medicare, which of course, the idiots didn't factor into their budget for this bill.

Regardless, the point is the abuse of power and loss of jobs and employers.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The subsidy isn't going away. Just the ability to claim it as an expense.

Takes me about half a second to make that business decision. Good bye benefit.

And the administration with the least private sector business experience in history doesn't get it.

 

[Murf76]

This is just another example of the shortsightedness of government.

The government extended the enticement for companies to give retirees a benefit so the government wouldn't have to pay for it.

A deal was struck that saved the government tons of dough, saved businesses a ton of dough, gave retirees a nice benefit and cost half of what it would of cost the government if these people were on the medicare drug program.

That's what I call a win, win, win situation.

But now the government takes away the incentive and when businesses say that without the incentive that providing the benefit would cost them money the crybabies in the government accuse businesses of somehow lying because there is no way that the health care bill can cost anyone money.

So now instead of having retirees from businesses covered at the bargain basement price the government will now have to spend twice as much to cover these people.

Looks to me like the ones who fucked up here are the politicians.

This is what comes of social engineering. I mean, I can understand the impulse of trying to get better prescription benefits for seniors, but clearly... Medicare Part D, was a bad idea. G.W. made these deals in order to keep costs down, Obama comes along behind him, and just for shits and giggles changes the rules of the road.

Seniors are caught in the middle. Employers are caught in the middle. Taxpayers are caught in the middle. And it's all just some stupid partisan GAME. Meanwhile, just like every other time government gets involved in healthcare, costs go up instead of down. Obamacare will be more of the same, and the deals he makes today will be off tomorrow.

Central government was never supposed to be in the social welfare business to begin with... and every time we walk away from the Constitution, we end up getting burned. But the stupid fucktards in Washington never seem to figure that out.