Dem Leaders Stuff Spending Bill With Big Money Giveaways For Their States

Democrats’ Spending Bill Includes $200 Million For The Famous Presidio Park In Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Home District In San Francisco, To Provide Space For ‘People Who Are Working In The Environmental Or Social Justice Areas’ Despite The Park Being Charged With Operating ‘Without Taxpayer Support’

‘Unlike Other National Park Sites, The [Presidio] Trust Is Required By Law To Manage The Presidio Lands … With Earned Income Instead Of Taxpayer Dollars’

“In our founding bipartisan legislation, Presidio Trust Act, ?the Trust was charged with operating the park without taxpayer support. Funds earned through leasing homes and workspaces and operating hotels, a golf course, and venues are used for park management and upkeep.” (“About the Presidio Trust,” Presidio Trust Website, Accessed 10/27/2021)

• “The Trust was given a mandate to preserve the areas of the Presidio under its jurisdiction and attract non-federal resources to the park to ensure that it would ultimately be sustained without direct annual taxpayer support.” (“Mission and History,” Presidio Website, Accessed 10/27/2021)

JEAN FRASER, Presidio Trust CEO: “Unlike other national park sites, the Trust is required by law to manage the Presidio lands under our jurisdiction with earned income instead of taxpayer dollars. We’ve just concluded our eighth year of welcoming park visitors without taxpayer support…. [W]e ended Fiscal Year 2020 on solid financial footing.” (Presidio Trust 2020 Performance and Accountability Report, 11/13/2020)

But Democrats’ Multitrillion Dollar Spending Bill Includes $200 Million For This Park In Speaker Pelosi’s District

PAGES 933-934: “SEC. 70203. PRESIDIO TRUST…. IN GENERAL.—In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Presidio Trust for fiscal year 2022, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $200,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2026, for carrying out projects identified by the Presidio Trust …” (H.R. 5376, 117^th Congress)

Presidio Trust CEO Jean Frasier Said In 2018 The Trust Was Looking For $200 Million To Renovate Buildings On The Property To Provide Space For ‘People Who Are Working In The Environmental Or Social Justice Areas’

“Fort Winfield Scott overlooks the Golden Gate Bridge, nestled into the northwest corner of the Presidio in San Francisco. Better known as Fort Scott, its 10 Mission Revival-style barracks surround a large, grassy parade ground in a horseshoe pattern. It was an active Army base until 1994, but the barracks and other historic buildings on site have been mostly unused and closed to the public since then due to the high cost of renovations. Now, the Presidio Trust, the organization that runs the national park, is looking for someone to come in and turn the 30-acre plot into ‘a place for change,’ says Trust CEO Jean Fraser. ‘What we need to find is an organization that has the interest as well as the financial means to take on this project and renovate these buildings so that people who are working in the environmental or social justice areas would have a place to do great work in this magnificent setting,’ Fraser says.” (“For $200 Million, You Can Change the World at the Presidio's Fort Scott,” KQED, 4/22/2018)

• “And she is talking about some serious financial means. The Trust estimates it will cost around $200 million to renovate Fort Scott and its more than 20 historic buildings. Fraser knows not many environmental and social justice non-profits have that kind of money lying around, so the Trust is looking for foundations, individual philanthropists or a group of organizations who might have greater liquidity.” (“For $200 Million, You Can Change the World at the Presidio's Fort Scott,” KQED, 4/22/2018)

The Presidio ‘Includes Several Pelosi Donors On Its Trust Board’

“A national park in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district that is set to receive $200 million from taxpayers includes several Pelosi donors on its trust board, Fox News has learned…. Several of the park board members have given to Pelosi’s campaign, with Lynne Benioff, the chair of the trust, having given Pelosi almost $80,000 in cumulative campaign and PAC donations, according to FEC filings reviewed by Fox News. Over $69,000 of Benioff's donations have gone to the Nancy Pelosi Victory Fund and $10,400 has gone to Pelosi's campaign. Additionally, George Marcus — another trust board member — has given Democrat campaigns and candidates a total of $33.6 million, with a cumulative $723,000 going specifically to Pelosi's campaign and the Nancy Pelosi Victory Fund. Marcus gave Pelosi's campaign $50,700 going back to 1988 and has donated a lifetime total of $672,300 to the Nancy Pelosi Victory Fund. Furthermore, a former board member who left in 2015, John Keker, was reported in 2010 as Pelosi’s largest individual donor …” (“Major Pelosi Donors Sitting On SF Park Board In Her District Set To Receive $200 Million From Taxpayers,” Fox News, 10/22/2021)

Senate Energy And Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Sen. Barrasso Sent A Letter To The Presidio Trust Inquiring About This Earmark

“Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member John Barrasso, R-Wyo., probed the national park trust in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s, D-Calif., district on its federally required financial self-sufficiency. Barrasso sent the letter to Presidio Trust chair Lynne Benioff regarding the trust’s federal financial obligations. The Presidio Trust in San Francisco oversees the national park and, per the legislation that established the trust, it must be financially self-sustainable. ‘The Presidio Trust Act states that the Presidio of San Francisco must be financially self-sufficient and should not receive funding from the American taxpayer,’ Barrasso wrote. ‘The Presidio Trust’s website further confirms this by stating that the park is managed ‘at no cost to the taxpayers.’’ Barrasso noted that ‘$200 million of taxpayer funds’ had been ‘earmarked’ for the park by Pelosi and House Democrat leaders ‘as part of their reckless tax and spending budget legislation’ …” (“Park In Pelosi's District Slated To Receive $200M Probed By Top GOP Senator,” Fox News, 10/27/2021)

• “The senator requested Benioff respond to a list of questions regarding the trust’s financial obligations, asking if the Presidio is ‘currently self-sufficient, in accordance with its commitments and the law’ and if park ‘tenants required to contribute funds for the maintenance and the deferred maintenance of the facility.’ He also asked for the board to provide its ‘plan’ for the hundreds of millions of dollars in funds as well as a ‘full accounting of deferred maintenance within the Presidio’ and a list of current park tenants.” (“Park In Pelosi's District Slated To Receive $200M Probed By Top GOP Senator,” Fox News, 10/27/2021)

Also Included In Democrats’ Massive Spending Bill Are Tens Of Billions Of Dollars For Public Housing And Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Has ‘Pledged To Use All Of [His] Power’ To Steer A Large Portion Of That Money To The ‘Scandal-Plagued’ New York City Housing Authority

“Democrats' reconciliation bill includes more than double the money President Biden requested for public housing — a significant chunk of which could go to New York City's ‘scandal-plagued’ housing authority after Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s involvement. Schumer, D-N.Y., has been pushing for a major increase in federal funding to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for the better part of a year. And Biden proposed $40 billion in funding for public housing in his ‘American Jobs Plan,’ which is now the Democrats' fledgling reconciliation bill. But Schumer demanded that number be doubled to $80 billion, while saying the NYCHA – which has a long history of misconduct, bribery and failing its residents – should be one of the top recipients of the funding.” (“Amid Schumer Push, Dems' Reconciliation Bill May Give Tens Of Billions To 'Scandal-Plagued' NYC Public Housing,” Fox Business, 9/28/2021)

• “The content of it is subject to change as Democrats continue their negotiations this week, but the initial draft of Democrats' full reconciliation bill does indeed include $80 billion total for public housing. Of that, $66.5 billion is given to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge to spend as she sees fit on ‘priority investments as determined by the secretary to repair, replace or construct properties.’” (“Amid Schumer Push, Dems' Reconciliation Bill May Give Tens Of Billions To 'Scandal-Plagued' NYC Public Housing,” Fox Business, 9/28/2021)

SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA), Senate Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs Committee Ranking Member: “Why does the bill have $80 billion? It just so happens the New York City Housing Authority wanted $40 billion all for itself but our Democratic colleagues knew they couldn’t very well pass a bill that sent 100 percent of that money to New York City — it might be a bit of a problem for the 48 Democrat senators who don’t represent New York City…. Certainly looks a lot like Sen. Schumer securing a $40 billion earmark. Or should we call it the Schu-mark? … It looks like half of all the bill’s public housing dollars will go to a housing authority plagued by scandals, bribery and chronic mismanagement.” (“Toomey Takes Aim At Schumer's Spending Windfall For NYC Public Housing,” The Hill, 10/21/2021)

Schumer Declared That ‘One Of My Number One Priorities In Any Infrastructure Package Is To …  Fight For At Least $80 Billion’ In Public Housing Funds And Called On HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge ‘To Prioritize … NYCHA’

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “It will take massive federal re-investment to bring NYCHA back from the brink. President Joe Biden recognized the need for this kind of investment when he included $40 billion for public housing in his American Jobs Plan. But it’s just not enough to address this crisis. I have proposed we at least double that amount to $80 billion in order to address the crisis in New York City and fully fix public housing around the country. I have pledged to use all of my power as majority leader, alongside my New York colleagues in the House of Representatives, to secure a funding package that can restore and transform NYCHA.” (Sen. Schumer, Op-Ed, “NYCHA Needs Big Money For Major Progress,” City & State New York, 9/21/2021)

• SCHUMER: “[W]ith the help of my fellow elected leaders in New York … I am announcing today that one of my number one priorities in any infrastructure package is to double down on the President’s original proposal and fight for at least $80 billion in new funds to meet the capital repairs needs of Public Housing Agencies across the country, especially those of NYCHA.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Release, 4/18/2021)

“In a major announcement alongside a broad collation of housing advocates, tenants, and electeds, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, today, unveiled a push for at least an $80 billion dollar investment in federal public housing funds via the just-proposed American Jobs Plan. Schumer said after decades of disinvestment, bad management and federal neglect, NYCHA and all its residents face a now-or-never moment to secure critically-needed investments via the American Jobs Plan. Schumer said the administration’s plan calls for $40 billion dollars for the whole nation—but that number is just not enough given the mammoth needs of public housing properties across the country, particularly here in New York. Schumer said he is going to fight to at least double that proposal to $80 billion dollars …” (Sen. Schumer, Press Release, 4/18/2021)

• “In December of 2020, Schumer asked then-Rep. Marcia Fudge, who now oversees HUD, to prioritize woefully underfunded NYCHA.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Release, 4/18/2021)

Yet ‘The New York City Housing Authority Has Been Derided By Residents As One Of The Worse Slumlords In The Country’ And ‘One NYCHA Scandal After Another Has Exploded’ In Recent Years

“Toomey is worried about the prospect of sending tens of billions of dollars to a city housing authority that has been plagued by controversies A 2017 report by New York City’s Department of Investigation found what it called ‘a culture of misconduct, employee mistreatment and favoritism’ at NYCHA, including employees drinking while on the job and having sexual relationship with subordinates. And in a 2018 lawsuit against the housing authority, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman charged that city officials had made extensive efforts to cover up the squalid living conditions of low-income tenants, who were plagued by lead paint, vermin, broken elevators and lack of heat. The deteriorating conditions in New York’s public housing buildings has been a hot political topic among low-income voters in the state for years.” (“Toomey Takes Aim At Schumer's Spending Windfall For NYC Public Housing,” The Hill, 10/21/2021)

“The New York City Housing Authority has been derided by residents as one of the worse slumlords in the country — a reputation earned by years of dilapidation and disinvestment at the city, state and federal levels. … One NYCHA scandal after another has exploded on Mayor Bill de Blaiso’s watch: broken boilers in the dead of winter, pipes and paint laced with lead and mold, elevators out of service stranding the elderly in their homes — much of which the authority had tried to cover up when investigators came knocking. Conditions were so bad that in 2019 a federal court mandated a monitor be called in to oversee reforms.” (Politico, 8/14/2020)

“The litany of problems facing public housing residents in New York City — mold, lead paint, faulty boilers and leaky roofs — just got longer: claims of staff sex parties. The entire 40-person staff of a housing development in the Bronx was reassigned… after residents complained that some workers had been drinking and having sex on the job. Male and female supervisors at Throggs Neck Houses engaged in erotic activities with their subordinates for months — both inside and outside the buildings, said Monique Johnson, the president of the development’s resident association.” (“Claims of Staff Sex Parties: New Troubles for Public Housing,” The New York Times, 8/27/2018)

Democrats’ Reckless Taxing-And-Spending Spree Is Chock Full Of Other Benefits For Wealthy Elites Like Tax Credits For Purchasing Electric Vehicles For Individuals Making Up To $400,000 A Year And $7.4 Billion In Tax Credits For Expensive Electric Bikes

Democrats Are Pushing A Tax Credit For Electric Vehicle Purchases That Would Benefit Wealthy Taxpayers And Big Labor Unions

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD: “Behold [Democrats’] gussied-up $12,500 electric-vehicle handout…. An electric vehicle costs between $10,000 and $15,000 more than a similar gas-powered model, which is why they remain a luxury item purchased mainly by coastal dwellers who have cash to burn. Democrats are effectively conceding this in their bill…. Eligibility would extend to couples making up to $800,000 (and individuals up to $400,000).” (Editorial, “Green Welfare for the Rich,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/17/2021)

• “The bill in the House Ways and Means Committee would extend the existing $7,500 EV tax credit through 2031 and remove the 200,000 car per-manufacturer cap, which both GM and Tesla have hit. Currently there’s no vehicle price-limit on the credit, so people can use it to buy electric Porsches. Anyone who can afford a Porsche doesn’t need government help to buy one.” (Editorial, “Green Welfare for the Rich,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/17/2021)

• “Democrats are also sweetening the tax credit by $4,500 for EVs produced at facilities ‘under a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement’ and an additional $500 if their battery cells are made in the U.S. This is to help U.S. auto makers whose plants are unionized and have higher labor costs. They also want to help their United Auto Workers friends organize Tesla and foreign-owned plants. The $4,500 fillip would put non-unionized manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage, so they have no choice but to roll over to the UAW.” (Editorial, “Green Welfare for the Rich,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/17/2021)

• “Electric vehicles make up a mere 3% of car sales in the U.S. despite the current $7,500 federal tax credit and generous state subsidies. About 40% of the country’s EV registrations are in California, which offers EV buyers rebates up to $7,000, access to carpool lanes and lower electric rates. Nearly 80% of battery-powered cars sold last year in California were Teslas.” (Editorial, “Green Welfare for the Rich,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/17/2021)

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY), Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member: “The Democrats’ plan does play favorites, however, and what they really focus on doing, interestingly, is hurting the working folks in rural America to give tax breaks to wealthy families in big cities in liberal States. The reason I tell you this is that this bill includes huge subsidies for people who buy and drive electric vehicles. … Well, the government is already giving billions of taxpayer dollars to electric vehicle manufacturers and for owners. Nearly 80 percent of the tax credits go to households making at least $100,000 a year. … And that is what the Democrats are offering. This bill would give up to $12,500 to married couples to buy electric vehicles--12,500. What kind of income? Maybe there is an income limit. I mean, you don’t want to give it to rich people. So the Democrats said: OK, if you are a single person earning up to $400,000 a year, you can get a subsidy. If you are a married couple earning up to $800,000 a year, you still get the subsidy because, boy oh boy, we are going to push those electric vehicles for the big cities and for our Democrat colleagues.” (Sen. Barrasso, Congressional Record, S6574, 9/21/2021)

“The $3.5 trillion budget plan from congressional Democrats … is crafted in large part to meet President Biden’s major climate pledges.” (“Democrats’ Budget Would Finance Sweeping Clean-Energy Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/19/2021)

• “The plan also includes major tax incentives for clean energy and low-emissions vehicles. Clean-tech industry lobbyists have called this their most important demand.” (“Democrats’ Budget Would Finance Sweeping Clean-Energy Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/19/2021)

House Democrats Plan To Spend $7.4 Billion On Tax Credits For Expensive Electric Bikes And Hand Out A ‘Monthly Tax Benefit To Cover Costs Associated With Commuting By Bike’

“House Democrats looking to tackle climate change advanced a proposal in recent days as part of a sprawling $3.5 trillion package to offer billions in tax credits for e-bike purchases. The $7.4 billion measure would be perhaps the most high-profile boost yet for the emerging technology in Washington... The new tax credit would be worth up to $750, and couples who file jointly could claim it twice if purchasing two bikes. The credit would be tied to income and start to phase out for couples who make more than $150,000 a year. Another provision in the bill would provide an $81 monthly tax benefit to cover costs associated with commuting by bike, similar to what many employers offer for transit or parking.” (“E-Bike Buyers Would Get New Tax Credit Under Budget Plan As Lawmakers Seek Ways To Curb Climate Change,” The Washington Post, 9/18/2021)

And Of Course Democrats Are Still Demanding A Tax Cut For Wealthy Residents Of High-Tax Blue States, A Policy That ‘Would Allow The Wealthiest Americans To Pay Lower Taxes’

HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN REP. RICHARD NEAL (D-MA) And REPS. BILL PASCRELL (D-NJ) And TOM SUOZZI (D-NY): “With Speaker Pelosi, we continue to work among our colleagues and the Senate to undo the short-sighted capping of SALT … We are committed to enacting a law that will include meaningful SALT relief … and we are working daily toward that goal.” (Reps. Neal, Pascrell, and Suozzi, Press Release, 9/13/2021)

“A group of blue-state Democrats is pushing for its top tax priority as part of President Joe Biden’s next major legislative package — a possible voting bloc that could make or break the bill if they stay united on the House floor. The House Democrats stepping forward want to see a Biden infrastructure package that repeals the Trump-era limit on state and local tax deductions, known as the SALT deduction. The repeal is popular among blue-state members of their party but carries a significant budgetary cost, making it one of the emerging fault lines in Democrats’ coming infrastructure talks.” (“Blue-State Democrats Demand SALT Relief In Biden’s Next Big Bill,” Politico, 3/30/2021)

• “Four House Democrats — Suozzi and Reps. Mikie Sherrill, Josh Gottheimer and Bill Pascrell of New Jersey — have gone public so far with their insistence on SALT reinstatement in the upcoming package. Privately, though, several more lawmakers are in conversations about the effort and plan to formally join in the coming days, according to multiple members and aides. And right now, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team can only afford to lose three Democratic votes…” (“Blue-State Democrats Demand SALT Relief In Biden’s Next Big Bill,” Politico, 3/30/2021)

• “One of the biggest potential sticking points for a partisan infrastructure and social-spending push is actually a tax cut: Several Democratic lawmakers want to ease the $10,000 deduction cap for state and local tax payments. Removing or raising the cap has support from Democrats in high-tax coastal areas like California, New York, and New Jersey, including Rep. Katie Porter (Calif.), a high-profile ally of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and a fledgling progressive icon.” (“Biden’s Tax Plan to Fund Spending Boom Stirs Democrats’ Unease,” Bloomberg Tax, 6/04/2021)

• “Top Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer of New York and Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California support repealing the cap because it would benefit their constituents.” (“Democrats Search For Sweet Spot On ‘SALT’ Deduction,” Roll Call, 7/01/2021)

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): “We’ve got to have a SALT march, like Gandhi did… Let’s have a SALT march in America to restore some common sense to our tax policy.” (“Democrats Consider ‘SALT’ Relief For State And Local Tax Deductions,” NBC News, 6/24/2021)

REP. TOM SUOZZI (D-NY): “I’m not voting for any changes in the tax code unless we reinstate SALT as part of the deal.” (“Scoop: Moderate Democrats Buck Biden Tax Hikes,” Axios, 3/29/2021)

• SUOZZI: “No SALT, No Deal.” (“‘Mr. SALT’ and N.J. Ally Fight Ocasio-Cortez to Revive Tax Break,” Bloomberg, 8/10/2021)

• SUOZZI: “This is not a giveaway to the rich -- this is an essential feature to our progressive states… The only way we can hold our majority, or expand our majority, is to address this issue.” (“‘Mr. SALT’ and N.J. Ally Fight Ocasio-Cortez to Revive Tax Break,” Bloomberg, 8/10/2021)

REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER (D-NJ): “No SALT, no dice… There’s plenty of ways, in my opinion, to raise revenue and reinstate SALT.” (“Democrats Look to Smooth the Way for Biden’s Infrastructure Plan,” The New York Times, 3/29/2021)

• GOTTHEIMER: “For us, this is an existential threat… If the tax base leaves, if well-to-do people leave, that drains the tax base and hurts the programs we all care about.” (“‘Mr. SALT’ and N.J. Ally Fight Ocasio-Cortez to Revive Tax Break,” Bloomberg, 8/10/2021)

Even The New York Times Editorial Board Calls This Demand ‘A Major Change In Tax Policy That Would Allow The Wealthiest Americans To Pay Lower Taxes’

THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD: “Why Are Democrats Pushing a Tax Cut for the Wealthy? … Democrats [campaigned] in the 2020 elections … on the need for the wealthiest Americans to pay higher taxes. Now the party is flirting with a major change in tax policy that would allow the wealthiest Americans to pay lower taxes. A bloc of House Democrats, mostly from the New York area, are loudly withholding support for a broad package of tax increases to fund President Biden’s infrastructure plan unless it also includes a tax cut: an unlimited deduction for state and local tax payments, or SALT…. In an open letter [in April] addressed to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, 17 of the 19 Democrats who represent New York threatened to do exactly that, writing that they ‘reserve the right’ to vote against any tax increase that does not include a ‘full repeal’ of the $10,000 limit on the SALT deduction, enacted in 2017. A number of Democrats from other states, including New Jersey and California, have taken a similar stand…. Proponents of an unlimited SALT deduction say they are seeking to help middle-class taxpayers. If so, they should go back to the drawing board. The top 20 percent of American households, ranked by income, would receive 96 percent of the benefits of the change, according to a detailed analysis by the widely respected Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The primary beneficiaries would be an even smaller group of the very wealthiest Americans. The 1 percent of households with the highest incomes would receive 54 percent of the benefit, on average paying about $36,000 less per year in federal income taxes.” (Editorial, “Why Are Democrats Pushing a Tax Cut for the Wealthy?,” The New York Times, 4/25/2021)

And Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders Also Says Repealing The SALT Cap ‘Sends A Terrible, Terrible Message… You Can’t Be On The Side Of The Wealthy And Powerful If You’re Going To Really Fight For Working Families’

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), Senate Budget Committee Chairman: “It sends a terrible, terrible message when you have Republicans telling us that [SALT deduction] is a tax break for the rich… In fairness to Schumer and Pelosi, it is hard when you have tiny margins, but you have got to make it clear which side you are on — and you can’t be on the side of the wealthy and powerful if you’re going to really fight for working families.” (“Bernie Sanders Opposes Push To Reinstate SALT Deduction,” Axios, 5/09/2021)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): “[SALT cap relief is] a gift to billionaires. We can have a conversation on the policy, but it’s a bit of an extreme position, to be frank.” (“‘Mr. SALT’ and N.J. Ally Fight Ocasio-Cortez to Revive Tax Break,” Bloomberg, 8/10/2021)

REMINDER: Economists Say Repealing The SALT Cap Is ‘Regressive Tax Policy’ That ‘Would Not Benefit The People Who Need Help’

“Economists and tax experts from across the political spectrum are panning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s idea to stimulate the economy in the next bailout bill by raising the federal cap on tax deductions for state and local taxes. The move wouldn’t give the economy much of a boost, they say.” (“Economists Pan Pelosi’s Proposal To Lift Cap On State And Local Tax Deductions In Next Bailout,” Politico, 3/31/2020)

KARL SMITH, Vice President of Federal Tax and Economic Policy at the Tax Foundation: “A retroactive repeal is the worst of both worlds… It increases the probability that bad tax policy will be made permanent without the certainty to even allow the potential side-benefits to real estate markets and state and local government to materialize.” (“Economists Pan Pelosi’s Proposal To Lift Cap On State And Local Tax Deductions In Next Bailout,” Politico, 3/31/2020)

“Many liberal economic policy analysts also oppose lifting the SALT cap, calling it regressive tax policy.” (“Pelosi Floats New Stimulus Plan: Rolling Back SALT Cap,” The New York Times, 3/30/2020)

• SETH HANLON, a Senior Fellow at the Liberal Center for American Progress: “[T]here are ways you could target it to truly middle-class people. The problem is, relatively few middle-class people claim SALT. … [I]t doesn’t strike me as the most effective way of targeting economic stimulus.” (“Pelosi Floats New Stimulus Plan: Rolling Back SALT Cap,” The New York Times, 3/30/2020)

• MICHAEL LINDEN, Executive Director of the Progressive Groundwork Collaborative: “This is not a good idea… It would not help the economy heal, and it would not benefit the people who need help. … These are people who won’t spend the extra money and don’t really need it… That’s why they were left out of the cash assistance in the first place.” (“Economists Pan Pelosi’s Proposal To Lift Cap On State And Local Tax Deductions In Next Bailout,” Politico, 3/31/2020)

Joint Committee On Taxation: 94% Of The Benefits Of Repealing The Cap On State And Local Tax Deductions Would Go To Taxpayers Making Over $200,000

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION: “[A] proposal to repeal the $10,000 limitation on the deduction for State and local taxes beginning in 2019 … is estimated to result in a decrease in tax liability for 13.1 million taxpayers, 94 percent of which have $100,000 or more of economic income. Additionally, approximately 99 percent of the decrease in tax liability accrues to taxpayers with $100,000 or more of economic income.” (“Background On The Itemized Deduction For State And Local Taxes,” Joint Committee on Taxation, JCX-35-19, 6/24/2019, p. 14)

• Further, 94 percent of the benefit from repeal of the deduction for state and local taxes would flow to taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 per year. And only 6 percent of the benefit from repeal would go to taxpayers with incomes under $200,000. (“Background On The Itemized Deduction For State And Local Taxes,” Joint Committee on Taxation, JCX-35-19, 6/24/2019, p. 14)

• And 52 percent of the benefit from repeal of the deduction would go to those with incomes over $1 million. (“Background On The Itemized Deduction For State And Local Taxes,” Joint Committee on Taxation, JCX-35-19, 6/24/2019, p. 14)

According to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, repealing the SALT cap would result in large tax cuts for millionaires and almost no benefit for middle class taxpayers making between $50,000 and $100,000 per year. (“Background On The Itemized Deduction For State And Local Taxes,” Joint Committee on Taxation, JCX-35-19, 6/24/2019, p. 14; “Overview Of The Federal Tax System As In Effect For 2019,” Joint Committee on Taxation, JCX-9-19, 3/20/2019, p. 34)

• An estimated reduction in tax liability of $40.4 billion from repeal of the cap would mean that taxpayers with $1,000,000 or more in income would see a tax cut of $60,000 while taxpayers with between $50,000 and $100,000 in income would see a tax cut of less than $10. (“Background On The Itemized Deduction For State And Local Taxes,” Joint Committee on Taxation, JCX-35-19, 6/24/2019, p. 14; “Overview Of The Federal Tax System As In Effect For 2019,” Joint Committee on Taxation, JCX-9-19, 3/20/2019, p. 34)

Tax Policy Center: ‘About 96 Percent Of The Benefits’ Of Repealing The Cap On State And Local Tax Deductions ‘Would Go To The Top 20 Percent Of Taxpayers’

TAX POLICY CENTER: “Congressional Democrats have introduced several proposals to repeal the new cap on state and local deductions. About 96 percent of the benefits for doing so would go to the top 20 percent of taxpayers, according to the Tax Policy Center. Other analyses have found similar distributional impacts of the cap.” (“Democrats Said A GOP Tax Law Provision Would Devastate Blue States. That’s Not Happening.,” The Washington Post, 5/01/2019)

• “The top 1 percent of households, those making $755,000 or more, would receive more than 56 percent of the tax cut.” (Howard Gleckman, “High-Income Households Would Benefit Most From Repeal of the SALT Deduction Cap,” TaxVox: Individual Taxes, Tax Policy Center, 9/24/2018)

Committee For A Responsible Budget: ‘SALT Cap Repeal Would Distribute Over $300,000 To A Household In The Top 0.1 Percent Of Earners’

“SALT cap repeal would almost exclusively benefit higher earners. As we’ve shown before, 90 percent of the benefit of SALT cap repeal would go to the top 10 percent of earners. … Over two years, SALT cap repeal would distribute over $300,000 to a household in the top 0.1 percent of earners compared to only $40 for a family in the middle of the income spectrum.” (“SALT Cap Repeal Does Not Belong in Build Back Better,” Committee For A Responsible Budget, 10/25/2021)