BLOGROLL

Many tax code problems exist solely because tax brackets, limits and deductions haven't kept pace with inflation. One of those areas is the limit for the deduction of capital losses.

Senator Hatch and Senator Blanche Lincoln introduced a bill Tuesday to fix this problem with the tax code, The Desert News reports:

Amid the recession's body-slam on stock-market prices, Sen. Orrin Hatch has introduced a bill to increase significantly the amount of capital losses that individual taxpayers may deduct in a year.

The bill, which Hatch is pushing with Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., would allow deducting $10,000 in such losses against ordinary income, up from the current $3,000 limit. The new $10,000 limit would then also be increased each year automatically to match inflation.

To understand the bill, it helps to remember that investors may receive ordinary income on assets, such as dividends and interest. They also may have capital gains if they sell their stocks or bonds for more than they paid for them. A capitol loss occurs when people sell their investments for less than they paid originally.

Capital losses now can be offset against capital gains without limit. However, current law limits the amount of capital loss that can be deducted against ordinary income to $3,000 a year.

Unused capital losses can be carried over to future years indefinitely, where they can be used against future capital gains or to offset, again, up to $3,000 in ordinary income a year in the future.

"This is a question of fairness," Hatch said. "Allowing individual investors to deduct only $3,000 per year when their total losses may come to many times that much is simply not fair. The tax code taxes gains without limit, so it should not place such a restrictive limitation on losses."

With the 39.3% loss in the S&P 500 last year, many individuals have been limited in their ability to deduct their losses when they sold his or her investment (stocks, bonds for example) for less than what was paid for it.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the The Uintah Basin Standard and St. George Spectrum. -Staff

Last week, the country's political echo chamber was abuzz with discussions and evaluations of President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office. While this was, of course, an arbitrary milestone with little meaning outside of the cable news shows, the past 100 days have provided us with some unique insight into this president and how he intends to govern.

The president came into office facing unprecedented expectations after campaigning on a platform of big promises. Not the least of these was a promise to move the country past the bitter partisan divides that have kept us polarized in recent years.

Unfortunately, I don't believe he's delivered on that promise.

Today, our government is as polarized as it has ever been. And, even under these conditions, this administration and the congressional Democrats have opted to push forward a far-left agenda the likes of which has not been seen since the "New Deal" in the 1930s.

Right out of the gate, the president eschewed what was a hard-fought, bipartisan compromise on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and pushed through Congress a decidedly more expansive and liberal approach to the program. Not surprisingly, the final vote was divided along partisan lines.

Next, the administration brought to Congress a $790 billion "stimulus package" that basically read like a wish list of longtime Democratic policy priorities and had very little to do with actually stimulating the economy. Small businesses, which create 70 percent of the new jobs in this country, went virtually unnoticed in the "stimulus" bill, which focused more on expanding the federal government and providing "tax credits" for millions of Americans who don't pay any taxes.

The president had an opportunity to work with Republicans and include ideas that are proven to have immediate economic impacts -- ideas such as reducing the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world to keep businesses in the U.S. or increasing the home-buyer tax credit. Instead, he chose to cut Republicans almost entirely out of the negotiations and then blame them for being too partisan when the votes came down divided.

Comment (4)

Senator Hatch remembered the late Congressman Jack Kemp and offered his condolences to the entire Kemp family in a speech before the U.S. Senate yesterday:

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American and friend, former Congressman Jack Kemp. I was deeply saddened to learn of his passing and offer my sincerest condolences to his sweet wife, Joanne, their four children, Jeffrey, Jennifer, Judith, and James, and 17 grandchildren. Jack has left a lasting impression and legacy that will be honored and long remembered by a grateful nation.

Jack came to Congress after 13 years as a professional football quarterback. His career in professional football demonstrates the value of persistence, self-confidence, and courage. Jack began his football career slowly and without much success. However, he was fiercely competitive and eventually led the Buffalo Bills to 33 victories and two league championships. He was selected All-League quarterback, AFL Player of the Year, Most Valuable Player, and appeared in five AFL championship games and seven AFL All-Star games. Jack was also recognized by Sporting News as one of the top 50 quarterbacks of all time. Sports taught him that the only real failure is not trying again, and that out of adversity comes strength, determination, and ultimate victory.

When asked if being a football star helped him get elected to Congress, Jack responded, "Yes, to the extent that I had name recognition and people knew who I was. That kind of identification cuts two ways. On the one hand, it was harmful because some people consider professional football to be anti-intellectual and an inadequate training ground for political leadership. To the contrary, I believe pro football is great training for leadership. In fact, I hope more athletes choose politics as a profession so that we don't leave the field to attorneys."

Comment (0)

Did you know Senator Hatch is on Twitter, YouTube, Friedfeed and Facebook?

Please follow, subscribe and friend Senator Hatch today. 

Comment (0)

Senator Hatch recently wrote an essay for Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy about the role of the Constitution in judicial nominations and confirmations.

Below are a few excerpts:

Nonetheless, the timing of this Essay is auspicious in several respects. First, I write in the wake of two very relevant Federalist Society student symposia, last year's about the people and the courts and this year's about the separation of powers. Second, President Obama has been particularly clear from the time he was a candidate about his intention to appoint judges who will exercise a strikingly political version of judicial power. Third, he has already started acting on that intention by making his first judicial nominations. New Presidents typically make their first judicial nominations in July or even August, yet the Senate Judiciary Committee has already held a hearing on the President's first nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and the President sent two more nominees to the Senate just a few days ago.

The timing of publication of Senator Hatch's essay was bolstered by the news last week that Supreme Court Justice David Souter planned to retire this summer.

Continuing, Senator Hatch explains the role of the Constitution in judicial nominations:

Consider a judicial nomination as a hiring process based on a job description. The job description of a judge is to interpret and apply law to decide cases. This job description does not mean whatever a President, political party, or Senate majority wants it to mean. Our written Constitution and its separation of powers set the judicial job description. Interpreting written law must be different than making written law. Because law written in statutes or the Constitution is not simply words, but really the meaning of the words, only those with authority to make law may determine what the words of our laws say and what those words mean. Judges do not have authority to make law, so they do not have authority to choose what the words of our laws say or what they mean. In other words, judges apply the law to decide cases, but they may not make the law they apply. Judges and the law they use to decide cases are two different things. Judging, therefore, is about a process that legitimates results, a process by which the law made by the people and those they elect determines winners and losers.

The Constitution and its separation of powers compel this judicial job description. This kind of judge is consistent with limited government and the ordered liberty it makes possible. Justice Markman's article describes what he calls a "traditional jurisprudence -- one that views the responsibility of the courts to say what the law 'is' rather than what it 'ought' to be." Such a philosophy of judicial restraint -- an understanding of the limited power and role of judges -- is a qualification for judicial service. This is the kind of judge a President should nominate.

Read the entire essay on Scribd.

Comment (0)

With today's news that Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire at the end of the court's session this summer, Senator Hatch discusses the role of the Supreme Court on Fox News:

Comment (0)

Senator Hatch will be on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos this Sunday to discuss the impending vacancy on the Supreme Court:

On the show this Sunday: Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and the Committee's longest serving Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Ut. With the news that Justice David Souter plans to resign at the end of this term, we'll debate the future of the courts, how the Obama administration will handle this additional challenge, and who is likely to fill Souter's seat.

This Week is broadcast on KTVX, ABC 4 in Salt Lake City at 9:30 am. Additional local listings can be found here.

Comment (1)

Senator Hatch introduced legislation today to put the brakes to the runaway growth in government spending -- 22% in just two years.

The Limitation on Government Spending Act of 2009 would limit government spending to 20% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product -- essentially the size of the U.S. economy).

 Senator Hatch discusses the bill:

At a time when Utahns and Americans are tightening their wallets, this budget grows the size of government, excluding nondefense-related spending in just two years by 22 percent.

Many Americans, as demonstrated last week through TEA parties, are asking if this government spending will ever stop. After trillions for bailouts and other government spending, this budget makes no hard choices to reform runaway spending.

...

It is time that we restrict government spending. It will cause us to make some tough decisions about what is really important. One thing is certain, we cannot continue down the path we are headed. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to change course and get back on the path to fiscal sanity.

Read more of Senator Hatch's speech.

Orrin PAC has more on the ongoing impact of President Obama's spending plan on deficits and national debt.

Updated: Watch this video of Senator Hatch introducing the Limitation on Government Spending Act.

Comment (0)

Senator Hatch voted against President Obama's Cabinet nominee for the department of Health and Human Services in a Finance committee vote on Tuesday. Senator Hatch voted against Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius nomination after learning that Sebelius omitted key facts regarding her connection to late-term abortion doctor George Tiller.

The Associated Press reports:

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Monday that Sebelius initially "seemed to be a qualified candidate for the job."

"However, after learning about her inexplicable omission of donations from the late-term abortion doctor George Tiller, I have to reevaluate my support for her nomination," said Hatch.

The Salt Lake Tribune also reported:

Sen. Orrin Hatch cast his first vote against a nominee for President Barack Obama's Cabinet, saying that the pick for Health and Human Services omitted telling the Senate Finance Committee about campaign donations from an abortion doctor.

Republican Hatch previously backed other nominees despite critics from his own party who said unpaid taxes or related missteps should have disqualified them. Hatch said the president should get his choices for his administration unless they're unqualified or unethical.

Tuesday, Hatch said HHS nominee Kathleen Sebelius should have disclosed all donations by George Tiller, an abortion doctor under investigation by the medical board in her home state of Kansas. The complaint under review involves allegations he performed late-term abortions without getting the independent second opinions required by state law. A Wichita jury last month acquitted Tiller of 19 misdemeanors stemming from similar allegations.

Sebelius responded to Senate Finance Committee questions that Tiller had given her $12,450 but then revised that to add another $23,000 after an Associated Press report pointed out her political action committee had received funds as well.

Hatch, a pro-life Republican, said he was "disappointed" and voted with seven other GOP senators against her in committee.

Senator Hatch commented further:

Although Governor Sebelius initially seemed to be the right person for the job based on her long record of public service, unfortunately, I had to reevaluate my support for her nomination after learning about her inexplicable omission of donations from the late-term abortion doctor George Tiller.

My service in Congress has always been based on the conviction that life is sacred. When I served as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I shepherded legislation to ban partial birth abortion through the Senate. Getting that bill signed into law was one of my proudest legislative accomplishments. My strong beliefs in the sanctity of life simply made it impossible for me to support Governor Sebelius' nomination.

Reforming our nation's health care system to provide every American access to quality and affordable health care is one of my top priorities. Governor Sebelius will play a key role in reforming our health care system. Although we do not agree on some very important issues, I am confident that we will be able to work together to ensure quality health care for every American family.

Comment (0)

Over at the Orrin PAC Blog, they take a look at an Associated Press article detailing the Obama administration's efforts to rescind a regulation used to help root out financial corruption in unions.

Here's what the AP reported:

The Labor Department moved ... to rescind a regulation approved during President George W. Bush's last days in office that would have increased scrutiny of union finances to help root out financial corruption. ... The agency said it considered the comments of numerous labor organizations that claimed the new rule was overly burdensome ... [this is] the latest in a series of pro-labor actions taken since President Barack Obama took office.

Senator Hatch commented on the Obama administration's actions:

It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is choosing a time of financial crisis to cut investigations into financial corruption solely because it may reside in their own political constituency. In a time when the president himself said we need more accountability and transparency in government, canceling rules to help root out corruption is not the way to go.

Americans want the administration to eliminate all fraud, not just that which is politically expedient. I urge the Department of Labor to use, instead of stow away, all the tools at its disposal to reduce financial corruption in unions.

Comment (0)