The tax credit can also be taken by self-employed people on their income tax return.
Wait, there is more in the Fact Sheet:
“Building on today’s IRS release and the American Rescue Plan’s provisions, the Administration is committed to expanding paid leave more generally. That’s why the tax credit in the American Rescue Plan will enable employers with fewer than 500 employees to claim up to $17,110 for 14 weeks of paid leave for each impacted employee not only to get vaccinated, but also to take time off if they have COVID-19 symptoms and are going to the doctor; are getting tested for COVID-19; are under quarantine or isolation order by the government or a doctor (or are caring for someone who is); or have to care for a child whose school or child care provider closed, due to COVID-19.”
If a company with less than 500 employees already provides paid family leave will they get the credit? How will they prevent fraud and abuse by small employers and self-employed individuals?
It is hard for be to believe that the President has this power. It just doesn’t seem right. It seems out of control.
The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has announced a benefit of up to $9,000 to reimburse funeral expenses for those who died from Covid-19. There is no means test, so people qualify for the benefit regardless of the income or wealth of the deceased or family members. (This same benefit has been available in previous disasters.) FEMA will not reimburse any amounts paid for or reimbursed by pre-planned sources such as funeral insurance, veterans benefits, etc.
Everyone dies eventually. If a person died with no resources and there is no insurance or other benefit available, it can be difficult or impossible for relatives to pay funeral expenses regardless of when or why the person dies. Most states have provisions to pay for a burial if the person died with no resources and no one else volunteers to pay. And relatives cannot be forced to pay for a funeral or burial.
So why should we expect FEMA to pay such a benefit? And even if a benefit is available, why should there be no means testing?
President Biden’s $2+ trillion dollar infrastructure proposal includes $400 billion to expand home care benefits under Medicaid. Aside from the fact that such spending has nothing to do with infrastructure, it is also not one-time or project-type spending that is typical of infrastructure spending. If this proposal were to pass, what would happen after all the money was spent? Would spending return to its previous level? History has shown that this type of spending would be considered a new entitlement and any effort to reduce the benefit would be considered a benefit cut. All beneficiaries of the benefit would lobby hard to see that the spending is continued. I urge our elected representatives to oppose this proposal and to work hard to see that it does not become law.
The Des Moines Register reported that Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, said farmers need a new source of income, and that 90% of farmers don’t make a majority of their income from farming, and that that is a problem. (See link below.)
It is not the government’s job to find new sources of income for farmers. The fact that a large percentage of Iowa‘s farmers have other full-time jobs is not a problem that needs fixing. With the current state of farming mechanization, working a small farm is not a full-time job. We already subsidize farmers by paying 60% of their crop insurance, regardless of size, for doing nothing special or extra. Paying farmers for “carbon sequestration” sounds a lot like paying them for what they already should be doing. What we should do is make good farming practices a requirement in order to receive crop insurance or other subsidies.
Below is a letter I just sent to The Des Moines Register:
To the editor,
Please consider the following for inclusion in your letters section:
You reported that a Johnston middle school student brought a BB gun to school. (“Student found with BB gun at middle school in Johnston”, 2/11/21) You reported that the school resource officer worked with administrators, “…to secure the student in an isolated area and confiscate the weapon.”, and that, “…the incident is a criminal investigation…” In a Facebook post, the Police Chief stated they will, “…seek to provide the necessary services to the young persons involved,”
This is a good example of over-policing in our schools. When a police officer is on duty at a school they must become involved, and a mistake by a student becomes a criminal investigation. In simpler times the Principal or Advisor would take away the BB gun and call the parents in. The student might be suspended for a few days. The police and media would not be called. All students would be reminded about the school policy against bringing a BB gun or any other “weapon” to school. The kid would never do it again. Let’s just hope that the police and school administrators handle this situation reasonably with the students involved.
Below is a letter that I just sent to The Des Moines Register. Odds are they won’t print it. So far, they have been about 100% anti-Governor Reynolds in reporting of her handling the pandemic.
To the editor,
Your report on businesses that are voluntarily continuing to require face masks is reassuring. (“Some bars, restaurants keeping mask rules”, 2/9/21) Although your report was only anecdotal, (not a statistically representative sample), 100% of the business on which you reported are continuing to require face masks without a government mandate. It appears that Governor Reynolds is correct to trust that most Iowans will do the right thing.
Gene Czarnecki makes good points about resisting student loan forgiveness. (See link below to letter in The Register.) It seems a little known fact that more people default on loans with balances less than $5,000 than larger balances. This is likely due to the fact that smaller balances are due from students who did not complete their degrees while larger balances are due from students who completed post-graduate degrees like medicine and law and who have the ability to pay off their loans. So, if our government does anything to forgive student loans, we should consider forgiving only the first $5,000 rather than larger amounts.
I read the report in The Des Moines Register about the questioning of Tom Vilsack by Joni Ernst during the Senate hearings on Vilsack’s nomination for Secretary of Agriculture. (Vilsack nomination moves to full Senate” 2/3/2021) President Biden has ordered the development of a plan to convert all federal, state, local and tribal vehicles, including Post Office vehicles, to “clean and zero-emission vehicles.” Ernst asked Vilsack if he will direct the USDA to buy Tesla trucks that run on electricity or Ford vehicles that run on 85% ethanol. Vilsack, like a good politician, said it’s not ” an either-or circumstance.” It will be interesting to see how Vilsack balances the interests of farmers and biofuels producers with the interests of the zero-emissions vehicle and power producers. One thing is for sure: lobbyists will be in high demand.
People who believe the election was stolen from Trump should not be “canceled” or otherwise censored or shut down. The correct response to false speech is more true speech. A public, transparent investigation into election irregularities, by Congress or otherwise, should not be shouted down, and those calling for an investigation should not be attacked.
To the extent that people are censored by any means, it will likely only confirm for them, and those who agree with them, that they were correct. Censorship doesn’t change minds. Instead, it may well drive those who are censored into their own underground echo-chamber where they may become more radicalized. It is better to try to engage them in a debate, as calmly and rationally as possible, with good evidence presented to debunk false evidence.
With that in mind, I recently listened to most of a 3-hour audio podcast by David C. Smalley where he debunked, point by point, an 18-minute viral video that claimed the election was stolen. Below are links to both the 18-minute YouTube video that “proves” the election was stolen and the 3-hour audio podcast that debunks the video. I recommend that your first watch at least the first 5+ minutes of the video. Then listen to at least the first half-hour of the audio podcast. Watch and listen to more if you are so inclined. Then, if you agree that the election was not stolen, consider forwarding a link to this blog to others, especially to anyone who still believes that the election was stolen.
Governor Reynolds has proposed legislation to make, “…biofuels the clear choice for Iowa drivers…”, by mandating a minimum of 10% ethanol in all gasoline and 11% biodiesel in all diesel fuel sold in Iowa. (See link to Register report below.) If her proposal becomes law, it would make biofuels the clear choice – because then there would be no other choice.
This is a shining example of how government works when a law or regulation has concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Those who receive the concentrated benefits, (in this case farmers and biofuel producers), will lobby heavily to get their benefits, while the cost to any individual is so small that it doesn’t justify the time or money to lobby against the legislation. Then, those who receive the benefits become dependent on them and continue to lobby to ensure that the benefits never come to an end. Don’t call it free-market capitalism. It’s called crony capitalism.