Anna Eshoo opposes Obama tax deal


Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, D-Menlo Park, is not happy about a White House tax proposal, crafted with Congressional Republicans, that would, contrary to President Obama's campaign promise, extend current tax breaks for individuals who earn more than $250,000 per year.

Noting that the bill increases the deficit by nearly $1 trillion, Ms. Eshoo said in a statement that she opposes the bill "for 900 billion reasons."

"While one can find items that are politically and practically attractive, in its totality it borrows just shy of one trillion dollars to pay for, amongst other items, expiring tax breaks for the top two percent (income bracket) of our country," she said.

"My fear is that the 2001-2003 Bush tax cuts will become permanent, and our fiscal future will dim as America struggles with the largest transfer of wealth and debt creation in its history," she continued. "We should instead be investing in capital formation, technological innovation, job creation and education -- the building blocks for a strong future for all Americans."

The package would also extend benefits for the long-term unemployed for 13 more months and cuts the estate tax, which resumes in 2011, from 55 percent on estates valued at $1 million or more to 35 percent on estates valued at $5 million or more.

The Almanac has yet to hear back from the offices of Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein on this topic.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.


Like this comment
Posted by Really
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Dec 9, 2010 at 7:32 pm

Transfer of wealth from whom to whom? You and your spendocrat cohorts are already transferring wealth from those that earn it, to those that feel they are entitled to it. And who do you think does the real investing of capital? The government? Or perhaps could it be these high income earners that invest in venture capital funds and capital markets to fund emerging and start up companies? In case you didn't know Mrs Eshoo, and I doubt you do from your vast business ownership experience, the income statements has two sides. You are only tackling income. Why not find the wasted expenditures on the other side? But that would go beyond your parties principles. It shocks that people like Anna get elected over and over again.

Like this comment
Posted by Bob
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Dec 9, 2010 at 8:28 pm

Instead of pointing fingers maybe elected officials should learn from those most affected by the economic situation and cut their expenses. How about a 10% cut in the federal budget in all departments and agencies. I'm sure there is plenty of fluff in Washington -- don't get me started!

Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Dec 10, 2010 at 10:10 am

Why is it that people who earn more money than they can reasonably spend resent so fiercely helping the society that makes their secure and enjoyable daily lives possible? Why?

What is so bad about paying taxes for the betterment of all? Would you all prefer some kind of Dickensian stratified society in which there are debtors prisons, severe poverty, a poisonous environment, autocrats in charge, and the wealthy lionized because they are wealthy? Because that is what you appear to want with this "pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps" mentality.

Like this comment
Posted by Willows parent
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Dec 10, 2010 at 1:17 pm

Joe - I don't think the issue is "helping society." It's language like "wealth transfer" that I find enraging, and the clear attitude that I am not entitled to the money I earn, after having studied hard and having made wise decisions. I guess I am supposed to be grateful that they don't take it all. The idea that I should be gladly willing to give away any amount I make over $250,000 is also infuriating. I am entitled to save and invest and pass the benefit on to my children. That's the American Dream. And the Democrats are doing their best to take it away, which is why I am no longer a Democrat.

Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Dec 10, 2010 at 3:34 pm

Willows parent - Thank you for engaging me in this. I'm certainly not saying that you are not entitled to money you make above $250,000, but there are trade-offs in all of life.

A mountain, as it grows higher, accumulates more ice which wears it down faster.

Yes, you worked hard and managed to make wise decisions, but at some point there were infrastructure advantages that made that possible, including social infrastructure. My take on this, and I am no scholar, is something like noblesse oblige.

Someone making more than $250,000 is so far apart from the norm that it's only right to give back a bit more. For those who are the idea of a progressive tax code, what can I say?

There are people out there today who feel no shame about privatizing their gains and socializing their losses. This is morally bankrupt and not helpful in the long term, and the long term is what we should all be concerned about, given the severe problems this country and this planet are facing.

Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 10, 2010 at 4:30 pm

Wealth transfer HAS been happening since the 70's.

from the filibuster today:

"Mr. President, in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," Sanders said. "The top 1 percent earned 23.5 percent of all income--more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That is apparently not enough. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent."

fact checked:

"So, we're left with three studies that vary slightly but which all point in the same general direction -- showing the top 1 percent earning between 21.4 and 23.5 percent of the national income in 2007. The studies also show that this share exceeds what the entire bottom 50 percent of the United States earns. So we rate Sanders' statement True. "

Web Link

So that top 1% can't afford a return to the Clinton era tax rates that even they prospered under? In a time of national crisis?!?

A lousy four percent? Are ya kidding me?

Like this comment
Posted by btkmenlo
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Dec 11, 2010 at 8:55 am

Anna and the rest of all the US citizen's need to read "The 5000 Year Leap" and understand the US Constitution, the 28 principles of Freedom and what the founding fathers of this glorious constitution was meant to be. You will see how far we have fallen away. Read it to your kids. We have got to get back to knowing how this country change and modernized the world. Long live this document and the people of the USA.

Like this comment
Posted by CommonSenseRules
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 11, 2010 at 9:28 am

Go Anna. Raise those taxes and spend them on another stimulus plan. Maybe you can get the unemployment rate up to 15-16%.

I applaud your plans to keep business off balance and afraid to invest and expand. Those damn 1% elites just want to hide their money from the government instead of transferring it into the pension plans of government employees like you.

What I really like is your idea of converting shuttered Ohio engine casting factories into statue foundries and manufacturing 1,000,000 Obama statues--one for every public space in America. Think of the jobs!

Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 11, 2010 at 11:30 am

"your idea of converting shuttered Ohio engine casting factories into statue foundries and manufacturing 1,000,000 Obama statues"

Huh? Did we miss something in the news?

Oh, I get it now, that was an attempt at wit! Very creative.

re: job losses
You seem to forget that it all cratered under dubya, not President Obama. hence the famous "bikini bottom" chart.
Web Link

Bush's tax cuts did NOT create jobs. No tax cuts ever did. Look at job creation under President Clinton vs Bush.

The top 1%er's share of TOTAL income tripled over the last few decades - see above. They got their giveaways from Bush for a decade, time to go back to Clinton era rates that made us a much stronger country.

Why should the Paris Hilton's keep getting huge tax gifts that will be paid for by your kids and grandkids?

Like this comment
Posted by Maria
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Dec 15, 2010 at 4:53 pm

For the first time, I did not vote for Eshoo this time!!

Why, if somebody "wealthy" (and I am most definitely not in that category!!!!) should be denighed (sp?) their tax break alon g with the others if they earned their money honestly? I thought capitalization was part of America!

I raised two kids that were 7 mos. and 2 yrs. without any support from my ex. I put myself through college and grad school and then got a teaching credential.

Teaching may be "honorable", but it is not appreciated in CA!!!!

I don 't think wealthy people should be punished for being wealthy!

I have n ot resented people getting money when they are out of work or are truly incapable of supporting themselves.

Remember, many wealthy people have helped lots of people with their wealth!!

Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Dec 16, 2010 at 10:57 am


"I don 't think wealthy people should be punished for being wealthy! "

Punishing? Raising the top end tax rate 3% (as designed by republicans when they wrote the bill in 2001,) returning the rate to Clinton era rates, is "punishing"?!?

Americans should borrow from China Iran and Saudi Arabia to keep giving handouts to millionaires and billionaires?

Your two kids should be saddled with mountains of debt to give Paris Hilton a tax break?!?

Really? 3% is "punishing"?

After the top one percent's share of TOTAL income has tripled from 8% to 24% of TOTAL AMERICAN ANNUAL INCOME as listed above?

One person in one hundred gets a quarter of all income and they are punished?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Su Hong Palo Alto's last day of business will be Sept. 29
By Elena Kadvany | 19 comments | 5,964 views

Premarital, Women Over 50 Do Get Married
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,858 views

Electric Buses: A case study
By Sherry Listgarten | 2 comments | 1,680 views

Natural Wines?
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 1,658 views

Stay a part of their day
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 610 views


Register now!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info