Doing your taxes stinks, right? No fun at all. But take note as you brace for your 2010 return: A handful of changes in the tax code could translate into a fatter refund check.
The Small Business Jobs Act, passed last September, and the historic health care reform law, passed in March, enacted hefty credits and deductions for capital investments and employee health insurance costs.
Here is a rundown of six new credits and deductions likely to affect the most small business owners.
Health care tax credit: Small businesses that pay at least half of their employee's health coverage can get a significant tax refund.
The maximum credit goes to businesses with 10 or fewer full-time employees with annual wages that average $25,000 or less. The break phases out for firms with 25 employees or that pay average wages above $50,000.
For 2010 through 2013, the tax credit covers up to 35% of the money that a qualifying business spends on its health insurance premiums. In 2014, the top tax credit bumps up to 50%.
Tax-exempt organizations can claim 25% in the first time period and 35% after that.
The credit is available for a maximum of six years: 2010 through 2013 and for any two years after that.
Health insurance deduction for self employed: Are you your own boss and paying for your own health insurance?
Normally, you can deduct your insurance costs from your business profits, but you can't deduct those costs from your self-employment taxes.
But in 2010, the self-employed can deduct their health insurance costs from their business profits for both taxes.
Let's say Sally, an architect, makes $50,000 in net income and pays $6,000 for health insurance.
In other tax years, Sally would pay income tax on $44,000 and self employment tax on $50,000, explained Karen Brosi, a federally licensed tax professional based in Palo Alto, Calif.
0:00 /4:56Summers on Obama and business
But in 2010, Sally will pay income tax and self employment taxes on $44,000.
Super-charged 'Section 179' provision: OK, this one is a little wonky. But it's worth knowing about.
The extension of "Section 179" of the tax code allows businesses to write off the full amount of qualifying equipment or computer software made in 2010 or 2011, up to $500,000 per business, per year.
What qualifies? Think tractors, robots and equipment. New and used items are eligible but, sorry, buildings aren't.
Instead of having to deduct your capital expenditures slowly, the temporary change to Section 179 allows businesses to get more cash up front.
Section 179 is specifically targeted to help small business: A business that spends more than $2 million in one year on qualifying capital will not be able to get the full benefit of the Section 179 write-off.
You can only take advantage of the full Section 179 write-off if your small business booked a profit. A Section 179 write-off can not cause your business to "make or increase a loss" for the year, explained Brosi.
Bonus depreciation extension: For 2010, there is an accelerated depreciation schedule: The point is to get cash into the hands of small businesses quickly. Unlike Section 179, you can depreciate items even if your business is in the red for the year.
Bonus depreciation covers new equipment only, and can be taken in addition to a Section 179 write-off, if the item is eligible for both benefits. You can depreciate "tangible property," like buildings, machinery, vehicles, furniture, and equipment, as well as "intangible property," such as patents, copyrights and computer software. (Sorry, if you bought a plot of land, that doesn't qualify.)
Businesses that bought a qualifying item after Sept. 8 can claim 100% of its cost (so long as it is used before Jan. 1, 2012). Businesses that bought such items before Sept. 8 can claim 50% (so long as it is put into service before Jan. 1, 2013).
Depreciation on a business car or truck: Did you buy a new car, van or truck for your business last year? Ka-ching!
For 2010, business owners who buy and use a brand new passenger vehicle will depreciate much more than usual -- $11,060 for a car, and $11,160 for a light duty truck or van. That includes an extra $8,000 bonus depreciation, on top of the usual first-year depreciation. If you buy an SUV or heavy pickup, the rules are slightly different, said Brosi.
General Business Credit: If you are one of those unlucky business owners affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax, you might get a little break in 2010.
Boiled down, if you have to calculate your taxes under both the regular tax structure and under the AMT, you pay Uncle Sam whichever one is more. If your taxes calculated normally are $10,000 and $12,000 under the AMT, you owe $12,000.
Usually, general business credits do not apply toward the AMT calculation. But for 2010, deductions included in the "General Business Credit" part of the tax code are also allowable under the AMT. Applying these credits to your AMT will reduce what you owe under the AMT, explained Brosi.
There are a couple dozen credits in this category: Some that might impact small biz include a benefit for hiring someone unemployed, the costs for starting up an employer pension plan or the costs of employer-provided child care services.
"If I am subject to AMT, I don't lose the benefit of any eligible business credit," explained Brosi.
1/20/2011
The creative spark behind the Viking oven
FORTUNE -- Fred Carl Jr., the founder of Viking Range, talks about how a simple kitchen remodeling led him to build an appliance empire.
I'm a fourth-generation builder, and in 1980 my wife, Margaret, and I were designing our kitchen for a new house. Margaret wanted a heavy-duty gas range like her mother had -- a 1947 Chambers range -- but they didn't make them anymore. The closest to it was a commercial oven, but they weren't made for homes.
So I decided to make the oven myself, designing it on nights and weekends. I went through the production lines of all the major commercial manufacturers, learning about specifications and performance. It would totally embarrass Margaret when I'd ask if I could go look at a restaurant's kitchen. I found out that commercial-range ovens don't broil and that they give off heat like a furnace.
In 1983, I called every major manufacturer in the country, explaining what I had in mind, and 100% of them told me I was crazy. It was an exasperating experience. No one wanted to make a product like that.
Since no one was doing it, I thought, This is a business. So I asked if they'd make 10 to 12 ovens, with the prospect of making 100 more if the product took off, and they still laughed.
Two years later U.S. Range in Gardena, Calif., agreed to make it on a limited basis. I don't cook, but I know what appliances are supposed to do. I came up with the name because you think of Vikings as being tough, substantial, and enduring. I started with my own money and credit cards, and brought in partners from my hometown of Greenwood, Miss. Folks also co-signed a $325,000 bank note with me. I'm not sure I'd have done Viking if I hadn't had a support network.
0:00 /2:22Go behind the wheel of a food truck
In January 1987 we shipped the first range out of California, and it was a wild ride from then on. The oven was an instant success, creating an immediate production problem. We were learning manufacturing on the fly and had to build a sales and marketing team. I tapered off my construction business and, by 1989, moved production to Greenwood and went into the manufacturing business.
The main challenge back then was keeping up the pace of production and signing up dealers. I also spent a lot of time identifying and designing new products. We added ventilation hoods, built-in ovens, cooktops, range tops, built-in refrigeration. I wanted to do a full kitchen that matched.
With all this, Margaret had to wait in line to get her stove. We didn't put one in until 1991, when we designed and built another house with a Viking kitchen, where we live today.
5 business myths to ditch now
FORTUNE -- Feeling a little disillusioned lately? That's not a bad thing if you're an entrepreneur. There's nothing like humbling economic times to force chief executives to let go of the sacred-cow ideas and grandiose illusions they've been harboring and start building on reality. Some of the smartest business owners I know have fallen for these five myths. Ditch them. It will make your business that much stronger.
1. Gross margins will grow as you get bigger
Not so. My research shows that they typically dip. That was a tough lesson for Jennifer Olsen Welding, who owns a 70-employee Salt Lake City casting company. Her tale: Unlimited Designs won a municipal contract to create a precast building façade in 2009. The trouble was, the $5 million company had to lease extra equipment to do the job. Sales increased significantly, and gross margins declined by 3%. "We would have been better off having no revenue than the revenue that was coming in," she says.
2. Competitors are always unfriendly
Baloney! When Steven Krane tried to get Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500) to carry Raw Essentials, a line of skin-care products he developed with model Carol Alt, the giant retailer expressed doubts about the marketing muscle of his Boca Raton, Fla., firm. So Krane dared to call the president of Hard Candy, a competitor that had successfully launched its makeup in Wal-Mart, to get advice. It turned out that Hard Candy was interested in discussing some joint ventures. Krane also got some critical tips on building his social-media presence.
3. You really know your market
Gathering real data may prove you wrong. Dave McLurg, chief strategy officer and partner at Adaptive Technologies in Scottsdale, was certain that only big companies wanted his firm's software, which helps users predict which clients will be the most profitable. But surprise! After encountering a midsize firm that wanted something like it, he undertook market research that showed that others did too -- only for a lower price -- and launched a new version. "It's turned into a multimillion-dollar division for us that we hadn't anticipated," he says.
0:00 /2:38Leaving the rat race for driver's ed
4. One size won't fit all
John Warrillow took on endless custom projects at Warrillow, a firm that helped big companies market themselves to smaller ones. Revenues didn't grow because Warrillow was the only one with enough experience to write custom proposals. In 2005 he relaunched the firm, offering one-size-fits-all research and events that clients could purchase by subscription. Providing one product was more profitable, he found, than doing custom jobs. "We went from being flat on the top line to growing at a rate of 25% to 30% a year," he says.
5. As CEO, you know it all
Despite regular team meetings, Bettina Hein, CEO of Pixability, a Cambridge, Mass., company that helps customers market themselves on video, was the last to find out that an instructional video added to the company's site had saved her team 135 hours of customer-service time, worth $8,000 to $10,000 a month. No one thought to mention it to her. "Only in a casual conversation did it emerge," she says. She's now rushing to create 60 more. Had she known, she would have launched the new ones sooner and saved even more money.
Health care repeal would kill off tax breaks
Why do Republicans want to take away tax breaks for small businesses?
Well, they don't really. What they want to do is kill off last year's health care reform act, which they say will stifle jobs by suffocating employers with red tape.
On Wednesday, the House passed a bill repealing the law. The vote is symbolic because the Senate is not expected to follow suit. But no one expects the debate over the law's merits to quiet down.
And lost in all the rhetoric: For businesses with fewer than 50 employees, the law does not impose specific near-term health care mandates. On the contrary: It contains a number of tax credits that will help small businesses pay for health insurance.
One business owner fighting the repeal effort said the tax credits are a big help.
The tax breaks are "a lifeline to small businesses like mine," Odette Cohen, the owner of Son Light Pediatrics, a medical practice in Willingboro, N.J., told Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday.
"The monies that I will get from these tax credits give me the option of being able to absorb the increased rates that my employees would be responsible for, or pay benefits for an additional employee," Cohen said.
But Rep. Sam Graves, a Republican who heads the House Small Business Committee, said the law should be repealed because it will burden small businesses in "red tape."
0:00 /4:56Summers on Obama and business
In addition, tax credits are too complex and narrow in scope, he said.
"Any potential assistance from this tax credit is far outweighed by the record tax increases and paperwork burdens that the law will pile on small businesses nationwide," Graves said through a spokeswoman.
Indeed, the National Small Business Association, which is pushing for repeal, said the tax breaks are targeted to the smallest firms with low-wage workers.
"Not to make it sound as though the tax breaks aren't helpful, but they're a temporary Band Aid for the root cause of the whole issue which is the ever-increasing cost of health insurance," said Molly Brogan, spokeswoman for the NSBA, which believes the health care system does need an overhaul.
So what's at stake? What provisions of health care reform are aimed at helping small businesses?
Near-term tax refunds: Small businesses that pay at least half of their employee's health coverage can get a significant tax refund.
The maximum credit goes to businesses with 10 or fewer full-time employees with annual wages that average $25,000 or less. The break phases out for firms with 25 employees or that pay average wages above $50,000.
Own a business? 6 new tax breaks
For 2010 through 2013, the tax credit covers up to 35% of the money that a qualifying business spends on its health insurance premiums. In 2014, the top tax credit bumps up to 50%.
The credit is available for a maximum of six years: 2010 through 2013 and for any two years after that.
In 2014, a new health care market: The tax credits are a bridge to the larger and more permanent help: health insurance exchanges, which are due to begin in 2014.
On an exchange, a small business owner will be able to shop around for coverage. Also, the risk will be pooled -- theoretically making coverage more affordable for smaller groups.
That's good news for small firms, which pay on average 18% higher premiums than larger firms do for the exact same coverage, according to a report from The Commonwealth Fund, a private health care research group.
Under the health care reform law, larger businesses that don't provide health care coverage for their employees would pay penalties.
For employers with 50 or more workers, there is a $2,000 fee per employee, beyond the company's first 30 workers.
But businesses with fewer than 50 employees will not have to pay a penalty for not insuring their workers
Well, they don't really. What they want to do is kill off last year's health care reform act, which they say will stifle jobs by suffocating employers with red tape.
On Wednesday, the House passed a bill repealing the law. The vote is symbolic because the Senate is not expected to follow suit. But no one expects the debate over the law's merits to quiet down.
And lost in all the rhetoric: For businesses with fewer than 50 employees, the law does not impose specific near-term health care mandates. On the contrary: It contains a number of tax credits that will help small businesses pay for health insurance.
One business owner fighting the repeal effort said the tax credits are a big help.
The tax breaks are "a lifeline to small businesses like mine," Odette Cohen, the owner of Son Light Pediatrics, a medical practice in Willingboro, N.J., told Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday.
"The monies that I will get from these tax credits give me the option of being able to absorb the increased rates that my employees would be responsible for, or pay benefits for an additional employee," Cohen said.
But Rep. Sam Graves, a Republican who heads the House Small Business Committee, said the law should be repealed because it will burden small businesses in "red tape."
0:00 /4:56Summers on Obama and business
In addition, tax credits are too complex and narrow in scope, he said.
"Any potential assistance from this tax credit is far outweighed by the record tax increases and paperwork burdens that the law will pile on small businesses nationwide," Graves said through a spokeswoman.
Indeed, the National Small Business Association, which is pushing for repeal, said the tax breaks are targeted to the smallest firms with low-wage workers.
"Not to make it sound as though the tax breaks aren't helpful, but they're a temporary Band Aid for the root cause of the whole issue which is the ever-increasing cost of health insurance," said Molly Brogan, spokeswoman for the NSBA, which believes the health care system does need an overhaul.
So what's at stake? What provisions of health care reform are aimed at helping small businesses?
Near-term tax refunds: Small businesses that pay at least half of their employee's health coverage can get a significant tax refund.
The maximum credit goes to businesses with 10 or fewer full-time employees with annual wages that average $25,000 or less. The break phases out for firms with 25 employees or that pay average wages above $50,000.
Own a business? 6 new tax breaks
For 2010 through 2013, the tax credit covers up to 35% of the money that a qualifying business spends on its health insurance premiums. In 2014, the top tax credit bumps up to 50%.
The credit is available for a maximum of six years: 2010 through 2013 and for any two years after that.
In 2014, a new health care market: The tax credits are a bridge to the larger and more permanent help: health insurance exchanges, which are due to begin in 2014.
On an exchange, a small business owner will be able to shop around for coverage. Also, the risk will be pooled -- theoretically making coverage more affordable for smaller groups.
That's good news for small firms, which pay on average 18% higher premiums than larger firms do for the exact same coverage, according to a report from The Commonwealth Fund, a private health care research group.
Under the health care reform law, larger businesses that don't provide health care coverage for their employees would pay penalties.
For employers with 50 or more workers, there is a $2,000 fee per employee, beyond the company's first 30 workers.
But businesses with fewer than 50 employees will not have to pay a penalty for not insuring their workers
House votes to repeal health care law against long odds
The House of Representatives voted to repeal the Obama administration's signature health-care legislation Wednesday evening, a vote the newly elected Republican majority called a fulfillment of their No. 1 campaign promise.
The bill, dubbed the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," passed 245-189. Three Democrats joined a unanimous Republican caucus on the vote.
The legislation is unlikely to make it past the Democratic-controlled Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he won't bring it to the floor for a vote. And even if it did, it would face a certain veto by President Barack Obama. But Rep. Mike Pence, a leading GOP conservative, dismissed Democratic criticism that Wednesday's vote was a "gimmick."
"We have another term for it on our side of the aisle: It's a promise kept," he said. "And House Republicans are here to stand with the American people and say with one voice, 'We can do better.' We can do better than their government takeover of health care."
Republicans have not presented an alternative bill to replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which passed in 2010 over their unanimous opposition. House Speaker John Boehner said Republicans will ask congressional committees to come up with "common-sense reforms" that will widen coverage while bringing down costs, but told reporters no "artificial deadlines" were needed.
Most Republicans have acknowledged the virtual impossibility of an outright repeal, but have said they will try to cut funding to portions of the measure or eliminate specific provisions in the months ahead.
The nearly $900 billion health-care law passed Congress in 2010 over unanimous Republican opposition. It is estimated to extend health coverage to 32 million Americans when fully implemented -- the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.
It bars health insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, eliminates lifetime caps on coverage and allows families to keep children on their policies until age 26.
It requires Americans to obtain health insurance, but also provides subsidies for small businesses and individuals to obtain that coverage. It requires insurers to cover preventive care, and sets up an independent appeals process for people who feel their claims were unfairly denied.
Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, said the bill would bring back the "bad old days" for many Americans.
"Let's talk about the insurance industry pre-reform. They could cancel your policy if you got sick, even though you had been paying the premiums for years. They could refuse to sell you a policy if they don't like the way you look or you had a minor health problem. We changed that," he said.
Most Republicans argued the health-care law, passed over their unanimous opposition, will hamper prospects for long-term economic growth while doing little to slow spiraling medical costs -- and many of them, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, argued the law harms American freedoms.
"This legislation we seek to repeal is rooted in having federal bureaucrats come between patients and their doctors," Cantor said.
But Democrats defended the law, with some sharply criticizing Republican arguments as bogus.
"You know, I want to just advise people watching at home playing that now-popular drinking game of 'You take a shot whenever Republicans say something that's not true:' Please assign a designated driver," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-New York. "This is going to be a long afternoon."
Not all Democrats opposed the repeal effort, however. Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Mike Ross of Arkansas cast their lot with the Republicans.
Republicans also are attempting to get the legislation struck down by federal courts. A federal judge in Florida on Wednesday allowed Ohio, Kansas, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Maine and Iowa to join a lawsuit filed there last year, bringing the total number of states in that case to 26. Virginia is pursuing a separate lawsuit, and Oklahoma says it will bring suit as well.
A federal judge in Virginia ruled in December that the individual mandate provision is unconstitutional, but two other judges have found the mandate passes constitutional scrutiny.
Democrats have warned that a reversal would be catastrophic to small businesses and unfair to millions of Americans depending on the reform to guarantee coverage. The Department of Health and Human Services released an analysis Tuesday morning warning that almost 130 million nonelderly Americans with pre-existing conditions would be at risk of losing their insurance without the guarantees provided by the legislation.
And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says repealing the measure would cost up to $230 billion by 2021. Republicans dispute that figure, but they have nonetheless exempted the bill from House rules that forbid legislation from adding to the federal debt.
In the Senate, Reid has dismissed the GOP repeal effort as "partisan grandstanding." But Cantor, whose fellow Republicans have filibustered large numbers of Democratic bills in the upper chamber, demanded the Senate take up the measure.
"The American people deserve a full hearing. They deserve to see this legislation go to the Senate for a full vote," Cantor said. "The Senate ought not be a place that legislation goes into a dead end."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said after the vote that the Senate would vote on the House measure.
"The Democratic leadership in the Senate doesn't want to vote on this bill, but I assure you, we will," McConnell said. "We should repeal this law and focus on common sense steps that actually lower costs and encourage private sector job creation."
President Barack Obama and other top Democrats have continue to express strong support for the law, which is widely viewed as the president's signature domestic achievement.
"I'm willing and eager to work with both Democrats and Republicans to improve the Affordable Care Act. But we can't go backward," Obama said in a statement Tuesday.
Leading members of both parties agree on the need for a limited number of changes to the law. Specifically, they have expressed concern about a rule, scheduled to take effect in 2012, requiring businesses to issue 1099 tax forms to any individual or corporation from which they purchase more than $600 in goods or services in a year.
"A lot of our small businesses came to me (after the health care overhaul passed) and said, 'There's a lot of paperwork I now have to fill out,' " Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation." "We can change that. That's something we can absolutely agree on."
The Budget Office analysis indicates Republicans may have trouble moving ahead with their long-term strategy of cutting funding to the law. The measure includes $106 billion in new spending authorizations that Congress will eventually need to appropriate, according to Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf. But $86 billion of those authorizations cover politically sensitive programs that were in existence before the passage of health care reform.
Funding for certain key provisions -- such as the law's Medicaid expansion and the extension of new insurance subsidies -- cannot be cut without a direct repeal vote.
The bill, dubbed the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," passed 245-189. Three Democrats joined a unanimous Republican caucus on the vote.
The legislation is unlikely to make it past the Democratic-controlled Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he won't bring it to the floor for a vote. And even if it did, it would face a certain veto by President Barack Obama. But Rep. Mike Pence, a leading GOP conservative, dismissed Democratic criticism that Wednesday's vote was a "gimmick."
"We have another term for it on our side of the aisle: It's a promise kept," he said. "And House Republicans are here to stand with the American people and say with one voice, 'We can do better.' We can do better than their government takeover of health care."
Republicans have not presented an alternative bill to replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which passed in 2010 over their unanimous opposition. House Speaker John Boehner said Republicans will ask congressional committees to come up with "common-sense reforms" that will widen coverage while bringing down costs, but told reporters no "artificial deadlines" were needed.
Most Republicans have acknowledged the virtual impossibility of an outright repeal, but have said they will try to cut funding to portions of the measure or eliminate specific provisions in the months ahead.
The nearly $900 billion health-care law passed Congress in 2010 over unanimous Republican opposition. It is estimated to extend health coverage to 32 million Americans when fully implemented -- the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.
It bars health insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, eliminates lifetime caps on coverage and allows families to keep children on their policies until age 26.
It requires Americans to obtain health insurance, but also provides subsidies for small businesses and individuals to obtain that coverage. It requires insurers to cover preventive care, and sets up an independent appeals process for people who feel their claims were unfairly denied.
Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, said the bill would bring back the "bad old days" for many Americans.
"Let's talk about the insurance industry pre-reform. They could cancel your policy if you got sick, even though you had been paying the premiums for years. They could refuse to sell you a policy if they don't like the way you look or you had a minor health problem. We changed that," he said.
Most Republicans argued the health-care law, passed over their unanimous opposition, will hamper prospects for long-term economic growth while doing little to slow spiraling medical costs -- and many of them, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, argued the law harms American freedoms.
"This legislation we seek to repeal is rooted in having federal bureaucrats come between patients and their doctors," Cantor said.
But Democrats defended the law, with some sharply criticizing Republican arguments as bogus.
"You know, I want to just advise people watching at home playing that now-popular drinking game of 'You take a shot whenever Republicans say something that's not true:' Please assign a designated driver," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-New York. "This is going to be a long afternoon."
Not all Democrats opposed the repeal effort, however. Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Mike Ross of Arkansas cast their lot with the Republicans.
Republicans also are attempting to get the legislation struck down by federal courts. A federal judge in Florida on Wednesday allowed Ohio, Kansas, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Maine and Iowa to join a lawsuit filed there last year, bringing the total number of states in that case to 26. Virginia is pursuing a separate lawsuit, and Oklahoma says it will bring suit as well.
A federal judge in Virginia ruled in December that the individual mandate provision is unconstitutional, but two other judges have found the mandate passes constitutional scrutiny.
Democrats have warned that a reversal would be catastrophic to small businesses and unfair to millions of Americans depending on the reform to guarantee coverage. The Department of Health and Human Services released an analysis Tuesday morning warning that almost 130 million nonelderly Americans with pre-existing conditions would be at risk of losing their insurance without the guarantees provided by the legislation.
And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says repealing the measure would cost up to $230 billion by 2021. Republicans dispute that figure, but they have nonetheless exempted the bill from House rules that forbid legislation from adding to the federal debt.
In the Senate, Reid has dismissed the GOP repeal effort as "partisan grandstanding." But Cantor, whose fellow Republicans have filibustered large numbers of Democratic bills in the upper chamber, demanded the Senate take up the measure.
"The American people deserve a full hearing. They deserve to see this legislation go to the Senate for a full vote," Cantor said. "The Senate ought not be a place that legislation goes into a dead end."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said after the vote that the Senate would vote on the House measure.
"The Democratic leadership in the Senate doesn't want to vote on this bill, but I assure you, we will," McConnell said. "We should repeal this law and focus on common sense steps that actually lower costs and encourage private sector job creation."
President Barack Obama and other top Democrats have continue to express strong support for the law, which is widely viewed as the president's signature domestic achievement.
"I'm willing and eager to work with both Democrats and Republicans to improve the Affordable Care Act. But we can't go backward," Obama said in a statement Tuesday.
Leading members of both parties agree on the need for a limited number of changes to the law. Specifically, they have expressed concern about a rule, scheduled to take effect in 2012, requiring businesses to issue 1099 tax forms to any individual or corporation from which they purchase more than $600 in goods or services in a year.
"A lot of our small businesses came to me (after the health care overhaul passed) and said, 'There's a lot of paperwork I now have to fill out,' " Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation." "We can change that. That's something we can absolutely agree on."
The Budget Office analysis indicates Republicans may have trouble moving ahead with their long-term strategy of cutting funding to the law. The measure includes $106 billion in new spending authorizations that Congress will eventually need to appropriate, according to Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf. But $86 billion of those authorizations cover politically sensitive programs that were in existence before the passage of health care reform.
Funding for certain key provisions -- such as the law's Medicaid expansion and the extension of new insurance subsidies -- cannot be cut without a direct repeal vote.
Gifts to Obama: From flashy to bizarre
The State Department has released its annual list of gifts from foreign governments to federal employees, and as one would expect, President Obama made out pretty well.
In total, the president racked up 54 gifts with an estimated value of more than $160,000 during 2009, the most recent tally that the government furnishes.
The gifts range from the practical -- a small wooden CD holder from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev -- to the weirdly extravagant -- a $395.00 pencil from Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, the president of the European Commission.
By law, Obama doesn't keep gifts of significant value. Instead, most items are transferred to the National Archives or the General Services Administration.
But that didn't stop foreign leaders from lavishing gifts on influential government employees.
Saudi King Abdullah captured the prize for biggest spender, gifting Obama a large gold medallion, a large brass and glass clock and a marble base featuring miniature figurines of gold palm trees and camels worth an estimated $34,500.
The generosity of the King didn't stop there, as he also gave first lady Michelle Obama a necklace made of 33 pearls worth $14,200 and a ruby and diamond jewelry set valued at $132,000.
The first children received jewelry worth $7,275 from the King, while senior White House staffers had to settle for a more modest gift pack consisting of silver cufflinks and watches.
While the exchange of gifts is par for the course in the world of high-pressure diplomacy, some are also downright strange.
Topping that category is a gift received by Alfred Almanza, a Food Safety and Inspection service administrator, who received a book entitled "The Gastronomic World of Don Quixote'' from a Spanish government official.
Once the government receives a gift, it is required to list a reason for accepting it. The standard response: "Non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. Government."
The report also notes that 12 bottles of wine and a bottle of olive oil given to Obama were "handled pursuant to Secret Service policy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)