Joe Biden For President

[Pitcher]

https://taxfoundation.org/joe-biden-tax-plan-2020/
 

Details and Analysis of Former Vice President Biden’s Tax Proposals

Key Findings

• Former Vice President Joe Biden would enact a number of policies that would raise taxes, including individual income taxes and payroll taxes, on high-income individuals with income above $400,000.
• Biden’s plan would raise tax revenue by $3.8 trillion over the next decade on a conventional basis. When accounting for macroeconomic feedback effects, the plan would collect about $3.2 trillion over the next decade.
• According to the Tax Foundation’s General Equilibrium Model, the Biden tax plan would reduce GDP by 1.51 percent over the long term.
• On a conventional basis, the Biden tax plan would lead to 7.8 percent less after-tax income for the top 1 percent of taxpayers, 1.1 percent lower after-tax income for the top 5 percent, and around 0.6 percent less after-tax income for other income quintiles.

Details of Biden’s Tax Plan

Payroll tax and individual income changes:

• Imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a “donut hole” in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed.[1]

• Reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent.

• Taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates step-up in basis for capital gains taxation.[2]

• Caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value, which means that taxpayers in the brackets with tax rates higher than 28 percent will face limited itemized deductions.

• Restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000.

• Phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000.

• Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65+; provides renewable-energy-related tax credits to individuals.

Business tax changes:

• Increases the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent.[3]
• Creates a minimum tax on corporations with book profits of $100 million or higher. The minimum tax is structured as an alternative minimum tax—corporations will pay the greater of their regular corporate income tax or the 15 percent minimum tax while still allowing for net operating loss (NOL) and foreign tax credits.[4]
• Doubles the tax rate on Global Intangible Low Tax Income (GILTI) earned by foreign subsidiaries of US firms from 10.5 percent to 21 percent.
• Establishes a Manufacturing Communities Tax Credit to reduce the tax liability of businesses that experience workforce layoffs or a major government institution closure; expands the New Markets Tax Credit and makes it permanent; offers tax credits to small business for adopting workplace retirement savings plans; expands several renewable-energy-related tax credits and deductions and ends subsidies for fossil fuels.

Other Changes Include:

An $8,000 tax credit for childcare; equalizing the tax benefits of defined contribution retirement plans; eliminating real estate industry tax loopholes; expanding the Affordable Care Act’s premium tax credit; sanctions on tax havens and outsourcing, among other proposals[5] which are not included in our analysis due to the lack of detailed information.   

Economic Effect

According to the Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, Biden’s tax plan would reduce the economy’s size by 1.51 percent in the long run. The plan would shrink the capital stock by 3.23 percent and reduce the overall wage rate by 0.98 percent, leading to 585,000 fewer full-time equivalent jobs.

Revenue Effect

Based on the Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, we estimate that, on a conventional basis, Biden’s plan would increase federal tax revenue by $3.8 trillion between 2021 and 2030 relative to current law. Increasing the corporate tax rate to 28 percent would account for the largest revenue gain ($1.3 trillion over 10 years) in the plan. Adding other changes on the business side, such as the 15 percent corporate minimum tax and tax increases on international profits, Biden’s taxes on businesses account for about half of the revenue gains.

Higher taxes levied on taxpayers earning more than $400,000, including higher tax rates on ordinary income as well as capital gains and dividends, would raise another $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The payroll tax increase for high-income households would generate around $800 billion in additional revenue over 10 years.

Table 2 presents the conventional revenue score for each individual provision of the plan. We estimate the integrated revenue effects by stacking one provision after the other. The presented revenue effect for each provision is the difference between the newly stacked simulation and the simulation that includes all provisions listed above it. Note that some of Biden’s proposals, such as the higher marginal income tax rate on income above $400,000, raises revenue in the beginning of the 10-year window, but not at the end. This is because under current law, the lower 37 percent rate is already scheduled to revert to 39.6 beginning in 2026, meaning Biden’s proposal does not result in increased revenue in those years.

On a dynamic basis, we estimate that Biden’s tax plan would raise about 15 percent less revenue than on a conventional basis over the next decade. Dynamic revenue gains would total approximately $3.2 trillion between 2021 and 2030. That is because the relatively smaller economy would shrink the tax base for payroll, individual income, and business income taxes.

Distributional Effect

On a conventional basis, Biden’s tax plan would make the tax code more progressive. The proposed changes to individual income taxes affect the distribution of the tax burden differently after 2025, as the individual income tax provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) expire. To show this difference, we present the distribution change for both 2021 and 2030.

In 2021, on a conventional basis, taxpayers in the top 1 percent would see their after-tax incomes reduced by around 13.0 percent due to higher taxes on income above $400,000. However, taxpayers in other income quintiles would also see a reduction in their after-tax income. The reduction in income for the bottom four income quintiles is mainly due to the increased tax burden on labor from higher corporate income taxes. The Tax Foundation’s General Equilibrium Model assumes that the corporate tax is borne by both capital and labor and evenly split between two in the long run. However, the labor share of the corporate income tax change is gradually phased in over five years.[6]

The conventional distribution table for 2030 is similar to the conventional distribution for 2021. One notable difference is the change in after-tax income for the top 1 percent in 2030 is smaller than in 2021. This is because several individual income tax provisions, such as the 37 percent top marginal income tax rate, expire starting in 2026. This means that some of Biden’s tax increases on high-income households would not increase their tax burden in 2030 compared to current law in that year. Biden’s plan would reduce the after-tax income for the top 1 percent by about 7.8 percent in 2030, compared to 13 percent in 2021. After-tax income for all taxpayers shrinks by 1.7 percent, lower than the 2.5 percent decline in 2021.

On a dynamic basis, the Tax Foundation’s General Equilibrium Model estimates that the plan would reduce after-tax incomes by around 2.6 percent across all income groups over the long run. The lower four income quintiles would see a decrease in after-tax incomes of at least 1.4 percent. Taxpayers in between the 95^th and 99^th percentiles would see their after-tax income fall by 1.9 percent, while taxpayers in the 99th percentile and up would have a more significant reduction in their after-tax income at 8.9 percent.

Conclusion

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s tax plan has three major components: imposing a “donut hole” payroll tax on earnings over $400,000, repealing the TCJA’s income tax cuts for taxpayers with taxable income above $400,000, and increasing the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent. This plan would shrink the size of the economy by 1.51 percent due to higher marginal tax rates on labor and capital.

This plan would raise about $3.8 trillion revenue over the next decade on a conventional basis, and $3.2 trillion after accounting for the reduction in the size of the U.S. economy. The plan would lead to lower after-tax income for all income levels, but especially for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

Modeling Notes

We use the Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Tax Model to estimate the impact of tax policies.[7] The model can produce both conventional and dynamic revenue estimates of tax policy. Conventional estimates hold the size of the economy constant and attempt to estimate potential behavioral effects of tax policy. Dynamic revenue estimates consider both behavioral and macroeconomic effects of tax policy on revenue.

The model can also produce estimates of how policies impact measures of economic performance such as GDP, wages, employment, the capital stock, investment, consumption, saving, and the trade deficit. Lastly, it can produce estimates of how different tax policy impacts the distribution of the federal tax burden.

In our revenue estimate, we assume the long-run capital gains realization elasticity is -0.79.[8] Individuals respond more drastically to the change of capital gains tax rate at the beginning years of tax change, with a transitory elasticity of -1.2 and -1.0 for the first two years.

In modeling the repeal of step-up in basis on capital gains tax, we assume Biden’s plan would lead to taxing capital gains at death, which means that death would be treated as a realization event for capital gains.

---

[1] For more details, see Garrett Watson and Colin Miller, “Analysis of Democratic Presidential Candidate Payroll Tax Proposals,” Tax Foundation, Feb. 11, 2020, https://taxfoundation.org/2020-payroll-tax-proposals/. 

[2] See generally, Scott Eastman, “Unpacking Biden’s Tax Plan for Capital Gains,” Tax Foundation, July 31, 2019, https://taxfoundation.org/joe-biden-tax-proposals/.

[3] For more details, see Erica York, “Analysis of Democratic Presidential Candidates Corporate Income Tax Proposals,” Tax Foundation, Feb. 19, 2020, https://taxfoundation.org/2020-corporate-tax-proposals/.

[4] See generally, Garrett Watson, “Biden’s Minimum Book Income Tax Proposal Would Create Needless Complexity,” Tax Foundation, Dec. 13, 2019, https://taxfoundation.org/joe-biden-minimum-tax-proposal/.

[5] Amir El-Sibaie, Tom VanAntwerp, and Erica York, “Tracking the 2020 Presidential Tax Plans,” Tax Foundation, Nov. 20, 2019, https://taxfoundation.org/2020-tax-tracker/.

[6] For a more detailed assumption on how the Tax Foundation’s General Equilibrium Model distributes the capital and labor burden of a corporate income tax change, see Huaqun Li and Kyle Pomerleau, “The Distributional Impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act over the Next Decade,” Tax Foundation, June 28, 2018, https://taxfoundation.org/the-distributional-impact-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-over-the-next-decade/.

[7] Stephen J. Entin, Huaqun Li, and Kyle Pomerleau, “Overview of the Tax Foundation’s General Equilibrium Model,” Tax Foundation, April 2018 update, https://files.taxfoundation.org/20180419195810/TaxFoundaton_General-Equilibrium-Model-Overview1.pdf.

[8] Following research from both the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). See Tim Dowd, Robert McClellland, and Athiphat Muthitacharoen, “New Evidence on the Elasticity of Capital Gains: Working Paper 2012-09,” Congressional Budget Office, June 15, 2012, https://cbo.gov/publication/43334.

[Pitcher]

I stopped reading after the first paragraph because as far as I am concerned taxing capital gains as regular income is a theft of my hard work.  To double my taxes because I took a risk and succeeded is a croc.  No one gave me my money back when I got my ass kicked. Joe Biden and the thieving Democrats can go to hell.  

 

http://www.crfb.org/papers/understanding-joe-bidens-2020-tax-plan
 

Understanding Joe Biden's 2020 Tax Plan

Former Vice President Joe Biden – the presumptive Democratic nominee for President in the 2020 election – has put forward a variety of tax proposals.

Biden would raise the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent, set minimum corporate taxes for domestic and foreign income, restore the top individual tax rate from 37 to 39.6 percent, tax capital gains as ordinary income and at death for very high earners, limit various tax breaks for higher earners, subject wages above $400,000 to the Social Security payroll tax, and pass various other cuts and increases.

Most elements of the plan have been estimated by the Tax Policy Center (TPC), Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), Tax Foundation (TF), and American Enterprise Institute (AEI). We have synthesized these estimates and supplemented them with our own in order to be comprehensive. We find that:

• Vice President Biden’s tax plan would raise between $3.35 trillion and $3.67 trillion over a decade if enacted in full starting in 2021, or 1.3 to 1.4 percent of GDP.

• The Biden tax plan is highly progressive, increasing taxes for the top 1 percent of earners by 13 to 18 percent of after-tax income, while indirectly increasing taxes for most other groups by 0.2 to 0.6 percent.

• The Biden tax plan would moderately slow the pace of economic growth and possibly labor supply by discouraging work and capital accumulation.

• This slower growth would reduce net revenue collection through economic feedback. The plan would raise $2.7 to $3.1 trillion using dynamic scoring.

The ultimate fiscal, economic, and distributional impact of Vice President Biden’s tax policies will depend on how newly raised revenue is spent or allocated. Future US Budget Watch analyses will estimate the effects of tax and spending proposals together in order to provide a holistic picture of Biden’s plans and their potential effects on the budget.

This paper is part of US Budget Watch 2020, a project covering the 2020 presidential election. In the coming weeks and months, we will continue to publish analyses of candidate proposals that are having the greatest impact on the debate over our nation’s future. You can read more of our policy explainers and factchecks here. US Budget Watch 2020 is designed to inform the public and is not intended to express a view for or against any candidate or any specific policy proposal. Candidates’ proposals should be evaluated on a broad array of policy perspectives, including but certainly not limited to their approaches on deficits and debt. 

Summarizing the Biden Tax Plan

Vice President Biden has put forward a number of proposals to raise revenue, as well as several proposals to provide targeted tax breaks or make other targeted tax changes. Most, but not all, of these proposals have been estimated by outside estimators.

Major proposals by the Biden campaign would raise $1.6 to $1.9 trillion over a decade from corporations, $1.0 to $1.2 trillion from high earners through the income tax, and $800 billion to $1 trillion from Social Security payroll taxes on high-wage earners. Biden also supports a fee on banks, which we believe will raise $100 billion, tax credits for renters and first-time homebuyers that we estimate will cost $300 billion, and an increase of the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, which we estimate will cost $100 billion.

Additionally, Biden has included several smaller tax breaks and tax increases throughout his various policy proposals that have a modest net impact. Importantly, our analysis is based on conventional scoring, assumes immediate implementation, and counts refundable tax credit proposals outside of the health care proposal we previously estimated.

Details of the Biden Tax Plan

In total, we have identified 27 distinct tax proposals on Biden’s campaign website. These exclude some health care spending that may technically be structured as tax credits. Of the 27 total policies, we consider eleven to be “major proposals,” including eight scored by all four outside estimators and three that we estimated.

We also discuss, in less detail, the 16 additional proposals, showing outside scores where available and our own estimates when no other estimate exists.

Biden would increase the tax rate on corporate income from its current 21 percent to 28 percent. In 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) reduced the rate from 35 to 21 percent while also eliminating certain corporate deductions and preferences. Lifting the rate to 28 percent would raise $1.1 to $1.3 trillion over a decade.

In addition to increasing the statutory corporate income tax rate to 28 percent, Biden would institute a 15 percent minimum tax on “book” profits – or reported annual income net of annual expenses – for corporations with at least $100 million in annual income. When calculating this new minimum tax liability, corporations would still be allowed to claim deductions for losses carried forward from previous years and foreign taxes paid.

The tax would function as an alternative minimum tax, replacing one that was in effect until the TCJA. The tax would raise $160 to $320 billion over a decade.

Under current law, a Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) tax requires multinational companies to pay a tax of at least 10.5 percent on foreign income generated from relatively mobile and intangible assets held abroad such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights. The size of the tax is based on taxing 50 percent of this income at the current 21 percent rate.

Biden would double the GILTI tax from 10.5 to 21 percent. This would presumably be achieved by taxing 75 percent of this income at the new 28 percent tax rate. This policy would raise slightly over $300 billion over a decade.

Under current law, individuals making over $207,000 and couples making over $415,000 face a marginal income tax rate of 35 percent; individuals making over $518,000 and couples making over $622,000 pay a 37 percent top rate. Between 2013 and 2018, and starting in 2026 under current law, the top tax rate was and will be 39.6 percent. Vice President Biden would restore that rate immediately, raising $100 to $150 billion over the next decade, all through 2026.

Under current law, some revenue from pass-through entities – for example, sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S-corporations – is partially deductible against income. Specifically, the TCJA allows business owners to deduct 20 percent of Qualified Business Income (QBI) through the end of 2025. For higher earners, a litany of rules and restrictions tries to limit this income to returns on business investment as opposed to labor.

Biden would maintain the current deduction for those making under $400,000 per year while phasing the deduction out completely for higher earners. This would raise about $200 billion over a decade, mostly through 2026 when the deduction expires.

Under current law, net income from the sale of assets held longer than a year and related dividends is taxed at a top rate of 20 percent (plus a 3.8 percent surtax), whereas earned income is taxed at a top rate of 37 percent (plus a 3.8 percent payroll tax). Furthermore, when one generation inherits an asset from another, the cost basis of that asset gets “stepped-up” from the cost at the time of purchase to the cost at the time of transfer, meaning that the asset’s appreciated value escapes taxation permanently.

Biden would eliminate the preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends for higher earners. First, capital gains and dividends would be taxed as ordinary income at a rate of 39.6 percent for individuals and couples earning more than $1 million. In addition, Biden would eliminate the stepped-up basis for capital gains at death. The campaign does not specify whether capital gains would be “carried over” – meaning the original basis would still apply – or taxed at death, nor what exceptions or exemptions would apply. All estimators assumed his plan would resemble an Obama-era proposal to tax capital gains at death with exclusions based on size and type of assets – though the campaign has said the plan would not apply below $400,000.

In total, these policies would raise $380 to $500 billion over a decade. These estimates are particularly sensitive to assumptions of how responsive asset sales are to capital gains rates.

Under current law, taxpayers can claim a $24,800 per-couple standard deduction or deduct from their income the combined cost of mortgage interest paid, charitable giving, state and local taxes (up to $10,000), and certain other itemized deductions. While only one-tenth of taxpayers itemize their deductions, more than half of taxpayers in the top income decile do.

Biden’s tax plan would limit these itemized deductions in two ways. First, Biden would institute an overall cap of 28 percent on the rate against which one could take itemized deductions. So, for example, an individual in the (newly restored) 39.6 percent tax bracket would see a 28-cent tax reduction for every dollar spent on charitable giving, rather than 39.6 cents without the cap.

Additionally, Biden would reinstate the “Pease Limitation”, which was suspended through 2025 under the TCJA, for those with income above $400,000. The Pease Limitation effectively reduces the amount one can deduct above a certain threshold. For every dollar of income earned above the threshold, the Pease Limitation reduces the value of itemized deductions by three cents.

Taken together, these provisions would raise $260 to $380 billion over a decade.

Under current law, the Social Security program is funded through a 12.4 percent payroll tax – half paid by employers and half paid by employees – on income up to a certain taxable maximum. That taxable maximum – which is $137,700 in 2020 – increases each year at the rate of wage growth.

Biden would increase revenues into the Social Security program by subjecting wages above $400,000 to this same 12.4 percent payroll tax. In doing so, he would create a “donut hole” in Social Security payroll taxes between the current maximum and $400,000. Over time, that donut hole would close as the current taxable maximum continues to increase with wages, while the $400,000 threshold remains static.

This proposal would raise $800 billion to $1.04 trillion over a decade. It would also raise 1.92 percent of payroll over 75 years, which would close 60 percent of Social Security’s solvency gap.

As part of his plan for affordable housing, Biden would reinstate and expand a tax credit for first-time homebuyers and establish a new credit for renters.

The First Time Homebuyers’ Tax Credit was originally enacted as a temporary way to bolster the housing market during the Great Recession. The original credit was $7,500 or $8,000, expired after about two years, and was sometimes structured as a loan. Biden’s credit would be $15,000 and permanent.

Biden would also establish a new, refundable tax credit for low-income individuals and families designed to hold rent and utility payments to 30 percent of monthly income. He proposes capping this credit at $5 billion per year, which would likely prevent some people who are eligible from getting the credit.

Though none of the estimators were able to score these provisions, we estimate they would cost roughly $300 billion over a decade.

Biden would institute a “financial risk fee” on banks, bank holding companies, and non-bank financial institutions with over $50 billion in assets.

While the Biden campaign has not provided additional details on the nature of the fee, it would likely be very similar to the version proposed by the Obama Administration in 2015, which would have levied a 7 basis point fee on the covered liabilities – defined as total assets minus tier 1 capital and FDIC-insured deposits – of U.S. financial firms with over $50 billion in assets.

We assume this proposal would raise $100 billion, though revenue could differ based on design.

Under current law, parents of children under the age of 13 and individuals who have a disabled dependent living in their household for more than half the year may claim a non-refundable tax credit to partially offset expenses related to caring for those children or dependents. The credit is worth up to 35 percent of up to $3,000 of qualified expenses for one dependent and $6,000 for two or more, phased down to 20 percent for those with higher incomes.

Biden would significantly expand this credit by making it refundable for those with no tax liability, increasing the maximum allowable expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents), and increasing the reimbursement percentage from 35 percent to 50 percent. This would increase the maximum value of the credit from $2,100 to $8,000. We estimate this proposal would cost roughly $100 billion over a decade.

In addition to the major tax proposals, the Biden campaign proposed another 4 revenue-increasing provisions, 11 revenue-reducing provisions, and 1 revenue-ambiguous provision.

Among the more significant revenue-increasing provisions, Biden would eliminate several tax preferences that currently benefit the real estate industry, such as the $25,000 exemption from passive loss rules for rental losses, accelerated depreciation of rental housing, and deferral of capital gains taxes from like-kind exchanges. He would also eliminate various tax preferences for fossil fuels and end the tax deduction for pharmaceutical advertisement spending.

In terms of revenue-reducing provisions, Biden would institute a tax credit for informal caregivers of up to $5,000. He would reinstate or expand several tax credits designed to reduce carbon emissions, such as deductions for emissions-reducing investments in residential and commercial buildings, the Energy Investment Tax Credit, and credits for the purchase of electric vehicles. He would also promote middle-class retirement savings, including by helping small businesses cover the cost of setting up “automatic 401(k)” plans.

All 16 additional proposals are itemized below. Each estimator scored some but not all of these proposals. By using the average of other estimates or generating our own estimates to fill in the blanks, we believe these proposals could raise between $17 and $85 billion, on net, over a decade.

Revenue Impact of the Biden Tax Plan

Four estimators have analyzed Biden’s tax plan in a relatively comprehensive manner. Though they each estimate a slightly different set of proposed policies, they all estimate similar levels of revenue collection. On the low end, PWBM estimates $3.75 trillion of net revenue over ten years, and on the high end, TPC estimates $4.0 trillion of revenue.

Because each analysis excludes some of Biden’s tax proposals, the four estimates are not directly comparable. We adjust the estimates to make them more comparable and comprehensive by adding in missing policies using the average of scores from other estimators or our own estimates.

With these adjustments, we find that Biden’s tax plan would increase net revenue by between $3.35 trillion and $3.67 trillion, or 1.3 to 1.4 percent of GDP. This is the equivalent of increasing revenue by almost one-tenth relative to current law.

Incorporating the dynamic economic feedback estimated by three of the four modelers, the Biden tax plan would raise net revenue by $2.7 to $3.1 trillion over a decade, the equivalent of 1 to 1.2 percent of current law GDP.

Distributional Impact of the Biden Tax Plan

Overall, Biden’s tax plan would make the tax code more progressive, with the vast majority of increased tax burdens and the entirety of direct tax increases falling on high-income households. According to the four outside estimators, Biden’s tax plan would increase taxes for the top one-fifth of earners by 2.3 to 5.7 percent of after-tax income in 2021. This increase is driven by a 13.0 to 17.8 percent increase for the top 1 percent.

Meanwhile, those in the bottom four income quintiles will face tax increases of 0.2 to 0.6 percent of after-tax income. These increases are not due to direct taxes – no direct taxes are imposed on any household making less than $400,000 per year – but rather the indirect effects of increasing corporate taxes, which all four estimators assume is partially born by workers.

In dollar terms, the TPC finds households in the top 1 percent will face an average tax increase of roughly $300,000 per year, compared to a $260 per year increase for those in the middle. Other estimators reach slightly different but broadly similar conclusions.

Importantly, none of these distributional analyses account for all of the policies in the Biden tax plan detailed above. Missing elements such as a financial institution fee, credits for renters and first-time homebuyers, and an expansion of the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit are likely to make the plan slightly more progressive than estimated. The distributional analyses also exclude the effects of Biden's spending proposals, which are largely targeted toward the bottom half of the income spectrum.

Economic Impact of the Biden Tax Plan

Biden’s tax plan would likely modestly shrink the size of the economy over the long term, based on analyses from PWBM, TF, and AEI. They find his plan would reduce incentives to work, save, and invest due to its increases in effective marginal tax rates.

Specifically, AEI estimated the Biden plan would reduce long-run gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.2 percent relative to the baseline, PWBM estimated a 0.7 percent reduction, and TF estimated a 1.5 percent reduction.

PWBM and TF also estimated the labor force would shrink by 0.7 percent (1,000,000 full-time equivalent jobs) and 0.4 percent (600,000 full-time equivalent jobs), respectively. AEI estimates the plan will ultimately increase hours worked by 0.1 percent (100,000 full-time equivalent jobs).

Importantly, these long-run effects are all generated with different modeling assumptions of how deficit reduction might improve the state of the economy. TF essentially ignores deficit effects, whereas AEI and PWBM both use “closing rules” that assume the debt eventually stabilizes on its own, though at different time periods and in different ways.¹ None of the estimates incorporate the economic effects of how revenue is spent, which could be positive or negative.

Conclusion

As the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States in the 2020 election, Vice President Biden has put forward a significant tax plan that would substantially increase revenue collected by the federal government over the coming decade. New tax increases would be borne almost entirely by very high-income households and would likely slow the pace of economic growth modestly.

While this revenue would reduce projected deficits and debt in isolation, most or all of the revenue would be used to finance new spending. Without a complete analysis of this spending, it is impossible to understand the full fiscal, economic, and distributional effect of Biden’s agenda.

In the coming months, as we approach the general election in November, we will publish a comprehensive analysis of all of Vice President Biden’s policy proposals and how they compare to President Trump’s.

---

1 Because of this rule, AEI projects the plan would slow economic growth over the first decade due to higher effective marginal tax rates, accelerate it in the second decade due to deficit reduction, and slow it again over the long-term.

[Pitcher]

 

[Shabibilicious]

On 9/5/2020 at 12:09 PM, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Pretty cool for someone living in San Diego. 

 

Actually haven't been to Cali since a family trip in 70 or 71' when I was 4 or 5.....But that's the thing with you Trump Lovers, you're really only efficient at perpetuating the same lies over and over again....and sinking your own boats, it appears.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

[Indraman]

 

Biden offers 'Made in America' tax credit to bring back jobs, penalty for offshoring

Biden accuses Trump of creating loopholes in 2017 tax plan for companies that offshore jobs

By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News

 

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden unveiled a plan to help American workers on Wednesday, promising a series of executive actions and blaming President Trump for a manufacturing recession.

 

Key features of “The Biden-Harris Plan to Fight for Workers by Delivering on Buy America and Make It in America” include a penalty against American companies that offshore manufacturing and service jobs to other countries and then sell back to the U.S. market. It also calls for a “Made in America” tax credit.

 

“President Trump talks and talks – but he has failed to deliver results for American workers,” said an outline of the plan from the Biden-Harris campaign. “That ends under the Biden-Harris administration.”

 

The offshoring penalty would include a 10% surtax on top of a 28% corporate tax rate. The plan specifically notes that it would apply to call centers or other services that American companies place in other countries to serve the American market, when those jobs could be in the U.S.

 

The other major component of the plan is a 10% advanceable tax credit for American firms that invest in closing facilities or restore ones that previously closed, bring back production, call center, or other jobs from other countries to the U.S., or expand U.S. production. It would also reward American companies that increase their manufacturing payroll.

 

Biden accuses Trump of creating loopholes in his 2017 tax plan by not taxing the first 10% of the profits earned by companies that had manufacturing and service jobs abroad. In contrast, his plan proposes doubling Trump’s offshoring tax rate and applying it to all income.

 

The former vice president's proposed executive orders, which he says he would sign during his first week in office, are focused on having the federal government buy American and use American materials for infrastructure projects. He also promises to bolster American supply chains by expanding the list of materials that must use American components.

 

The initiative to “Buy American” will also include the creation of a new government office to oversee it. The “Made in America” office would be part of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

 

Biden is expected to further discuss the plan during a campaign speech in Warren, Mich. Wednesday afternoon.

 

President Trump, who signed a "buy American and hire American" executive order in 2017, suggested in July that Biden "plagiarized from me" with the Democrat's "Build Back Better" plan.

 

*****/END OF THE ARTICLE\*****

 

Indy

[Pitcher]

Why would anyone support BLM and Antifa?  All they do is Loot, Burn, Bully, Destroy Businesses.  Joe’s supporters will lose him the election imo.  

 

https://bongino.com/net-support-for-black-lives-matter-plummets-following-months-of-nationwide-riots
 

Net support for Black Lives Matter Plummets Following Months of Nationwide Riots

The immediate surge in net support for the Black Lives Matter movement following the death of George Floyd has completely evaporated, and is now lower than before his death.

The movement has seen net support (more approval than disapproval) since early 2018, and saw its largest spike up six points to 24% net support in the immediate aftermath of the death of George Floyd. The movement also saw support grow after video of the non-police shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery went viral.

Now despite that surge in support, months of rioting has completely unwound those gains, and the movement is viewed 11% net favorably. That’s down significantly from 18% on the day of Floyd’s death. The more recent Jacob Blake shooting appears to have had no impact on support for the movement.

Overall the Black Lives Matter movement has gained support following recent events – but has gained more opposition than support, hence the decline in net favorability.

Interestingly, support for parts of the black lives matter platform have not increased. Over three quarters of people oppose defunding the police, as does every racial demographic on net. It’s entirely possible that many of those voicing support for Black Lives Matter agree with the organization’s name (as does practically everyone) but aren’t aware of the group’s radical goals. After all, the media does do everything they possibly can to excuse BLM’s wrongdoings and portray them as a civil rights group instead of an anti-law enforcement Marxist group. Still, those paying attention are now opposing the group, as is evident in net support for BLM falling faster than Biden’s poll numbers.

While the media has repeated in unison the Orwellian term “mostly peaceful” in describing nationwide protests that turned into riots, practically any event that turns violent can be described as “mostly peaceful,” even battles during war.

Some researchers did at least put in some work recently to quantify just how “mostly” peaceful they really were.  In a headline that I couldn’t help but burst out laughing at, The Hill reported that “Over 90 percent of protests this summer were peaceful” The report found that about 220 became violent, but “in more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity.” I’m not sure who determined that 7% of total protests is the acceptable threshold for riots, looting, and murder, but here we are.

“220 protests turn violent” sounds damning, and the phrasing that only 7% ended up violent is clearly to obfuscate this reality. It would be just as asinine as pointing out that the typical serial killer spends 99.9% of their time not killing anyone – or that after an army was literally decimated they’re still operating at 90% strength.

None of the people justifying protests with the 7% figure applies their logic consistently either.Take police brutality, the issue they claim to be fighting as an example. The percent of calls that officers respond to that turn violent (rarely due to anything the officer did wrong) is a fraction of a fraction of a percent, but they would never excuse it on that basis.

[Pitcher]

Poor ole Joe, he’s a little confused.  

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/08/joe-biden-only-person-calling-defund-police-is-donald-trump/
 

Joe Biden: ‘Only Person Calling to Defund the Police Is Donald Trump’

8 Sep 2020

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

 

Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden said in a TV interview on Tuesday that the only person seeking to defund the police is President Donald Trump.

Biden made the remark as he attempted to deflect a question about his call to “redirect” funding away from police agencies.

 

 

.@JoeBiden: “The only person calling to defund the police is Donald Trump.” pic.twitter.com/CKi51jaXOS

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) September 8, 2020

“I not only don’t want to defund the police, I’m the one calling for $300 billion — million more for local police, for community policing,” Biden told the news station.

He accused Trump of attempting to cut $400 million from “state and local help.”

 

A Breitbart News Fact Check from July found Biden’s repeated claim to be “false.”

A major source of Biden’s claim seems to stem from the proposed $244 million cut from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which assists state and local agencies with detaining illegal aliens who commit crimes.

Instead, Trump wants to use that money for border enforcement instead, shifting resources closer to the problem.

The White House wants to increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by $544 million.

Biden’s claims are blunted, too, by the numerous police agencies that have endorsed Trump for reelection.

 

The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) — the nation’s largest cops’ union — announced Friday that it was backing the Republican incumbent.

“Public safety will undoubtedly be a main focus for voters in this year’s election,” National President Patrick Yoes said in a news release.

“Look at what the national discourse has focused on for the last six months. President Trump has shown time after time that he supports our law enforcement officers and understands the issues our members face every day. The FOP is proud to endorse a candidate who calls for law and order across our nation. He has the full and enthusiastic support of the FOP.”

The union said it surveyed 355,000 members before the endorsement.

“During his first four years, President Trump has made it crystal clear that he has our backs,” Yoes said.

 

“Our members know that he listens to the concerns of our brothers and sisters in uniform and is able to make tough decisions on the issues most important to law enforcement. President Trump is committed to keeping our communities and families safe.”

[Pitcher]

https://www.frontpagemag.com/
 

After 9/11, Biden Wanted to Send $200 Million to Islamic Terrorists

Fri Sep 11, 2020

No administration since Jimmy Carter's had done more to enable and appease Islamic terrorists than the Obama-Biden administration. But Joe Biden wasn't a patsy in a radical administration. As his original response to 9/11 shows, his own position was always favorable to Islamic terrorists.

"This," Joe Biden announces, "is what I've spent my entire adult life preparing for." It's exactly three Tuesdays since the September attacks, and Biden is presiding over a morning meeting of his committee staffers...

At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here."

Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares.

Biden's response to an attack by Islamic terrorists was a proposal to send $200 million to Islamic terrorists. The Obama-Biden administration topped that be sending billions to Iran. And Biden's campaign platform calls for going back to those days.

But this is the same Joe Biden who threatened toimpeach Bush if he tried to take out Iran's nukes.

Waging a presidential campaign amid rising tensions with Iran 12 years ago, Joe Biden, then a senator from Delaware, had a warning for President George W. Bush should he decide to take military action without congressional authorization.

"I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear," Biden said. "If he does, I will move to impeach him."

And around whom allegations of Iranian funding have lingered.

Kaveh Mohseni, a spokesman for the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, calls Biden "a great friend of the mullahs." He notes that Bidens election campaigns "have been financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network," a loosely-knit group of wealthy Iranian-American businessmen and women seeking to end the U.S. trade embargo on Iran. "In exchange, the senator does his best to aid the mullahs," Mohseni argues. Biden's ties to pro-Tehran lobbying groups are no secret.

That's why aiding Iran has always been Biden's priority.

Biden undermined President Bush’s efforts to rein in Iran’s terrorism by voting against listing the Revolutionary Guard, which was supplying weapons to help the Taliban kill American soldiers, as a terrorist group (a position he shared with Kerry, Hagel and Obama) and berating Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for not negotiating with Iran and Assad.

What was Biden's big proposal to address the coronavirus?

About the only two areas where he fundamentally differed from President Trump's approach was on a national mask mandate, which he then discarded, and using the coronavirus as a pretext to get Iran access to money.

Again.

In total, 34 House and Senate Democrats, had signed an Iran Lobby letter during one of the worst crises in American history, where many of their own constituents were dead or dying.

Official endorsees on Bernie’s Senate site included NIAC.

While the Sanders letter had started out as an extreme position, a few days later, Joe Biden, the presumptive Democrat nominee, urged President Trump to ease sanctions on Iran and “streamline channels for banking”. The beneficiaries of such measures wouldn’t be ordinary Iranians, but the regime’s terror elite and their international financial partners.

Within the space of a week, a fringe position advocated by Sanders, Cortez, and Omar had become incorporated into the official stance of the Democrat nominee for the White House.

This is who Joe Biden was and this is who he is.

[Pitcher]

He finally got that money over to Iran with the help of his buddy Barry.  I think He and Barry should pay back the American taxpayers or be thrown in jail for treason.  

[Pitcher]

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/riding-dragon-documentary-exposes-massive-biden-self-enrichment
 

‘Riding the Dragon’ documentary alleges Biden family self-enrichment from China

BlazeTV has released a new documentary titled "Riding the Dragon: The Bidens' Chinese Secrets." The film features investigative journalist and author Peter Schweizer and Schweizer's revelations of Chinese influence over the Biden family found in the 2018 book "Secret Empires" and the more recent "Profiles in Corruption" (both #1 New York Times bestsellers).

 

Produced by Lightspeed Pictures in association with Blaze Media, the documentary is broken into six chapters, each dissecting a different deal that the Bidens made with the Chinese government — including one deal in which China planned to invest more than $1 billion in the Hunter Biden-co-owned investment fund Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). Hunter Biden alone pocketed millions of dollars while his father served as Barack Obama's vice president and "point man" on China policy.

The film reveals a wealth of new details, including:

• Hunter Biden's firm invested in a Chinese nuclear company that was actively stealing nuclear secrets from the United States; 
• Biden's firm invested in Chinese surveillance technology; 
• Biden's firm helped China in its quest to control the world's strategic metals; 
• Biden's firm bought a company that provides dual use technologies to the Chinese military

Political pressure forced Hunter Biden to resign from the board of his China investment firm in late 2019 but, according to the "Riding the Dragon," Biden quietly maintains a multimillion-dollar ownership stake in the firm. 

Schweizer concludes: Hunter Biden's Chinese investment currently "stands to be worth even more as its China partnership prospers." 

[Pitcher]

I wonder why our resident Dems never want to talk about Quid Pro Quo Joe and his selling out of America.  

 

He’s not the only one on China’s payroll.  With a little research you will find many US Politicians using their political influence to gain money from China.  John Kerry, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Dirty Harry.  They were all earning millions through their family members, which is perfectly fine evidently.   Do a little more research and you will find Bill Clinton sold military secrets to China back in the 90’s.  

Since I do not have links, or time to dig them up,  treat as a rumor or it’s just my opinion.  

[Pitcher]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/exclusive-data-shows-that-half-of-2019-donations-to-actblue-came-from-untraceable-unemployed-donors
 

Exclusive: Data shows that half of 2019 donations to ActBlue came from untraceable 'unemployed' donors

A Take Back Action Fund analysis of $400M in donations to liberal causes raises red flags of possible foreign involvement

Hollie McKay10 hours ago

Presidential race tightening in battleground states

EXCLUSIVE: Less than two months ahead of the presidential election – with concerns of foreign interference again at the forefront – a conservative political group is raising "serious concerns" about millions of donations reported by a major Democratic fundraising platform.

A  preliminary computer analysis by the Take Back Action Fund, obtained exclusively by Fox News, has found that nearly half of all 2019 donations to ActBlue were made by people claiming to be unemployed.

Action Fund President John Pudner questioned the veracity of those donations and called it a loophole that must be closed for the sake of election integrity.

"After downloading hundreds of millions of [dollars in] donations to the Take Back Action Fund servers, we were shocked to see that almost half of the donations to ActBlue in 2019 claimed to be unemployed individuals," he said. "The name of employers must be disclosed when making political donations, but more than 4.7 million donations came from people who claimed they did not have an employer. Those 4.7 million donations totaled $346 million ActBlue raised and sent to liberal causes."

The trend is continuing this year: An Action Fund examination of 2020 data from January through August showed an uptick in "unemployed" donations through ActBlue, to 50.1% this year.

ActBlue defends the integrity of its donations and said many come from retirees and people who aren't counted as employed, such as homemakers.

According to the findings of the Action Fund – a nonprofit that aims to "educate the public on conservative solutions for political reform" – 48.4% of ActBlue donations last year, prior to the massive loss of jobs that came with the onslaught of the coronavirus pandemic, came from those who did not list an employer or who claimed to be unemployed.

Pudner said the large number is a red flag that some donations may be illicit contributions from foreign interests attempting to impact U.S. elections.

"It is hard to believe that at a time when the U.S. unemployment rate was less than 4 percent, that unemployed people had $346 million dollars to send to ActBlue for liberal causes," Pudner said, adding that "4.7 million donations from people without a job ... raised serious concerns."

REPUBLICANS DEMAND ANSWERS ON MUELLER TEAM WIPING PHONES, SUGGEST 'ANTICIPATORY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE'

ActBlue, created in 2004, bills itself as a "powerful online fundraising platform available to Democratic candidates and committees, progressive organizations, and nonprofits that share our values for no cost besides a 3.95% processing fee on donations."

"And we operate as a conduit, which means donations made through ActBlue to a campaign or organization are considered individual donations," its website explains.

But critics, including the Action Fund, contend that the website allows credit card donations that are not verified, so anyone from any country in the world can donate without a paper trail.

"ActBlue's insistence on refusing to allow banks to verify their donations is an invitation to foreign programmers or others to send money through them using fake American names, and we encourage them to start letting banks verify the identity of donors to stop the potential for millions of dollars to influence our election," Pudner said.

Last year, the Republican Party created a competing fundraising platform called WinRed to counter ActBlue's prowess in small-donor sourcing.

According to the Action Fund, an analysis of WinRed's 4.9 million donations totalling $302 million found that only 4% came from people who did not list an employer or were unemployed. This year, the rate is 5.6%, according to the data.

 

2019 data compiled by Take Back Action Fund (Take Back Action Fund)

"We purposely wanted to examine 2019 first, because, before COVID-19, the unemployment rate was at 4 percent or below. It's hard to believe that millions of Americans who were out of work had $346 million to spare to give to ActBlue for liberal causes," Pudner said.

RUSSIA TARGETING BLACK LIVES MATTER, LEFT-LEANING VOTERS ONLINE: INTELLIGENCE SOURCES

Precisely determining if the donations were authentic and genuinely from those who were unemployed requires further time and resources, he said.

"Auditing these suspect donations to determine if millions lied by indicating they were unemployed when in fact they were not, or if their names were just being used by a foreign programmer or someone else to move money without their knowledge, will take time," Pudner said. "We've planned a series of forensic procedures to identify whether or not these donors of record exist or not, if they made the contributions themselves, and whether they were legally able, and whether or not they are potential 'straw' donors, making the contributions after being given the money and direction by someone else."

 

Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden departs after speaking at a campaign event on manufacturing American products at UAW Region 1 headquarters in Warren, Mich., Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2020. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

In response to questions by Fox News, a representative for ActBlue said "it is best security practice to refrain from publicly sharing any detailed information about how we analyze contributions."

"But we use an array of data sources, internal validation and third-party services to verify the validity of transactions. We take the security of our platform and integrity of donations very seriously," the spokesperson said. "We report every contribution to federal candidates that comes through our platform, and you can look those up on the FEC. We report the information donors enter about their occupation and employer, and we do see a significant portion of donors who report their status as not employed, such as retired donors or full-time parents."

The issue of unauthenticated political donations was also brought to light by The Washington Post in 2008, which was at the time "allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity."

In 2015, the Action Fund said millions of dollars "could be moved by allowing unverified credit card contributions," and Pudner said that even today, ActBlue continues to use such an "unverified system."

"We found it took other vendors only a matter of hours to switch their system to allow verification of donations and thus prevent the possibility of illegal foreign money being moved into campaigns," Pudner said. "Choosing to use an untraceable system has a higher cost in terms of the risk of credit card fraud and also tends to incur higher bank fees. And this untraceable system allows someone with a gift card to make donations in anyone's name, even if that person never actually made that donation, or even if that person doesn't exist at all."

 

FILE- In this Sept. 17, 2019, file photo, President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Albuquerque International Sunport in Albuquerque, N.M. A new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds about half of Americans think Donald Trump's actions as president have made things worse for African Americans, Muslims and women. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

Despite such claims, ActBlue currently holds the highest level of certification as a service provider.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Both WinRed and ActBlue note on their donation pages that law requires donors to list their employer and occupation.

"The problem," Pudner said, "is on the back end where ActBlue does not allow banks to verify the identity of the cardholder, meaning someone could buy endless gift cards and list any name they wanted and leave the employer line blank or type in words like 'not employed,' 'unemployed.'"

 

Data complied from January-August 2020 (Take Back Action Fund)

"With half of ActBlue donors indicating they do not have an employer, we recommend they start letting their payment processors verify donations to stop any foreign or other illicit donations by simply listing themselves as an unemployed American," Pudner added.

[Pitcher]

Well, well, I’m it appears the DNC knows no bounds when it comes to cheating.  I guess Lin Lu and Hun Lew and all their friends made donations to the Biden Campaign.  The only problem is none of those people are real.  Hahahahahaha.  Follow the money to see who owns the DNC.  I guess it is ok to allow Foregin intervention in our Elections after all. 

[Pitcher]

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/how-hunter-biden-tied-hedge-fund-helped-communist-china-obtain
 

Hunter Biden teamed with Chinese military supplier to acquire dual-use Michigan auto parts maker

As he was sewing up the Democrat nomination this spring, Joe Biden surprised many in foreign policy circles by publishing an essay arguing it was time to "get tough with China" and to stop its "robbing the United States and American companies of their technology and intellectual property."

For Biden, a four-decade advocate of trade and friendly relations with Beijing, it was a stunning turnabout that signaled the Democrat was concerned President Trump was winning the election-year battle over U.S.-China policy as tensions in the South China Sea, a trade war, and growing espionage cases created a Cold War-like atmosphere with China.

But for U.S. security experts, it was remarkable for another reason: An investment fund named Bohai Harvest RST (BHR) partly owned and directed by Biden's son, Hunter, and Secretary of State John Kerry's stepson, Chris Heinz, had just a few years earlier played a vital role in facilitating the sale of the Michigan-based auto parts maker Henniges Automotive to one of China's main military aircraft makers, Aviation Industry Corporation of China or AVIC.

That 2015 transaction approved by the Obama administration and its Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) came just 15 months after the United States publicly added one of AVIC's subsidiaries to a Commerce Department blacklist(known as the "Entity List") and just months before the Obama administration resumed patrols in the South China Sea because of increased Beijing military aggression in the region, where AVIC-built military jets partake in China's activities.

The timing has left many, including Senate Finance Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), questioning whether the CFIUS decision whitewashed security concerns because the vice president's son was involved in the transaction. Those concerns were heightened this June when the Pentagon listed the entire AVIC conglomerate on a list of companies subject to future sanctions because of its ties to the People's Liberation Army.

DODEntitiesLostJune2020.pdf

Grassley demanded a briefing from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin last year, saying he was concerned because the Obama administration allowed the transaction to proceed even though Henniges possessed "anti-vibration technologies with military applications" and AVIC had a history of ties to China's military aggression dating to at least 2007. Officials said what Grassley learned in a classified briefing only heightened his concerns.

2019-08-14 CEG to Treasury (AVIC CFIUS).pdf

"The direct involvement of Mr. Hunter Biden and Mr. Heinz in the acquisition of Henniges by the Chinese government creates a potential conflict of interest," the senator wrote in an Aug. 14, 2019 letter. "Both are directly related to high-ranking Obama administration officials. The Department of State, then under Mr. Kerry's leadership, is also a CFIUS member and played a direct role in the decision to approve the Henniges transaction. The appearance of potential conflicts in this case is particularly troubling given Mr. Biden's and Mr. Heinz's history of investing in and collaborating with Chinese companies, including at least one posing significant national security concerns."

Hunter Biden's efforts to make money in China while his father oversaw U.S.-China policy have caused concern since the author Peter Schweizer highlighted the issue earlier this year in his  new book "Profiles in Corruption." (Schweizer first exposed the Biden connection to the AVIC-Henniges deal in his New York Times #1 best seller "Secret Empires.")

In addition to his role in the Henniges transaction, Hunter Biden also flew aboard Air Force Two in December 2013 with his father to Beijing, where the son engaged in a private business discussion to do private business with Chinese officials that included talk of a $1 billion investment fund.

Hunter Biden's BHR fund also made an investment in 2014 in the China General Nuclear Power Corp., China's largest nuclear power company. In 2016, the company was charged along with a nuclear engineer named Szuhsiung "Allen" Ho for conspiring to help China illegally obtain "sensitive and controlled" nuclear technology from within the United States. Ho, a naturalized American citizen, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years in prison.

Michael Pillsbury, a China adviser to both the Obama administration and President Trump, said Joe Biden's long record of downplaying China's threat and his son's efforts to cash in on Beijing while his father was vice president "give reason for journalists to question the sincerity of Joe Biden's recent conversion to China hawk."

"The jet fighter and the aircraft carriers that China deploys to threaten the South China Seas can be traced back to financial transactions involving Hunter Biden's companies," Pillsbury said.

Roger Robinson, a former senior director for international economic affairs on President Ronald Reagan's National Security Council, told Just the News the U.S. government has known for years that AVIC has been helping China's military and aiding U.S. enemies and as such was sanctioned in the past. That record makes the Obama administration's transaction approval for Henniges all the more curious, he said.

"This is anything but a benign Chinese enterprise," Robinson said.

Indeed, AVIC was sanctioned on five separate occasions since 1993 for activities ranging from violating the Arms Export Control Act and proliferating missile technology in Pakistan to multiple violations related to trafficking missile and other military technology to Iran. In 2014, one AVIC subsidiary was added to the Obama-Biden Commerce Department "Entity List" indicating that AVIC was on the short list for potential sanctions months before the 2015 CFIUS decision now under scrutiny by Senator Grassley.

DoCAVICSubsidiarySanction.pdf

Grassley's letter identified one such security concern dating to eight years before the Henniges transaction was approved. "CFIUS approved the transaction despite reports that in 2007, years before BHR teamed up with AVIC's subsidiary, AVIC was reportedly involved in stealing sensitive data regarding the Joint Strike Fighter program. AVIC later reportedly incorporated the stolen data into China's J-20 and J‑31 aircraft," the senator wrote.

More recently, the Pentagon in June identified AVIC as one of several Chinese state-owned firms assisting the People's Liberation Army in building Beijing's military supremacy. 

DODEntitiesLostJune2020.pdf

The tale of China's acquisition of Henniges has many tentacles and is raising questions about where an American-based firm's jobs are going.

During the Obama years, Hunter Biden held an ownership stake in and a board seat on BHR. On Sept. 15, 2015, the hedge firm announced the completion of the acquisition of Henniges Automotive, which gave AVIC 51% control and BHR 49%. The $600 million acquisition was one of the largest Chinese takeovers of an American automotive company in history, topping AVIC's 2010 takeover of Michigan-based Nexteer Automotive for $440 million. The purchase also revealed a pattern of Chinese state-backed takeovers of sensitive American companies which included China's controversial purchase of A123 Systems for $256.6 million in 2013 after the Obama-Biden CFIUS approved the deal.

While Hunter Biden pursued the business deals, the Obama-Biden administration was acquiescing to China's wishes to expand its influence, trade and exchanges in the United States and to lessen the potential for military confrontation. For instance, a Pentagon official disclosed in fall 2015 that the Obama administration had essentially imposed a moratorium since 2013 on U.S. patrols in the South China Sea even as Beijing was increasing its influence there, including building man-made islands viewed as hostile to the West and its Asian allies.

The administration also reached a deal for Chinese companies to participate in the U.S. stock marketwithout having to fully comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules imposed on Americans companies. And Joe Biden himself was cheering on China's economic expansion despite warning signs it was coming at U.S. expense in the form of economic espionage. "It's overwhelmingly in our interest that China grows," Biden declared in a July 19, 2013 speech.

As late as spring 2019, Biden was still sounding that note. "They're not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they're not, they're not competition for us," Biden said at a May 2019 Democratic campaign event that drew criticism.

Far from the political fray in Washington, Henniges was trying to rebound in Michigan from the 2008-09 financial crisis when the AVIC deal emerged.

Henniges' partnership with China dated back to at least December 1995 when Henniges formed a joint venture with Beijing Energine (a subsidiary of a China state-owned aerospace conglomerate). Since then, Henniges has operated at least six facilities in China with at least two new facilities opened after the AVIC deal.

Approximately one month before the Henniges deal was completed with AVIC, Henniges announced its intention to open multiple factories, not in its home state of Michigan but rather in China and Mexico. On Aug. 14, 2015, Henniges announced it had begun building its fourth plant in Mexico. Four days later, Henniges announced it would be opening new facilities in Beijing and Munich. By December 2017, Henniges had announced another "exciting expansion" of its global footprint. At the ribbon-cutting ceremony, Henniges executives and Chinese government officials celebrated the grand opening of a new 79,500 square foot factory in Suzhou, China. Such global expansion has raised questions about whether jobs that would have gone to Americans have been outsourced.

Officials for Henniges did not respond to repeated requests from Just the News for total numbers of employees in the United States and overseas since 2005.

But an analysis performed by conservative website The National Pulse found that "while Henniges had begun outsourcing before Hunter Biden got involved, AVIC accelerated the practice, operating on a considerably larger scale." Henniges only added two new factories outside the U.S. in the ten years before the AVIC takeover, but "it took less than three years following the 2015 deal for AVIC to surpass this number."

In April 2020, Hunter Biden's lawyer issued a letter stating that Hunter Biden had stepped down in October 2019 from the BHR firm that helped AVIC purchase Henniges. The letter made no mention of what happened to Hunter Biden's 10% ownership stake in BHR, and it appears that Hunter Biden may still be profiting from BHR's ownership stakes in companies like Henniges.

 

[Pitcher]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/biden-admits-trumps-us-mexico-canada-trade-deal-better-nafta
 

Biden admits Trump's U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal 'better than NAFTA'

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden acknowledges that President Trump’s U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is “better than” the previous NAFTA deal that the Obama administration unsuccessfully tried to renegotiate.

President Obama and Biden, his vice president, each vowed during their eight years in the White House to renegotiate the deal. 

On Thursday, CNN news reader Jack Tapper said to Biden when debating the Trump deal: “He renegotiated NAFTA and you didn’t is the point.” 

Biden replied: “It is better than NAFTA. But look at what the overall trade policy has been, even with NAFTA? We now have this gigantic deficit in trade with Mexico – not because NAFTA wasn’t made better, because overall trade policy and how he deals with it made everything worse.”

As a senator, Biden in 1993 helped pass the Clinton-era measure, according to The Washington Times. 

NAFTA, officially the North American Free Trade Agreement, was adopted to promote trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. However, the deal – which Trump called “perhaps the worst trade deal ever" – resulted in a trade disadvantage for the United States.

 

[Pitcher]

Yes, the New NAFTA deal is better than the old one Joe.  The deals with Australia. Europe, South Korea, Japan and NATO are better for Americans as well.  Making Peace in the Middle East through strength and resolve is better for the ME, Europe, and the US.  Having the cajones to challenge China on the theft of US Intellectual Property and one sided trade deals is also better for the US and the rest of the World.  

 

Dems are hung up on stupidity.  Maybe they should work with him to make America Great Again.  

 

Reading the above articles and some of the others I’ve posted it should be crystal clear that China is supporting the Dems.  Like everything with the Dems it’s ok to have foregin

meddling if it benefits them.  

[Pitcher]

I live near the Gulf of Mexico and in a suburb and I’m not that worried about Climate Change Joe.  

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?475755-1/joe-biden-speaks-climate-change-california-wildfires

 

[Pitcher]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/vp-candidate-harris-mistakenly-refers-potential-harris-administration
 

Biden running mate Harris mistakenly refers to potential 'Harris administration'

Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris' recent public comment about a "Harris administration" is playing into speculation that she would promptly take over for presidential nominee Joe Biden if they win in November.

"A Harris administration, together with Joe Biden as the president of the United States," Harris started to say Monday before apparently catching her mistake.

"The Biden-Harris administration will provide access to $100 billion in low-interest loans and investments from minority business owners," she quickly continued, at a virtual roundtable discussion for Arizona small-business owners.

.@KamalaHarris must know smth we don't "A Harris administration together with Joe Biden..." pic.twitter.com/zkz4qG8AOs— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) September 15, 2020

The Trump campaign and its supporters since the announcement last month of Harris as the party's vice presidential candidate have called Biden "a Trojan horse for the radical left," which Harris, in their estimation, represents. 

The idea that Harris would take over, or at least be the party's 2024 presidential nominee, is the result of Biden being 77 and questions about whether his cognitive faculties have declined in recent years.

[Pitcher]

There is no mistake she will be President if Biden is elected.  If he lasts that long.  She was Obama’s pick last year.  Interesting how she is in position to get the WH with very little vetting.  

[Pitcher]

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/biden-iraq-iran/
 

WATCH: Biden Confuses Iraq And Iran While Lecturing Trump On Foreign Policy

Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden made another gaffe while lecturing President Trump on foreign policy, confusing Iraq and Iran as the country where American soldiers have been killed.

While speaking at a roundtable with veterans in Tampa, Florida, Biden described how his daily schedule includes paying respects to American soldiers who have died fighting in foreign wars.

WATCH:

Biden, who has a propensity for gaffes and has seen his mental health come under intense scrutiny, confused Iraq with Iran.

“U.S. troops die in Iran and Afghanistan – 6,000 as of today.”

Not a great look when you’re speaking at an event based around President Trump’s supposed inability to lead the United States’ foreign policy. Especially on the day of the historic Arab-Israeli peace accords.

[Pitcher]

Poor Ole Joe. He can’t help it, he’s just old, feeble, and confused.  How in the hell can anyone vote for this criminal.  

[Shabibilicious]

10 hours ago, Pitcher said:

Poor Ole Joe. He can’t help it, he’s just old, feeble, and confused.  How in the hell can anyone vote for this criminal.  

 

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

10 hours ago, Pitcher said:

Poor Ole Joe. He can’t help it, he’s just old, feeble, and confused.  How in the hell can anyone vote for this criminal.  

 

I am hearing the DNC will be making a switch......stay tuned!

CL

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

I am hearing the DNC will be making a switch......stay tuned!

CL

 

Selective hearing?  

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited September 16, 2020 by Shabibilicious