Jump to content
TedderVision

Morgan Johnson

CH Democrats
  • Content count

    500
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Morgan Johnson

  1. Morgan Johnson Amidst the partisan back and forth on the issue of immigration reform and border security, Democratic Congressman Morgan Johnson offers these thoughts for what would make a proposal he would consider ideal to support: "I have not been able to commit to either party's "official" bill on immigration reform and border security, because, while both proposals have helpful elements to them, it would be even better to combine the most helpful aspects into one bill, and to add other vital provisions. Fundamentally, a comprehensive bill must include a permanent DACA resolution and guard against the danger of families being separated at the border. The provision of temporary visa for agricultural work is also a high priority. At the same time, e-verify is absolutely necessary to prevent businesses from taking advantages of illegal, low-cost labor. In addition, more attention needs to be paid to the problem of individuals who overstay their visas. In recent years that has been a greater source of illegal immigration than border crossings. Therefore, a system of biometric visas needs to be implemented, which can also be linked to e-verify. I have a great concern for the status of refugees in the world, particularly in areas where religious minorities, often Christian minorities, have been terrorized, and sometimes as an indirect result of our own actions (for example the displacement of Christians in Iraq after the end of the second Gulf War). For that reason I am calling for an increase in the number of refugees permitted to stay in this country, subject, of course, to the appropriate vetting. I am more flexible on the issues of the diversity lottery for visas and the increase of physical barriers on the southern border, as well as to how we finance a bill. It is my hope that both parties can come together on a plan to reduce illegal immigration and to act in the best traditions of our country's welcoming legitimate immigrants and refugees." View full PR
  2. Announcer: The Way It is: This Week with David Kronkyte. From Washington, DC, here's David Kronkyte: Kronkyte: Elections have consequences. As a result of our national elections, we have a government under unified Republican control for the first time since 2004. Many things have changed. Barack Obama and Joseph Biden ... are gone. Dylan MacMillan is President, and our guest today, Kyle Fitzgerald, is Vice President. He has risen fast in politics, spending a few years as a State Senator and then ... another few as the Lieutenant Governor of Texas before becoming the new Vice President. He has the least federal experience of any Vice President since ... Spiro Agnew. Mr. Vice President, welcome to "The Way It Is." Fitzgerald: Thank you David. That's an ominous comparison. I hope I'll turn out better than Agnew. Kronkyte: Time will tell, Mr. Vice President. Time will tell. Mr. Vice President, the Republican Party controls the White House and Congress. So the question is ... how will the Republican Party govern? Will you try to drive through a strongly ideological agenda while you can, or will moderation and compromise be your approach? Fitzgerald: I think it really has to be a mix of both, David. There are some things Dylan and I campaigned on in 2016 that you might view as more conservative. But there are other issues where it's easier for both parties to reach agreement. I think America is generally a center-right nation, and that's how I think we'll end up governing the country. Kronkyte: Can you give our viewers some examples of where you will advocate more conservative policies? Fitzgerald: I think it's all in the eye of the beholder, David. I think we proposed a very reasonable immigration bill that fixes some very serious problems facing our country, but to someone like Arnold Vinick, maybe it's too conservative for him. Kronkyte: So that sounds like something you would categorize as more conservative? What is specifically "conservative" about it? Fitzgerald: While increased border security is something broadly popular among the American electorate, it is something that conservatives have specifically asked for at the grassroots level for a long time, especially the construction of physical barriers. Kronkyte: And you have advocated for limiting legal immigration as well, is that not correct? Fitzgerald: David, I believe we need to transition to a more merit based immigration system. One that emphasize quality and not just quantity. In the 19th century, we brought in large numbers of immigrants, mostly from Europe, to fuel the industrial revolution and provide manpower for the military. Our needs in the 21st century are radically different, and we're not going to remain the world's undisputed superpower in the 21st century with a 19th century immigration system. Automation is a very real phenomenon, and it's going to ultimately eliminate a lot of blue collar, working class jobs. That's why it doesn't make sense to let people into the country just for winning a lottery or because they're somebody's second cousin. We need to prioritize people with the special skills and abilities America needs to stay on top. Kronkyte: Thank you for your response Mr. Vice President. Are there other priorities that the MacMillan Administration will pursue out of the gate? Fitzgerald: I don't know about out of the gate, but I know we're looking to tackle a number of issues. We want to create jobs for the American people. We want to invest in our country's infrastructure. We want to lower taxes and reform our tax code. We want to make education local again. We want to rebuild our military. I think if we get those things done, it's a successful session. Kronkyte: Ambitious goals, Mr. Vice President. How much will they cost? Fitzgerald: That's the million dollar question, David. Dylan and I both have experience balancing budgets at the state level. We want to get our country back on a solid fiscal track. That might not happen overnight, but we intend to be as responsible as we can and find ways to finance our priorities. Kronkyte: Is there any chance you will reveal any of those ways to our audience today? Fitzgerald: There's a lot of waste in the federal government, and there are a lot of loopholes in our tax code that are abused by wealty elites and multi-national corporations. Kronkyte: We will certainly be looking forward to hearing more about proposed cuts to loopholes and waste. As I am sure you know, being in politics, it is much easier to promise "nice" things like increased spending and lower taxes than to describe how these things are to be paid for. I have one final question, concerning foreign policy, which has suddenly raised its head. Leading Congressional Democrats are calling for the U.S. to leave Afghanistan. They don't give any particular reason for doing so, other than "it's taking too long." How will the President respond to this move by Congressional Democrats? Fitzgerald: I think he'll talk to people at the pentagon and the generals about the best way forward. They're the experts. Kronkyte: Alright. Well, again, Mr. Vice President, thank you for appearing here today. I know we will be hearing a lot from you as the session continues. Fitzgerald: Thank you, David. Kronkyte: And now for some closing thoughts: The Vice President went into some detail about border security and immigration, obviously a concern for someone from Texas. Eyebrows will be raised at the call to reduce legal immigration. While everyone it seems says they oppose illegal immigration, it is unusual for a major political figure, much less an entire Administration, to want to reduce legal immigration. The Administration also has big plans to spend more money on ... pretty much everything a government does. Jobs programs, even in a time when we approach full employment anyway. More money for infrastructure. More money for the military. And all that with lower taxes ... and a deficit over half a trillion dollars with a national debt of $20 trillion. Savings to be specified ... later. Next Sunday, my guest will be the new Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Evelyn Vanderfleet, to give her thoughts on where her party stands now and what it should do in the session to come. Thank you, and good day.
  3. Morgan Johnson

    Border Security and Immigration Reform Act

    Mr. Speaker, I thank this body for unanimously passing the amendment I introduced. I would like it to be noted that 2/3 of all illegal immigrants actually enter this country by legal means and simply overstay their visas (source). This has been true since 2007 and continues to trend in this direction. Therefore, the bill as amended, with more visa security and without a "wall," will do more to curb illegal immigration than the original bill would have. To my Republican colleagues I say, "You're welcome." I yield.
  4. Morgan Johnson

    Revenue Neutral Corporate Tax Reduction Act

    I yield.
  5. Morgan Johnson

    Revenue Neutral Corporate Tax Reduction Act

    Mr. Speaker, Under current law, the lowest rate of tax on business is 15% of any income between 0 and $50,000 annually. Then the marginal rate increases to at least 25% for each further increment of income, strangely bouncing around between 35% and 39% at higher levels (meaning that in some cases the marginal rate is higher at lower increments!)(source). Speaking for myself, I am fine with keeping the very lowest rate of 15% as it exists under current law, and at no more than 25% for every other corporation. Therefore, I propose this amendment: SECTION. 2. ACTIONS. (a) 26 U.S. Code § 11 (a) is amended to read as follows: "(a) Corporations in general A 25 percent tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation, except for income up to $50,000, which shall be subject to a 15 per cent tax."
  6. Morgan Johnson

    Revenue Neutral Corporate Tax Reduction Act

    Mr. Speaker, I am unfortunately unable to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada. The purpose of the bill under consideration is to provide a significant reduction in the top marginal tax rate for businesses. In other words, no business should be expected to pay more than 25% of its annual income to the federal government. This means that no business will pay a higher rate than it presently does. The amendment offered is not well considered and dilutes the bill to meaninglessness. I yield.
  7. Morgan Johnson Democratic Congressman Morgan Johnson of North Carolina responds to another tax cut proposal by Republican Congressman Jack Swanner of Texas: "Previously, I have demonstrated that Congressman Swanner's proposals to repeal the Estate Tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax are an irresponsible attack on our country's fiscal health, benefitting only the few at the expense of everyone. However, Congressman Swanner has proposed two other tax reduction ideas that deserve a second look. Consider the corporate tax rate reduction. It is quite true that our 35% top rate is very high. It is also true that a rate reduction can spur growth. What, then, is the problem? The Congressman's proposal would slash the top rate to 15% without addressing any of the exemptions and subsidies that currently benefit business. Indeed, there are so many exemptions and deductions present in the tax code that very few businesses end up paying the top rate as it is. By leaving these distortions untouched, the Swanner proposal will be a fiscal disaster for America. According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation (OOC: this addresses Donald Trump's tax proposals, but since the corporate tax cut is the same, it is appropriate to rely on this source:), the corporate tax reduction will blow at least a $1.9 trillion hole in our budget over ten years. While I am in favor of reducing the top corporate tax rate (although I am not sold on lowering it all the way down to 15%, such action must be accompanied by a serious reduction or elimination of various ways in which such taxes are avoided. That way, we can enjoy the benefits of more growth while avoided adding to our staggering national debt." View full PR
  8. Morgan Johnson

    Border Security and Immigration Reform Act

    Mr. Speaker, Permission to revise and extend my remarks. I offer this amendment because studies have shown that individuals overstaying their visas has become a larger contributor to illegal immigration than illegal border crossings. While we debate whether to build a wall on our southern border, we are missing a larger problem. I yield.
  9. Morgan Johnson

    Border Security and Immigration Reform Act

    Mr. Speaker, I move the following amendment to this billl, to be added to Title I: Section 4: VISA Security 4.1 Electronic passport screening and biometric matching (a) In general Subtitle C of title IV of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 231 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new sections: 4.2 Electronic passport screening and biometric matching (a) In general Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall— (1) screen electronic passports at airports of entry by reading each such passport’s embedded chip; and (2) to the greatest extent practicable, utilize facial recognition technology or other biometric technology, as determined by the Commissioner, to screen travelers at United States airports of entry. (b) Applicability (1) Electronic passport screening Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall apply to passports belonging to individuals who are United States citizens, individuals who are nationals of a program country pursuant to section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187), and individuals who are nationals of any other foreign country that issues electronic passports. (2) Facial recognition matching Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) shall apply to individuals who are nationals of a program country pursuant to section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 4.3. Continuous screening by U.S. Customs and Border Protection The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall, in a risk-based manner, continuously screen individuals issued any visa, and individuals who are nationals of a program country pursuant to section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, who are present, or will soon be arriving, in the United States, against the appropriate criminal, national security, and terrorism databases maintained by the Federal Government. . 4.4: Reporting of visa overstays Section 2 of Public Law 105–173 (8 U.S.C. 1376) is amended— (1) in subsection (a)— (A) by striking Attorney General and inserting Secretary of Homeland Security; and (B) by inserting before the period at the end the following: , and any additional information that the Secretary determines necessary for purposes of the report under subsection (b); and (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows: (b) Annual Report Not later than June 30, 2018, and not later than June 30 of each year thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report providing, for the preceding fiscal year, numerical estimates of— (1) for each country, the number of aliens from the country who are described in subsection (a), including— (A) the total number of such aliens within all classes of nonimmigrant aliens described in section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)); and (B) the number of such aliens within each of the classes of nonimmigrant aliens, as well as the number of such aliens within each of the subclasses of such classes of nonimmigrant aliens, as applicable; (2) for each country, the percentage of the total number of aliens from the country who were present in the United States and were admitted to the United States as nonimmigrants who are described in subsection (a); (3) the number of aliens described in subsection (a) who arrived by land at a port of entry into the United States; and (4) the number of aliens described in subsection (a) who entered the United States using a border crossing identification card (as such term is defined in section 101(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(6))). . 4.5. Student and exchange visitor information system verification Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that the information collected under the program established under section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372) is available to officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection conducting primary inspections of aliens seeking admission to the United States at each port of entry of the United States.
  10. Morgan Johnson

    Revenue Neutral Corporate Tax Reduction Act

    Mr. Speaker, This bill does exactly what I said it needed to do to win my support. I will vote for it because cutting rates in a financially responsible way is good for businesses and workers. I yield.
  11. Morgan Johnson

    The Way It Is: This Week With David Kronkyte

    Announcer: The Way It Is: This Week with David Kronkyte. From Washington, DC, here's David Kronkyte. Announcer: "The Way It Is: This Week With David Kronkyte." Kronkyte: Good afternoon. Unified government in Washington. Specifically, unified government with Republicans occupying the White House and both Houses for Congress ... for the first time since 2004. What does it mean? How will they govern? And how will Democrats respond with new leadership in the House? Our guest today is .. Evelyn Vanderfleet. She represents California in the House of Representatives, and has achieved considerable prominence in recent days as the newly named Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Congresswoman, welcome to The Way It is. Vanderfleet: Thank you, David. It is a pleasure to be here. Kronkyte: My first question is that while you personally have come a long way in politics, your party ... has not. Democrats are shut out of the White House and are in the minority in Congress. They are in the worst position for their party since 2004. So ... what's the problem? Why did your party lose up and down the ballot? Vanderfleet: First, I am new to politics. I would like to be clear, I am not an experienced politician. In politics, I am a novice. The Washington game is not something I am as familiar with. From my years with Apple, to my various venture capitalist experiences, I am an expert problem solver, team leader, and brander. I have been a lifelong Democrat. Post-1960, we saw the Democratic party stand for equal rights, stand for the everyday American, and stand for more opportunities. I could not believe how the Democratic values were so right, but the democrats themselves were so disorganized and screw it up time and time again. I had enough of it and ran for congress myself. Hillary Clinton was the far superior candidate in 2016 over Speaker Macmillan; however, the democrats were poorly organized and blew the whole thing. The reason our party lost up and down the ballot was due to a poor delivery of our message and how we can solve the problems of every day Americans. When the people know what we stand for, there is no doubt that what we say is what they think and believe. Kronkyte: So, Madame Chair, you seem to be saying that your party is entirely right and does not need to rethink any of its stances, it's all just a matter of mis-communication or disorganization? Vanderfleet: Nothing is ever 100% right as when new information gets presented, things are bound to change. To clarify, the party’s values of equal opportunity, worker’s rights, affordable healthcare, affordable college and education, public education, environmental awareness, women’s rights, economics, and much more tend to work better when Democrats call the shots rather than conservatives. If you would indulge me, let’s talk about the economy. During President Bill Clinton’s leadership, we saw budget surpluses from 1998-2001 under Clinton economics*. The deficit reappeared with President George W. Bush’s budget in 2002. We have yet to recover from those Bush era economics. President George W Bush left President Obama with a 7.8% unemployment rate; whereas, President Obama has left President Macmillan with a 4.8% unemployment rate. President Barack Obama insured millions of Americans with health insurance. He also had the longest stretch of job growth in American history. The only Republican president who lowered unemployment during his term in the last 70 years was President Ronald Reagan while President Obama, President Clinton, President Kennedy, President Johnson, and President Truman all lowered the unemployment rate**. The Democrats are not always 100% correct on every issue, but we are right on economic issues. Kronkyte: So what are your party's priorities in this coming Session? Vanderfleet: Being in the minority, we plan to enact common sense bills and address the specific problems every-American can support. Our priorities include combating human trafficking, addressing the opioid epidemic, and a focus on jobs and job growth. We will also stand firm on any assault to women’s health care, women’s rights to choose, LGBT rights, extreme immigration policies, and the ACA. We will oppose any huge corporate tax breaks as well. We want to see a balanced budget and a reduction of the deficit, something that President Barack Obama was unable to do; however, you cannot blame him too much due to the obstruction by conservatives. Being in the minority, our agenda is clear. Unite on what we can to serve the American people, defend our core values from Republican attack to protect the American people, and if the Republicans choose to listen, hear our ideas for affordable college, improved health care, minimum wage increases, and equality advancements. Kronkyte: Alright, well thank you for your time today, Congresswoman. My closing thoughts: It seems that there will be real ideological clashes in the new Congress.
  12. Morgan Johnson

    @MorganJohnson

    Official Twitter Page for Democratic Congressman Morgan Johnson Proudly Representing the 13th District of North Carolina
  13. Morgan Johnson

    @MorganJohnson

    @MorganJohnson: Attempting to cut through the static to put forward my concerns for immigration reform and border security:
  14. Amidst the partisan back and forth on the issue of immigration reform and border security, Democratic Congressman Morgan Johnson offers these thoughts for what would make a proposal he would consider ideal to support: "I have not been able to commit to either party's "official" bill on immigration reform and border security, because, while both proposals have helpful elements to them, it would be even better to combine the most helpful aspects into one bill, and to add other vital provisions. Fundamentally, a comprehensive bill must include a permanent DACA resolution and guard against the danger of families being separated at the border. The provision of temporary visa for agricultural work is also a high priority. At the same time, e-verify is absolutely necessary to prevent businesses from taking advantages of illegal, low-cost labor. In addition, more attention needs to be paid to the problem of individuals who overstay their visas. In recent years that has been a greater source of illegal immigration than border crossings. Therefore, a system of biometric visas needs to be implemented, which can also be linked to e-verify. I have a great concern for the status of refugees in the world, particularly in areas where religious minorities, often Christian minorities, have been terrorized, and sometimes as an indirect result of our own actions (for example the displacement of Christians in Iraq after the end of the second Gulf War). For that reason I am calling for an increase in the number of refugees permitted to stay in this country, subject, of course, to the appropriate vetting. I am more flexible on the issues of the diversity lottery for visas and the increase of physical barriers on the southern border, as well as to how we finance a bill. It is my hope that both parties can come together on a plan to reduce illegal immigration and to act in the best traditions of our country's welcoming legitimate immigrants and refugees."
  15. Morgan Johnson

    @MorganJohnson

    @MorganJohnson: GOP control of government means being governed by a basket of mediocrities.
  16. Morgan Johnson

    Another Bad Idea: Eliminating the AMT

    Morgan Johnson Democratic Congressman Morgan Johnson, representing North Carolina's 13th District, continues his analysis of some recent tax and spending proposals recently introduced: "Congressman Jack Swanner has introduced two bills that are bad ideas for nation's fiscal health, and are, unfortunately, being supported by misleading rhetoric about "rural and middle-income Americans." Having dealt with the proposed Estate Tax Repeal, I now turn to Congressman Swanner's "Alternative Minimum Tax" Repeal. The Alternative Minimum Tax was instituted in 1970, after the American people were rightly scandalized when 150 of America's richest people avoided paying any income tax because of loopholes and deductions. Amazingly, they were able to do this in spite of a top income tax rate of 70%. Thus, the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT, was born. It was designed to ensure that the wealthiest Americans would pay some income tax by treating various loopholes differently if one's income crossed a certain threshold ... in some case removing them entirely, in others limiting them. However, a major problem developed over time. As the 1970s progressed, inflation increased dramatically. People's incomes also increased in nominal terms, but not in real terms. This meant that more and more Americans were subject to the AMT. It became less of a means to capture income from the wealthiest Americans and became a genuine burden on the merely moderately successful. However, this problem was finally laid to rest in 2012, when the Congress finally indexed the AMT tax threshold to inflation. In other words, now the AMT is doing what it was designed to do: ensure that the wealthiest Americans would not escape paying federal income tax. Today, about 5 million of the wealthiest Americans are subject to the AMT. (Source for preceding claims) A complete elimination of the AMT will be a windfall to these five million Americans, but it will drive our deficit and debt even higher. According to the Tax Policy Center, ending the AMT will add over $400 billion to our national debt in the first ten years, and about $700 billion in the ten years following (Source). At a time of continuing deficits and mounting debt, it is irresponsible to cut revenue yet again, particularly when the beneficiaries of this largesse are those least in need of tax relief." View full PR
  17. Morgan Johnson Democratic Congressman Morgan Johnson of North Carolina's 13th district is commencing a series of evaluations of some recent tax and spending proposals introduced by other members of Congress. He will first address the Estate Tax Repeal proposed by Republican Congressman Jack Swanner of Texas: "Congressman Jack Swanner has proposed several tax reduction bills. A couple of them have some merit (but also drawbacks) and I will address them on a later occasion. For now, however, I must respond to a perennial Republican cause which Congressman Swanner takes up, the repeal of the federal estate tax. Swanner maintains this tax is especially disadvantageous for middle income and rural Americans. In fact, he is entirely wrong about that. There is no good reason for the Estate Tax to be abolished, particularly in light of the revenue that will be lost. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has published an analysis of the federal estate tax. I will highlight some of the report's findings. In this analysis, it is shown that of all estates, 0.2% ... two out of one thousand ... are subject to the estate tax. In other words, the top 0.2% of all American households in wealth. That is as far from "middle class" as one can get. An individual's estate is tax free for the first $5.49 million in value; a couple's estate is tax free for nearly $11 million in value. As the CBPP writes, "Thus, the estate tax is best characterized as a tax on very large inheritances by a small group of wealthy heirs" If the estate tax is repealed, these top 0.2% of households will receive an average windfall of $3 million each. For the very wealthiest estates, that figure will be $20 million. As New York University School of Law professor Lily L. Batchelder explains, “it would be more accurate to call wealth transfer taxes [such as the estate tax] ‘silver spoon’ taxes, not ‘death’ taxes as their opponents prefer.” Furthermore, taxable estates (which, remember, comprise 0.2% of all estates) pay on average only 1/6 of the value of their estates in taxes. Some of the value of these estates can be shielded from taxation by loopholes such as Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts: "The GRAT loophole enables wealthy estates to avoid extraordinary amounts of tax when stock or other assets rise in value quickly, as has happened frequently in recent years. The tax lawyer credited with discovering the loophole estimates that it has allowed wealthy estates to avoid as much as $100 billion in estate taxes since 2000, or close to one-third of the amount that the tax raised over the period." If anything, we should look at closing that loophole to raise needed revenue. What about the small businesses and family farms Republicans say are unfairly burdened with the federal estate tax? There ARE in fact, some. The number is ... 80. That's right. 80. "Furthermore, special estate tax provisions — such as the option to spread payments over a 15-year period and at low interest rates — allow the few taxable estates that would face any liquidity constraints to pay the tax without selling off any farm assets." Finally, while the estate tax is not the largest source of federal revenue, it is by no means insignificant. Indeed ... "it is significantly more than the federal government will spend on the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency combined. Repealing the estate tax would cost $269 billion over a decade, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, before counting the interest costs of adding to the debt." In summary, the Estate Tax provides needed revenue, raised from those most able to pay. It is a myth that middle class and rural people are somehow disadvantaged by it. Instead, it is a tax falls very lightly on the population, affecting primarily the super-wealthy. I do not believe that giving the super wealthy a huge windfall justifies the fiscal impact of eliminating the estate tax." View full PR
  18. Morgan Johnson Democratic Congressman Morgan Johnson, who represents North Carolina's 13th District, has introduced the Deficit Reduction Act, his first bill in this session of Congress, which is designed to make a dent in the annual budget deficit, and slow the growth of America's enormous public debt. Johnson's bill would raise additional revenue by limiting federal deductions for mortgage interest, property taxes, and state and local income taxes. "I structured this bill to impact those best able to afford it. Moderate and middle income households are untouched. However, those who benefit the most from very high deductions will be paying more, not by raising marginal rates, but by limiting specific deductions. I introduced this bill because I oppose the reckless tax and spending policies that both parties have engaged in over the last decades, with the one exception of President Bill Clinton working with Congressional Republicans to restrain spending and not recklessly cut taxes beyond our ability to pay for them. Those few years in the late 1990s were a wonderful respite from our ever mounting national debt. Unfortunately, since 1981, both parties have often fallen down on the job when it comes to being good stewards of our nation's wealth. This problem has been especially acute since 2001, when both Presidents Bush and Obama ramped up spending dramatically, unrestrained by Congress. Further, President Bush cut taxes excessively, gambling that the few surpluses of the late 1990s would continue automatically. He was wrong, obviously. And President Obama was wrong to ratchet up spending in an ill-conceived stimulus bill that spent far too much for the limited impact it had. Now, our national debt approaches 100% of our annual Gross Domestic Product. Because the dollar remains the world's reserve currency, we have been able to get away with such irresponsibility for longer than most countries possibly could. But eventually, we will have to face the reality that there is no such thing as a free lunch or free money. If our prosperity is built on an ever-increasing amount of debt, that is akin to building our house on sand. My greatest concern as a member of Congress is to reduce the deficit and bring the national debt under control. At the very least, I will oppose any measure on the tax or spending side that threatens to ratchet up our deficits and debt even higher. This is not really a partisan issue ... in the past Democrats like Fritz Hollings of South Carolina joined with Republicans like Warren Rudman to combat deficits and debt. I will strive to carry on in that tradition. I will soon issue my evaluations of some recent tax and spending bills that have been introduced with an eye to protecting our national fiscal health." View full PR
  19. Morgan Johnson

    Morgan Johnson (Democrat)

    Narrative Bio: Morgan Johnson, a moderate Democrat, was elected to represent North Carolina's 13th Congressional District in 2016, running ahead of Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Johnson is an ordained Presbyterian minister who has also practiced law as a District Attorney. His politics are considerably more moderate than other North Carolina Democrats in the North Carolina Congressional delegation. He is cautiously conservative on social issues, moderately hawkish in foreign policy, and a hardliner on fiscal policy, opposing even popular tax cut and spending proposals because of his concern for the annual budget deficit and national debt. He is not especially folksy, breaking the mold for current Southern Democrats.
  20. Morgan Johnson

    @MorganJohnson

    @MorganJohnson: I am not convinced we should rush to leave Afganistan entirely. Our grave mistake was neglecting Afghanistan after we supported efforts to eject the Soviets from that country. I believe we need to maintain some kind of presence there.
  21. Morgan Johnson

    David Kronkyte (Media Multi) (Democrat)

    Character Name: David Kronkyte (Media Multi) Home State: New York Previous Job: Media (Actor, Musician, Artist, Journalist, etc) Date of Birth: 07/07/1952 Race / Ethnicity: White Religion: Protestant Christian Wealth: Upper Class Gender: Male Sexuality: Heterosexual Are you married?: Yes How many children do you have?: 2 David Kronkyte, a political moderate known for his dry wit, hosts the weekly news show "The Way It Is: This Week With David Kronkyte." It is perhaps the last of the old time Sunday news talk shows that tries to maintain some balance and seriousness. David begins each show with a brief monologue about the issue of the day and then moves to interview his guest. After the interview he briefly concludes with some further program information and closing thoughts. View full character
  22. Morgan Johnson

    David Kronkyte (Media Multi)

    David Kronkyte, a political moderate known for his dry wit, hosts the weekly news show "The Way It Is: This Week With David Kronkyte." It is perhaps the last of the old time Sunday news talk shows that tries to maintain some balance and seriousness. David begins each show with a brief monologue about the issue of the day and then moves to interview his guest. After the interview he briefly concludes with some further program information and closing thoughts.
  23. Morgan Johnson

    Who do you use as your avatar ?

    Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
  24. Democratic Congressman Morgan Johnson of North Carolina responds to another tax cut proposal by Republican Congressman Jack Swanner of Texas: "Previously, I have demonstrated that Congressman Swanner's proposals to repeal the Estate Tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax are an irresponsible attack on our country's fiscal health, benefitting only the few at the expense of everyone. However, Congressman Swanner has proposed two other tax reduction ideas that deserve a second look. Consider the corporate tax rate reduction. It is quite true that our 35% top rate is very high. It is also true that a rate reduction can spur growth. What, then, is the problem? The Congressman's proposal would slash the top rate to 15% without addressing any of the exemptions and subsidies that currently benefit business. Indeed, there are so many exemptions and deductions present in the tax code that very few businesses end up paying the top rate as it is. By leaving these distortions untouched, the Swanner proposal will be a fiscal disaster for America. According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation (OOC: this addresses Donald Trump's tax proposals, but since the corporate tax cut is the same, it is appropriate to rely on this source:), the corporate tax reduction will blow at least a $1.9 trillion hole in our budget over ten years. While I am in favor of reducing the top corporate tax rate (although I am not sold on lowering it all the way down to 15%, such action must be accompanied by a serious reduction or elimination of various ways in which such taxes are avoided. That way, we can enjoy the benefits of more growth while avoided adding to our staggering national debt."
×