![]() The one thing that bothers me the most is Congress made it so hard in the 90s for people to bring these concerns forward. I’m anxious to get back and deal with this. I asked Congressman Peters on whether he supports removing the fund: In 1995, Congress created the “Shush” Fund to not only bury harassment claims - including claims of sexual harassment - but also have taxpayers foot the bill to settle those claims. Al Franken has a lot of work to do to restore trust between him and Minnesotans and I think it’s certainly up to him (if he should resign).” Removing the “Shush” Fund and Sexual Harassment in CongressĬongressman Peters weighed in on the sexual harassment accusations in Congress, particularly related to Senator Al Franken. It also hammers students for their deductions.” We’re a donor state to the rest of the country. One is Californians, by eliminating the state and local tax deduction, that’s not fair. It also hammers a few groups who I care about. It’s not it’s a tax cut for wealthy people. “Let’s not be fooled that this is some kind of middle class tax cut. I think there are dozens of Democrats who agree with that.” I think those are two places where we could agree. And I do believe we can tax multi-national companies in a way that doesn’t encourage foreign investment. “If the Republicans were to work in a bipartisan way, I would like to simplify the tax code, lower statutory rates, and no loopholes. This plan will not grow the economy even under the best of circumstances. I think we should oppose (the GOP tax reform bill) because it's not a growth plan. Peters says he wished Republicans were willing to work in a bipartisan fashion. So that money will leave the federal government and create a deficit and make it hard for us to fund basic services - education, infrastructure, medicare, and the military ultimately.” Conservative economists like Greg Mankiw ,who is a Republican Bush guy at Harvard, says you only earn back about a third of the money you lose in tax cuts. “I think we should oppose it because it’s not a growth plan. I asked Peters about his vote and why he’s against THIS tax reform. Peters joined me in a podcast interview before Thanksgiving to talk about a few critical issues facing lawmakers in Washington, including tax reform, the controversial “ SHUSH fund,” where taxpayers unknowingly have been paying to settle harassment claims since 1995, and some of the critical concerns facing his constituents in San Diego.Ĭongressman Peters voted against the House bill when it came to the floor before the Thanksgiving holiday and noted in his news release, “This tax plan is irresponsible, counterproductive, unsustainable, and anti-growth because increasing the national debt hurts the economy.” Peters currently serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. Scott Peters (D-California) serves California’s 52nd Congressional District, which is located in San Diego and the surrounding region.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |