Filed under: Motorsports, Government/Legal
Bailout bill includes big earmark for race tracks
What do failing banks and foreclosed houses have to do with race tracks? A lot, apparently, if you're Charles Schumer. The New York Senator added an earmark to the nation's $700 billion "rescue plan" that will extend current tax laws for race tracks that allow them to be considered the same as amusement parks in the eyes of the IRS. As long as that's the case, track facilities can write off improvements to their concession stands, parking lots and the tracks themselves over a seven-year period rather than 15 years. On the surface this sounds like small potatoes, but adding up the numbers reveals that the tracks will save $100 million in taxes by writing off improvements over a shorter span of time. That means less of the earnings from each of those seven years will go towards taxes, helping the track owners achieve a higher annual profit in the short term.
The race track earmark wasn't in the House bill that got shot down last week, but was added by Senator Schumer to the 450-page bill, along with a number of other earmarks by other senators, to attract a few more Yes votes when the bill returned to the House of Representatives. It must have worked, as the House passed the bill today by a vote of 263-171 and it was signed into law by President Bush this afternoon. We feel rescued already.
[Source: Miami Herald]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Wobbly_ears 6:05PM (10/03/2008)
Are the ordinary taxpayers the only ones who aren't being bailed out???
What is WRONG with this country????
Reply
2007RC46SP2 6:57PM (10/03/2008)
yeah, how about the little guy who is on the verge of not being able to make his house payment.
2007RC46SP2 6:57PM (10/03/2008)
and as i just click on some news, heres a 90yr woman who shoots herself over foreclosure.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4928IS20081003
LOs 7:04PM (10/03/2008)
Maybe the guy who can't make his house payment should have taken better account of his finances when looking into said home. While there are instances that these are legitimate claims (i.e., unexpected job loss, truly unexpected occurence) for the most part the people who are being foreclosed on didn't have any business buying homes in the first place. This is Washington stroking Wall Street.
The little guy has no place in this world. I don't know about you, but my momma taught me thati the only person who is going to look after you, is you.
BoxerFanatic 8:11PM (10/03/2008)
LOs, I agree 99.9%.
But the .1% that will get you, is if your taxes go up, and all your responsible planning goes out the window.
What happens when the IRS is the reason you can't afford your house (albeit, grocieries, gas, and other things will take that hit, not the house payment.)
The horrific thing in all of this is that the government is supposed to be "Of the people, for the people, and by the people."
Now it really is: "Of the corrupt, for the powerful, by the special interests."
From the US Declaration of Independence:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Remember or re-read that before going to the polls in one month from now. DO take care of yourself, including your representation in Washington, and in your state and local elections.
J M C 3 6:06PM (10/03/2008)
Charles Schumer is taking advantage of a bad situation.
His contempt for taxpayers is amazing.
Reply
Berto 6:06PM (10/03/2008)
God Bless America... and our flawless legislative process.
Reply
bob 6:07PM (10/03/2008)
Right. Basically they gained votes by filling the bill with bribes to gain votes, not by actually changing/removing the issues that were problematic with the bill to begin with.
Reply
Dave 6:08PM (10/03/2008)
Actually it's called a lone you biased foreign car loving id--t.
Reply
Nick 6:11PM (10/03/2008)
a lone? you idiot.
riskylogic 6:32PM (10/03/2008)
The automaker bill is a loan. This, OTOH, is a bailout. The government may quite possibly come out ahead on the former (it's a subprime loan), but the banker/real estate bill is money down the drain. Why not earmark a bill that is a giant earmark in the first place?
montoym 6:49PM (10/03/2008)
First, it's not a lone, it's a loan.
Secondly, I think you are confusing this $700 Billion Bailout with the $25 Billion Loan to the domestic auto industry.
Dan 7:10PM (10/03/2008)
It's a loan no matter how its spelled. A bailout is when someone is given free money.
BoxerFanatic 8:21PM (10/03/2008)
If this were a LOAN, then another bank would be making it.
It is merely called and dressed as a loan to save face in Washington.
If this were legitimate debt leveraging, and the assets were worth something, the Government would not be the source for this money, it would be handled privately.
But the fact is, that no banking institution anywhere wants to take on near CERTAINTY that this debt will never be repaid in full, if at all.
You can call it whatever you want. But by leveraging the tax payers, you remove almost every bit of culpability and make it almost guaranteed that it won't be paid back, if they ever even intended to.
This is socialization of the allowance for default accounts. You can call it Top Sirloin Steak, if you want, that doesn't change the real reality. But it sounds better than "bail-out" or sticking the taxpayer with nearly guaranteed losses, and making them pay by force of law, under threat of fines or jail. (or risk of death if someone forcibly resists enforcement of tax law.)
It is called a loan so that Schumer, Rangle, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, Obama, McCain, and everyone else who voted for this bill, can claim that they thought it would have worked, when they voted, and that they are shocked and dismayed when it falls flat, even though it is going to fall flat, by design.
Again, if this were worthy of a loan, it would be from a bank, not the US Congress.
The US Congress has had trouble with its OWN banking scandal before, now they are banking for everyone else, and are probably going to mangle it much worse.
Kotse 12:38AM (10/05/2008)
A lone?!
Only a loon(ney) would spell that bad as such...
snoopymaniac 6:21PM (10/03/2008)
I've got a question!!!!
While I support McCain (mostly because I don't have alot of options :( Romney)
I wonder did he vote yes on this bill? He has stated he would veto any bill that hit his desk as President if it contained earmarks. Well this bill contained 100billion+ in earmarks...
Politicians... ***k them all.
Reply
chrisdavis 6:42PM (10/03/2008)
"Yea"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14196.html
2007RC46SP2 7:00PM (10/03/2008)
third party ticket dot com. theres your alternative.
tankd0g 10:47PM (10/03/2008)
Of course he did, but so did two face Obama.
Benfolio 6:22PM (10/03/2008)
THANK GOD. Maybe they'll finally add padded seats to the metal grandstands.
My cornhole could use some comfort as of late.
Reply