The Wall Street Journal reported that Rep. Paul Ryan said the Environmental Protection Agency should be targeted for spending cuts and that EPA's budget increased 124 percent under the Obama administration. In fact, Ryan included temporary stimulus spending in that figure.
WSJ: Ryan said EPA budget “increased 124% under the Obama administration”
From a November 8 Wall Street Journal article:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), who is expected to become chairman of the Budget Committee when Republicans take control of the House next year, targeted the Environmental Protection Agency as an example of areas where cuts could be made, saying on “Fox News Sunday” that the EPA's budget increased 124% under the Obama administration.
In his weekly radio address Saturday, Mr. Obama reiterated his proposal for a three-year freeze on domestic non-security spending. But Republicans want much deeper cuts overall, to 2008 levels.
In fact, that figure includes temporary stimulus spending
Ryan: “When you add stimulus -- the Environmental Protection Agency got a 124 percent increase in its budget.” From the November 7 edition of Fox News Sunday:
CHRIS WALLACE (host): Give me -- you're going to -- you're the head of the Budget Committee and you know this budget backwards and forwards. Give me a couple of specific examples of big-ticket items that you can cut to try to get closer to that $100 billion without gutting programs that people want.
RYAN: Chris, when you add stimulus -- the Environmental Protection Agency got a 124 percent increase in its budget in this last session of Congress. There have been so many massive spending increases, 24 percent in the base budget, 84 percent when you add stimulus.
We need to take all these spending increases back so that we can get this deficit in the right direction and take the pressure off tax increases.
EPA funds actually increased around 35 percent in 2010 budget, decreased slightly in 2011 Obama budget. As The Washington Post has noted, Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget -- released in February 2010 -- reported that EPA's budget was $7.6 billion in FY 2009 and $10.3 billion in FY 2010, an increase of approximately 35 percent: For FY 2011, Obama's budget request for EPA decreased slightly to $10 billion. (Congress has yet to appropriate funds for the EPA FY 2011.)
According to Recovery.gov, the Recovery Act provides around $7 billion for EPA programs, $4.3 billion of which has been paid out.
WSJ claimed “Democrats say” some purported “small businesses” aren't actually small
From the November 8 Wall Street Journal article:
House GOP Whip Eric Cantor and other lawmakers suggested that Republicans in the coming lame-duck session would press for a long-term extension of current tax levels for all earners, despite Democratic opposition. The Bush-era tax cuts expire Jan. 1 unless Congress acts before then.
“I am not for sending any signal to small businesses in this country that they're going to have their tax rates go up,” Mr. Cantor said on “Fox News Sunday.” Republicans say raising tax rates on higher earners would hit about half of all small-business income. Democrats say that figure is inflated by some large businesses that are structured as small businesses.
In fact, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said as much
JCT: “These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered 'small.' ” A July 12 analysis of Obama's FY 2011 Budget Proposals by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation stated that “three percent of all taxpayers with net positive business income” would see higher taxes under Obama's plan, adding that "[t]hese figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered 'small' ":
The proposal provides tax relief to a large percentage of taxpayers, which will provide incentives for these taxpayers to work, to save, and to invest and, thereby, will have a positive effect on the long-term health of the economy. The proposal also results in increased marginal tax rates on upper income taxpayers (as is provided for by the present-law sunset of EGTRRA), which will correspondingly reduce incentives for these taxpayers to work, to save, and to invest. Opponents of this latter aspect of the proposal often note that many small businesses, and a large fraction of small business income, will be adversely impacted by an increase in the top two tax rates. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in 2011 just under 750,000 taxpayers with net positive business income (three percent of all taxpayers with net positive business income) will have marginal rates of 36 or 39.6 percent under the President's proposal, and that 50 percent of the approximately $1 trillion of aggregate net positive business income will be reported on returns that have a marginal rate of 36 or 39.6 percent. These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered “small.” For example, in 2005, 12,862 S corporations and 6,658 partnerships had receipts of more than $50 million.