Archive for ‘Tax Credit and Budgeting assumptions’

April 1, 2011

Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act

As of current financial conditioning continues to reform and restructure this nations economic balance what we are hearing often is the talk of spending cuts, continual downsizing, restoring stability, making a way to free up more federal dollars and so on. Never once have we hear the option of taking the remainder of unused money to settle and debt that may have amounted. Is this not freeing up federal dollars or cutting spending?

Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, there are rescinded and permanently canceled all unobligated balances remaining available as of such date of enactment of the amounts made available by section 1496(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act making it easier to assess the full amount of fiscal money used by the sponsor to bring the bill to life and a functional action. Allowing the TREATMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS to Not withstand the repeal of any amounts made available under the provision specified be obligated before the date of the enactment of this Act shall continue to be governed by the provisions of law specified and in effect immediately before such repeal.

Is this not how a bill should act once appropriated and shifted into a law?

Although the bill is still in implementation preceding it’s a start toward a new beginning, lets stop raising unnecessary money on bills to be appropriated and finish one in its entirety. This could be the first step toward reducing the debt associated with bill proposals and texting options taking into consideration of the passing of a new bill.

March 23, 2011

Clean Energy Economy

Dear Mr. Shaw:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for a “clean energy economy.” I appreciate hearing from you and would like to take this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

President Obama’s budget proposal spends significant funds to prioritize renewable energy technologies like wind and solar energy. While these investments are certainly laudable, this budget plan misses the opportunity to expand emission-free nuclear energy production. According to the non-partisan Electric Power Research Institute, nuclear power currently supplies approximately 73 percent of our nation’s greenhouse gas-free electricity generation. We are faced with the dual goals of meeting our energy demands and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In pursuit of these goals, I have supported nuclear energy expansion along with increased use of renewable fuels including not only wind and solar but also biomass and municipal waste. Each of these solutions would provide increased amounts of clean energy, moving our nation toward energy independence in an environmentally-responsible manner.

We must also ensure that any solution is affordable for individual consumers and industries that depend on energy to keep our economy growing. Thus, any proposal must be considered in the context of its economic impact on our nation and those in our society who are most vulnerable to rising energy prices. Reliable, clean, and abundant energy will be crucial to our nation’s economic recovery and its future economic success.

I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Senate to address the energy needs of our nation. As always, I appreciate hearing from you. Please contact me with any additional comments or questions. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at


Mel Martinez
United States Senator

March 23, 2011

America and it’s Energy concern

Dear Mr. Shaw:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the current status of the energy bill. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to take this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

In the first session of the 110th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed two markedly different versions of omnibus energy efficiency and renewable energy legislation. The Senate version of H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, passed the Senate by a vote of 65-27 on June 21, 2007. I voted against the Senate passed version of the energy bill because of it did not include any language for increased domestic energy production, debate was not allowed to discuss a possible repeal of the Brazilian ethanol tariff and Senate Democrats promised to reinsert the $32 billion tax title in conference. The House passed H.R. 3221, The New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, on August 4, 2007.

There are several fundamental differences between these two pieces of legislation that have made it difficult for a conference committee to be arranged without further action from either chamber. The Senate passed bill includes both a raise in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards and a Renewable Fuels Standard, while the House passed version does not deal with either in any capacity. Furthermore, the House passed version included a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, which was not included in the Senate version, as well as a lengthy tax title that was not added to the Senate passed energy bill.

Appointing a conference committee for these bills has been a slow and laborious process. To date, Senate leadership has yet to name conferees which has delayed any further action on the Energy Bill. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as we continue working on these important bills. I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the full Senate to promote America’s energy independence.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. In addition, for more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at


Mel Martinez
United States Senator

March 23, 2011

Credit Card Crisis on America

Remember the credit Card crisis that this nation was facing? The following is a response from Senator Mel Martinez before he left office.

Dear Mr. Shaw:

Thank you for contacting me regarding credit cards. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

Florida’s families are facing many challenges right now, including rising fuel costs, falling home values, and increasing levels of debt. Credit cards are powerful tools. When used properly, they allow Americans the flexibility to weather economic downturns and build credit history to support future financial goals like homeownership or financing a child’s education. Unfortunately, an increase in the use of credit cards has lead to instances of predatory practices and unfair rates and fees. I share your concerns, and I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to ensure that we maintain the availability of credit to American families and that the intended consumer protections are practiced.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. If you have further questions or comments, please contact me. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at


Mel Martinez
United States Senator

March 21, 2011

Senator Bill Nelsons’ response towards Continuing Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2011

Dear Mr. Shaw:

Thank you for sharing your concerns about the spending plan set forth by the House of Representatives in H.R. 1, the Continuing Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2011. The Senate declined to take up this measure, and a Senate version of a continuing resolution also failed to gain enough votes to proceed to debate.

H.R. 1 blindly slashed programs without taking the time to examine the consequences. What we need instead are responsible solutions that can reduce the deficit and, at the same time, ensure economic opportunity for the middle class.

I have long been committed to getting Federal spending under control, going back to my support for a balanced budget in the 1980s. Last year I voted for an across-the-board cap on discretionary spending through 2014, and recently voted to ban earmarks for three years. Furthermore, I am a cosponsor to the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act (S.102), which would establish a streamlined procedure for Congress to vote on discretionary spending cuts proposed by the President, much like a line-item veto.

Now Congress must work together on a new plan to keep the government funded past March 18. I assure you that I will look for common ground across the political divide, and admonish efforts to derail good-faith negotiations. I am committed to finding real solutions to our fiscal situation, and will work to ensure that appropriations bills and measures to reduce the deficit reflect the values and priorities of Floridians.

I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future

Senator Bill Nelson

March 11, 2011

What we mean by housing!‏

Since April 17 2009 there has been a push to address the current call to change the legislation that allows an extension of housing vouchers produced and the overall projection of budgeting assumptions. Shelly Moore Capito suggests that only 20,000 housing vouchers be produced and the projection is a mere 7 year assumption.

Upon submitting this letter, I’m asking that you make a decision that stands along the guidelines of the National Housing Trust Fund which suggests that over the next ten years that there be 200,000 vouchers produced annually.

It’s a bit much, but if you take that average of people currently waiting to receive housing vouchers along with those that may and are currently applying for housing vouchers this projection and assumption are sound and reasonable to ask.

The current financial crisis that we as an american society are facing calls to ask for such a drastic change from the prior and current assumption of decision making. A turn to address the current changes that the housing and foreclosure crisis has affected will make this a reasonable change of view towards the well being of this american society. Each day thousands of americans are being to the harsh reality that homelessness does exist and at any given moment they could add to that statistic.

Please, as the call to vote comes in the regards to opposing the Shelly Moore Capito amendment, take the stand to allow americans the option to staying housed, even if they are of lower-income standards.

March 10, 2011

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF)‏

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund and Homelessness Prevention Fund resources that will soon be awarded in communities across the country have the potential to transform how communities respond to homelessness among families.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Contingency Fund has a decided total amount that a state can receive in contingency funds over the course of 2009 and 2010 which is capped at 50 percent of one year’s annual TANF allocation. This 50 percent cap applies to the total of the new Emergency Contingency Funds and the pre-existing contingency fund that about a dozen states have qualified for.

Section 2101 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in which the Recovery Act creates a new TANF Emergency Contingency Fund (ECF), funded at $5 billion. An investment in which states can receive 80 percent federal funding for spending increases in FYs 2009 or 2010 over FYs 2007 or 2008 in certain categories of TANF‐related expenditures. The three categories are basic assistance, non‐recurrent short‐term benefits, and subsidized employment.

The TANF block grant is also used by states in part to provide cash assistance to low-income families. Benefit levels vary widely across the states.

The definition of non-recurrent, short-term benefits at 45 CFR 260.31(b)(1) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Office of Family Assistance states: A benefit must meet all three criteria to be excluded as assistance. If a State provides recurring basic income support, then the State is providing assistance.

The TANF regulation at 45 CFR 260.31(a)(1) and (2) specifies that “assistance” includes cash, payments, vouchers and other forms of benefits designed to meet a family’s ongoing basic needs (i.e., for food, clothing, shelter, utilities, household goods, personal care items, and general incidental expenses). The regulation at 45 CFR 260.31(a)(3) states that assistance also can include supportive services such as transportation and child care provided to families that are not employed.

Effective October 1, 2006, the all-families work participation requirement is 50 percent and the two-parent requirement is 90 percent; both rates are then reduced by the number of percentage points by which the state’s caseload falls below 2005 levels for reasons other than eligibility rule changes.

All in all, the cap on total funding is more than double what the Congressional Budgeting Office estimated states would draw; this means that states can safely assume they will receive the full amount for which they qualify under the ECF.  

March 9, 2011

Affordable Energy tax‏

As the threat of our climate impacting a global change in the weather patterns currently recorded has lead legislators to consider the efforts of reducing and possibly stopping the usage of energy sources that give off harsh and harmful by-products such as the currently used fossil fuels in that of coal and petroleum. As efforts continue to bring forth the actuality that any change in the way that this nation provides the means to consume energy that it will affect the lives of that of a greater society than that concluded upon but on a spectrum of that that entails of our mere existence on this fragile planet of Earth. With the data taken from the research of what is know of weather patterns, noted distinctive responses have been accounted for when the variable of emissions is equated to consider any know affect by means of harm or uncommon changes considered of our climatic annual weather patterns presented as current evidence.

Energy consumption on an American standard has come to the point in time in which innovative responses have allowed the emergence of a more cleanly productive integration of how we as Americans live our lives day to day. The affects of how we consume energy can be felt in our housing costs on monthly and annual levels as well as our daily commutes to and fro as a socioeconomic consideration our a common American lifestyle.

Since the 2000 census, housing and transportation costs have risen faster than that of the weakest average annual America income. A statement that not only expresses the fact that some sort of intervention is needed, however, that in reasoning the fact that along with the current method our energy sources a change is needed to reduce the over-all stress of a quality of life is considered in the matter.

A known fact about the emissions that our carelessly used that harm tour environment is that researchers have noticed that from the continual harboring of this toxic and harmful substances weather pattern and the effects of annual weather patterns have been effected on noticeable levels in a way that a transition of more productive means is merely an understatement of what is considered about our environment. Increases in the greenhouse phase of precipitation patterns, extreme additions and differences in temperatures as seasonal patterns seem to become more volatile as the transition from winter to spring, summer to autumn becomes bundled up into either just very hot or that of being intensely cold.

As the threat of emissions takes hold of this nation, a Federal program that will reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough between 2007 and 2050 to avert the catastrophic impacts of global climate change has been mentioned in that of the Warner-Lieberman Climate Act. As of now, any effort to reduce harmful emissions between 2012 and 2050 without destroying the U.S. economy should make amends with those in the legislative positions.

March 9, 2011

Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program

The Second Chance Act, passed by Congress and signed by the President in early 2008, has been explicitly billed as a “first step” in developing a more effective federal response to the problem of people leaving corrections without adequate support. This act reauthorizes and revises an existing grant program within the Department of Justice, providing money to states for reentry programs, and it creates a federal interagency task force to study and coordinate policy.

Each year, some 650,000 people leave state and federal prisons, and many times that number leave local jails. Some remain under corrections supervision, while others have served their sentences and have no further supports from the corrections system. Housing problems, including homelessness, are common among this group. These individuals tend to have incomes that are low, and they experience barriers to obtaining housing through the channels that are open to other low-income people. One result is that one in five people who leave prison becomes homeless soon thereafter, if not immediately.

People about to leave jail or prison with no place to live are generally eligible for services from HUD’s homelessness programs. Federal law has placed restrictions on the ability of people returning from prison to utilize Section 8 and Public Housing, and has authorized Public Housing Agencies to impose substantially more restrictions on them. These restrictions are often supported by tenants’ groups.

The current Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) supports the efforts that come with the threat of homelessness towards people about to leave jail or prison. Ask your state representative if they support this effort.

March 8, 2011

The right to adequate Housing!

No Second Chance: People with Criminal Records Denied Access to Public Housing

Issues surrounding the “one strike” policy.

The exclusion of people with criminal records from public housing.

Transitioning offenders from prison/jail into the community should be offered the basics such as identification documents, housing, linkages to community services and informal networks of support as a response to them approaching an amended lifestyle amongst the civil society of Americans we are. However, they are not so lucky to be given these options.

The right to adequate Housing!

As of current times, housing considerations have met the concerned citizens of this nation straight in the face as effects of the current recession are being felt on all fronts of American markets. Federal “one strike” legislation is one of those points of interest in which during current times legislation is to being questioned of sound judgement and quality when insuring the interest of the greater public is at hand.

In 1996, Bill Clinton’s administration re-charged the “One-Strike” eviction policy.

Designed to rid public housing of drug offenders and criminals, this piece of legislation has been ardently debated due to its comprehensive policy to evict public housing residents who “threaten the health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or any drug-related criminal activity on or off [italics added] such premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the household, or any guest, or other person under the tenant’s control, shall be cause for the termination of tenancy”.

Under this law, an individual can be evicted from their home, not only for their own criminal activity, but also for violations committed by a member of their household. Just a point to consider when expressing the senseless expression of a law in which enforcement has been considered. Are these people not mothers and fathers of innocent children in which current consderations of laws suggest that as long as children are present in a household facing eviction and foreclosure that simpathy be delivered and that hosuehold is allowed optional options beside the current foreclosure or eviction.

If we are going to talk about a stimulus package incentive we most include those that are incarcerated as well.

The campaign slogan for the current President Obama, expressed, simply: Change!

All Americans a re in need of some sort of change at this point in time. As a nation embarking on innovative and advanced pratices of modern (current) day life, criminal convictions are becoming ever so common.

Picture this, in the past five years prison and jail population rate have increased at a much more rapid rate than projected and still increasing. While the response of those being let back out amonst civil America are left unconcerned and unannounced. Leaving question of how are prison/jail inmates fairing upon release?

Is there justice for the prior convicted upon release from detention facilities?
Will these people have to resort back to criminal activites in which punishment was only to send them to their room for some time to think about how to survive as even more of a public threat upon release. I don’t get it.

It seems that credit and taxes are the main focuses which influence this nation when a financial response is needed. To be honest I’d rather spend my money trying to keep joe the crook at bay as best as possible (speaking of some sort of prison transitional housing program) rather than allowing him to become more prone to crime in that of a simple release.

If Change is what we voted for than a change in criminal relations policies in the aspect of allowing those with criminal records obtain some sort of housing when local and state policies are considered and approached.

Thank You

Aaron Shaw

National Coalition for the Homeless advocate
National Low-Income Housing Coalition advocate
Florida Housing Coalition advocate
National Alliance to End Homelessness advocate