I appreciate members participation during yesterdays igs session. I was glad to hear everys initial thoughts. However, a number of issues were raised yesterday that in my view warrant some additional responses. First at characterization of the bill as a massive tax cut for the rich that particular claim was repeated by almost every minority member of this committee. The problem with that claim is that its just not true. The joint committee on taxation a nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper has concluded not only does the bill maintain the current level of progressivity in the tax code but the largest tax cuts in terms of percentage of income will go to middle income earners. I understand that the districtsal analysis is inconvenient for the democrats who are committed to the narrative that republicans intend to give the socalled rich a huge tax cut. But jcts analysis shouldnt be ignored altogether. Secondly, there was the repeated claim supposedly placed on jct analysis that the bill
Type tax reform. Today is day two of the Senate Committee review live on capitol hill. This is just getting under way. It collects input from amendments that have been filed. Because of a larm number of amendments we have processed the modified mark will be given to members later today as has been discussed with our Ranking Member and everyone can then have time to read over the modifications. After that process we will resume a markup tomorrow morning with the modified mark. Before we proceed today i want to make a few comments. I appreciate members participation during yesterdays session. I was glad to hear everyones initial thoughts. However a number of issues were raised that in my view werent additional responses. First is a massive tax cut for the rich. That particular claim was repeated by almost every minority member of this committee. The problem with that is that its just not true. J. T. C. s analysis shouldnt be ignored all together. Secondly there was the repeated claim tha
[inaudible conversations] senate reconsider the consideration of the tax cuts in jobs that and begin by walking through with the chief of staff from the joint committee on taxation following the conclusion of this process which will likely take some time it will be provided to members later today. Because of a large number of amendments we have processed a modified mark will be given to members later today and then everybody can have time to read over the modifications. We will reserve the markup for tomorrow morning with a the modified mark i appreciate members participation of yesterdays session and was glad to hear everyones initial thoughts however the number of issues were raised the required additional responses that characterization the bill as a massive tax cut for the rich that particular claim was repeated by almost every minority member of the committee but it is just not true. The committee on taxation has concluded not only does it maintain the tax code but the largest tax
Reasonably said you are cutting out groups that may be forprofit and have a lot of capacity in the area. We sort of weighed that and from most of the outreach we did we landed on the side that the nonprofit requirement was on balance, a good thing to have in there. We had a good conversation with the park as license folks a few days ago and i hope they dont mind me saying that they are willing to explore with us an opportunity for the Parks Alliance to extend its nonprofit status to smaller groups that would have trouble getting the wherewithal to get the 501 c 3 . So we think there are groups that are already 501 c 3 and set up to do this to extend their umbrella around the steward groups and make us more comfortable that was the way to go with that. In response to your answer that would not prevent any company from forming 501 c 3 . We have hurdles a private Company Simply forms a 501 c 3 and putsn the board of directors their ceo, their treasurer and their something else, that is no
Yes. Right now the program would allow them to have clear liability agreements with the city, because right now if they wanted to take a major encroachment of the space, they would have to take 100 liability and these agreats specifically we have worked with the city risk manager to make the barriers for liability for the spaces appropriate to the group and appropriate to the time that they are going to take it on, lowering barriers and liability. So the city would put out and rfp and others would respond . Its that open permit process that mirrors an rpm, that is correct. And whatever agreement, said the cbd that gets that selected correct. There are a hot of things that could be in there . Yes. That agreement and very much like the city currently makes agreements for each major encroachment permit, that is the agreement form that would be there. The plaza encroachment form and it would be negotiated plaza by plaza and allow for adaptation. Thank you. Maybe some of them rec and park w