Judging by this week’s headlines, Democrats would like to raise taxes on the rich — but can’t even seem to agree on a definition of the term. What precipitated this apparent crisis was President Obama’s call on Monday to extend the Bush tax cuts for another year, but only for households earning less than $250,000 annually. That seemingly put the White House at odds with the Democratic leadership in Congress, which has advocated increases only for those making more than $1 million a year. The White House, too, had recently been inclined to define “rich” as starting at the million-dollar level: the Buffett Rule, which Obama proposed in April, would impose a minimum 30-percent federal tax rate on millionaires.
But despite some of the news coverage and the gleeful Republican needling about Democratic disarray, there really isn’t much disagreement among Democrats about who’s rich and should pay more taxes. Instead, the disparity reflects different political strategies about how best to put pressure on Republicans. The inevitable resolution — Obama will prevail — reflects the president’s primacy and also his dire predicament. Having once before broken his vow to let the Bush tax cuts expire (as part of a 2010 stimulus deal), he probably can’t do so again and feel confident about getting reelected.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
This is no more than the 2% cut in Social Security. Never thought I live to see the day that a Democratic President laid down the seeds for the destruction of Social Security.
cut the size of government in half and we can all keep more of OUR MONEY. Government is so out of control it's ridiculous.
The end date for the Bush tax rates was just a way to get it passed, by making it appear to be less "expensive" for the long term deficit. Bush, and most clear thinking people would have preferred to see them made permanent from the beginning. They did lower tax rates at ALL levels, not just the rich, as liberal parlance would have you believe. And they proved to be more progressive, as it is that scheme which currently has nearly half of all Americans paying no income tax. Of course, the amount of tax derived from the wealthy has gone up substantially. These are facts. NEW PARAGRAPH: The desire to raise tax rates is a political argument. It is based on seeking political advantage, by equating tax rates to tax revenue, and creating the false impression that the GOP is giving money away to rich people by seeking to maintain the current rates. The argument should be based on this: What tax rates would lead to greater economic growth? Only a charlatan could argue that raising tax rates is good for the economy.
Did you really have to post a photo of that member of the republican intelligentsia?
While I myself did not view Pres. Bush's performance in office favorably, he deserves the respect of the office. If you cannot extend that respect you have given up your moral basis for complaining that Pres. Obama is being disrespected.
Your post reads as if you advocate lying about something (temporary nature of a tax reduction) in order to justify the goal (permanent tax reduction). That being said, you really can't complain when you allege that the Democrats lied to get PPACA passed. You would be engaging in the worst form of sanctimony if that were the case.
Instead of talking about tax cuts, discuss the proper tax rates. Tax rates have changed over the years. Calling tem cuts is dishonest. They were reduced, but the reality is that these are our current rates. Where should they be? Is O right? I do not think so.
In 2006, Democrats made considerable political hay, by characterizing the Bush tax cuts, as ONLY favoring the rich, at the expense of the beloved middle class and the deficit. We had 3+% GDP growth and 4.7% unemployment and Federal revenues later peaked in 2007. Spending, however, was growing under the Republicans, and grew further when the Pelosicrats took over in 2007, and went through the roof in 2009 with Obama and his short-lived supermajority. Until the tax cuts were due to expire, one never heard of ANY benefit to the middle class. Now we should preserve, at all costs, the Bush tax cuts for the Middle Class. Only the plutocrats benefited, we were told then. Now, the little people actually were helped as well, and we (the Dems)want to do no harm to them, particularly, during this recession-without-end. New election cycle. New contradictions. It's all class warfare, all the time with the Dems. Divide and conquer. Blame Bush and take no responsibility for your own role in the nation's fiscal calamity.
That foxy Obama is at it again: claiming he is the one who can help the poor and the middle class. NOT TRUE. Obama promised the Bush tax-cuts would expire under his presidency. NOT TRUE. Obama failed to lift a finger against the Bush tax -cuts when the Democrats were in control of both houses. The tax cuts were then described as benefiting Bush's rich friends, the top 1% of voters.However, all politicians cater to the same top 1% because they finance political careers. Get over it folks - this is life. Only naive first time voters think anything different. Also, for those with short memories: Obama promised to bring home the solders. NOT TRUE. Obama claimed the banks who received bail-outs would renegotiate their staggering mortgages which forced families out of their homes. NOT TRUE. It didn't happen. . . why is the GLOBE ignoring Obama's false promises while trying to drudge up dirt on Gov. Romney?
The whole tax conversation has turned to nonsense. First of all I doubt quite seriously Bush even dreamed it up, pretty sure someone told him what was necessary. That being said from my perspective the tax cuts did no one including the country any good. My taxes are lower than they have ever been and if they were raised to their previous levels it wouldn't change a thing in my spending or savings patterns. I'm not wealthy but my income is higher than average. I don't whine about taxes because they don't hurt and I consider them a necessary evil. Oddly I find the folks who do the most complaining hardly pay any at all or in relationship to total income pay at low levels. (NP) Now if one wants to start complaining about and state and local that is another matter and I find too many people confuse the issue. I would point out however that declining federal revenue leads to less money to the states and higher taxes at the state and local level. Of course we have the selfish wing, the nutty wing, that thinks they shouldn't have to pay anything. No point in even talking to those folks.
Where do you specifically want to cut?