Obama plows ahead with plans to raise taxes, not create jobs
What better way for President Obama to welcome me back from the beach than with a wrong-headed plan to jack up income taxes on “the rich.” From the Hill:
The White House said Monday that President Obama wants to pay for his $447 billion jobs bill by raising taxes on the wealthy and businesses.
In fact, we don’t really need to go beyond that first sentence: Obama’s bright idea is to pay for a jobs bill by raising taxes on businesses. The economy be damned, this president is determined to take money from job creators and use it to renovate school buildings. That would be bad enough — but, as Megan McArdle explains, it’s already too late for school-renovation projects to navigate the federal procurement process in time for work to begin next summer. Which means we’re back to spending money on jobs that aren’t ready for shovels.
Still, let’s soldier on to the details as provided by Jack Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget:
The chief provision…would be to limit itemized deductions for individuals who make more than $200,000 a year and families that make more than $250,000, something the Obama administration has previously pushed to do through its budget proposals. Lew told reporters at the White House press briefing that this would raise about $400 billion.
The administration would tax the income investment fund managers make, known as “carried interest,” as regular income instead of as capital gains, which has a low 15 percent tax rate. This is another longstanding administration goal that has been resisted by Wall Street as well as some Democrats.
The administration estimates the capital gains change would provide $18 billion in revenue.
The administration also wants to eliminate tax breaks for the oil-and-gas sector, which would raise $40 billion, the administration said.
Another $3 billion would come from changing the way corporate jets depreciate. With a few other revenue increases, Lew indicated the total measures proposed by the administration would bring in $467 billion, $20 billion more than the cost of the bill.
Note, above, that line about the first item being “something the Obama administration has previously pushed to do through its budget proposals.” One wonders whether Obama has produced a “jobs bill” so much as a “tax increase justification bill.”
As it happens, I agree in principle with reducing or eliminating deductions and credits from the tax code — but as a trade-off for lowering marginal tax rates. Instead, Obama plans to raise tax rates on these same taxpayers (while apparently double-counting the increased revenues as part of his deficit-reduction package). He is effectively trying to make the tax code more complicated, not simpler. And experience teaches us that the wealthy are best positioned to take advantage of a complicated tax code and send Uncle Sam less money than he expected. This is a lose-lose-lose.
And yet this is not the only major flaw with Obama’s proposal. The congressional “super committee” tasked with drafting a deficit-reduction plan this fall is expected to consider flattening the tax code — that is, removing loopholes and lowering rates — for all taxpayers as part of its package. But if Obama removes loopholes for high earners to pay for his jobs plan, does anyone really think the super committee is then, separately, going to remove loopholes for the middle class?
And without that component, everything else on Obama’s list of “pay-fors” amounts to peanuts relative to the cost of the jobs bill.
This plan will win plaudits from the likes of MoveOn.org — and given the president’s deep political problems heading into 2012, maybe that’s all it’s designed to do. But it’s a double-whammy for the millions of Americans who are out of work and tired of hoping for change.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
211 comments Add your comment
Not So Casual Observer
September 19th, 2011
5:33 pm
joe @ 5:16,
Please paint a scarlet “M” on your forehead – for misled, misinformed or most any negative m-word you can conceive. We need to be able to identify you!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 19th, 2011
5:36 pm
“I asked several times for you to cite facts and analysis to back your claim, you ignored every request.”
No, you did not. You claimed that I wrote something I did not, therefore I had no reason to back up YOUR erroneous claim about me.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
September 19th, 2011
5:36 pm
Aahhh, another election approaches, and with it, the dummycrats will start talking about God and cutting taxes again, after such a long, long absence from speaking of such subjects.
So be sure that you keep your barf bag nearby, just sayin…
Phineas
September 19th, 2011
5:40 pm
The myth of trickle down economics will never die with some people.
John
September 19th, 2011
5:40 pm
Not So Casual Observer
“Social Security and Medicare are essentially insolvent. ”
They really aren’t. Part of the problem is that their funds have been raided by both Democrats and Republicans that their funds now contains IOUs. Both can be fixed…problem is Democrats would like to fix them…Republicans want to eliminate them.
“Would that be by creating jobs? Libs think temporarily reducing the P/R tax will create create permanent jobs? ”
By reducing payroll taxes on one employee, you’re putting more money into his pocket which he/she will spend adding to the economy. Same thing holds true for the employer, which can create temporary jobs, putting money into those employees hands. It’s called creating demand which in turn creates the need for more supply…adding jobs and growing the economy.
But how is reducing taxes on the wealthy going to create the demand needed to lead to increase of supply which job creation is needed to fulfill that demand?
“The problem behind the “hording of cash”, as you Liberals see business doing, is the unknown future of government meddling in the economy. Regulations produced at a rate exceeding any previous administration, a constant cry of “increase taxes” and out of control government spending are simply three of the problems that are lumped into one by business – a government without leadership.”
Tax policy and regulations constantly change…this is not a new concept. What administration in modern times have not had any changes in tax policy or regulations?
MarkV
September 19th, 2011
5:41 pm
Not So Casual Observer @5:24 pm: “I need to understand something…Social Security and Medicare are essentially insolvent.”
You are so right about your need to understand. Neither SS nor Medicare are insolvent, essentially or not.
Not So Casual Observer
September 19th, 2011
5:42 pm
The myth of “Democratic Leadership” will never die with Lib Loons.
ragnar danneskjold
September 19th, 2011
5:42 pm
High unemployment is one of the “costs” of ObamaCare, and we will continue to pay that cost. Employers face an unknown “per employee” cost for ObamaCare. As most employers are slightly smarter than government hacks they anticipate the plannable portion of the future In this case, they lay off the marginal workers and choose not to hire employees with questionable additional utility to the business. So long as our leftist friends are willing to compel all of us to accept the costs of ObamaCare, unemployment will not change.
joe
September 19th, 2011
5:45 pm
Did I say elect Obama now? Dang. My total bad. I meant re-elect him NOW! and Pass his Jobs Bill. NOW!!
We can do both if we just quit acting bipartisan. But we have to act quickly while the iron is still hot. I can’t believe what a great president we have. The world celebrates us again!
John
September 19th, 2011
5:45 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
“No, you did not. You claimed that I wrote something I did not, therefore I had no reason to back up YOUR erroneous claim about me.”
Go back and reread the post. Originally, you claimed the stimulus package did not work. I posted from CBO August 2011 report on the positive effect it had on the economy. You blew off the CBO report but when I asked (at least 3 times) for you to cite analysis showing the stimulus package had a negative effect on the economy, you ignored my request each time.
ragnar danneskjold
September 19th, 2011
5:47 pm
Funny essay on the administration’s financial integrity this afternoon. From the WSJ:
The Solyndra solar subsidy flare-up is getting all the media attention, but arguably as great a White House scandal concerns one of ObamaCare’s multiple new entitlements. A trove of internal emails uncovered by congressional investigators shows that administration officials knew that a new program for long-term care really was the fiscal disaster that critics claimed at the time.
Known by the acronym Class, the government-backstopped insurance for nursing homes, home health aides and the like was among the worst accounting gimmicks used to make it seem as if national health care would reduce the deficit. The voluntary Class program will collect premiums upfront next year but won’t pay out benefits for another five years. The $70 billion accumulated during that lead time will finance other parts of ObamaCare, and then the Class program goes broke somewhere around 2020 and starts to drain taxpayers in part because the same money can’t be spent twice.
The emails, obtained by a joint Republican panel led by Sen. John Thune and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, reveal that the administration knew the program was designed to fail and went ahead anyway. A Health and Human Services deputy secretary repeatedly warned his superiors and Democratic staff on the Hill that the Class program “seems like a recipe for disaster to me.” Later, he even suggested that Democrats include a “failsafe” for public support.
Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster, who has been a hero of fiscal honesty during the health-care debate, also warned that “adverse selection” could be “a terminal problem for this proposal” as early as May 2009, nearly a year before the bill passed. Because of the way Class is structured, healthy people are unlikely to buy in and premiums for the remaining sick will spike, leading to a classic insurance “death spiral.”
“Thirty-six years of actuarial experience,” Mr. Foster wrote to the Medicare legislative affairs office, “lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue.” He later wrote that “I assume you’ve conveyed these concerns to the staff but, if not, let me know and we can express these concerns in a memo.”
A Senate committee staffer “decided she does not think she needs additional work on the actuarial side,” an HHS email later reported back. Of course not.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 19th, 2011
5:48 pm
““Social Security and Medicare are essentially insolvent. ”
They really aren’t.”
Actually, Social Security is closest to being insolvent right now, with less than 2 workers per retiree contributing to SS, and it’s expected to be less than 1 worker per retiree by 2015. That means deficit spending for SS in less than 4 years. Medicare is in better shape, but escalating costs for health care (which Obamacare does NOT address) will put Medicare in deficit spending later, but the deficit spending will be accelerated compared to SS.
“Part of the problem is that their funds have been raided by both Democrats and Republicans that their funds now contains IOUs.”
And with NO REAL PLAN to pay down the debt and deficit, those IOUs are as worthless as a degree from Harvard in determining if he’ll be a good President.
Dusty
September 19th, 2011
5:48 pm
John,
Now you have flipped your lid. I have never met nor heard of a Republican that wanted someone without healthcare to die.
The fact is we already have many means to cover healthcare for the indigent. Ever heard of Grady hospital or hospitals like Grady? Or their outpatient clinics? Or county clinics? State hospitals? Ever heard that no emergency room can turn away ANY sick person? Do you know that almost every hospital has a certain percentage of their budget planned to care for those that cannot pay their bills? When’s the last time you saw someone lying dead on the street from illness? Ever heard of hospitals run by donations? (St.Judes, for one. Shrine’s Hospitals for burn cases?)You are so uninformed. No wonder you think the government should be Santa Claus. It is pitiful!!
joe
September 19th, 2011
5:50 pm
There’s only one negative M word in the zeitgeistical lexiconical vocabulary of the Wikipedia World of Wonder. That word has ruled our planet for 89 of the last 96 centuries, man. that word is moron. It starts with an M. then it goes on to say, “or” and then “on”. It has everything! It describes most of the commenters on this blog to a T.
Obama is the perfect target for morons. His leadership has astonished them and shocked them all into a whole nubba level of stupor that not even the GOP has seen before. It’s downright stuporlicious, how stupified the conservatives have stepped up into being.
Phineas
September 19th, 2011
5:53 pm
Dusty: Who pays for all the care at hospitals like Grady? For all the people who show up at Grady needing care who have no health insurance, how does the bill get paid?
joe
September 19th, 2011
5:54 pm
Anyone notice how the discussion here always devolves into morons claiming that they’ve been misquoted or misunderstood or whatever. Here is the regulars’ usual line of commenting: “Duh, I din’t say dat. You said I said dat, duh. I din’t. What I said was Duh. You then said that I said Duh, Duh. But I din’t say duh, duh, I said duh.”
What I don’t git is why the conservatives here always start every single comment with the word, duh. Anyone got a theory other than the obvious one: that they’re all morons?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 19th, 2011
5:55 pm
John, for the final time. My original post stated the stimulus didn’t work. Didn’t work does NOT equal “made the economy worse”. Now, here is your thrice requested ask of me:
“For the 3rd time…where is your source analyzing and documenting how the stimulus package made the economy worse?”
Again, you are not going to catch me in an inconsistency or be allowed to manufacture a belief I do not ascribe to.
I suggest you quit while you’re behind.
Not So Casual Observer
September 19th, 2011
5:58 pm
MarkV @ 5:41,
So your saying so will make that sovency claim accurate? I think not.
You do not have to be an actuary to understand the future of Social Security and Medicare as now constituted.
Since the Congressional Democrats placed the taxes collected to pay for these programs into the general fund of the government and then issued “iou’s” for the debt, there has been nothing there to accrue any interest as would an actual retirement account. Bernie Madoff is in jail for such a scam.
The number of workers contibuting is declining and the number of beneficiaries is increasing and in your mind this is a plan on solid financial footing? The largest single segment of society is now reaching the age of eligibility for Medicare and the number of new enrollments will increase by ever larger numbers for the next decade, at least.
Your leader, B.H. Obama, has created a plan to save Medicare, but on the backs of the very people Medicare is designed to serve – the retirees. How, you ask? By increasing the monthly cost by 150+% in the next two years.
There has not been a Social Security COL increase in the past few years but in that time Congress has voted themselves, and by law many other federal employees, at least one raise. To pay for the additional cost to them of Medicare? No, they have their own, enhanced, medical coverage.
Most retirees paid into Social Security and Medicare for 40-50 years and how are they rewarded? By making their SS benefits taxable and by huge increases in the cost of Medicare. Now this taxation is not on the increase in value of their retirment account but on the beneifts produced by previously taxed income. Scam, Scam, Scam!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 19th, 2011
5:59 pm
“Anyone notice how the discussion here always devolves into morons claiming that they’ve been misquoted or misunderstood or whatever.”
That’s because people like you, joe, can’t defend your positions without resorting to creating new ones for people like me.
John
September 19th, 2011
6:00 pm
Dusty
“Now you have flipped your lid. I have never met nor heard of a Republican that wanted someone without healthcare to die.”
Guess you didn’t watch the Tea Party Republican debate.
“he fact is we already have many means to cover healthcare for the indigent. Ever heard of Grady hospital or hospitals like Grady? Or their outpatient clinics? Or county clinics? State hospitals? Ever heard that no emergency room can turn away ANY sick person? ”
And who pays for that? Taxpayers and those who have health insurance. Certainly you don’t think these healthcare professionals and hospitals are operating free.
Dusty
September 19th, 2011
6:00 pm
Ragnar,
So good to have you here.
That was a great and clear definement of the finances of ObamaCare. The facts are truly amazing if not surprising. The subterfuge is truly discouraging.
Is there no justice for those who prey upon their fellow citizens with every twist and turn no matter what the cost will be to the country? Nothing???
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 19th, 2011
6:00 pm
Off to dinner. Maybe back later on.
John
September 19th, 2011
6:02 pm
“Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! ”
It did work…it had a positive effect on the economy. Just because we are not where we’d like to be doesn’t mean it didn’t work.
Aquagirl
September 19th, 2011
6:03 pm
I have never met nor heard of a Republican that wanted someone without healthcare to die.
I see someone missed the recent Republican debate. No wonder you live on the sunny side of life, Dusty. Ignorance is bliss.
John
September 19th, 2011
6:04 pm
Not So Casual Observer
“Since the Congressional Democrats placed the taxes collected to pay for these programs into the general fund of the government and then issued “iou’s” for the debt, there has been nothing there to accrue any interest as would an actual retirement account. Bernie Madoff is in jail for such a scam.”
The trust funds have been raided by both Democrats and Republicans. It’s been going on for years.
Not So Casual Observer
September 19th, 2011
6:07 pm
John,
Since the 1930’s Demcorats have essentially dominated Congress and, therefore, the pilaging of the Social Security “Trust Fund”. I believe in each instance of change in the benefits, theft of the “trust fund” or increase in the SS wage base there was either A Democrat in the White House, Democrat control of the Congress, or both.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 19th, 2011
6:07 pm
The Idiot Messiah is all excited about raising taxes on the productive. Jobs and/or renovating school buildings are just an afterthought. It’s all about keeping a socialist boot on the neck of the folks paying the bills.
Not So Casual Observer
September 19th, 2011
6:09 pm
Ahhh, Dusty lives on the sunny side of the street and aquagirl has always been from the dark side.
Aquagirl
September 19th, 2011
6:10 pm
aquagirl has always been from the dark side.
I couldn’t resist the cookies.
MarkV
September 19th, 2011
6:10 pm
Not So Casual Observer @5:58 pm “Since the Congressional Democrats placed the taxes collected to pay for these programs into the general fund of the government and then issued “iou’s” for the debt, there has been nothing there to accrue any interest as would an actual retirement account. Bernie Madoff is in jail for such a scam.”
You should at least try to get your facts straight. You are just repeating one of the false myths about SS. Social Security “trust fund” is invested in special government bonds. They do accrue interest. These bonds are special, but essentially they are part of the national debt just like any other part. Just like the US have to pay both the principal and the interest to those (such as China) investing in treasury bills, it has to, by law, repay these bonds and the interest. The comparison with Bernie Madoff is completely irresponsible.
Dusty
September 19th, 2011
6:14 pm
John,
I certainly do think some of the cost of our indigent healthcare is paid by taxpayers and the health insurance of others. That is why I think the current system is active and no need to drop the country deeper and deeper into debt.
Total direction of healthcare by the government has never been considered first class. It usually turns into a cost so high for poor service that it goes under consideration over and over.(See UK and Massachusetts).
Let us improve what we already have and keep our independence with it. I do not wish the government to run my life or healthcare. I just want it to keep us independent and safe. That is all that our constitution has written that we should expect from government.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 19th, 2011
6:14 pm
Well, here we are on the next Monday after that next Monday and we’ve just learned from the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, that actually it seems that body won’t really be seriously getting into the legislation for a while yet. The Senate has some other more important business to handle. And then there’s this month’s congressional vacation, which in Washington is called “a recess,” like elementary school.
Here’s the revealing exchange with a persistent host Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union:”
CROWLEY: When is the bill going to get on the floor?
DURBIN: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we’re going to move forward on the president’s bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to…
CROWLEY: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on?
DURBIN: I think that’s more realistic it would be next month.
So, as of right now, “right now” uttered on Sept. 8 really means sometime at least one month later.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-jobs-speech-right-now-dick-durbin.html
————————–
Your Idiot Messiah is a liar and a do-nothing. Fail.
John
September 19th, 2011
6:14 pm
“Not So Casual Observer”
“Since the 1930’s Demcorats have essentially dominated Congress and, therefore, the pilaging of the Social Security “Trust Fund”.”
Democrats have not dominated Congress and the White House every year since the 30’s. Using your reasoning, would that mean everything that happened since the 1930s is Democrats’ responsibility?
Eric
September 19th, 2011
6:20 pm
Businesses are not hiring (lack of social obligation for the profits they make off others); they are sitting on cash. So it’s appropriate to assess more taxes.
Dusty
September 19th, 2011
6:21 pm
Dear AquaGirl,
There are other ways to bliss besides ignorance. Perhaps not for you. But hang in there. The sunny side is kinda nice!! Try it.
Now for a bite to eat. It’s about that time.
Edward
September 19th, 2011
6:22 pm
Where were all the “job creators” the last 10 years when all the jobs were sent overseas? All these “job creators” have enjoyed the lowest tax rates in history for nearly a decade. WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Blaming “Obamacare”? Really? It hasn’t even gone into effect, so your excuses there are as imaginary as your IQ. WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Why aren’t the “job creators” CREATING JOBS? WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
Edward
September 19th, 2011
6:23 pm
Kyle never met a wealthy derriere he didn’t want to kiss, repeatedly and often.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 19th, 2011
6:23 pm
If you have a problem with business, don’t do business with them. What they do with their cash is none of your business.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 19th, 2011
6:26 pm
Edward: Where were all the “job creators” the last 10 years
—————————-
Well, during the first seven of your “last 10 years” they were busy keeping unemployment between 4-6%.
Dusty
September 19th, 2011
6:34 pm
Edward,@ 6:23
Go play with your IPod. You don’t know how to play with people. Shoo!
Aquagirl
September 19th, 2011
6:38 pm
The sunny side is kinda nice!! Try it.
I’m not a Braves fan, so I have no need for delusional optimism, lol.
joe
September 19th, 2011
6:46 pm
HEY! You forgot to phrase the comment in the form of a Duh remark. I guess that kinda makes you a moron. Sorry, and there’s no time to explain why, but it does.
Don't Tread
September 19th, 2011
7:32 pm
One wonders whether Obama has produced a ‘jobs bill’ so much as a “tax increase justification bill.”
Personally, I’ve quit wondering whether anything from Obama/Pelosi/Reid and co. is anything but a tax increase justification bill.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 19th, 2011
7:39 pm
““Since the 1930’s Demcorats have essentially dominated Congress and, therefore, the pilaging of the Social Security “Trust Fund”.”
Democrats have not dominated Congress and the White House every year since the 30’s.”
You know, John, I’ve come to the conclusion that you either cannot read every well, or you are just here to argue for the sake of argument, and not the facts. As shown above, the poster did NOT say that “Democrats have dominated the Congress and White House EVERY year. You added the “every year” in there because you couldn’t argue the point as originally made, or because you just refuse to actually read what some people post.
“Using your reasoning, would that mean everything that happened since the 1930s is Democrats’ responsibility?”
Well, actually, the major entitlement programs and fiscal policies that have led to our current situation ARE the result of Democrat majorities that enacted them, and Republican majorities that chose not to get rid of them or modify them to make them work, so yeah, you really can pin just about all our ills on Democrats.
joe
September 19th, 2011
7:43 pm
My point again. “I did not say that. You said that I said that.”
total morons over and over again with the same idiotic nonsense.
Trolls Interrupted Much?
morons.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 19th, 2011
7:45 pm
“Businesses are not hiring (lack of social obligation for the profits they make off others); they are sitting on cash. So it’s appropriate to assess more taxes.”
Possibly the dumbest post of the day.
Lack of social obligation? Please tell me you really don’t mean that, Eric.
Businesses have ZERO obligations to anyone, social or otherwise, except to make a profit and provide a reasonable salary for the work provided.
And they’re holding back profits because they know, as others do, that this recession isn’t over, it’s going to last a longer time than many originally thought, and they’ll need that cash in hand to keep the business OPEN for the next few years.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 19th, 2011
7:45 pm
joe, the Children’s Table is over at the Bookman blog. You’d fit right in there.
RAMZAD
September 19th, 2011
7:56 pm
“Job Creators” is Republican Tea Party code for “Our Friends.”
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 19th, 2011
8:01 pm
“Job Creators” is Republican Tea Party code word for “People who actually create jobs”.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 19th, 2011
8:02 pm
True enough–Republicans are friendly with job creators. Perhaps if your Idiot Messiah wasn’t so busy harassing job creators, they could create some.