How the GOP can turn Obama’s ‘I won’ attitude against him
So far, President Obama and Speaker John Boehner aren’t negotiating a way to rein in budget deficits in private this time. They’re negotiating in the press, and Obama is taking the hardest line.
While Boehner has signaled a willingness to increase tax revenue by limiting and eliminating deductions rather than by raising tax rates, Obama says his idea of compromise is to do both. He wants $1.6 trillion in new revenues over the next decade, which is double what he and Boehner nearly agreed to do during the 2011 debt-ceiling talks.
Virtually all of this new revenue would come from high earners: individuals making more than $200,000 or couples making more than $250,000. Raising their tax rates and capping their itemized deductions is estimated to bring in more than $1.43 trillion. The “Buffett Rule” would tack on another $47 billion, bringing the tab to $1.48 trillion for those at the top of what’s already the most progressive tax system in the industrialized world.
Obama is so committed to his position that his spokesman says the president will veto any tax bill that leaves rates intact for the top two income-tax brackets (currently 33 percent and 35 percent). The rates for these brackets are scheduled to expire Jan. 1 and rise to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. Problem is, the current rates for everyone else are also scheduled to expire Jan. 1.
You gotta love Obama and the Democrats. They care so much about the middle class that they will let middle-class tax rates rise, if that’s what it takes to stick it to “the rich.” Somehow, though, Obama succeeded in making a majority of the electorate believe it’s the GOP that is holding the middle class hostage by insisting on keeping all rates the same next year.
It is ludicrous to claim Republicans are playing tax-rate chicken more than the president. In fact, it’s closer to the opposite, because Boehner is saying he’s willing to raise revenues, just not in the same way as the president. Obama is not only insisting on his end but his means — and saying everyone will feel the pain if he doesn’t get both.
It’s ludicrous, but . . .
It’s also brilliant politics. Obama knows voters gave him the benefit of the doubt and that he’s got limited time to take advantage of that (as all second-term presidents do, particularly those whose party doesn’t control Congress). However, he may be able to turn it into a longer-term advantage with this little two-step:
1. Force House Republicans to accept higher taxes on “the rich” before Jan. 1 on high earners to stave off tax hikes on everyone else, for which he knows Republicans know they would be blamed; and then
2. When the GOP comes back next year seeking spending cuts and structural changes to entitlements as their part of the “balanced” “compromise” Obama keeps insisting he wants, he can either tell them to take a hike or make a deal that puts all the onus for unpopular cuts on Republicans. (I’m sorry, my fellow Americans, but just to get the rich to pay their Fair Share, those evil Republicans insisted on ending Medicare as we know it…)
Some of you will say I’m making the president out to be unserious about our fiscal challenges. To you I say: No, his two campaigns and first term revealed him to be that way.
After all, that’s the only way to explain a proposal that raises an average of $160 billion more per year — when the deficit last month alone rose to $120 billion — while double-counting spending cuts such as those for ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (decisions that were already made and thus don’t represent new savings) and seeking to increase expand spending (er, “investments”) in certain favored areas.
What we’re really seeing here
So, to Obama, this clearly is more about good politics than good policy. The House GOP should respond in kind.
It should pass the “Buffett Rule” bill that failed to pass the Senate in April, amended to include an extension of all current tax rates through 2013, as a down payment. While the Buffett Rule is projected to raise $47 billion during the next decade if the current tax rates for high earners are not extended, I’ve seen projections of more than $160 billion in 10 years if rates don’t rise. That’s an increase of approximately $16 billion next year, and it comes from real millionaires — not Obama’s “millionaire” couples who earn $250,00 a year.
Given the support for Obama in America’s wealthiest counties, not to mention Hollywood, I’d chalk this up to a paraphrase of Mencken: It appears the truly rich know what they want, and they deserve to get it good and hard.
At the same time, House Republicans should introduce a bill outlining the deductions-cutting approach for which Boehner has expressed support. Many deductions represent subsidies that are merely located in the tax code rather than an appropriations bill, and this approach allows Republicans to talk about the importance of getting government out of private decision-making without reducing incentives to work, save and invest (by increasing marginal tax rates). I’d go ahead and include a corresponding reduction in tax rates but make clear that’s negotiable, depending on what happens on the spending side.
What might this look like? Capping deductions at $50,000 a year would, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, raise almost $750 billion over 10 years, with about 80 percent of that money coming from the top 1 percent of earners. The change in the average tax payment for the three lowest income quintiles would range from zero to $12 a year. Again, this approach does not leave taxes on “the rich” intact.
Your turn, Democrats
For now, that’s it. Dare Senate Democrats not to pass, and president to veto, a bill that includes their cherished Buffett Rule, just because it also keeps all tax rates in place for one more year while the two sides negotiate further. Further call their bluff with that second bill to raise even more revenue, almost all of it from the very highest earners, in the most economically sound way. Then, explain you’re looking forward to tackling the country’s real fiscal problems next year, and adjourn.
And leave it to Harry Reid and President Obama to explain to 99 percent of tax filers why their taxes are going up so that taxes can rise even more on the top 1 percent.
– 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
542 comments Add your comment
Glenn
November 15th, 2012
10:36 am
Point being Barry is its the taxpayer , you and me , that pick up the tab . I don’t like Obama care . Its to pricy . If we were to come up with Glenn care . It would involve a catastrophe plan & employers would no longer subsidize healthcare plans . That I believe that would lower rates . On the other hand the insurance lobby would go nuts .
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 15th, 2012
10:38 am
Obozo has a mandate? Let us see him enact it into law.
Robert
November 15th, 2012
10:41 am
Mr. Romeny continues to put his foot in his mouth with comments about why he lost the election. He blames President Obama for giving free stuff away to the poor.
Jay Bookman wrote a great article today. “So let me get this straight: When Romney, in the first debate, promised a tax cut to the middle class, he wasn’t promising them a gift? When he wooed his backers on Wall Street by telling them that he would repeal Dodd Frank, abolish the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and lower corporate taxes, that wasn’t promising a gift? When he went to Viriginia to promise to build even more nuclear-powered submarines that just happened to be built right there in Virginia, that wasn’t a gift? When he went to coal country to promise to weaken environmental regulations that protect the air we breathe, that wasn’t a gift? When he traveled to Florida to promise to replace $716 billion in Medicare funding allegedly cut by the Obama administration, that wasn’t a gift? Or is it only a “gift” when offered to poor African Americans or Hispanic Americans? All in all, it is quite something to see complaints about pandering from a man who wafted in the political breeze with all the gravity of a dandelion seed.”
Great article Jay Bookman
Nate Silver
November 15th, 2012
10:42 am
“I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it,” Bush told reporters. “It is my style.”
As he had done in his victory speech Wednesday, Bush spoke of building a bipartisan consensus and reaching out to the 48 percent of Americans who voted against him. Yet he made plain that he had no intention of moderating his agenda to reach that goal.
“When you win, there is … a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view,” Bush said. “And that’s what I intend to tell Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the president; now let’s work.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Bush-claims-mandate-sets-2nd-term-goals-I-2637116.php#ixzz2CJ3×4fNw
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 15th, 2012
10:43 am
Glenn, that’s the government’s call, not the employer’s. if you have a problem with government mandates requiring you to pay the bills for folks who don’t, take it up with government.
iggy
November 15th, 2012
10:44 am
Romneys hair looks better than Bookmans wig. Its just a case of sour grapes.
Nate Silver
November 15th, 2012
10:46 am
“As President-elect Bush has made very clear, he ran on a particular platform that was very carefully developed. It’s his program, it’s his agenda, and we have no intention at all of backing off of it. It’s why we got elected.
So we’re going to aggressively pursue tax changes, tax reform, tax cuts, because it’s important to do so. [...] The suggestion that somehow, because this was a close election, we should fundamentally change our beliefs, I just think is silly.”
Dick Cheney
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 15th, 2012
10:47 am
“Charles Krauthammer declared a mandate for Bush in 04 with less EC votes and not much different popular vote”
Strange, Nate Silver, but I hadn’t heard of Charles Krauthammer until a couple of years ago, and even stranger, I’m not Charles Krauthammer.
So his partisan thoughts don’t much concern me, either.
But when .0033% of votes cast differently over just 4 different states can reverse the results of an election, that is the very definition of a close election.
Glenn
November 15th, 2012
10:48 am
That makes no sense Barry .
zeke
November 15th, 2012
10:49 am
Mike,
Military/defense is one of the very few things the Constitution allows to the central government! If any NON CONSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS ARE ELIMINATED, WELFARE, MEDICAID, ADC, WIC,, or, simply reduced 5% or 10% you would save $300 to $500 billion a year! AND THESE ARE NOT UNDER AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION!
iggy
November 15th, 2012
10:49 am
Why are we discussing Bush? Oh yeah…Its Bushs Fault.
Speaking of pizza…anyone recall the mid 1970 SNL skit with Father Guido Sarduchi and is “Find the Pope in the Pizza Contest”.
Hilarious.
Nate Silver
November 15th, 2012
10:50 am
Tiberius
Keep spinning and check out the Bush and Cheney quotes.
And I do not care whether you voted for him or not, however they were the last POTUS and VP.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 15th, 2012
10:51 am
Robert, praise for Jay Bookman belongs on Jay Bookman’s blog. We don’t go there unless we want to read illogical nonsense from the writer and his followers.
The missing piece of Jay’s argument is, of course, that Romney intended to pay for his so-called “gifts”. Obama has not, and has no intention to do so.
Nate Silver
November 15th, 2012
10:55 am
Tiberius
Even though Republican’s have a majority in the House, is there majority any less valid because Democrats actually received more combined votes across the nation in House races?
No, it does not.
Suck it up. Bring someone better to the table next time. Republicans couldn’t even beat a mediocre President.
Heck, Republicans have lost the popular vote 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. However it took until last week for the party to say, we might want to start reaching out more than we have done in the past.
When Senator Graham mentioned the “reach out” issue several months back, right leaning pundits and some in the party jumped all over him for what was nothing but the truth.
Oh well, keep turning those sour grapes into whine.
Be good.
iggy
November 15th, 2012
10:56 am
I guess we are now beginning to see the problem wth liberal thinking like “we have to pass it to find out whats in it”.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Chew on that one, libbys!!!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 15th, 2012
10:57 am
Nate, there is no spin here – only cold, hard analysis of the total vote.
It doesn’t matter what ANYONE has said in the past about mandates.
Doesn’t. Matter.
iggy
November 15th, 2012
11:00 am
If Obama were to read from his teleprompter the phrase “sniffing glue is a nutritional part of any Post Toasties breakfast” you would see fights breaking out over Elmers, Testers glue products and their respective profits skyrocket.
Nate Silver
November 15th, 2012
11:00 am
“only cold, hard analysis of the total vote”.
ROMNEY LOST……..
Analyze that. All else is nothing but your spin. The demographic issue that has been overlooked by the Republican Party and confirmed by several RNC Chairmen (Mike Steele & Ken Melhman) is at their door now. We will see how the Republicans proceed.
SBinF
November 15th, 2012
11:02 am
Yes, mandates only matter when it’s a Republican president.
Tiberius, your argument is a red herring anyway. Obama won in a landslide in 2008 and you and folks like you still called him illegitimate. You will think he is illegitimate no matter the margin of victory.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 15th, 2012
11:04 am
“Even though Republican’s have a majority in the House, is there majority any less valid because Democrats actually received more combined votes across the nation in House races?
No, it does not. ”
Absolutely correct, Nate, because the voting structure for Congress is completely different than for President. Nice of you to open your mind, even if it compare apples to oranges.
“Republicans couldn’t even compete in a popularity contest for President.”
Fixed your typo, Nate. he American Idol President is term-limited. Republicans will do better next time simply because popularity drives many of the voters who came out in 2008 and 2012 to vote for Joe Cool.
bluecoat
November 15th, 2012
11:07 am
Georgia’s economic forecasters say in 2014 the recession will be in the rearview mirror.
This shows confidence in President Obama.
Obamaphones are only available to ones that voted for Obama.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 15th, 2012
11:09 am
2014? Yeeee-freaking-haaaa! Only five years after it ended!
JDW
November 15th, 2012
11:10 am
@Tiberius…”And your argument, JDW, is what people incapable of analytical skills make.”
I am making no argument. It is over and is black and white 332 to 205. No matter how you spin it that is not a very close result. You are the one attempting to make a sour grapes argument to dilute that victory and it won’t work with me nor apparently the President.
He has won. There are 2 more Dems in the Senate. There are 7 or so more Dems in the House. He was elected after making several proposals that by his election have been validated by the electorate and will be pursuing those.
First on the list is raising taxes on those that are most fortunate. The Republicans will either get on board or see the entirety of the Bush Tax Cuts expire, which is my personal preference. Should that happen they can try to spin it in 2014.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 15th, 2012
11:11 am
“Obama won in a landslide in 2008 and you and folks like you still called him illegitimate. You will think he is illegitimate no matter the margin of victory.”
No, SBinF, I called him unqualified (still do). Don’t paint with such a broad brush next time. In fact, if you were to review my posts on the subject throughout the past 4 years, you’d see me defending his birth situation against many who questioned it.
Another epic fail on your part.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 15th, 2012
11:14 am
Facts dilute Obama’s victory, JDW. Nothing more, nothing less.
JDW
November 15th, 2012
11:20 am
@Tiberius..your guy lost and your whining doesn’t change anything. The President will now move forward to implement his proposals.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 15th, 2012
11:21 am
“First on the list is raising taxes on those that are most fortunate.”
———-
Powerball winners? Doesn’t seem like that will do much to fix Obozo’s unpatriotic trillion-dollar deficits.
bluecoat
November 15th, 2012
11:24 am
First 4 years( our goal to make him a one term president)well that failed.Y-F-H
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 15th, 2012
11:25 am
JDW, I am not trying to change anything. I realize the better man (and this country) lost. But I am not going to sit by and allow the winners to once again create a false impression (one they specialized in during the election) to inflate his victory into epic proportions, when none exist.
The President can TRY to move forward to implement his proposals, but the Constitutionally-elected checks and balances of Congress will blunt his impulses of excess this time.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
November 15th, 2012
11:27 am
Fox 19 anchor back on the air after suspension for calling Rachel Maddow an ‘angry young man’ on Facebook.
Now that’s funny.
TBone
November 15th, 2012
11:28 am
I don’t think the GOP will need to do much to turn this election victory against Obasma. He will with the help of the usual elitists blow the doors off the outhouse previously known as the USA. Just take a look around; the post office continues bleeding billions of dollars and nothing is done; the private sector will scale back wages and salaries and consequently have to charge more for goods and services to pay for Obasmacare and leadership has been changed to mean teltprompter speeches. We are in deep doodoo.
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 15th, 2012
11:33 am
First on the list is raising taxes on those that are most fortunate
JDW, attributing high income with fortune, like they won the lottery or something.
No, they stayed in school, developed excellent skills, took risks, and achieved their status. Why do Libs always try to imply that wealth is just something that is randomly distributed to the “fortunate”? Did someone give you a fortune, JDW? Maybe that is why there are so many poor people supporting the Dems, waiting on fortune to make them rich, rather than doing the things that have been proven to make one a success.
iggy
November 15th, 2012
11:35 am
“angry young man”
Hilarious…
SBinF
November 15th, 2012
11:38 am
No, SBinF, I called him unqualified (still do). Don’t paint with such a broad brush next time. In fact, if you were to review my posts on the subject throughout the past 4 years, you’d see me defending his birth situation against many who questioned it.
Another epic fail on your part.
——————–
Exactly my point, his margin of victory is hardly the issue, so why do you mention it? He was elected handily, he thumped Romney, the GOP is in shambles, and they have zero leverage in discussions on sequestration and tax cuts. It’s downright hilarious that Kyle and co. are finally out of mourning and looking to spin what can only be described as a complete drubbing of the GOP.
Turn his “I won” attitude against him? The folly! His first term isn’t even up yet. To that point, Mitch McConnell said it was his #1 goal to see that Obama is only a one-term president. It must crush him to know that the last two years of his life are a complete waste, and not only was Obama reelected, but Dems picked up seats in both houses of conference.
Someone is failing, all right.
Rush
November 15th, 2012
11:41 am
So $200k is rich for an individual but $250k is rich for married couples? Why not $400k for married couples? Seems like then we could treat men and women equal. Also what about same sex couples what is the rich threshold?
Rush
November 15th, 2012
11:42 am
What is a house of conference, SBinF? Kind of like a house of Tsar’s?
Nunna Yobinnes
November 15th, 2012
11:43 am
Clem – if you really believe your own post, get some remedial math help. You don’t need to make up lies about Romney just because you don’t like him. The returns are out on the internet for anyone to see. (Except I can’t get Bynum’s or Obama’s 2011 returns to open. Wonder what they’re hiding.) Anyone can see his effective tax rate was well above 14%. Stop perpetuating left wing campaign lies.
SBinF
November 15th, 2012
11:44 am
Oh gee, I used the incorrect word, and I’m sure you can’t figure out that I meant Congress.
Great job Rush, you’re clever. You should write for Leno.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 15th, 2012
11:44 am
Clem – if you really believe your own post, get some remedial math help. You don’t need to make up lies about Romney just because you don’t like him. The returns are out on the internet for anyone to see. (Except I can’t get Biden’s or Obama’s 2011 returns to open. Wonder what they’re hiding.) Anyone can see his effective tax rate was well above 14%. Stop perpetuating left wing campaign lies.
SBinF
November 15th, 2012
11:46 am
Though Rush, I can fully understand your need to be petty. You have no substantive counter to the facts I laid out. And poor Romney has decided to double down on his 47% remarks. Those of us who voted for Obama are a bunch of ignorant, lazy moocher.
And people wonder how the GOP lost this election. Goodness, it’s such a mystery.
independent thinker
November 15th, 2012
11:47 am
All I care to know is how much Romney’s taxes will go up and if there is any way he can be made to pay more than capital gains tax on his secret millions in profits from the federal auto bailout funds through Delphi. Sure hope someone has the stones to nail him for failing to disclose that little conflict of interest. Would love to see an invitation for him to visit the IRS.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 15th, 2012
11:49 am
“A good number of our multi-millionaires and billionaires are that way because of inheritence.”
Really?
Please provide figures.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 15th, 2012
11:50 am
“Exactly my point, his margin of victory is hardly the issue, so why do you mention it? He was elected handily, he thumped Romney”
If his margin of victory isn’t an issue, why do your comments make it sound so, SBinF?
Another epic fail.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
November 15th, 2012
11:52 am
Out for the rest of the day.
Continue the classlessness and spiking the ball, libs.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 15th, 2012
11:53 am
Tiberius – What’s wrong with inheriting something? Up until recently, the gub-ment took 50+/-% of estates in estate taxes (after they paid income taxes all their lives). You feel that the only beneficiary of estates should be the gub-ment, not the children of the decedent?
Nunna Yobinnes
November 15th, 2012
11:54 am
Sorry Tiberius. I read your post quickly and failed to realize you were quoting someone else.
Rush
November 15th, 2012
11:56 am
No Leverage? You do realize in which “House of Conference” appropriations bills originate, right? Do you actually realize which party controls that chamber? I suppose that it petty analysis whereas your nuanced thinking will carry the day? LOL
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 15th, 2012
11:58 am
John Q
Very few rich people are there because of inheritance. The “Fortunate” card is just one of many in the Wealth Envy deck. It is there to make it easy to demonize the rich by attributing their wealth to good fortune. It makes the less well off feel better about their lot in life, if they can blame their status on bad luck, rather than poor preparation and their uncomfortableness with risk.
Linda
November 15th, 2012
11:58 am
Kyle@9:19, Thank you, sir!
iggy
November 15th, 2012
11:58 am
I saw on this a.m. news those making > $70K annually, can expect their taxes to increase by $4000 annually.
Thats on ehelluvan increase for middle class persons.