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
Don't Tread
November 14th, 2012
4:17 pm
They want to raise taxes to punish those evil, racist, greedy rich 1% people? I say let them. Then when the economy REALLY goes in the crapper and their entitlements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, they will have no one to blame but themselves.
This “raising taxes creates jobs and prosperity” idea is ludicrous (along with the “we can spend more than we make in perpetuity” idea)…let them find out first hand how far they’re stuck on stupid. Those of us who actually produce something of value will be fine.
@@
November 14th, 2012
4:18 pm
I wonder if Kyle’s noticed the change from yesterday’s column to today’s.
Yesterday the libs were his BFF. Today, he’s enemy #1.
Liberals cannot be trusted. You’re either all in or you’re nothing to them.
Give ‘em an inch and it’ll be miles to go before they sleep.
Beyond The Middle of the Road
November 14th, 2012
4:19 pm
A part of me wants us to go over the so-called Fiscal Cliff. Any sincere, real attempt to approach balancing the budget should be painful to everyone. I know the timing is bad with the economy being as weak as it is but when will the timing ever be good?
As for Obama being so implacable… it wasn’t all that long ago that the GOP was universally beholden to the Norquist Tax Pledge. And Obama won the election and to the winner goes the spoils.
Also please keep in mind that tax brackets are marginal meaning that the rate is applied for each bracket before moving on to the next bracket. So even the very wealthy would receive some tax savings if the lower brackets remain untouched.
Stephenson Billings
November 14th, 2012
4:20 pm
ObamAusterity….. you get what you vote for.
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
4:20 pm
cc, according to Webster’s
lineral
The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Kyle Wingfield
November 14th, 2012
4:21 pm
You really won’t admit to being wrong, will you, Cheesy? Not that I’m surprised.
Stephenson Billings
November 14th, 2012
4:22 pm
Democrats Like a Romney Idea on Income Tax
“With both parties positioning for difficult negotiations to avert a fiscal crisis as Congress returns for its lame-duck session, Democrats are latching on to an idea floated by Mitt Romney to raise taxes on the rich through a hard cap on income tax deductions.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49803756/
Kyle Wingfield
November 14th, 2012
4:23 pm
LeftInTheSouth @ 4:07: Well, I’m 34, so I’d say it has mostly to do with your being bad at guessing someone’s age.
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
4:24 pm
Maybe you need some oil of Olay and less fat in your diet.
splavistic
November 14th, 2012
4:25 pm
Aw, Kyle, is Obama getting a little too ‘uppity’ for your tastes? You said NOTHING the last few years when the GOP was stonewalling every effort to run this country properly. NOW, when we win AGAIN, you have issues with a politician (Obama) leading a charge and not wavering on their principal.
GOP R.I.P.
Kyle Wingfield
November 14th, 2012
4:26 pm
MANGLER @ 4:15: The ones who said that 21 months after he took office? Right before the midterm elections? After he’d declined to work with them in any meaningful way on the stimulus or health reform but insisted on calling them the Party of No? Yeah, those are the ones.
Linda
November 14th, 2012
4:27 pm
Obama wants $1.6 T in new revenues over the next decade. That’s $160 B per year. The budget deficit was $120 B LAST MONTH!!!!!
Obama has said that raising taxes would hurt the economy in slow economic times.
Obama has acknowledged that raising capital gains taxes has never increased capital gains revenues, but that he wanted to do it anyway for “fairness.”
Obama & the Democrats are counting on their minions to be unable to calculate basic math. (That is, zeroes to understand zeroes, trillions vs. billions). Obama & the Democrats are deliberately sabotaging the economy & punishing success, playing their class warfare games.
Bye Bye Cheesy Grits
November 14th, 2012
4:27 pm
You really won’t admit to being wrong, will you, Cheesy? Not that I’m surprised.
I do when I am.
Romney won the majority of Confederate states ( 9 of 11 ). The only two he didn’t get were the ones where the white vote was marginalized because of Hispanic voters.
The other states he didn’t win in the upper Midwest would have been confederate states in 1860 as well.
From Bookman
“…I do enjoy seeing the secessionists’ viewpoints if only for the schadenfreude,” wrote Paul Hoover, of Buckhead, employing a German word for reveling in the troubles of others. “Can you imagine Georgia without federal oversight? Shudder…”
Shudder indeed.
Kyle Wingfield
November 14th, 2012
4:28 pm
You can always leave it to a lefty to insert race into a discussion completely apropos of nothing. See: splavistic @ 4:25. When they have nothing else, they run your motives through the mud.
Stephenson Billings
November 14th, 2012
4:29 pm
ObamAusterity…. love it! (and weren’t we called liers for saying he was gonna cut health care?)
“Obama’s 2013 budget sought to reduce borrowing over the next 10 years by about $4 trillion, counting $1.1 trillion in agency cuts already in force. In addition to raising taxes, Obama proposed to slice $340 billion from health-care programs and to count about $1 trillion in savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-to-open-fiscal-talks-with-plan-to-raise-taxes-on-wealthy/2012/11/13/9984cd78-2dc1-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_story.html
Kyle Wingfield
November 14th, 2012
4:30 pm
“Did you happen to see the states Mitt Romney won ?
Most of them Confederate states.”
Unless you meant “most of them thar Confederate states,” Cheesy, I think you’d have to admit you were wrong this time. And your line about “the upper Midwest [states Romney won] would have been confederate states in 1860 as well” displays an unsurprising amount of historical ignorance.
@@
November 14th, 2012
4:30 pm
Oh well….Denmark just abolished their “fat tax”. Didn’t work out as planned.
Danes went elsewhere to get their cheese. The cost was 20% lower in Germany and Sweden.
Kewl!
RW-(the original)
November 14th, 2012
4:30 pm
I believe you can check the transcript of today’s lovefest with the media and you’ll see he’s clearly holding onto that “I won” line of talk.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This redefinition of the phrase “raising revenues” to equate with raising taxes is insanity. If I sell 100 widgets a day for a dollar each and I want to double my widget revenue I can try the Democrat plan and just raise the price to two dollars a widget but I bet that won’t work very well, except in the extremely short term and then I go broke.
/db
jconservative
November 14th, 2012
4:32 pm
Kyle,
Does this mean that Boehner is in control of his caucus? I do not have a handle on this.
“Price loses House Republican leadership bid.”
jms
November 14th, 2012
4:33 pm
People will react rationally to tax increases so we shouldn’t be surprised when realized revenue is less than projected.
Kyle Wingfield
November 14th, 2012
4:33 pm
jconservative @ 4:32: I’d say it bodes well for Boehner. There were some heavy hitters on Price’s side, starting with Paul Ryan.
Thomas Heyward Jr
November 14th, 2012
4:35 pm
Say goodby to Washington Doctor Ron Paul…You’re too decent to be there.
And Say HELLO to America.
There’s alot more work to get done Sir.
From Todays Ron Paul’s farewell speech—————
.
.In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.
All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.”
.
I will never forgive the Neo-cons who besmiched this statesman.
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
4:37 pm
Linda, We know who really started class warfare…..Reugs! Welfare Queens (Ronald Reagan )! Takers vs Makers (Romney and Ryan). Oh but it’s ok to deride the poor!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
4:38 pm
Remember, Kyle, the left considers anyone unwilling to bend over and take it as obstructionist.
Stephenson Billings
November 14th, 2012
4:39 pm
Hmmm, guess France didn’t learn anything from Denmark:
FRANCE GOES AFTER FATTY SNACKS WITH ‘NUTELLA TAX’
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/france-goes-after-fatty-snacks-nutella-tax
Aquagirl
November 14th, 2012
4:39 pm
There were some heavy hitters on Price’s side, starting with Paul Ryan.
A Price slapdown? Awesome. Ryan’s inclusion is the icing on the cake.
Stephenson Billings
November 14th, 2012
4:42 pm
Glad to see Reid has his priorities….
Senate Votes On Polar Bear Carcasses In First Roll Call Since September
“Congress is back in town after the election to find a way around automatic tax increases and spending cuts in January. But first, lawmakers are dealing with 41 polar bear carcasses.
In its first roll call since September, the Senate voted 92-5 on Tuesday to debate a bill to ease restrictions on hunters and fishermen and allow 41 U.S. hunters to bring home polar bear carcasses trapped in Canada due to a ban on trophy imports.”
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/senate-votes-on-polar-bear-carcasses-in-first-roll-call-since-september/
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
4:44 pm
Your inability to do anything but hump my leg doesn’t amaze me at all, John Q.
Move on, Sonny.
Bye Bye Cheesy Grits
November 14th, 2012
4:45 pm
Unless you meant “most of them thar Confederate states,” Cheesy, I think you’d have to admit you were wrong this time. And your line about “the upper Midwest [states Romney won] would have been confederate states in 1860 as well” displays an unsurprising amount of historical ignorance.
Hey your the moderator.
Id say voting for Newt Gingrich displays a certain amount of ignorance as well.
Too each his own.
Aquagirl
November 14th, 2012
4:47 pm
Move on, Sonny.
Well, well, look what batch of sour grapes rolled in.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
4:49 pm
The more telling graphic concerning which states Romney won was the right to work states.
You know, the ones where 72% of all new jobs were created over the past few years.
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
4:53 pm
Tiberius, the more telling graphic would be concerning which states Romney won is they are the ones that receive the most entitlements that the tea party rails against.
Kyle Wingfield
November 14th, 2012
4:54 pm
Tiberius and John Q: Knock it off.
tiredofit
November 14th, 2012
4:55 pm
Yes, all of those 5 dollar an hour jobs.
RAMZAD
November 14th, 2012
4:55 pm
Kyle, you have always been very capable soldier of the of the “get Obama” brigade. It is clear, Kyle, that we don’t want any Republicans as President- not now.
Your war against Obama is futile. Republican hate, propaganda, and racist pot stirring is futile. Your energies would be more well directed if they went towards telling Republicans how they may join the President to improve America.
Being part of the anti-Obama movement sullies your credential as a forward thinking journalist. you sound more like a Right Wing hack that writes at your part time job.
Sandra
November 14th, 2012
4:57 pm
Kyle,
You are really acting like a spoil sport who didn’t get his way. Stop insulting my and others intelligence about tax rates verus deductions versus spending cuts. BTW, you only have Boehner’s word about the deal last year. At least the President showed information about what they proposed. Of course, because Boehner is a Republican he must therefore be telling the truth? Try again. The Republicans have been the ones who for the last several years have been cuts, cuts, cuts and ONLY cuts to spending. Now they have a change of heart and agree to limiting deductions! Give me a break!
Bye Bye Cheesy Grits
November 14th, 2012
4:59 pm
The more telling graphic concerning which states Romney won was the right to work states.
You mean the states where workers are prohibited from assembling and bargaining for better pay or benefits. In other words take the pay and benefits we give you and you better like it.
Wonder why corporations would move business there ?
LOL
MarkV
November 14th, 2012
4:59 pm
Kyle,
The Republicans have argued incessantly that the part of tax revenue due to the proposed increase in the marginal tax rate was almost negligible to reduce the deficit.
As for “the idea that “revenue from the tax [rate increase, presumably] is a certainty” has been proven wrong many times,” that is ludicrous. If it does not, which would mean, that those affected by the tax change would not pay any more than before, then why is anybody opposed to it? Whether the expected revenue is overestimated is beside the point. I was talking about the certainty of the measure itself, i.e., of a clear-cut tax rate number, not a certainty of the amount.
cc
November 14th, 2012
5:03 pm
“Senate Votes On Polar Bear Carcasses In First Roll Call Since September”
Good ol’ staunch Democrat, nose-to-the-grindstone Harry Reed! He knows you have to deal with the really tough issues first. Then you can move along to things like deficits, debt, taxes, unemployment, national security, GDP problem and whatever secrets his little friend whispers in his ear.
Give Nancy a call, Harry. Your Obamaphones are working, right?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 14th, 2012
5:04 pm
JDW, you’re grasping at straws…we were talking about spending and you try to deflect the issue to deficits.
Bottom line: Obozo increased spending $500 billion above Our President Bush.
It’s the spending, stupid.
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
5:05 pm
I’m guessing 50% of folks will blame it on the gop and 49% will blame it on the dnc.
Uh no…
53% would blame the GOP congress, 29% the president and 10% both equally.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/11/14/obama-holds-upper-hand-in-budget-confrontation/
Linda
November 14th, 2012
5:05 pm
Left@4:37, The US does not have a class system.
Class has nothing to do with income.
Class has everything to do with manners, behavior, upbringing, culture, style, taste, etc.
Anyone who tries to divide Americans by attempting to place us in classifications based on income & demonizing the highest earners basically has NO class.
It’s no more “ok to deride the poor” than it is to deride those with which you disagree.
Kyle Wingfield
November 14th, 2012
5:05 pm
Exhibit B in the random playing of the race card: RAMZAD @ 4:55.
Btw, I find it odd that so many people are blasting me as a partisan obstructionist for advising the GOP to pass Obama’s beloved Buffett Rule and proposing to raise taxes, almost all on the rich, by $750B over 10 years. Some people really do protest about partisanship too much.
Dusty
November 14th, 2012
5:06 pm
Well, Kyle, mentioning taxes is like opening the door to the snarling pack. And I see they are all here. Cheesy, JDW, JamVet, Finn with a host of friends. But where is the informative Tiberius?
This talk about listening is somewhat superfluous. Obama is not going to listen to any Republican. Boehner is not on his “to do” list. The president skates into the future heading for thin ice with a 16 trillion $$$ debt on his back and we are supposed to make suggestions?
The lifeline was broken at the last election. We are on our own. Taxation with useless ;representation is the same as no representtion.
Until the president recognzies that Congress is an essential part of our government just as much as he is, we hang in limbo. a Republic without representation….a ship without a stable crew…a disinherited population….a dream drowned in debt…and no rainbow.
I.
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
5:08 pm
cc,
“Your Obamaphones are working, right?”
Compared to Romney’s ORCA app, hell yeah!
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
5:09 pm
…demonizing the highest earners…
Except that that is not what is happening.
We are deriding a perverse and pernicious tax code that gives the vast number of tax breaks, handouts, giveaways and havens/shelters to the highest earners; virtually none of which we working class Americans get.
To our elected representatives in Washington:
Lower taxes on wages/earned income. Increase taxes on wealth and unearned income.
The way it used to be in this country…
Kyle Wingfield
November 14th, 2012
5:09 pm
MarkV: Forgive me for thinking this — “Revenue from the tax is a certainty, while the deductions and loophole route would be up to endless negotiation and changes.” — referred to certainty about the amount of revenue from the tax.
In any case, how does what I suggested — keeping the current rates, adding the 30% Buffett Rule rate on top of them for $1M+ earners, and capping deductions at $50,000 — not qualify as clear-cut numbers?
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
5:10 pm
Linda, yeah right! You weren’t deriding Obama? Stay classy!
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
5:11 pm
Calling Paul Ryan a heavy hitter is a bit of a stretch, is it not?
His own congressional district went for Obama…
Stephenson Billings
November 14th, 2012
5:13 pm
Doesn’t sound like Obama wants to compromise (surprise surprise)…. although Libs typically define compromise as the other side compromising their principles.
“Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and other senior Democrats on Tuesday said Obama would not be willing to maintain the Bush tax rates in exchange for a cap on deductions for households earning more than $250,000 a year, a leading Republican alternative.”