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
Kyle Wingfield
November 14th, 2012
5:18 pm
JamVet: You mean the recent vice presidential candidate and, presumably, continued Budget Committee chairman? I’d say he still holds a lot of sway in the House GOP caucus.
Aquagirl
November 14th, 2012
5:20 pm
I’d say he still holds a lot of sway in the House GOP caucus.
Heck yeah…Just ask Tom Price.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
5:21 pm
Sorry Kyle. Missed your earlier admonition. I would suggest you research who consistently initiates the attacks before spreading the blame.
And its nice to see Cheesy Grits finally admit that unions kill job creation.
A miracle has happened!
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
5:21 pm
Aquagirl nice comeback!
Stephenson Billings
November 14th, 2012
5:25 pm
For those of you wondering what will be cut via sequestration (AKA ObamAusterity)… hint, it’s not only defense….
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_chs_Sequester%20Report_Monday%20Memo_091712.pdf
Beyond The Middle of the Road
November 14th, 2012
5:25 pm
Billings @4:42: Actually, it’s my understanding that traditionally the Senate, regardless of which party is in control, opens the session with a quick vote that will easily pass. I guess it’s an attempt to start the session on a good note. Of course, these days that’s mostly wishful thinking.
fair and balanced
November 14th, 2012
5:34 pm
I remember some president babbling in 2004 about he earned capital by winning the election and he intended to spend it as he saw fit. Of course that did t include over a trillion dollars in war funding with no new revenue and unfunded Medicare drugs while the country went in the ditch. That president got 284 electoral votes. Obama got 332 electoral votes. So he has a lot of capital to spend and unlike that babbling fool in 2004 he wants to raise revenue to help pay for prior administration’s wars and the costs of bringing our economy back from the brink. I think some guy named Roosevelt did the same thing after the Republican president before him ran the country into the ditch. Wasn’t too bad a president was he?
Thomas Heyward Jr
November 14th, 2012
5:35 pm
One last excerpt from Doctor Paul’s speech.
And eventhough Wingfeild’s knees tremble at even the remote possibility of individual Liberty…he IS showing some kind of bravery by allowing this post.
It’s never to late Kyle to embrace it.
.
From the speech————
Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.
Two choices are available.
1. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: “power corrupts.”
Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There’s no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.
Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.
The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.
.
It really is…………….that simple.
JDW
November 14th, 2012
5:36 pm
@md…”Well, we go over the cliff and I’m guessing 50% of folks will blame it on the gop and 49% will blame it on the dnc…….”
Actually the polls show 53% would blame the GOP while 29% would blame Obama…
md
November 14th, 2012
5:36 pm
” BTW, you only have Boehner’s word about the deal last year”
Actually, Woodward published the details in his book…..of which I do believe he talked to numerous sources……
md
November 14th, 2012
5:39 pm
“Uh no…
53% would blame the GOP congress, 29% the president and 10% both equally.”
Well Am, I was using numbers from a little bit bigger poll sample…..the one from Nov 6th……but you are welcome to pick your poison.
JDW
November 14th, 2012
5:39 pm
@LBB…”Bottom line: Obozo increased spending $500 billion above Our President Bush.”
Bottom line is that is a false statement…
Aquagirl
November 14th, 2012
5:40 pm
traditionally the Senate, regardless of which party is in control, opens the session with a quick vote that will easily pass.
There’s nothing more heartwarming than bipartisan agreement on dead polar bears. Now hunters can import those pen!s bones (no kidding) and put them up on a mantle right here in the good ‘ol U.S. of A.
Peace
November 14th, 2012
5:41 pm
Why is it that the libs only mention the ‘credit card’ when referring to ‘Bush’s’ wars? Like that’s the only spending that brought us to a near $17 trillion deficit….
MarkV
November 14th, 2012
5:42 pm
Kyle Wingfield @ 5:09 pm
“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?”
The difference is this: The tax rate change is a much more definite measure than anything dealing with deductions. It is a virtual certainty that a tax rate change, once voted in, will last for a fair amount of time, at least a few years. But anything about deductions can be changed by anybody in Congress adding a rider to an important piece of legislation for some loophole and get it approved that way – as we have seen with all those loopholes that exist in the tax code.
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
5:44 pm
“Why is it that the libs only mention the ‘credit card’ when referring to ‘Bush’s’ wars? ”
Because he hid those costs and kept them off the books.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 14th, 2012
5:45 pm
JamVet: virtually none of which we working class Americans get.
————————-
Guess who’s going to be squealing the loudest if Our President Bush’s tax cuts are all allowed to expire?
Not the rich.
The working class. And you and the other Obozo receptacles will be squealing right along with them.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 14th, 2012
5:47 pm
Obozo’s unprecedented, unpatriotic trillion-dollar deficits get charged to the very same credit card as Our President Bush was using.
If you’re still stuck on stupid, using that “unpaid for” phrase, you’re an ignorant hypocrite.
MarkV
November 14th, 2012
5:47 pm
It is rather funny – and frustrating – to see some people (namely, Dusty) complaining all the time to high heaven about the national debt, but when there is a suggestion that taxes should be higher to pay it back, it is only no, no, no.
Banderson
November 14th, 2012
5:47 pm
The Republicans need to give in on the rate issue and trade it for spending cuts. It isn’t “the” solution, but it’s part of the solution. The CBO has said it won’t hurt the economy and even conservatives such as William Kristol are saying it ought to be done. Taxes on dividends should not be increased (or increased much), as taxes have already been paid on dividends by the corps paying them (assuming the corp. owed taxes), but top rates could go back to the Bush years, when we began going in the hole. And, if you want to complain about the market the last few days, just remember, that stimulus spending is a big reason why the Dow is still up over 60% from when Obama took office. If Boehner and friends hold the economy hostage to protect millionaires’ ability to buy an extra BMW or two, then we can see things go backwards in a hurry.
md
November 14th, 2012
5:48 pm
You too JDW….
Beyond The Middle of the Road
November 14th, 2012
5:50 pm
“There’s nothing more heartwarming than bipartisan agreement on dead polar bears” LOL
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 14th, 2012
5:52 pm
MarkV: when there is a suggestion that taxes should be higher to pay it back, it is only no, no, no.
————————
Given the Democrat party’s track record on following through with their spending cut promises, Dusty’s caution is quite reasonable.
It’s the spending, stupid.
cc
November 14th, 2012
5:54 pm
“Why is it that the libs only mention the ‘credit card’ when referring to ‘Bush’s’ wars?”
Because, of course, the libs would NEVER use a credit card . . . when they have access to an EBT card!
md
November 14th, 2012
5:55 pm
“but when there is a suggestion that taxes should be higher to pay it back, it is only no, no, no.”
Some out there like me have no problem raising taxes if needed, but I have a major problem when folks start voting for others to do the paying without also offering up their own. THAT is the problem, and will lead to a very bad ending…….
Georgia
November 14th, 2012
5:59 pm
Because the track record of congress is gridlock on the debt, the deficit, and the tax rates, then it’s unlikely that any progress can be made now. Obama should focus only on Obamacare and make sure nobody pulls the plug on it. Even if it means giving the filty rich their stinking free ride.
Centrist
November 14th, 2012
6:01 pm
I like Kyle’s “keeping the current rates, adding the 30% Buffett Rule rate on top of them for $1M+ earners, and capping deductions at $50,000″.
I doubt the Democratically controlled Senate would go along with that because it would increase every single Senators’ taxes. But no doubt the first part of keeping current rates is going to happen – the House is not going to budge on current top rate, and Obama is not going to let the rates expire/rise on the middle class. Just brinkmanship negotiating for another month while the economy and stock market continue to skid.
md
November 14th, 2012
6:02 pm
“Even if it means giving the filty rich their stinking free ride.”
Explain to me how that works when roughly 50% of the population is paying no income tax……the math you suggest just doesn’t add up.
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
6:05 pm
OK, Kyle.
But in the larger picture, especially after that odd “plan” of his, I don’t think many Americans view him as much more than just another far right wing, intellectual light weight.
md, those numbers that I cited are from a newly released Washington Post/Pew Center poll.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/11/13/National-Politics/Polling/release_173.xml
I must have missed your cite!
Our President Bush’s…
Man, you crack me up with that one Lil BB.
Oh and BTW, I suspect that you are dead wrong when you wrote, “Not the rich.”
They got the lion’s share of the bennies, so they would pay the lion’s share back. Much teeth gnashing there, to be sure.
Do some research and you’ll see.
Or don’t…
BTW, Kyle and other responsible Republicans calling for the Buffet Rule to be implemented must REALLY burn your arses, huh?
md
November 14th, 2012
6:08 pm
I wonder if Obama knows his legacy is on the line…..we go over the cliff, odds are it will be he that takes the blame through the eyes of history.
To this day, Clinton gave us a “surplus”……never much mention that the gop congress had a big hand in it as well.
md
November 14th, 2012
6:09 pm
“I must have missed your cite!”
Nov 6th Am…..Nov 6th.
MarkV
November 14th, 2012
6:11 pm
md @5:55 pm
“Some out there like me have no problem raising taxes if needed, but I have a major problem when folks start voting for others to do the paying without also offering up their own.”
One more time, the US has one of the worst income inequalities of the industrialized countries. If one part of the population is having skyrocketing income, and the other part has a stagnated income, which one is to pay more in taxes, when there is a need?
mike
November 14th, 2012
6:16 pm
The hounds are in “full-howl” tonight! How is it that the Republican House has obstructed every single thing that Obama and the Democrats have tried to do since 2010? Recall that the Bush tax cuts were scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. But no, the Republicans in Congress blocked that so that the unemployed would not be thrown to the wolves. Because of the Republican House, NOTHING has changed (fiscally) since Obama took office. We’re still running the $1 trillion+ deficits Obama inherited from George W. Bush. Not only that, but we will probably continue to experience these deficits for the foreseeable future. It’s so much easier to blame Obama than the real cause.
JamVet
November 14th, 2012
6:19 pm
Hello?
A date is not a cite, md!
cite -verb
1. to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), especially as an authority: He cited the constitution in his defense.
OK, out and about for some pre-holiday fun!
Later, peeps…
@@
November 14th, 2012
6:21 pm
The Clinton surplus was a myth.
The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year….which it did.
And yes, Newt used the myth to bolster his bona fides.
md
November 14th, 2012
6:22 pm
“One more time, the US has one of the worst income inequalities of the industrialized countries. If one part of the population is having skyrocketing income, and the other part has a stagnated income, which one is to pay more in taxes, when there is a need?”
And once again Mark you discount choices…….we are much more than numbers, but that is what you are trying to reduce it to.
Why should Little Johnny street thug that chooses to forgo education and instead run around the neighborhood terrorizing his neighbors get a pass on paying his “fair share” while you run down the street and take money from Dr Watson just because he has it???
I don’t get the logic…..one has to pay just because he made the better choice???
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
6:25 pm
Linda, where are you now? md is deriding Little Johnny as a street thug! Stay classy!
md
November 14th, 2012
6:25 pm
Geez Am, do I have to hold your hand and do your thinking for you too?
Nov 6th…..51% voted for Obama and 49% voted for Romney…..the biggest poll in the country.
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
6:26 pm
@@ Living in that Repug bubble eh?
mike
November 14th, 2012
6:30 pm
Funny thing about the truth. It’s like a drunk getting a cold glass of ice water in the face. It sobers you up in a hurry, huh?
@@
November 14th, 2012
6:31 pm
“If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after someone they should go after me,” Obama said at a White House news conference on Wednesday. “When they go after the U.N. ambassador apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me.”
ooooooooooooooooooo, I’m impressed. NOT!
Let Hillary take the fall with nary a word, he did.
I would say Bill can’t be happy about that…..but then Bill’s turned out to be Obama’s wuss.
clem
November 14th, 2012
6:33 pm
feckless price loses today; there is hope
saywhat?
November 14th, 2012
6:33 pm
So Kyle, any suggestions on how the Democrats can turn the GOP’s “we lost, but we still won’t give the people what they want” attitude against them?
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
6:33 pm
@@ Susan Rice is the UN Ambassador not Hillary.
mike
November 14th, 2012
6:38 pm
You know, I don’t really blame McConnell, Boehner, etc. for their doggedness. If they don’t play their parts, there’s a Tea Party candidate just waiting to take their seats. Guys like McConnell & Boehner have been on the government “gravy train” for a long time now. They’ll literally do anything to keep it coming.
MarkV
November 14th, 2012
6:43 pm
md @6:22 pm
I agree, you don’t get it. All you can see is the Little Johnny street thug. Not the millions of hard-working, poorly paid people, and not the rich guys, who manipulate money and reap millions, but do not want to pay a little more in taxes.
bluecoat
November 14th, 2012
6:44 pm
Is Obamaphone same as a Romney cheat sheet?
bluecoat
November 14th, 2012
6:50 pm
My RGR down today.When does the gun confiscation begin? Talk it up.
Hillbilly D
November 14th, 2012
6:56 pm
It’s like a drunk getting a cold glass of ice water in the face. It sobers you up in a hurry, huh?
The only way to sober up is for the alcohol to leave your system (bloodstream). If you throw cold water in a drunk’s face, all you get is an alert drunk. Same with giving them coffee. Only thing that sobers anybody up is time.
mike
November 14th, 2012
6:59 pm
“The only way to sober up is for the alcohol to leave your system (bloodstream). If you throw cold water in a drunk’s face, all you get is an alert drunk. Same with giving them coffee. Only thing that sobers anybody up is time.”
Thank you, Dr. Hillbilly. I was wondering when someone would point that out to me.