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
md
November 14th, 2012
6:59 pm
Wrong Mark….I see it quite clear, it appears you do not. There are individuals throughout the spectrum that fall into both categories, and you want to paint them all with a broad brush…..I’m well aware there are millions of hard working individuals in the middle and lower class, but I’m also well aware that they exist in the upper class too……..you on the other hand seem to lump them ALL together as merely rich people with money that you think you are somehow entitled to………
Hillbilly D
November 14th, 2012
7:00 pm
You’re welcome.
bluecoat
November 14th, 2012
7:01 pm
Lil B the only one on here that owns an Obamaphone.Did he own it before the election? You don’t think,no he would want more than an obamaphone,wouldn’t he.
mike
November 14th, 2012
7:02 pm
Looks like I’m the skunk here at Kyle’s picnic. I guess I’ll leave for a while so that Tiberius, Lil’ Bar, I Report, cc, and all the rest can get back to howling at the moon. Fair warning: I’ll be back!
md
November 14th, 2012
7:04 pm
Totally off topic, but I keep hearing the media describing the Patreaus fiasco as ’sleeping with his biographer”…….tell me, how do they know they ever did any sleeping??
Peace
November 14th, 2012
7:11 pm
Within a few months our national debt will reach $17 trillion. Various projections put the debt at anywhere between $24 trillion and $35 trillion within a decade. All prognosticators generally agree that the U.S. is going over the fiscal ‘cliff’, regardless of what program of higher tax rates, closing of loopholes, etc. might be approved. Perhaps it would be better to take the plunge at $17 trillion than wait and do a nosedive when it hits $35 trillion. Is there some advantage to be realized in postponing the inevitable?
Dave
November 14th, 2012
7:13 pm
I didn’t read the comments to see if you updated; but, the President pretty much threw away any mandate he had in his press conference this afternoon by saying it was limited to helping the middle class, whatever that is and saying he was open to alternatives to higher taxes on rich folks. I’d love to negotiate with the Prez, he sucks at it.
Del
November 14th, 2012
7:16 pm
Good strategy Kyle. The Democrats think they have a voter mandate but when skin in the game expands and starts feeling some pain, allegiances start to crumble, particularly in politics.
cc
November 14th, 2012
7:17 pm
The Clinton “surplus” lie, as well as the other lies associated with “Clintonomics” are regularly trotted out by the Democrat faithful, paraded around the ring and saluted. People who view and listen to this show without independent verification are misled.
“The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000–though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).”
“As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of “only” $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero–let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton’s last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.”
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/
md
November 14th, 2012
7:22 pm
“Is there some advantage to be realized in postponing the inevitable?”
I’ve known quite a few that go out and run up their debt knowing they are going to file for bankruptcy……squeeze every last dime out of that credit card and then pull the plug.
If we are going to go belly up, maybe the plan is to enjoy it while we can……freebies for everybody.
Attack Dog
November 14th, 2012
7:25 pm
Yes, Obama was negotiating more for the middle class and tried to up the ante, but Boehner knew that Cantor and the Tea Party were not going to support him on the Grand Bargain. How many remember that Ryan was a key to keeping Simpson-Bowles from moving forward. The President can recommended, but Civics 101 says that he cannot introduce any bills on the floor of the House.
Puck
November 14th, 2012
7:27 pm
Kyle, even if Speaker Boehner and President Obama had made that “deal” in 2011, I seriously doubt that Boehner could have produced the votes from his own party to carry it across the finish line. Just like I doubt he would have the votes now, if by some miracle he and Obama are able to strike a bargain.
@@
November 14th, 2012
7:30 pm
cc:
I left proof of the myth but mine was snagged. The linking process contained three of the federal treasury sites.
You succeed where I fail.
cc
November 14th, 2012
7:30 pm
“Calling the President “Obozo” is itself unpatriotic. Jus’ sayin’.”
Patriotic: Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one’s country.
Disliking or demonstrating a lack of respect for an idividual, even if he is the president, is not unpatriotic.
Jefferson
November 14th, 2012
7:30 pm
Time for a tax hike and some stimulus spending .
Jefferson
November 14th, 2012
7:32 pm
Md your apathy is your choice?
cc
November 14th, 2012
7:38 pm
@@:
I am sure the liberals will decry the source, but there were links within the article to Federal treasury sites, too.
One must be so very careful when trashing one of the liberal gods with the truth!
@@
November 14th, 2012
7:39 pm
It’s true that Paul Ryan voted against the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. He did so because Simpson-Bowles raised taxes while doing little to nothing about health-care spending, the biggest driver of growing deficits. However, by rejecting Simpson-Bowles, Ryan felt morally obligated to put forth his own plan, and did so—several times, in the form of his Path to Prosperity and his 2011 and 2012 House budget resolutions.
Notably, he took advantage of his tenure on the Bowles-Simpson commission to forge a bipartisan compromise with Bill Clinton’s budget chief, Alice Rivlin, on Medicare reform.
By contrast, President Obama scuttled a bipartisan Congressional deal to achieve long-term fiscal reform. A few months ago, President Obama sent a budget to Congress for fiscal year 2013, that did not bother to attempt to balance the budget, and was defeated unanimously in both houses, failing to even get a single Democratic vote.—Avik Roy @ Forbes
MarkV
November 14th, 2012
7:40 pm
md @6:59 pm
One more time -hopefully you will get it after all. I am not painting anybody with a broad brush. There are undeserving people in all groups of people. We can exchange charges about who sees what and who does not, but the evidence is in the reality of the income stagnation of the middle and lower class, and the outrageous skyrocketing of the incomes of the top earners.
And what is equally outrageous is your ad hominem attack, our accusation that I think I am entitled to anything. You don’t know me, I have not claimed anything for myself, so keep your insults to yourself.
clem
November 14th, 2012
7:40 pm
i am not that high on rice, but the attacks by mccain and graham border on cowardice. lindsay’s response to being b!tch slapped by obama is hilarious. didn’t they learn from the powell episode who was advocating for their flawed approach.
@@
November 14th, 2012
7:41 pm
When “The Shrub” (their term of endearment) was president, dissent was the highest form of patriotism.
Del
November 14th, 2012
7:42 pm
Will future presidential campaign planks go something like this…I’ll give you free stuff…I’ll give you even more free stuff….I have a history of giving free stuff…Maybe but you could have given even more free stuff and you caved to congress…no I didn’t…yes you did, I’ve always been in favor of giving free stuff, vote for me and get more free stuff.
md
November 14th, 2012
7:44 pm
“Md your apathy is your choice?”
It was in that moment…..just as coming here to waste time is also a choice.
@@
November 14th, 2012
7:44 pm
They had other terms of endearment for Bush but I can’t recall all of them. I’m not one to dwell in the well.
md
November 14th, 2012
7:48 pm
” but the evidence is in the reality of the income stagnation of the middle and lower class, and the outrageous skyrocketing of the incomes of the top earners.”
If one falls for the narrative that we have one pie and it’s split up accordingly. that bs about income disparity is bogus as bogus can be in a world economy……..google “trade imbalance and real wages” and read up on where the wages have been going…….
As for insults…..it’s merely fact…..if one votes for the guy that says he wants to take from one to give to another, then you are endorsing the practice………
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
7:48 pm
Egalitarianism is so much a part of Obamanism, that they will have to pry those higher tax rates on the rich out of his cold dead hands. He cares more for egalitarianism than he could ever care about economic growth, the fiscal cliff, deficit, debt, jobs, or his legacy.
Either Boehner caves on the rates, or we go over the cliff. Barry is not interested in total revenue raised, only how he can implement punishment on the wealthy, that will live long after he is gone. A responsible president would have as a first priority getting the economy and hiring going, not ideology.
@@
November 14th, 2012
7:52 pm
About Scott Brown, Harry said: “I saw during the campaign his plea for bipartisanship. That is a big joke. It’s a travesty,” Reid told reporters. “He was one of the most partisan people that’s ever served here.”
Seriously!!??!!
61.7% of the bills Brown cosponsored were written by Democrats.
Harry’s delusional.
Linda
November 14th, 2012
7:55 pm
The Bush tax cuts resulted in record govt. revenues. The revenues under Bush were almost a trillion dollars higher than the corresponding years under Clinton. Download any of the 1st 3 tables to see for yourselves.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Clinton’s surpluses were budget surpluses, i.e. pieces of paper. Budgets submitted months in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year are nothing more than projections. The fact is that there was not a single year under Clinton that actual revenues exceeded actual spending. More debt was added to the national debt each & every year under Clinton.
Hillbilly D
November 14th, 2012
7:55 pm
I’ve known quite a few that go out and run up their debt knowing they are going to file for bankruptcy……squeeze every last dime out of that credit card and then pull the plug.
Saw that happen when I worked in car dealerships. People would buy a new car before they went bankrupt. They usually figure out a way to let you keep a car, in court.
Jefferson
November 14th, 2012
7:56 pm
But some folks time is much more a poor choice to waste as they know it all and think everyone else is stupid, you know the GOP, a real fun group.
md
November 14th, 2012
7:56 pm
“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 Mark…..they pay tax on what they make……so they DO pay more in taxes.
But you want more……right? because they have it….right? No other criteria whatsoever……
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
7:57 pm
Del, re: campaigning by offering free stuff, I heard someone say the other day, something that I hadn’t thought of regarding immigration. I for one thought that the GOP should be the first to present a comprehensive immigration bill with common sense solutions, that might help attract Hispanics.
This person laughed as he pointed out that the Dems will take whatever the GOP offers and say it doesn’t go far enough, that Amnesty for 12 million is not enough, that we ought to give them free college tuition and a Chevy Volt. He pointed out you can never win a give away game with the Dems.
Pretty much what you were saying, I think.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
7:58 pm
The problem as always isn’t revenue, but spending. I’ve consistently been in favor of reducing or eliminating deductions across the board, even the ridiculous mortgage interest deduction, but I would stick to just those revenue increases until Congress can price to me they can actually cut spending, not just reduce it’s growth.
I don’t trust anybody who would bald faced lie to our faces as Obama sand the dens have done recently.
md
November 14th, 2012
8:00 pm
“Harry’s delusional.”
And never held accountable for his “Romney hasn’t paid tax in 10 years” comment…..that in itself says a lot when it comes from the top guy in the Senate………and just as much about the media.
MarkV
November 14th, 2012
8:02 pm
md @7:56 pm
“And Mark…..they pay tax on what they make……so they DO pay more in taxes.”
I can see that it is hopeless to think that you might understand the term “income inequality.”
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
8:03 pm
Hillbilly
I had a guy tell me he was thinking of going bankrupt, but didn’t have the money to hire a bankruptcy attorney. Attorney (officer of the court) assured him it was OK to put his retainer on his almost maxed out credit card, as it would be included in the bankruptcy proceedings. Bankruptcy, another government administered fraud, perpetrated on the creditors.
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
8:06 pm
“income inequality.”
I am sure Thomas Jefferson and James Madison spent many sleepless nights trying to figure out how to address that in the Constitution.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
8:09 pm
Md, just stop trying to convinced MarkV of reality.
He can’t conceive of a world where the rich both make the majority of income AND pay the majority of taxes, even though that is EXACTLY what we already have here.
You’re right. He and his bunch just want more. They’ll never tell you how much more, just that they want it.
mike
November 14th, 2012
8:09 pm
2001 Rev 1,991,082 Exp 1,862,846 Surp 128,236
2002 Rev 1,853,136 Exp 2,010,894 Def -157,758
2003 Rev 1,782,314 Exp 2,159,899 Def -377,585
2004 Rev 1,880,114 Exp 2,292,841 Def -412,727
2005 Rev 2,153,611 Exp 2,471,957 Def -318,346
2006 Rev 2,406,869 Exp 2,655,050 Def -248,181
2007 Rev 2,567,985 Exp 2,728,686 Def -160,701
2008 Rev 2,523,991 Exp 2,982,544 Def -458,553
2009 Rev 2,104,989 Exp 3,517,677 Def -1,412,688
2010 Rev 2,162,724 Exp 3,456,213 Def -1,293,489
2011 Rev 2,303,466 Exp 3,603,061 Def -1,299,595
Linda, thanks for posting that link. Even though George W. Bush raised revenues, he raised expenditures even more. Even with your link, its obvious to see what he left to President Barack Obama.
Linda
November 14th, 2012
8:11 pm
The additional tax revenues that Obama touts are nothing more than a drop in an Olympic-sized sized swimming pool. They will do absolutely nothing to affect the deficit, let alone the debt. As a matter of fact, while he is touting piddly revenue increases, he is touting spending more money on jobs that the states & cities are responsible for: teachers, firefighters & police officers, as well as spending more money just for the sake of spending money. It’s not just a “wash.” Obama’s spending increases are astronomical compared to his tax hikes.
There has never been one single, solitary expense that the Obama adm. has been willing to cut, except defense. He’s both for & against defense cuts.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
8:12 pm
Remember, MD, their goal is equality of outcome, not opportunity, even if it means we’re all mediocre.
Rightwing Troll
November 14th, 2012
8:12 pm
“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.” ”
The “rich”, or as you wingnuts and teatards erroneously call them, the “job creators”, have made out like bandits the entire time you morons were wishing for the economy to get worse. Where are the jobs?
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
8:14 pm
George W. Bush raised revenues,
Finally, a liberal admits that tax cuts stimulate the economy and raise revenues. Next, we will move onto the laws of gravity with the libs.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
8:14 pm
The jobs are in right to work states, Troll.
Haven’t you been paying attention?
Linda
November 14th, 2012
8:15 pm
@@ @ 7:30, I think Kyle’s site only allows one cite per comment.
Rightwing Troll
November 14th, 2012
8:15 pm
Like, ahhh here in GA?
cc
November 14th, 2012
8:17 pm
Troll:
“Where are the jobs?”
Why, your president is busily creating millions of them! Don’t you follow the weekly propa . ., er, updates?
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
8:19 pm
Troll
Read the papers and business mags, the biggest inhibitor of jobs is Obamacare.
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
8:20 pm
cc
Yep, he has “created” 5 million new jobs, full employment should be in about 3 months, right?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
8:22 pm
Despite what you may believe, Troll Georgia is only one of 57 – er – 50 states in the union.