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
@@
November 14th, 2012
8:23 pm
Linda:
I think Kyle’s site only allows one cite per comment.
I know. I was going for the step by step instructions approach.
mike
November 14th, 2012
8:24 pm
More correctly, revenues increased under George W. Bush. The economy had more to do with that than did tax cuts.
mike
November 14th, 2012
8:26 pm
Rafe & Linda & Tiberius, etc. have it all figured out. Everything that George W. Bush was right. That’s why a Republican was elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012. Nothing to see here, move along.
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
8:27 pm
The economy had more to do with that than did tax cuts.
Mike is trotting out the tired old chicken or the egg argument.
cc
November 14th, 2012
8:28 pm
Rafe, I was expecting that to happen any minute now . . .
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
8:30 pm
Mike,
Wrong, Bush spent us into a recession with his unpatriotic and irresponsible spending. Obama is more unpatriotic and irresponsible and trying to double down on that Bush spending and push us off the cliff. Too wrongs do not make a right. When will you see that?
Del
November 14th, 2012
8:34 pm
Can we all not just get free stuff from the government is that so bad or too much for us to ask for. After all what difference does it make if the country’s going broke, we should all live for today and not concern ourselves with tomorrow. All this talk about our children, grandchildren and future generations is just pathetic babble. Lets all vote for Democrats and follow them like lemmings over the economic cliff isn’t it easier that way.
@@
November 14th, 2012
8:34 pm
I just dropped by “Irregular Times”….to say they’re OUT THERE is an understatement. They did have one article I found amusing.
Weather the economic storm by growing potatoes. Obama has a garden.
schnirt
Linda
November 14th, 2012
8:34 pm
mike (with a little m) @8:09, Let me refresh your memory or tell you something you might have missed. The US was attacked on 9/11/01 & we went to war in Afghanistan. We also went to war in Iraq, both with congressional approval by both Reps. & Dems. (unlike the Libyan non war war).
Yes, expenditures increased under Bush. Duh!
“…it’s obvious what he (Bush) left to President Barack Obama.” It’s not obvious to me. Bush left a natl. debt of over $10 T. Does that mean that Obama is justified in adding another $6 T to it in 3 1/2 years?
Is there a statute of limitations on Blaming Bush? Is it not “obvious to see what he (Obama) left to President Barack Obama” from his 1st to his 2nd term? If Obama is unable to “fix” the economy, which he has NO INTENTION or CAPABILITY to do, will it still be Bush’s fault in 2016?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
8:34 pm
Mike, two things:
One, I have repeatedly told you that I didn’t vote for Bush and that I disagreed with many of his policies. If you can’t keep that straight and refrain from lumping everybody that has a different view than you do, I suggest you find another site where your lack of debate skills would be better appreciated.
Two, you still need to understand the term “cause and effect”
cc
November 14th, 2012
8:38 pm
Let’s see now . . .
Obama had nothing at all to do with the refusal to send aid to the American victims in Benghazi, and wasn’t told about that until after the election.
Obama knew nothing of Iran firing on an American drone in international airspace (an act of war) until after the election.
Obama knew nothing of the CIA director being the subject of an FBI investigation until after the election.
He has lied about so many things and gotten away with it that he thinks he can now lie about anything and the electorate will buy it. He is correct, at least about 51% of the electorate anyway.
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
8:42 pm
cc, 8 US Embassy’s were attacked under W where were the investigations? Oh that’s right he and Darth Cheney refused to testify under oath about 9-11 so what good would investigations do!
Del
November 14th, 2012
8:43 pm
leftin The South, opts for anal enlargement under ObamaCare benefits.
Same as last week
November 14th, 2012
8:43 pm
The bitterness, pettiness and whining continues.
Hillbilly D
November 14th, 2012
8:45 pm
Weather the economic storm by growing potatoes.
Takes a mighty big spread to grow enough taters to feed yourself for a year, plus you have to a place to store them, too.
cc
November 14th, 2012
8:46 pm
Del:
LOL!
Hillbilly D
November 14th, 2012
8:47 pm
This just keeps looking worse all the time…….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/paula-broadwell-computer_n_2131358.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D234729
Linda
November 14th, 2012
8:48 pm
mike (with a little m) @8:26, No, everything Bush did was not right, but minions blaming him solely for the tanking of the economy due to his policies, especially his tax cuts, has been ludicrous for 4 years. Believing that Obama has any intention of improving the state of the economy continues to be the belief of the minions, who can’t seem to see even a piece of the picture, let alone the whole picture.
Bob
November 14th, 2012
8:48 pm
JDW, congressional republicans ran on no new taxes, they won congress which means the people don’t want tax increases. But if Obama won on raising taxes why is he against the Bush tax cuts expiring ? Oh that’s right, the people that want tax increases want tax increases on someone else, they are not patriotic. If Obama has a mandate, so do repubs in congress.
Del
November 14th, 2012
8:51 pm
Good night leftin The Mouth.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
8:53 pm
IN any of those embassy attacks, did anybody put forth a narrative completely opposite from the truth,leftinthe south?
Of course they didn’t.
Grow up and face facts. This administration has lied to us from day one on benghazi.
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
8:54 pm
cc
November 14th, 2012
8:38 pm
Madonna wishes her audiences were as fawning as that group at the press conference today. I don’t understand why the Mistake avoids the pressers so much, they slobber and fawn over him, and ask such stupid softball questions.
Don’t know how old you are but Dan Rather would have the vein in his neck sticking out and be frothing at the mouth, when he questioned/attacked Nixon at his press conferences. He just about hit GHWB on the air, when interviewing him on the Evening News. Now,it is all giggles and smiles from the fawning press.
Del
November 14th, 2012
8:55 pm
Oops meant Leftin The South but maybe he takes it literally.
@@
November 14th, 2012
8:56 pm
Left is n-a-s-t-y!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
November 14th, 2012
8:59 pm
Hillbilly, this Petraeus thing is not going to end well for anybody.
Holder keeping it a secret from Obama (if you believe Jay Carney, which I don’t ) or Obama knowing about it and keeping it a secret until after the election. Add in Benghazi, and this second term isn’t starting off good at all.
Linda
November 14th, 2012
8:59 pm
Kyle, Comments like the one @ 8:34 give your blog, the AJC & our state really bad connotations to those who read from around the state, country & world.
I hereby “report this comment” without disturbing your evening with your family.
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
9:00 pm
LeftInTheSouth
November 14th, 2012
8:50 pm
Crude= synonymous with leftwing bloggers, who do not have the intellectual ability to communicate.
Hillbilly D
November 14th, 2012
9:02 pm
Tiberius @ 8:59
I pretty much agree with you on that. I don’t know whether Obama knew or not (I suspect he did) but if he didn’t, who didn’t tell him? Somebody is going to have to take a fall somewhere.
If Nixon taught us anything, it was the cover-up is usually worse than the crime.
cc
November 14th, 2012
9:07 pm
Rafe, I was witness to all that you describe via TV and through the newspapers. There are very, very few true journalists/news reporters left, and none of those are in mainstream television media, with the exception of the NEWS reporters on FOX (I had to differentiate between the news and the opinion that appear on FOX becuase libs can’t tell the difference!).
bluecoat
November 14th, 2012
9:10 pm
When cc was TD and Newt was still in the running,TD gave Newt credit for the balanced budget during the Clinton yrs.Now he says there was no balanced budget.Could Romney have been a student of Newt also?
cc
November 14th, 2012
9:13 pm
When bluecoat was Aquagirl, he could express himself much better via the written word.
the red herring
November 14th, 2012
9:14 pm
agree kyle— let the republicans put forth a plan that makes sense to 95% of americans and then challenge the senate and obama not to pass it. regardless of the plan they pass (if they pass one) the spending cuts should come before the tax hikes not vice versa—otherwise it will be the same old bait and switch they always pull —lucy pulls the football away one more time. obama has shown nothing but hubris since winning this election (the last one too)— to declare rice “off limits” after he marched her out there to do his bidding is ridiculous. good idea kyle—pass it up the ladder.
Linda
November 14th, 2012
9:15 pm
mike (with a little m) @8:24, So, liberals have blamed the tanking of the economy for 4 years on the Bush tax cuts & now you are claiming that the increased revenues under the Bush adm. had more to do with the economy than the tax cuts.
I’m trying to get this.
Horse. Cart. Before.
Did the economy improve despite the tax cuts & increased revenues OR did the tax cuts & increased revenues improve the economy?
What about the unemployment rates? You do know they also went DOWN after the Bush tax cuts were implemented, don’t you?
See the second graph.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Seems to me that the Bush tax cuts increased tax revenues & lowered unemployment rates. Seems to me that tax increases will lower tax revenues & increase unemployment rates. Just what the progressives have on their menu.
cc
November 14th, 2012
9:17 pm
I want to extend my aplogies to all for allowing LeftInTheSouth to pull me into his conversation, if it can be described as such. I should have ignored him/her/it.
the red herring
November 14th, 2012
9:19 pm
regarding the tax hikes/revenue increases or whatever you so choose to call them— they should be dedicated to reducing the deficit and not new spending. obama won this election by playing the old game of promising every kid in class an ice cream cone if they voted him for class president. it’s a stupid game but he plays it well and a lot of his voters take the bait. the woman who was voting for him because he gave her his “obama phone” is a classic example.
Rafe Hollister, dreading the eventual decline caused by Obamanism
November 14th, 2012
9:23 pm
I saw where PETA sued and got the Possum Drop on NYE halted, because of animal cruelty. The owner of the possum should protest by having possum and taters for NYE dinner. It is after all, legal to eat, hunt, and kill possums, but obviously not to lower them in a cage. What a country.
Linda
November 14th, 2012
9:24 pm
bluecoat@9:10, Still getting budgets & debt mixed up? Still getting budgets proposed 6 months PRIOR to the beginning of the fiscal year & budgets AFTER the end of the fiscal year mixed up?
Give Clinton credit. At lease he PROPOSED budgets, totally strange to this senate which has not passed a budget in over 3 years.
Obama’s budget did not receive a single vote in either the House or the Senate, enough proof to me to understand that he is the most radical president in the history of the US. His was not a cliff. It was a burial at sea.
Interesting constituency
November 14th, 2012
9:25 pm
Kyle,
Not getting in the debate of whether Obama’s ideas will work or not. Just wanted to point out that if you look at the posts during the day, there is a decided leftist lean to them. Makes you wonder how the people can continue to spend such time on a computer while they are at work…unless they weren’t working. Maybe at home on their ipad that was bought with tax dollars paid by those with jobs.
After 530 or so, the posts started a lean to the right, presumably as those with jobs and not dependent on a government check got home from work. I may be wrong, but it checks out.
md
November 14th, 2012
9:27 pm
“I can see that it is hopeless to think that you might understand the term “income inequality.””
I understand the false narrative you are trying to present, but I also understand that we choose everything we do……so income equality is a utopian dream…….
cc
November 14th, 2012
9:31 pm
Interesting constituency@9:25 pm:
Astute observation! Well done . . .
Archibald Leach
November 14th, 2012
9:33 pm
Kyle, did you forget that Obama campaigned on NOT extending the Bush tax cuts on folks making over 250K?
md
November 14th, 2012
9:35 pm
“so income equality is a utopian dream…….”
I guess it can also be a communist dream (except the dictators get the most goodies there too), or a union dream…..didn’t care for that much either as the slugs we worked with didn’t carry their weight and STILL got the same paycheck……….
No Mark, it just isn’t possible with a world full of individuals……..
bluecoat
November 14th, 2012
9:36 pm
Red could it be Obama gave her the obamaphone for same reason Lil’B got his?
knowbodyyouknow
November 14th, 2012
9:38 pm
Kyle, I,m glad you’re at the AJC. I,ve been reading Jay Bookheads columns for awhile. I was under the impression the AJC was all Liberal Democrat. Do you ever debate Bookman? The reason Mr, O’bama got elected was the people are enamored with him. Our 1st. black president, pretty wife, 2 cute daughters. He makes a great speech. Is good at the Bull S. promises. Hell let him tax the rich. It sure as hell will not include me. (I hope)
bluecoat
November 14th, 2012
9:45 pm
Linda now you want to give Clinton credit,before it was Newt.make up your mind.May be more out of balance than your budget.Reckon?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
November 14th, 2012
9:47 pm
Georgia: Even if it means giving the filty rich their stinking free ride.
——————-
I’d hardly call paying nearly all the income taxes paid in the U.S. a “free ride”.
Why do you hate people who aren’t like you (i.e. responsibly employed and contributing to the operation of their government.)?
Linda
November 14th, 2012
9:54 pm
bluecoat@9:45, I never mentioned Newt. You have me as mixed up with someone else as you have proposed budgets, actual budgets, deficits & debt all mixed up, as do most liberals.
You basically ignored my comment except for the credit I gave Clinton. Did you not understand the rest?
Banderson
November 14th, 2012
9:57 pm
4 cents in additional tax paid for each dollar over $250,000. Republicans want to drive us off the fiscal cliff for 4 cents, the difference in an incremental rate of 39% vs. 35% for people, who, if they manage their money (which they are quite quick to recommend to others), should be able to still put bread on their table.
Jefferson
November 14th, 2012
10:01 pm
Boy that was close.
bluecoat
November 14th, 2012
10:02 pm
Linda @9:15 The horses rear goes in front of the cart.