The Democrats find themselves in quite a bind in this fall of their discontent. With the economy on life support, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts looms January 1. Already, the liberal lie that Bush cut taxes only for the rich is being exposed as people begin to realize that everyone’s taxes (“Yes, that’s means you too, buddy, even if you do make $20,000 per year) are going up. Even worse, the conventional wisdom is firmly cemented that the teetering economy can ill-afford a massive tax increase right now.
So, suddenly, and humiliatingly, “the Bush tax cuts must be extended” . . .
Except . . . “not for the rich”!
Obama cannot risk his “street-cred” by allowing the rich to get away with another year or two of making off with their ill-gotten gains under the Bush tax rates, and so he’s drawn his line in the sand. OK, sure, the plebes can keep their measly tax cuts, but no way in hell will Obama let the fat cats keep theirs. No matter that the majority of them are actually small businesses who are the key to job growth, or that raising taxes on just two percent of the population will have almost no positive effect on the deficit — as long as Obama can say that he “stuck it to ‘em”, that’s all that matters.
But wait, now Obama’s own former White House Budget Director Peter Orszag is out with a New York Times Op-Ed arguing for an extension of the Bush tax cuts . . . for everyone. And even a number of Democrats in Congress are having doubts about the wisdom of maintaining Obama’s psuedo-populist appeal, even if it means sinking the economy.
So, now starts what could rapidly become an epic game of political chicken: with no legislation, all of the tax cuts expire, and Obama will have violated his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than $200,000. But those who want to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone may have to vote against legislation that would extend the Bush tax cuts only for the middle-class.
Clearly, if the Republicans are united, and they even grab a few Democrats, they have the votes to stop a middle-class only bill. But will they do that, or will they cave?
And this game of chicken will also take place in a heated political and economic environment, and in a shortened fall session where legislators will be looking to get back onto the campaign trail as quickly as possible.
Grab your popcorn folks, this should be interesting, to say the least!
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
I disagree
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 10:44AM EST (link)We can debate whether or not all of the tax cuts (or any of them) should be extended (or changed, we are not really tied to what was done in 01/03), but the facts from study of the tax cuts show that 1) less than 2% of small businesses report at the potentially affected brackets, and 2) the $700 billion over 10 years that would be generated through increased taxation on those brackets is not and insignificant sum. Now, the issue of whether raising any taxes during a recession/fledgling recovery is a good idea is a separate issue, but at least let’s get the facts right.
Whoops, mean to put my reply here . . .
georgeinla (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 12:01PM EST (link)I wrote that “raising taxes on just two percent of the population will have almost no positive effect on the deficit”. How is that different than what you’r saying?
Hi. I am a moby Greenie lawyer from Los Angeles who was not nearly smart enough to hide my tracks. Please assess my opinions accordingly.
I think it could
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 12:27PM EST (link)have a positive effect on the deficit (coupled with across the board spending cuts of course). The problem we face is that we have run up such a huge debt (the deficit isn’t the only problem) that tax increases are going to have to be part of any solution to get our fiscal house in order no matter how much we despise them.
Oh, I get you
georgeinla (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 12:39PM EST (link)I think the disconnect is the deficit affect of the hike on the top 2% specifically, which I think is very small. If all of the Bush tax cuts expire, then you have a much more significant affect.
Hi. I am a moby Greenie lawyer from Los Angeles who was not nearly smart enough to hide my tracks. Please assess my opinions accordingly.
You are wrong:
eastbaylarry (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 4:00PM EST (link)“…tax increases are going to have to be part of any solution…”
NO
Spending cuts, particularly entittlements, *must* come first. After the spending is under control *then* we can talk about tax rates, (it may be that the rates should then be lowered).
2+2=4 dammit!
I think you misread . . .
georgeinla (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 12:01PM EST (link)I wrote that “raising taxes on just two percent of the population will have almost no positive effect on the deficit”. How is that different than what you’r saying?
Hi. I am a moby Greenie lawyer from Los Angeles who was not nearly smart enough to hide my tracks. Please assess my opinions accordingly.
It Is Not A "Tax Cut for the Rich"
Spartan4Life (Diary) Thursday, September 9th at 7:32AM EST (link)Dammit.
Extending current rates for everyone is not a tax cut. Raising marginal rates for upper income earners would be a tax increase. Don’t buy into the Obama rhetoric on this, please.
Also, _Donkey is making the mistake of buying into (liberal)CBO baseline budgeting mumbo jumbo as if any increase in rates won’t have any effect on the overall economy and that an additional $700B will magically show up on Congress’ doorstep and immediately be applied to the deficit. Maybe we can recover TARP and the GM Union bailout while we’re at it. Ain’ going to happen.
After Bush cut taxes in 2003 8M jobs were created. We had record revenues to the Treasury. The thieves in Congress, especially after the Dems took over in 2006, just pissed it away like they always do. Don’t but into the revenue games the Dems are going to be playing on the deficit. Growth provides revenue. Low taxes provide growth. Works every time it is tried.