That's the first and most significant part of what he's said on the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
The second thing he's asserted is that the nation can't afford a permanent extension of the upper-class tax cuts.
from his radio address at the beginning of the month:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/06/weekly-address-president-obama-calls-compromise-and-explains-his-prioritPRESIDENT: ". . . the last thing we should do is raise taxes on middle-class families. For the past decade, they saw their costs rise, their incomes fall, and too many jobs go overseas. They’re the ones bearing the brunt of the recession. They’re the ones having trouble making ends meet. They are the ones who need relief right now.
So something’s got to be done. And I believe there’s room for us to compromise and get it done together.
Let’s start where we agree. All of us want certainty for middle-class Americans. None of us want them to wake up on January 1st with a higher tax bill. That’s why I believe we should permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year. That’s 98 percent of the American people . . .
I recognize that both parties are going to have to work together and compromise to get something done here. But I want to make my priorities clear from the start. One: middle class families need permanent tax relief. And two: I believe we can’t afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
I don't think that his 'promise' to end the tax cut for the wealthy is as politically consequential as his outright promise (he actually pledged this) to make certain that middle-class taxes did not go up in his term.
Congress is going to act on the tax cuts, no matter what President Obama does. That's not something the President has much control over at all. It's not hard to envision this Senate (and even more, the next) holding up anything the lame-duck House manages to pass to advantage their upper-class cuts. It's also not hard to imagine enough Democrats in the Senate letting them. There are already a few on record in favor of some extension of the UCC.
If he does agree to a temporary extension of the upper-class tax cuts as part of a deal to get an extension for middle-class tax cuts that won't be a capitulation, it will be a compromise to preserve those middle-class tax rates.
He has his veto pen and could certainly veto any compromise the Senate sends him, but he'd be working against what he said earlier this month is his 'number-one priority' of permanently maintaining the extension for the middle-class if he vetoes such a deal and allows them both to expire. He'll not have much leverage in this debate other than that veto; and that would likely to be overturned anyway by the vast majority of legislators who will not allow taxes to be raised by their votes anytime soon.
The President's commitment to lowering middle-class tax rates over the objections of republicans has already been demonstrated in an historic way in the passage of his stimulus bill that republicans are angling to dismantle.
from PolitiFact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/ PRESIDENT: "We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college."
____ The tax cut was part of Obama's campaign promises. During the campaign, Obama said he wanted $500 for each worker and $1,000 for working couples. Since the final number was a bit less than he promised, we rated his promise a Compromise on our Obameter, where we rate Obama's campaign promises for fulfillment.
During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama's tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn't get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. ____
President Obama is fighting for an extension of the Bush-era middle class tax cuts to fulfill his campaign promise to prevent any increase of middle class taxes during his term. He's facing a lame-duck legislature that doesn't appear to have enough votes to pass either the upper-class tax cut or the middle-class tax cut extension on their own. That political equation is just going to get worse in the next Congress.
To allow them both to expire (by inaction or by veto) would, in effect, increase the tax burden on the middle class. It's one thing to argue that we could do without both (as some have), but it's another thing entirely to frame the acceptance of an extension of the upper-class cuts in exchange for an extension of the middle-class cuts as some capitulation. The fact is, the President is fighting for those middle-class tax cuts; albeit without a magic wand.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
