Tax Deal Scoreboard: Obama $214 billion, GOP $133 billion

[Still a Democrat]

Analysis: Obama’s Components Of Tax Deal Help 150 Million More People Than GOP’s Components

Yesterday, the White House agreed with Congressional Republicans on a “framework” for extending the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts. In exchange for a two-year extension of all the tax cuts — including those for households making more than $250,000 per year — the deal includes a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits, a two percent cut in the employee side of the payroll tax for one year, and a retention of the some expanded tax credits included in the 2009 Recovery Act. To get Republicans on board, Obama also agreed to a two-year cut in the estate tax.

For comparison’s sake, The Wonk Room has a chart detailing both the number of people (in millions) who benefit from each side’s priorities, as well as the total cost (in billions). Obama’s components of the tax deal (extended unemployment benefits, the payroll tax cut, and the extended credits) will cost $214 billion to aid 156 million people. The Republicans priorities (extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich and cutting the estate tax), meanwhile, will cost $133 billion, but only benefit roughly 4.8 million people.



So, in order to get desperately needed help for the long-term unemployed and to provide the middle-class with tax relief in a weak economy, Obama agreed to tax cuts for a small, wealthy portion of the population that the Republicans were willing to go to the mat for, even if it meant that everyone’s taxes went up if the Bush tax cuts expired. Excluded from this analysis is extension of the broad-based Bush tax cuts, on which everyone agreed. The total package will cost about $900 billion over the next two years, entirely financed through deficit spending.

Read more about the tax deal in today’s Progress Report, “Tough Pill To Swallow.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/07/tax-priorities/

[Jackpine Radical]

1. A 2-year cut in the Estate Tax might not be all bad--

if a bunch of Republicans kill themselves or each other in the next 2 years to take advantage of it.

[Write Left]

2. You can always find a good false choice if you look hard enough.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. But he didn't make Republicans "eat it".

So really, he lost. Because it's all just a pissing contest, ya know.

[Hannah Bell]

4. um, they didn't break out the numbers, so the reader has no way of telling whether this is true or

not.

$120 billion of the "obama" number is cuts to the social security tax, which will give people some temporary cash but put pressure on the social security program.

not really a victory.

on the other hand, the $120 billion that every worker will share is still dwarfed by the $140 billion the top 1-5% is going to share.

[dawg]

9. I read that this comes from general revenue ...

will not subtract from SS surplus.

[Vegetarianist]

12. from what I read, sadly not :-/ SS was specifically chosen. No tax credit, just cut to SS tax

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101207/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts

bottom of the page.

[Hannah Bell]

13. no, i mean break out the numbers for who got what.

the "social security surplus" = $2.5 trillion in IOUs that the government has promised to pay out of the general budget.

Adding more IOUs to the Trust Fund just adds more weight to that promise to pay. Taking away real revenues = more pressure on the general budget & the social security program. It's more three card monte.

If they wanted to give people money from the general budget, they could have cut them checks directly. Instead, they chose to do so by reducing SS taxes.

Ask yourself why.

[aquart]

5. What does the government get to support itself with?

"TAX CUTS FOR A SMALL, WEALTHY PORTION" who have ALL the fucking money. Who is buying this shit?

[Vegetarianist]

6. I'm a bit skeptical of the numbers.

Tax cuts for the rich alone should be $140 billion. (700 b. over 10 years, 140 b. over two.)
Cutting the funding for SS isn't exactly a win for the left either. It's been pushed for by conservatives. (And on the political side, the other stuff we got had popular support among the public, the GOP's did not. Our major accomplishment was Unemployment, which is great, but it's not exactly like the GOP hate that it was in there. It would have killed their approval ratings if it wasn't extended over the holiday season.)

[Scurrilous]

7. Unrecced for fascist falsehoods. n/t

[bigtree]

8. heh

the drama.

[RickFromMN]

10. What happens when the Republicans try to "balance" the budget to please the Tea Party Wing?

The Republicans have to do things to please those who want to reduce government spending.

Doesn't this mean the Republicans will "give" with one hand and take away with the other?

Doesn't this mean the Republicans will implement an austerity program?

It's easy to block spending and block programs.
One needs a majority of the House or the ability to filibuster in the Senate.

What will such an austerity program look like? I don't know this answer. Just speculating....

I don't think the Republicans have backed away from not supplying funds to Health Insurance Reform.
Please accept I believe Health Insurance Reform is weak and I wish we had a single payer national health system.
Can President Obama get Health Insurance Reform working when the Republicans won't fund it?

Won't the Republicans cut back money to the States so the States can't afford Medicaid?

Won't the Republicans put a stop to Green Initiatives?

I'm curious which infrastructure spending will be safe; some infrastructure spending must benefit Republicans.
I would guess certain defence spending will be safe.

Will Republicans find a way to privatize (cut) Social Security and Medicare and place the blame on Obama?
I believe the elderly and the rich were two constituencies that voted, overwhelmingly, for the Republicans.
I expect the Republicans to turn around, stab the elderly, and find a way to blame Obama.

I believe tax cuts for the rich was one, of only a few, leverages that could get the Republicans talking.
Please don't think I believe Obama made the best use of this lever.
Personally, I believe all tax cuts should have expired.
When the majority of voters feel enough "pain", they will let Republicans and Democrats know it's time to play nice.

Are there any other issues one can use to get the Republicans talking.
Outside of defence spending, I can't think of any.

I worry for (and about) Obama. He doesn't know how to play hard-ball. The Republicans keep rolling him.

[JackRiddler]

11. Who do you think is going to pay for the GOP's $133 billion (as well as "Obama's" share)?

in the form of lost benefits, lost services, and lost JOBS due to budget cuts?

My bet is it won't be the Pentagon that loses anything, including sustenance for its wars and occupations and bases and carriers. It won't be the surveillance and control octopus of Homeland Security/NSA/DIA/CIA/FBI/ETC.

It won't be the next TBTF bank that demands cash on the spot lest it cause the world to end.

It won't be Monsanto, ADM, or Wal-Mart who lose their subsidies and sweetheart protections.

It will be you: students, parents, workers, commuters, unemployed, small business, old people, sick people, poor people.

[golddigger]

14. Chill out. I got this.- Neville Chamberland Obama!