« | »

Bush Tax Cuts Are Now ‘Obama Tax Cuts’

From the ‘Plum Line’ blog at the Washington Post:

"The Obama tax cuts for the middle class"

Call them "the Obama tax cuts for the middle class."

Greg Sargent
September 13, 2010

Top Democratic leaders in the House are discussing using that phrase to rebrand President Obama’s proposed extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000, senior leadership aides tell me.

We thought we were kidding when we wondered how long it would be before extending the Bush tax cuts would be ‘re-gifted’ as the ‘Obama tax cuts.’

But, as usual, even the wildest imagination cannot outdo the Democrats when it comes to shameless chutzpah.

The use of the phrase has the informal support of Nancy Pelosi and Majority Whip James Clyburn, and Pelosi has used the phrase in private meetings, leadership aides tell me. Rank and file House Dems are privately discussing the phrase. Top Senate aides also like the idea.

The concept behind the new phrase, which has been kicked around by liberal bloggers and others, is that calling them the "Bush tax cuts" cedes the rhetorical game to Republicans in advance. It obscures the history here — the GOP built in the sunset of the cuts to begin with, to obscure their true costs.

This, of course is a blatant and despicable lie. The GOP had to pass the Bush tax cuts through reconciliation. (As is the tradition of late, for budgetary items.)

But ten years ago the ‘non-partisan’ Congressional Budget Office would not admit that these tax cuts would cut the deficit, so under the rules of reconciliation the bill had to ‘sunset’ automatically after 10 years.

All of this is in stark distinction to the recent passage of Obama-care via reconciliation, which the CBO blatantly lied in claiming that it would cut the deficit, so that it would have no such ‘sunset provision.’

If we had an honest CBO, the Bush tax cuts would still be the law of the land, and we would be calling Mr. Obama’s plan a tax hike on the small business class – which is exactly what it is.

The new formulation would also do a better job of highlighting the fact that Obama is willing to extend tax cuts for the middle class now, while Republicans insist on linking that extension to one for the rich, a key distinction in the debate

Isn’t it wonderfully kind of Mr. Obama to not raise taxes on the middle class?

And aren’t those Republicans evil for wanting the people who actually hire the middle class to be able to keep doing so.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, September 15th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “Bush Tax Cuts Are Now ‘Obama Tax Cuts’”

  1. Reality Bytes says:

    What was that Obama said about lipstick on a pig?

  2. JohnMG says:



    Strange how, a couple of years ago according to the democrats, these cuts only went to the wealthy. Now, suddenly the about-to-expire cuts are being extended for the middle class, a constituency that seemingly didn’t benefit at all.

    Unfortunately, the mindless masses will respond to the re-branding by hailing the Moron as a champion of the “little” people. There is no “shame” gene to be found in these feckless bastards.

    Just as Obama and company claimed credit for Bush’s policies in Iraq, they will do the same with the tax cuts. And just in time for the November elections.

    How fortuitous!

  3. Petronius says:

    SG : “and we would be calling Mr. Obama’s [health care] plan a tax hike on the small business class….”

    Here’s how Nerobama killed Betty Crocker, the Pillsbury Doughboy, and American jobs.

    General Mills 2010 Annual Report, CEO Ken Powell’s Letter to Shareholders :

    CEO Powell writes that the company’s earnings per share (EPS) were reduced 5 cents as the result of ”a tax charge taken in the fourth quarter to reflect the impact of recent federal health care legislation.”

    No doubt Powell will have to answer to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for that bit of “misinformation and scare tactics.” See :


    Shareholders of General Mills find that their profits were reduced from $2.30 to $2.25, a reduction of 2.2 percent, by the fourth quarter charge.

    An annual growth rate of 2.2 percent is not too shabby for a food company in these hard times. Yet this tax strips out that much growth from the company. Thus the effect of the new health care taxes may be to nullify much of the growth potential in General Mills’ future business.

    Annualized for four quarters, the new health care tax expense would be 20 cents per share, or about a 9 percent reduction in General Mills’ EPS, assuming that the future cost of Obamacare does not increase.

    (And we all know that the cost of government programs and taxes never, ever goes up, right?)

    This amount (20 cents per share) would be greater than all of the profits generated by General Mills’ Baking Products Division (Betty Crocker), and about half the total amount of profits contributed by the Pillsbury Division.

    Unless General Mills is able to pass the health care tax expense along to consumers through increased prices for Cheerios and other food products, then the company and its shareholders are going to take a hit. Profits will decrease, growth will slow or even stop, stock values will decline, and price/earnings ratios will shrink to reflect the new, harsher economic conditions.

    Assuming the cost of Obamacare to General Mills is representative of the cost to other American companies, we could see an across-the-board contraction in US business, and a long decline in the stock market and in stock valuations.

    Or consumers are going to see higher costs for the food they eat and everything else made by American companies.

    Or more jobs will be cut.

    Or all of the above.

    Is it any wonder that American companies and jobs are moving overseas?

    Although some mention has been made in the media of the potential adverse economic impact from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, virtually nothing has been said about the ACTUAL adverse economic impact from the Obamacare taxes. This silence may be because the health care law is poorly understood, due to the blanket of obfuscation, lies, corruption, and razzle-dazzle that was thrown over the legislative process by Reid and Pelosi. Or perhaps because American journalism is so completely, so deeply in-the-tank.

    Be that as it may, Obamacare must be repealed, and the sooner the better.

    Ceterum censeo hostem esse delendum.

    • proreason says:

      You’ve described the least bad part, Petroneus.

      Millions of people will die before their time because health care will be denied them. It isn’t possible to gut Medicare in order to redistribute the funding to Medicaid without people dieing who would survive with better care.

      That’s the real tragedy.

      He’s not satisfied to steal from whitey. He’s going to kill his share as well.

  4. untrainable says:

    OK, so the Bush Tax Cuts are now the Obama Tax Cuts. So how long until they start calling it Bush-Care?

« Front Page | To Top
« | »