« | »

Dems Not Bound By Obama’s Tax Pledge

From The Hill:

Dems: We’re not bound by president’s tax vow

By Alexander Bolton – 06/22/10

Democrats are looking at the possibility of raising taxes on families below the $250,000-a-year threshold promised by President Barack Obama during the election.

The majority party on Capitol Hill does not feel bound by that pledge, saying the threshold for tax hikes will depend on several factors, such as the revenue differences between setting the threshold at $200,000 and setting it at $250,000.

“You could go lower, too — why not $200,000?” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “With the debt and deficit we have, you can’t make promises to people. This is a very serious situation.”

Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, concurred, saying, “I don’t think there’s any magic in the number, whether it’s $250,000, $200,000 or $225,000…

How shocking that Mr. Obama would hide behind Congress to renege on his foremost campaign promise.

Needless to say, our watchdog media will go after him hammer and tong, just like they did when the elder President Bush violated his "read my lips," pledge.

Feinstein said the economy has not recovered as much as Democrats had hoped and uncertainty about the availability of credit remains a problem.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis in Greece, credit markets have been spooked by questions of whether nations will be able to pay their rising debts.

“We have to be very careful what we do to further reduce tax revenues,” Feinstein said.

Thus, raising taxes on families who earn between $200,000 and $250,000 has become more palatable among Democrats.

But the Democrats really, really don’t want to raise taxes. They are being forced to – by the credit markets.

Federal spending and debt are widely, although not universally, regarded among economists as unsustainable.

Current Federal spending is regarded as “unsustainable” by Congress’s own supposedly unbiased Congressional Budget Office.

But that doesn’t seem to faze them, either. At least when they have new record-setting entitlements like ‘healthcare reform’ to pass.

Centrist Democrats and most Republicans demand that new spending be offset.

“Offset” via PAYGO, which was championed and imposed by none other than Barack Hussein Obama. And which has been studiously ignored ever since.

And when any Republican (such as Senator Jim Bunning) has been foolish enough to mention the PAYGO requirement, our watchdog media has attacked them mercilessly.

Democratic lawmakers want to shield middle-income families from tax increases, but they don’t necessarily put families making over $200,000 in that category.

“I’m not hard and fast on $250,000,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). “Quite frankly, it could be somewhat lower than that. $250,000 — is that the top 1 percent of Americans, or half a percent? I mean, come on!”

Congress will shield everyone making less than $175,000. Which just happens to be the salary that Representatives make. Not counting their Cadillac benefits and expense accounts.

Hoyer argued that higher taxes would be necessary to address the $1.5 trillion federal deficit and downplayed threats that such action would hamstring the economic recovery.

He noted that tax increases in the early 1990s raised government revenues from 17 percent to 21 percent of gross domestic product and ushered in a decade of prosperity

Mr. Hoyer is a buffoon or a liar. (Of course in reality, he is both.)

It was President Reagan’s tax cuts and the so-called ‘peace dividend,’ which allowed Mr. Clinton to slash defense spending — as well as the welfare reform imposed by the GOP – that “ushered in a decade of prosperity.”

Mr. Clinton’s tax increases only damped down the economy, just as they always do.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Dems Not Bound By Obama’s Tax Pledge”

  1. Douglas says:

    I don’t think “paygo” is valid at this point. We are in such a deep hole that any new spending should only be allowed if the author can come up with a spending reduction of twice the new spending.

    Taxes are going up, there’s no way around it. The SS trust fund is now pulling cash from the rest of the federal government rather than lending itmoney. The amount going to SS is only going to go up as the years go on. The operational government which was being subsidized by the trust fund now has to pay back the money it owes.

    There are no cuts that are deep enough to avoid increasing tax rates.

    For 35 years, there was an extra bit of cash coming in, that everyone knew would have to be paid back out. But rather than saving and investing that money, it was spent on what might as well have been hookers and booze. Had anyone with fiscal sense been in Washington during that period, the SS trust fund money would have been loaned out for civic projects. We would have been loaning states and communities money to build bridges, schools, hospitals, airports and more, and the end result would have been that those loans would be paid back and the economic base would be larger.

    Instead of investing that money, the other side of the government simply borrowed it and spent it. Their investment was in the form of buying votes. Now those loans have come due and we’re screwed.

    • proreason says:

      “Taxes are going up, there’s no way around it.”

      Bullshit. You, sir, are nuts.

      There are a million ways around it.

      For starters, disband half of the federal departments. They do far more harm than good.

      Stop welfare.

      Repeal ObamyCare. Repeal Medicare Part D (prescriptions).

      Cut funding of Congress and the White House by 90%.

      Return 100% of unspent stimulus funds to the Treasury.

      Eliminate all defined pension plans for government workers going forward, except for military pensions.

      Lift the age of Social Security retirement.

      Turn Medicare into a program that pays for insurance benefits rather than an open checkbook.

      Cut income taxes to spur investment.

      Eliminate corporate income taxes to make the US competitive again.

      Sell Government Motors within 3 months.

      Privatize the Post Office.

      Outsource all SS and Medicare processing.

      Privatize VA hospitals with federal oversight.

      Sell 75% of government property.

      Allow onshore and offshore drilling again.

      Snuff the Taliban in 6 weeks. Destoy the poppy fields. Leave 2 or 3 hardened facilities with strike forces and special ops. Withdraw after 4 months. Go back and redo as necessary. Next time, do it in 1 month.

      There, the federal deficit is eliminated in 5 years, the country is far FAR better off, and the criminals will be chased out of Washington.

      To repeat, Douglas……you are CRAZY.

    • Douglas says:

      Sadly, your suggestions either amount to pennies on the dollar’s needed or simply won’t ever happnen.

      “Dispand half of the federal departments.” OK, which ones? It’s not going to get the money we need but it’s worthwhile. We really don’t need a “national scenic byways resource commission”.

      “Stop welfare”. Not going to happen and any suggestion to the contrary is delusional. There are places to reign in welfare, but it’s not going away.

      Cutting funding for congress and white house along with the unspent stimulus is dust, you can do it, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the math.

      Eliminating existing pension plans is illegal. It sucks, and for many years our stewards in DC have been far to generous with other people’s money, but eliminating those plans going forward does nothing to change the existing liability.

      Lift the age on SS retirement. That needs to happen, but it’s another way of saying that we shouldn’t pay back the money we’ve borrowed from the Social Security Trust fund. Social Security doesn’t have a fiscal problem per se. Their problem is that they loaned all of their cash reserves to what looks like deadbeats.

      Outsourcing and privatizing government functions amount to pennies on the dollar as well. There may be cost savings, but it’s not going to be enough.

      Dumping government assets at firesale prices doesn’t do anything.

      This country has been on a 40 year binge, sipping at the social security trust fund. Everyone who’s looked at the numbers realized that at some point, that booze would run out. Most people in DC were planning on retiring befor it happened. It has. There’s no way to avoid the hangover.

      Let’s face it, this is the real reason that congress is refusing to take up the budget. The numbers are just so bad that if they pretend it’s not there they think they can get through this election cycle.

    • proreason says:

      ok Douglas.

      Taxes have to go up.

      Government will grow inexorably.

      There’s no hope.

      Your powerful arguments convinced me.

      Show me where to pay.

      (What an idiot!!)

    • Douglas says:

      So your argument has devolved into calling me an idiot?

      Government needs to be made smaller, I think you and I can agree there.

      $100 billion a year in revenue that was coming in to the non-SS side of the government is rapidly going to become $100 billion a year that has to be paid back.

      It’s as if an individual had been spending an extra $1000 a year by putting purchases on a credit card and now the bank has cut their credit line and they’re going to have to start paying back at least $1000 a year on the balance they’ve been accumulating.

      It’s just a fiscal reality, the facts are what they are. Twenty or even 10 years ago, reducing government might have been enough. Now, the government has to shrink and taxes are going to go up.

    • proreason says:

      No, not “descended”.

      I called you an idiot because you say dumb stuff. Not funny dumb. Not clever dumb. Not pushing the envelope dumb. Just dumb. Maybe not always, but certainly this time.

      “your suggestions either amount to pennies on the dollar’s needed or simply won’t ever happnen”

      Wrong and wrong. The core of my argument is Paul Ryan’s plan… which the CBO (for what that’s worth) says will eliminate the deficit AND unfunded liabilities. So much for pennies. And saying it simply won’t ever happen is akin to saying Chris Christie will never be able to do anything in NJ. Sorry Douglas, you aren’t the authority about what will “ever happen” any more than I am.

      And that’s just one example.

      Moreover, I’m confident that more people at this site at least, agree with me, and in general, I highly doubt that the majority of the country agrees with you that higher taxes are the only solution to our fiscal problems.

      If you want to publicize stealth liberal viewpoints about taxes and spending, you are free to do so. Just don’t be surprised when somebody calls you out.

      Now I’m done with you.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »