Obama to push extension of middle-class tax cuts
Jul 09, 2012 | 1761 views | 21 21 comments | 3 3 recommendations | email to a friend | print
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is launching a push to extend tax cuts for the middle class, as he seeks to shift the election-year economic debate from the dismal jobs market to assertions that Republican rival Mitt Romney protects the rich.

Obama, in an address from the White House later Monday, will call on Congress to pass a one-year extension of tax cuts for households making less than $250,000 a year.

The president's appeal to middle-class voters is aimed at drawing a contrast with Romney and congressional Republicans. The House GOP is expected to make its own push this month for an extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year, including reductions on wealthier income earners.

Obama opposes extending the tax cuts for Americans with higher incomes, while Romney has said he supports extending the expiring cuts for all income earners.

The president's shift to the tax debate follows Friday's lackluster jobs report showing the nation's unemployment rate stuck at 8.2 percent. And it comes as Democrats embark on a coordinated attack on Romney, intensifying calls for him to explain offshore bank accounts and release several years of tax returns.

The strategy is aimed at portraying Romney, whose personal wealth could exceed $250 million, as disconnected from middle-class voters.

"We have to continue to grow our economy. We have to grow it from the middle class out," Robert Gibbs, an Obama campaign adviser, said Monday in an interview on NBC's "Today" show. "But for millionaires and billionaires, they don't need a tax cut," he added.

Gibbs said, "We're going to have to make some tough choices in this country. We can't continue to spend the kind of money that was spent in the last decade."

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Obama's proposal amounted to a "massive tax increase"

"It just proves again that the president doesn't have a clue how to get America working again and help the middle class," Saul said.

Romney aides have also called Democratic attacks on the presumptive GOP nominee's wealth an "unfounded character assault."

Romney hasn't shirked from his wealth in the face of renewed Democratic criticism. He held a $50,000 per person fundraisers Sunday in the Hamptons, New York's exclusive string of waterfront communities on Long Island's South Shore.

Romney aides also announced that the campaign and the Republican National Committee raised a combined $106 million in June, the former Massachusetts governor's biggest monthly haul so far. The Obama campaign has not yet announced its June fundraising total.

Obama was to make his case for the middle class tax cut extension during an event in the White House East Room later Monday. He was expected to be joined at the event by several people the White House says would benefit from the extension.

The president's pitch may face opposition not only from Republicans, but also some congressional Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of his party's Senate leadership, have both advocated denying the tax cut extension to those making above $1 million annually.

For Democrats, using the higher figure would avoid raising taxes on people — especially in areas with high costs of living — who don't consider themselves wealthy, and is an easier number to use when making the political argument that the rich should contribute to deficit reduction. But denying an extension of the tax cut only to those making above $1 million would limit the revenue that would be raised to appreciably less than the roughly $800 billion over 10 years that would come from denying the reductions to those making over $250,000.

Obama was to continue the tax debate Tuesday during a campaign trip to Iowa. His re-election team was also promoting the president's tax policy at a series of events this week in battleground states, including New Hampshire, Colorado and Nevada.

The Bush-era tax cuts are due to expire at the end of the year unless Congress votes to extend them. Economists worry that across-the-board tax increases, along with automatic spending cuts also scheduled to take hold at year's end, could be a blow to the shaky U.S. economy.
Comments
(21)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
rt_elms
|
July 13, 2012
Hey BB – Great news! President Obama, with the stroke of a pen, just gutted Clinton’s welfare reform act of 1996 by eliminating the work requirement and thereby subverting the will of the Congress and the American people. Pretty cool huh? The imperial presidency rolls along. Come on November!!! Here’s your link:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/13/obama-administration-guts-work-requirements-for-clinton-era-welfare-reform/
niks79
|
July 13, 2012
I am so tired of rich people complaining about having to pay higher taxes!!! If you have to pay 7% more in taxes (what they were when Clinton was in office) guess what?? You will still be wealthy!!! We wouldn't be as bad off right now if Bush would have kept taxes the way they were.
rt_elms
|
July 13, 2012
I am so tired of people complaining about not having more of what I earn. If I have to pay 7% more in taxes, guess what?? The government will use that money to fund more boondoggles like Solyndra, the sham EPA and use it to prop up their union buddies at GM. No thank you!

Anyone with a pulse and a job personally benefited from the Bush tax cuts. Newsflash: that money didn’t just vaporize. It was invested, saved or spent on goods and services; which generated more income and jobs.

I imagine you’re probably a fan of Warren Buffet (a billionaire whose company owes millions in back taxes) yet complains he doesn’t pay enough taxes; just shut up and write a check to the Treasury if you want to pay more, but stop trying to compel everyone else to join in your misguided generosity.

All together now children: “It’s Bush’s fault!!!”
BARRYGOLDWATER
|
July 13, 2012
niks79, If a small business person makes 250,000.00 or more a year what percent should they pay in state and fedral taxes?
niks79
|
July 13, 2012
My comments weren't about Obama or Bush just simply about the fact that no one was complaining this much when Clinton was president and they had to pay taxes equivalent to the current tax proposal. But since you brought up how wisely Bush invested tax dollars, I thought I would mention the fact that during the 4-5 months of his presidency he spent over 1 trillion dollars on bailouts but I guess everybody forgot about that.
niks79
|
July 13, 2012
Also, I think it is bizarre that my tax bracket is approx. 15% higher than the people two tax brackets below me but the people who are two tax brackets above me only pay approx. 5% more than I do. That just doesn't seem correct.

I also think people are failing to recognize the 250,000 is based on Adjusted Gross Income, so business owners would still be claiming their business expenses and those grossing 250,000 would not fall into the same tax tax bracket as those with an AGI of 250,000.
rt_elms
|
July 13, 2012
I said nothing about Bush wisely investing tax dollars. I was referring to those who benefited from the Bush tax cuts by seeing the results on their pay stubs. BTW: I’ve complained about taxes under 6 presidents.

The progressive tax brackets are a farce! In my opinion it should either be a flat tax or a consumption tax. Abolish the IRS!

Only a person with their head where the sun doesn’t shine would forget about the Bush bailouts; too big to fail and all that nonsense. We were screaming just as loud then as now! But the one immutable fact is: Obama has outspent them all!!!
BBchord
|
July 11, 2012
athenry, rt's ersatz open-mindedness - look at me. I'm a 67-foot-tall pregnant attention wh***.

It's time to roll up our sleeves and work for what matters, jobs and to see if waste in Calhoun/Gordon County might make us the next Scranton.

rt_elms
|
July 11, 2012
It’s easy to name call when that’s all you’ve got, isn’t it?
rt_elms
|
July 11, 2012
athenry - Just to be absolutely certain, I went to the kitchen and checked: Granny Smith apples are green and oranges are, well orange. Go figure!

Apples - Bubba did in fact enjoy the benefits of the previous 12 years of pro growth policies under Reagan/Bush. But do you recall what President Clinton focused like a laser beam on in the beginning of his first term? No, it wasn’t yet Ms. Lewinsky, but HilaryCare! All the positives you mentioned came about after the Republicans gained control of the purse strings and legislative agenda; in effect sending Hilary back to baking cookies.

Oranges - As to the current president, if his “fundamental change of America” has been throttled by the previous 8 years of Bush, I would have to agree, but would note the same result had he succeeded any of his 43 predecessors (with the possible exception of Carter) as they at a minimum didn’t view America as the festering pustule of the world that needed lancing.

I have hope that history will look back and view Mr. Obama as just an aberration; a bump in the road and the Constitution and the Republic were preserved, protected and defended by subsequent Presidents of both parties.
athenry
|
July 11, 2012
If we use rt_elms logic then the problems the Democrat currently is having is the result of the 8 years under previous Republican administrant of Bush II. Can’t have it both ways.

Bill Clinton should be the tea party poster child. Cut government spending, reduced size of government reduced welfare rolls and created a budget surplus.

rt_elms
|
July 10, 2012
BB – and you want us to believe Clinton was a fiscal conservative whose economic policies gave us those surpluses? A little sunlight on the matter will recall the Republican revolution, which compelled Clinton into a more responsible economic position. Furthermore, the dot.com boom did wonders for the economy (and tax receipts into the Federal coffers) during his tenure, but Bubba can’t take the credit, as it was the result of 12 years of Republican business friendly policy under Reagan/Bush. In fairness, Clinton (ever the consummate politician) did move to the center but only because he was forced. The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. has no such political acumen; as his goal is to “fundamentally transform America” into, umm lets say France!

SCOTUS ruled in 2010 Citizens Untied vs. FEC that corporate funding cannot be limited, as to do so would be limiting free speech.
avg.joe
|
July 10, 2012
One of the biggest problems America has today is that too many people are worrying about the money. It has been proven time and again if government leaves rich people alone to make all the money they can then jobs are plentiful. What needs to be the main focus of our attention is the moral decline of our society. We need to vote for the people who are less likely to pass policies that aid the murder of unborn babies, and weaken the idea of what a family should be beginning with the fact that family begins with a marriage between a man and a woman. God created them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Oh, and also I am Not one of the rich people so I am not defending them because it makes me richer just because they keep me working as long as they are making money.
BBchord
|
July 10, 2012
Home-grown opinion vs facts.

Avg forgets - America's last federal budget surplus: A Democrat.

Back to back surpluses and the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States. A Democrat.

---

rt forgets Republicans across the country are fighting legal battles to keep their sugar daddies secret. Why? The right wing opposes disclosure laws because the super-rich just might be bullied and harassed by the rest of us who want to know who's buying our elections.

51 Democrats block voting. Not possible. Why? Too much money (under)the table. Same for 47 Republicans.

avg.joe
|
July 10, 2012
Any time that democrats control anything just erodes the moral fabric of our society and is not good for our country.
rt_elms
|
July 09, 2012
For further clarity: 51 is a majority in a body of 100, not the three-fifths required to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or the two-thirds needed for rules changes, but a controlling majority nonetheless. Furthermore, the current “majority” leader of the Senate is a Democrat; ergo, the Democrats control the Senate.
Blder
|
July 09, 2012
Control? Just to be clear, 51 Democrats and 47 Republicans in the Senate.

rt_elms
|
July 09, 2012
FYI: The President proposes a budget. The CBO analyzes and reports to BOTH chambers of the Congress. The House AND Senate Budget Committees are supposed to present budget resolutions by April 1st and EACH chamber is expected to pass them with any amendments by April 15th for the President’s signature. Both the House and the President have repeatedly done their parts, it is the Democrat controlled Senate that has not proposed it’s budget resolutions with amendments i.e. the Senate has NOT proposed/passed a budget since April 29, 2009.
Blder
|
July 09, 2012
Senate does not propose the budget.

1. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prepares a budget proposal.

2. The president submits a budget proposal to Congress.

3. Congress decides on the overall level of spending and taxation and passes

specific spending bills.

4. The president signs the spending bills into law.

rt_elms
|
July 09, 2012
Can’t cut spending without a budget. It’s been over 3 years since the Democrat controlled Senate has even proposed a budget, which is a flagrant dereliction of their constitutional duty solely for political purposes.
BARRYGOLDWATER
|
July 09, 2012
If he would reduce spending we wouldn't need a tax increase.
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at our discretion.