What The GOP Will Do In 2012 On Taxes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:38:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ezra Klein writes:

The story that the White House tells about [The Deal] is this: We have a shaky economy that can't afford a large tax increase. [. . .] Newly empowered Republicans refused to extend the tax cuts for income under $250,000 unless they also got the tax cuts for income over $250,000. [. . . G]iven the choice between letting the cuts expire and potentially harm the recovery and negotiating a compromise which pumps hundreds of billions in extra stimulus into the economy over the next two years, the White House chose the latter.

In 2012, they say, things will be different. [. . .] If you're going to say that the cuts for the rich will definitely be extended, you have to ask [what] the White House is wrong/lying about.

I've not seen the White House say anything publically about tax policy After The Deal at all. The President did not say anything today about it. Therein lies the problem with this vapid analysis from Klein. More . . .

For After The Deal tax policy, the Republicans will do precisely what they did this time, except they will pass their legislation, most likely through reconciliation. The singular question about After The Deal tax policy is going to be whether the President is willing to veto such a bill. Right now we do not even know what tax policy the President favors, much less whether he would fight for it, much less whether he would veto GOP tax policy.

In short, the President is going to have to veto a Republican tax bill in 2012 if the tax cuts for the wealthy are going to end. I think it is absurd to pretend, as Klein does, that disbelieving that the President would veto a Republican tax bill is somehow an unreasonable position.

Speaking for me only

< How About A Veto Promise Now? | Mark Madoff's Suicide >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What The GOP Will Do In 2012 On Taxes | 54 comments (54 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by MO Blue on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:44:23 AM EST

We do know what tax policy Obama favors. He favors a tax policy that is even more generous to the wealthy than the policy that Bush pushed through. Under the Obama tax plan, the "Deal," people with incomes of $200,000 through $1,000,000 + will pay less in taxes than under the Bush plan. The Obama plan also raises the amount exempt on estate taxes to $5 million.

Agree (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by BDB on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:01:28 PM EST

Obama is a conservative and one that is very near, if not resting in, the right-wing. He's long parroted GOP talking points about the benefits of tax cuts. He appointed the Catfood Commission by executive order. That this deal makes its plan to slash social security more likely to happen is, as they say, not a bug, but a feature.


Agreed, if you want a snapshot (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by KeysDan on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:19:50 PM EST

of Obama's "tax reform' idea, review the "majority report" of the Catfood Commission. And, note how this Commission's mess is referenced as the majority report rather than the failed bipartisan deficit reduction commission's work (despite handpicked chairs)- where an official vote was never taken--only a registering of positions if a vote had been taken.

Obama likes it too much and seemed to work hard to get Durbin to sign on to help get a majority. The spin required that the goal posts be changed from getting 14 out of 18 to be presented for serious consideration in keeping with the Commission's charge.


: I'm heart sickened (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:22:14 PM EST

He tried to blame all this on the (5.00 / 6) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:16:28 PM EST

Republicans, but the Republicans who "brokered" this deal said they were shocked at how generous the President was. He simply gave them things they never even dreamed they could ask for.

I've listened to Goolsbee, and when I listen carefully I hear the Chicago School frightened that if the rich have to pay taxes it will crash the phony markets that the fed has been juicing like mad to prop up. We are going through all of this suffering because we will not acknowledge the defaults and then work to create stability from there, and we will not return to properly regulated banking and investing either. I've never seen people with such a head up their a$$ problem ever.


LOL - NOW he blames Republicans. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:39:31 PM EST

It is pure comedy.

At the expense of the best interests of the nation, but still pure comedy.


Well, there is that! (5.00 / 4) (#42)
by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 12:08:20 AM EST

The clues were there all along. One was Obama's phony victory in his nuclear spill notification legislation, which had degenerated into little more than a suggestion that nukers notify anybody of spills. And there was Obama's crystal clear message to the banking industry when he refused to vote for credit card interest limits. There was his failure to lift a finger when his Crown family patrons moved the Galesburg Maytag plant's operations to Mexico. I won't even mention the fence.


: It was there (5.00 / 3) (#45)
by cal1942 on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 07:51:49 AM EST

for all to see if they chose to look.
Unfortunately.

Goolsbee on Rachel Maddow show (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by standingup on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:37:44 PM EST

Thursday night on this topic:

MADDOW: So, you say that President Obama is going to keep fighting the Republican priority to give tax cuts to the best off people in the country. Why do we think it is politically possible to beat that in two years if you can`t beat it now?
GOOLSBEE: Well, I think it`s going to be a fundamentally different economy. I mean, the backdrop that the argument`s taking place in now is we`re just coming out of the worst recession since 1929. And so, let`s leave everyone alone.
But two years from now, the fact that those high-end tax cuts don`t work, we shouldn`t have done them the first time around, we shouldn`t do them this time, I think that has to stand on its own. I don`t think it can stand on its own.
So, I think in 2012, there`s a perfectly good opportunity to kill that. And the only thing I would disagree with a little bit in your characterization of 2012 is not all of those things are Bush tax cuts. A lot of those are the Obama tax cuts. So, the American opportunity credit and making the refundable earned income tax credit, and if you look at the shorter run payroll tax cut for workers and the unemployment benefit extensions, those aren`t from Bush at all.
And so, I think if it`s in 2012 that we`re having the discussion in which we say, should tax relief be going to people that are working and middle class versus should we be giving tax relief to millionaires and billionaires, the content is totally on the side of the president there.
And in this case, no matter what you say, Rachel, the fact is, no one expected that in this environment where we`re facing in January the possibility that John Boehner was simply going to come forward and pass these out of the House and get only the Republican things, nobody thought that the president was going to get two or two and a half times as much as for his priorities as those high income tax cuts. So, I think it`s a little unfair to criticize him so vehemently on that.

I wanted to bang my head against the wall when I heard this interview. If this is honestly the White House thinking on the current deal and the lapse in 2012, we are in trouble.

I fear the Republicans will use the next needed extension of unemployment benefits in 13 months as the bargaining chip to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Goolsbee is either a giant liar (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 04:05:54 PM EST

or the worst economist ever when he talks about how we are coming out of this. We are at the beginning of a lost decade. We are coming out of nothing! And the only way we CAN come out of it is if we take the defaults, restore sanity to banking and investing, and stop all this juicing easing crap that is trying to eat the defaults that takes four dollars for every toxic one to do. My grandkids are going to have to pay for this $hit or someone is going to default on someone.


Sombery on the Rachel-Goolsbee interview (none / 0) (#12)
by jbindc on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:51:02 PM EST

As we've often noted, Maddow tends to be utterly clueless about domestic politics. Consider the foolish question she asked last night, looking ahead to 2012. The hyper-sensitive liberal was introducing Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, who was forced to be polite. Why doesn't Obama end those tax cuts for the rich today? she asked. What could possibly make it easier after another two years?
MADDOW (12/9/10): Trying to win that fight this year with big majorities in the House and Senate, and public opinion already on his side, the president readily has admitted that he failed.
OBAMA (videotape): The fact of the matter is, I haven't persuaded the Republican Party. I have not been able to budge them.
MADDOW: "Have not been able to budge them." The reason that what's going on right now in Democratic politics is so important is because, if you can't win now, when do you think you're going to be able to win in the future? That's why Democrats have their hair on fire about this, despite all the insults to them about the fact that they do. That's why Democrats have their hair on fire about this issue and it's why it makes sense that they do.
What is this White House going to be able to do in the future to win in these economic fights, these political fights when political circumstances worsen from what they are now?
"Despite all the insults!" Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo!
Still talking about those "big majorities," Maddow can't imagine why Obama might have a better chance to defeat tax cuts for the rich in December 2012. Saying, "I'm not a legislative strategist," Goolsbee offered an economic argument for that possibility. But here's one other possible difference: In December 2012, Obama could be coming off a big election victory, rather than a massive defeat.
In 2012, would Obama be able to win a fight about those tax cuts for the rich? We have no idea. But many things are going to change in the next two years. (According to this morning's New York Times, Obama may have launched a whole new proposal about tax rates by that time.) At any rate, it's hard to imagine where he would get sixty votes at this time, despite Maddow's relentless reference to those (irrelevant) "big majorities."

If Bob Somerby thinks (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by andgarden on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 01:51:15 PM EST

that rejecting the tax cuts in 2012 is going to be any easier, he is a fool.


His point, was (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by jbindc on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 02:03:21 PM EST

I think, that once again, Rachel Maddow, for being a Rhodes Scholar, uses truncated statements and makes grand pronouncements that are illogical and not necessarily well-though out or well-reasoned.


Somerby is unwilling to make a prediction (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by andgarden on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 02:16:02 PM EST

on the issue. I think that's him being unwilling to reason in order to take a shot at Maddow.


Maddow is a hack (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by jbindc on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 02:21:32 PM EST

And why make a prediction? It's too soon anyway, and that wasn't the point of the post. His point was she made a definite pronouncement and she has absolutely no idea what will happen in two years.

Unless, of course, she contacted Miss Cleo.


: You do not have to be Miss Cleo (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by andgarden on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 02:24:47 PM EST

to make a prediction about this.
Puh-leez.

Why even bother (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by standingup on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 03:50:44 PM EST

bringing up Somerby's piece on Maddow? It is no secret Somerby is no fan of hers but her interview is at least one instance where a member of the administration is commenting on the record about the future of these Bush tax cuts.


Just like the Democrats claimed (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:44:04 PM EST

that passing a repeal to DADT would be better left to fall of 2009 and then 2010 - before the elections.

Yeah. That's the ticket.


Somerby does indirectly bring up a good point (none / 0) (#38)
by ruffian on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 08:33:07 PM EST

Two years from now we will already have had the presidential election. Are we assuming Obama will have anything to do with what happens after that? Pretty presumptuous.


: This is only true (none / 0) (#40)
by standingup on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:10:19 PM EST

if Congress waits until after the election to do anything about the expiring tax cuts. There is nothing preventing them from voting on another extension or making them permanent between now and two years from now.

: Reading Somerby, whom I love, I wondered why he (none / 0) (#46)
by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 04:49:54 PM EST

thought the tax issue would be left to yet another lame duck Congress.
So Obama can have something to campaign on? Yeah, right.

I don't trust (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by lilburro on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 02:59:59 PM EST

that the economy will be in a place in 2012 where Obama will not be vulnerable once again to the position that it's "too soon" to end the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Maybe Bush II will end up being a hero to Republicans as he apparently is going to have a stranglehold on tax policy for years to come.

Miss Cleo phones it in on 2012 (5.00 / 5) (#27)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:37:51 PM EST

if we're still in a depression the GOP will extend the tax cuts - because a recession (sic) is no time to raise taxes (sic), don't you know

in the unlikely event that the economy has recovered, the GOP will extend the tax cuts because see? they worked!

Dems in Congress will go along - can't raise taxes [sic] in an election year - & Obama will misplace his veto pen

questions?


: The most solid (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by cal1942 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:53:04 PM EST

prediction yet.
Amazing how obvious the script is.

See Krugman on new hostages, (5.00 / 0) (#19)
by oldpro on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 03:13:38 PM EST

He's right.

Again.

Well, he was wrong to say that (none / 0) (#31)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:46:45 PM EST

this deal had economic merit. I believe in him, but he makes some big mistakes sometimes by saying, "We should have a bigger stimulus, but 'can't' get one" - he should JUST say, "We need a bigger stimulus." He has inadvertently (I hope inadvertently) helped the people who claim that they "can't" do anything other than what the Republicans want.


Well...Krugman IS an economist, (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by oldpro on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 07:04:06 PM EST

so if he says there is SOME merit, I'll listen. I think he's right to point out that 'some' is not enough...not nearly...and that Obama has just set himself up for failure. Again.

The substance is bad enough but the political timing will be disastrous IMHO.


: An economist - not a politician. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 08:40:03 PM EST

That was my point - and frankly Dean Baker's recant of support is the exact reason why an economist's view of public policy is not the be all end all every time. He now realizes that this plan puts Social Security at political risk - he is no longer assuming in his calculations that the payroll tax holiday would simply end, for instance.

I don't recall Krugman (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by NYShooter on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:02:26 PM EST

saying we 'can't' get one." I do remember him slamming Obama mercilessly for not even trying.

Paul Krugman is just like us, just a lot smarter. He's also a Liberal Democrat, and a realistic, pragmatic one, at that. So when he advocates strongly for a position and the Administration proposes something similar, but timidly and watered down, his frame of reference naturally changes. Once the Administration's position is set, and the only decision is to pass it or side with the Republicans, naturally he'll go with the President.

There's a big difference between saying something is "better than nothing," and wholehearted support.

Paul Krugman's advise and predictions have been so dramatically correct and he has stated them so forcefully and repeatedly that I find nit-picking out-of-context comments a little distasteful.


The White House is wrong about ... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by FreakyBeaky on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 04:26:25 PM EST

... it's will and ability to do anything about the Bush tax cuts in 2012 that they aren't willing and able to do in 2010.

It is also wrong in thinking what it is doing - trading short-term relief for long-term pain - is pragmatic.

Before I start worrying what the (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by Anne on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 05:39:32 PM EST

GOP will do in 2012 on taxes, I will worry about what Obama will do in 2011, as he's identified "tax reform" as his next challenge, and he's still singing from the Deficit Commission songbook; I fear Simpson-Bowles is a roadmap that will find willing support from deficit-hysterical Dems, not to mention plenty of support from the GOP, in the form of pushing Obama to move even more to the right.

Here's a preview of coming attractions:

Americans should prepare themselves for spending cuts by Congress next year, the chairmen of the House and Senate's budget committees said Friday.
Both Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee, signaled that they're preparing budgets that would seek cuts to government spending in order to address the deficit.
Conrad said he'd look to the recommendations by President Obama's fiscal commission as a "starting point," and then look to craft a budget that improves on those proposals [...]
"We intend to do lots of spending cuts and lots of spending reforms as soon as we take over in January," Ryan said. "The debt ceiling, obviously, is going to have to be increased if we're not going to default, so the question is, what do we get in exchange for that, and what kind of fiscal controls?"

And, dollars to doughnuts, the impetus for cuts and reform will be...the big deficit-deepening tax deal of 2010.

: Agree (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by cal1942 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:45:02 PM EST

Obama has managed to put the nation in a position where austerity measures will be taken while the economy is very weak.
At the very least allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire will keep a lot more money in this country.
We're headed for a long period of very weak employment and those employed will face diminishing wages. In short, a considerable contraction of the middle class.

obama is a Trojan Horse (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by pluege2 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 07:39:42 PM EST

For a progressive to believe anything obama says or expect him ever to do anything contrary to what republicans want is willful self-deception...like obama sycophant ezra klein

: obama's main skullduggery (5.00 / 4) (#37)
by pluege2 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 07:44:24 PM EST

is "The Deal's" undermining of social security. The notion that obama will pay back the SS fund out of the general fund shows his total contempt for the intelligence of his supporters.

Actually (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by kaleidescope on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 02:10:45 AM EST

On Wednesday's Rachel Maddow Show, I saw Austin Goolsbee make exactly the same argument as you attribute to Ezra Klein. It's a vapid argument even when made by the Administration. Part what defines being a politician must be having to think that the American people are stupid.

Yeah (none / 0) (#1)
by jbindc on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:52:49 AM EST

Because vetoing a bill that will raise people's taxes (regardless of whether you think it's good policy or not), always looks good and plays well in an election year - especially when POTUS is up for re-election.

Bill Clinton won a landslide in 1996 (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:58:29 AM EST

So that little sotry is BS imo.


2012 (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by jbindc on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 11:24:56 AM EST

Will not be 1996, Obama is not Bill Clinton, and John Bohener is not Newt Gingrich.


and taxes (none / 0) (#51)
by CST on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:45:38 AM EST

do not always determine an election winner


Again (none / 0) (#53)
by jbindc on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:32:34 AM EST

Bill Clinton had the environment, the knowledge,a nd the personality to pull it off - Obama does not.

Newt Gringrich is seen as scary by a majority of the country. John Boehner - not so much. Between his overtanning and his crying, he can't quite pull it off.

It's silly to compare 1996 to now (or future).


: by that argument (none / 0) (#54)
by CST on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 01:00:01 PM EST

we should never look at history - because no one is "just like" anyone else.
Obama is Obama. He is not anyone else. I understand you think Bill = Good, Barack = Bad, Boehner = tanned whiney whatever.
But that doesn't really tell us anything other than your opinions of those people. If everyone agreed with you, Obama wouldn't be president right now.

Didn't anyone else find it find it amusing (5.00 / 4) (#24)
by mogal on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 05:00:07 PM EST

that Bill Clinton was called in to help sell the deal. I guess Obama found "something to do with Bill" after all. Remember the VP discussion?


it's an election year? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by CST on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:08:04 AM EST

could have fooled me.

IMO, the fact that it's NOT an election year is one very good reason to veto this now.


It's ALWAYS an election year. (none / 0) (#49)
by jbindc on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:38:41 AM EST

The primaries have already started.

But my comment was directed at this statement:

In short, the President is going to have to veto a Republican tax bill in 2012 if the tax cuts for the wealthy are going to end.

2012 IS an election year.


if it's always an election year (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by CST on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:44:56 AM EST

than it's never a good time to raise taxes.

So we might as well be GOP forever.

Sometimes you gotta take your lumps, 2 years out seems as good a time as any.

2012 - election will not be decided on taxes alone.


: True (none / 0) (#52)
by jbindc on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:30:44 AM EST

But that's the point of this discussion. Social issues and foreign policy are not.

Rather (none / 0) (#2)
by jbindc on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:53:45 AM EST

"vetoing a bill that will result in raising people's taxes."


Obama thinks this is a unique moment (none / 0) (#10)
by RonK Seattle on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 12:26:54 PM EST

... in that Republicans are able and willing to shoot the hostages. He is mistaken. There are always critical legislative vehicles the congressional GOP can adopt for its game of chicken.

He also thinks the GOP would win the PR battle in a protracted battle over tax cut extensions. In this particular, he may be correct.

He further believes the economy is about to turn a corner, and he can win credit for it in time for Campaign 2012. This is plausible, but dicey, and somewhat at odds with the underlying thesis of point #2 above.

In the next negotiation (none / 0) (#22)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 04:18:40 PM EST

In the next negotiation Obama will agree to admit that the birthers were right! ;-).

This was (none / 0) (#26)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 05:56:25 PM EST

supposed to be a joke.


I got it (none / 0) (#32)
by cal1942 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 06:46:53 PM EST

if no one else did.

Hope this helps.


: Definitely (none / 0) (#35)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 07:27:13 PM EST

Definitely helps ;-).

interesting that 'the deal' (none / 0) (#43)
by Makarov on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 12:26:47 AM EST

actually raises taxes on people making $25K or less

: Individuals earning under $20K-families under $4OK (none / 0) (#47)
by jawbone on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 04:53:05 PM EST

At $20K and $40K each group just breaks even.
I thought based on NYTimes reporting. Is there something else at work here? Thanx!