Obama May Not Repeal Bush Tax Cuts

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:23:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The New York Times reports President-Elect Obama may not repeal the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy but let them expire naturally in 2011.

A member of the Obama economic advisory team, William M. Daley, acknowledged that because of the gravity of the situation, Mr. Obama was leaning toward letting a Bush tax cut for the wealthy expire on schedule in 2011 rather than repealing it sooner. There were hints Sunday that a stimulus package might be extraordinarily large.

....When asked if the tax cuts might be allowed to expire on schedule, Mr. Axelrod replied: “Those considerations will be made.”

Daley said it's more likely than not this will be the case. Obama will announce his new economic team tomorrow: Timothy F. Geithner as Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers as director of the Natinal Economic Council. Peter Orszag will be White House Budget Director.

< Health Care: A Discussion | A Mayor Breaks the 'Tough on Crime' Mold >

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.

Obama May Not Repeal Bush Tax Cuts | 64 comments (64 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Face ... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Robot Porter on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:39:53 PM EST

meet palm.

Sigh.

Obama was the favorite of Wall St. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:41:22 PM EST

for a reason.
I doubt Hillary would make the same mistake.


First of all (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Pepe on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:34:40 AM EST

Hillary never did say she would raise taxes on anyone. So there was no mistake to make as she knows that to raise taxes on a select few as many here would like to see would be stupid as I have consistently argued.

As for Obama no one should be disappointed. You should just feel fooled. I'm surprised that many people took Obama's rhetoric as serious. It was pretty clear that he was stealing a card from Edwards' play book and tossing in class warfare in the general election. It is likely that he never intended to raise taxes but it sounded good to VOTERS so he went with it. Wool over the eyes.

But let's say just for argument that he did intend to raise taxes. Well as I argued that would have been counter productive in the current economy, just as Hillary knew. Obviously he listened to people in his camp who knew what I knew.

So either he pulled the wool over a bunch of peoples eyes - or he really thought it was a good idea to raise taxes but wiser minds prevailed. Either way there is nothing to cheer about regarding Obama on the issue. People either got duped or Obama was way off base in his thinking.


Or ... (none / 0) (#49)
by BigElephant on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 09:43:52 AM EST

the timing simply has changed. I don't think he ever said the first thing he would do in office is raise taxes. I think this is an example of simply being prudent. The only people who will complain about this will be Clintonistas with ODR -- and I'm sure they all will.


: Times have changed (none / 0) (#52)
by Pepe on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:13:37 AM EST

in the last three weeks? Please. He said that part of what he would do shortly after taking office was to raise taxes on people making 250+ as part of his economic stimulus package. He is backing off of that because raising taxes won't stimulate a thing. It takes money out of the economy, it doesn't put it in. Be sensible.

Hillary planned to let the Bush tax cuts expire (none / 0) (#67)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 12:46:08 AM EST

in 2011. Obama pledged to repeal them before they expired. He's changed his policy and now proposes to do as Hillary would have done.

I though it was politically savvy of Hillary to take that approach during the primaries.

However, in the current climate, I don't think it's wise for obama to reverse course and let the pigs continue feeding at the trough for the next 2-3 years.

I wonder: if Hillary had become President, would she do the exact opposite of what Obama is doing? Would she reverse her position and roll back the Bush tax cuts to pay for the salvaging of the collapsing economy. I think she would have enough populist cred to pull it off.


and, (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by cpinva on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:39:36 PM EST

so it begins. the slow unraveling of the real obama.

There was never any mystery (none / 0) (#10)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:42:19 PM EST

about what kind of candidate he was.
What people won't admit is that he is most similar (except for the war) to Joe Lieberman.
If Lieberman had any charisma he would have been elected President twice already.
Obama has the charisma. Let's see what he can do.


: Exactly (none / 0) (#36)
by Pepe on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:01:22 AM EST

I've said that Obama and Joe are birds of a feather many times on this blog. Which is why Obama stands up for Joe at every opportunity.

So what begins? (none / 0) (#23)
by Thanin on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:39:46 PM EST

Obama is a pragmatist. I dont know how anyone couldnt have known this.


Geez, old news much? (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:46:27 PM EST

This has been in the news for more than a week.

Also, guys, it's purest Keynesian economics to not effectively raise taxes anywhere in a severe depression that's threating to become a depression.

IMHO, distasteful as it is, he's doing the right thing here.

And please, get a grip. If it were just Wall Street brokerage firms that were in the tank with the mortage-based securities and the like, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. Study up at least a little bit, please. Not just a whole bunch of banks and the Big Three auto guys, but General Electric is also on the verge of collapse.

What's the estimated (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by oldpro on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:13:59 PM EST

annual revenue loss from those tax cuts?


Good question. It's a case of quid pro quo... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:07:04 AM EST

The GOP won't nuke Obama's stimulus plan if Obama doesn't nuke Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. The NYTimes says it right here:

Some Republicans might be won over should Mr. Obama decide not to repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000...

Then there's this part, which makes NO sense:

Simply letting the cuts expire after 2010 could have economic and political benefits. Mr. Obama would not be open to the charge from Republicans and other critics that he is raising taxes in a recession...By letting the tax cuts expire, Mr. Obama would get the benefit of higher revenues in 2011 and beyond...

WTF, "economic and political benefits".

Evidently, the NYTimes is envisioning a purely Republican electorate since they fail to imagine that Democratic voters will be outraged with Obama, and the Democratic Congress, for betraying their own broad base and appeasing the marginal GOP.

Hello 2010 mid-term elections. By 2011 we may very well have a Republican Congress hell-bent on perpetuating Bush's tax cuts for the remainder of Mr. Obama's term - and beyond.


You're right. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by oldpro on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:26:59 AM EST

It's a dangerous gamble and a high price to pay for postpartisan unity in the short term.

I'm with Bill Clinton. Raise their g.d. taxes and pay the bills.


You are free to (none / 0) (#54)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:53:39 AM EST

set the example and send extra money to the gov't.


It's a silly argument... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by oldpro on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:18:04 AM EST

I pay my way and more...others do not.

In fact, locally, I acdtually do what you suggest...by not taking my senior exemption on property taxes (which would cut mine in half or more). The reason? My taxes (like those unpaid by others thru discounts...farms, forest properties) are still collected...they are shifted to the general taxpaying population, including young families with children who own their homes.

Although my low income and my age would allow me to shift my taxes to others, I do not think it is right or fair.


: Not a silly argument at all (none / 0) (#59)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:14:20 PM EST

And congrats on paying more when calling for more to be paid. I encourage everyone calling for more taxes to voluntarily pay more.

Quid Pro Quo (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by DeanOR on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:43:44 AM EST

I was going to say that the Dems who are calling for a massive stimulus package are, in the same breath, saying that means we may have to delay repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy - which makes no sense. Wouldn't repealing the tax cuts actually help pay for the stimulus package and direct that money into things that are useful for economic recovery? Unless what they are really saying is that in order to get Republicans to go along with a stimulus package of hundreds of billions of dollars, they'll let the Repubs keep their tax cuts for the wealthy. I guess FoxholeAtheist was thinking along the same lines.


I must agree (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by BrassTacks on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:25:02 AM EST

Raising taxes, removing money from the economy, is a dumb thing to do in a recession. But I am wondering where he's going to get the money for his $700 billion stimulus package and the hiring of 2.5 million more government workers.


The rich (5.00 / 4) (#40)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:48:01 AM EST

do not put this tax savings into the economy. The put their tax savings into their Swiss Bank Accounts (or whatever).

They have more disposable income than they know what to do with. They don't spend it.

If you think the economy needs the money, raise the taxes on the rich and cut the taxes on the average American.

We seem to have a bunch of trickle down economists here.

Obama is simply paying off his donors with this policy. They can collect a lot of money before 2011.


: I totally agree with you! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by cpa1 on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 07:29:44 AM EST

I generally agree (none / 0) (#30)
by Pepe on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:39:14 AM EST

with most of what you said except I must ask why is it 'distasteful' that he is not going to raise taxes on higher income people? What is distasteful about that?


"but General Electric is also (none / 0) (#37)
by Amiss on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:12:03 AM EST

on the verge of collapse."

Isnt it the parent company of NBC and MSNBC? If so, then I say let GE collapse. I also remember way back when a certain "actor" was on the General Electric Theatre every week, before he became President?

I say good riddence to GE.


: You hate (none / 0) (#42)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:08:39 AM EST

General Electric because they sponsored a show in the 50's that had Reagan on it? They should have been soothesayers and known that Reagan was going to be president.

: GE is the parent company of NBC and MSNBC (none / 0) (#46)
by cpa1 on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 07:28:30 AM EST

and the company does some great things for the economy like making jet engines and incredible diagnostic mahines like CT-Scanners and MRIs. Would you rather that all be made by SONY?
We are true capitalists. Republicans are carpetbagger pigs. We want to see corporations prosper and create new products and new jobs. We don't want all the money going to Wall Street pyramid schemes.

So far as I can tell, we're going to have to (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by andgarden on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:46:47 PM EST

deficit spend at least as much as Bush's tax cuts cost over the next couple of years. This is gonna hurt, I think.

: Deficit spending ... (none / 0) (#29)
by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:37:42 AM EST

isn't always a bad idea.
Business do it all the time. People do it when they buy a house or car.
And since virtually every country in the world will be forced to do decifit spending over the next decade, it can be managed.
The question is always what assets do you gain?
But not rolling back the tax cuts is a dumb idea. And I guess this means he won't close the loopholes either.
Ah well ... sigh.