Obama May Not Repeal Bush Tax Cuts

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

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


    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.


    Oh, I'm in favor of priming the pump (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:41:43 AM EST
    If we've got to spend a trillion bucks into the red to prevent a depression, we should.

    According to John Maynard Keynes (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cpa1 on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 08:24:29 AM EST
    in his book "The General Theory Of Employment, Interest and Money" (a bear of a book to read), you spend your way out of this and I agree.   However, you also need to mitigate the costs and to do that you need to fix the stupid tax mistakes of the past and take back the Bush Tax cuts so that the debt service on the increased spending doesn't kill us.  Besides as Teresa said above, the wealthiest aren't going to spend anyway, so why give them more money to lose at Goldman Sachs.

    I would go beyond the Bush tax cuts and create a top bracket of 50% but with lots of graduated brackets to get there.  Then I would have a flip tax which would tax anyone who decided to  expatriate and remove all their assets from the US.  A 50% flip tax would stop that.  In other words, once they renounce their citizenship, they lose 1/2 their assets.  Desperate times require desperate actions and the prima donnas of the Plutocracy have gotten away with too much already.

    I just heard Austan Goolsbee say that the Bush Tax Cuts will expire in 2010, which is not right because if someone dies in 2010, there is no estate tax.  You get a few wealthy Republicans dying because their children gave the DNR order to save taxes and we could lose hundreds of billions of dollars.  

    I also think the 15% bracket dies after this year for Dividends and Capital Gains which will go to a maximum of 35% for 2009 and 2010 and starting 2011 the rates will be 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6%.  I think capital gains is going up to 20% and it will stay there from 2009 and up.  It may go to 28% in 2011 but I am not sure.


    And we saw some of the (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:08:34 PM EST
    lesser nobles fly in on their private jets to ask for a handout last week.

    Not only do they have no shame, they don't even get it and they do.not.care.except.about.themselves.

    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#34)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:53:42 AM EST
    Been listening to Axelrod? I'm sure he flies coach and not on a private jet like Obama did for two+ years. Axelrod is a jerk.

    Now he is trying to dictate to the Big Three like he owns the country. After he and Obama couldn't pitch the bailout hard enough no less. Tell you what, the Big Three go down and he and Obama are not going to look like geniuses. But then maybe he owns lots of stock in Toyota or something and could care less about the loss of jobs and related businesses that would fail right along with the big three. Jerk. He has his head you know where.


    Whaaa? (none / 0) (#55)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:07:58 AM EST
    Axelrod isn't a policymaker.

    Of course Obama had a campaign plane, sometimes hitting several states in one day.  You can't do that on commercial airlines...or even expect them to get you to 'the rally' on time (with baggage).

    Please, Pepe...you're on the wrong track here...


    Gutless. (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:05:48 AM EST
    But then, Obama is emblematic of the gutless crew in Congress who kept taking __ or ___ off the table."

    How long before we hear that fixing FISA is "off the table"?  That repealing the Patriot Act is "off the table"?  That defending any darn thing in the Dem platform is "off the table". . . .

    Are the Bush tax "cuts" (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:47:43 PM EST
    the reason our economy is in the shape it's in?

    Hey, (none / 0) (#4)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:48:47 PM EST
    how can he repeal the tax cuts on the wealthy?  By the time Obama takes office there won't be any more wealthy Americans.

    We will all be in the sh*thouse together.

    No. We won't. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:09:19 PM EST
    Not even close.

    Good move (none / 0) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:04:08 PM EST
    Barack Hussein Obama has no intention of becoming Barack Herbert Hoover Obama.  He might well be elected to a third term.

    Um, Hoover cut taxes in 1929. (none / 0) (#6)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:13:13 PM EST
    What are you talking about?

    Two things (none / 0) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:36:49 PM EST

    He signed the Smoot-Hawely tariff (a tax) in 1930, and in 1932 increased the top marginal income tax rate from 25% to 63%.

    Boom and bust was not unusual.  What was unusual was the near decade long bust.  Unemployment as late as 1938 was 19%.


    Here's what 2008 Economics Nobel Prize Winner (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:46:15 AM EST
    Paul Krugman said about taxes and spending per the Great Depression (video and text).

    As Krugman tells it, "Roosevelt got the economy going somewhat, and by 1937 things were a lot better than they were in 1933. Then he was persuaded to balance the budget, so he increased taxes and cut federal spending and the economy went back down again..until WW11".

    To my understanding, the combination of increased taxes and decreased federal spending caused a temporary economic downturn.


    As early as the last GE debate, (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:18:55 PM EST
    Obama campaign was floating rumors he might not repeal the tax cuts due to the economy.

    That was then and this is now (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by cpa1 on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:43:31 PM EST
    Keeping capital gains down is fine, not 15% but it needs to lower than the tax on interest, Dividends, rents and salaries.

    Giving a 15% tax on dividends was toxic, so much so that the wealthy is paying 1/3 the rate of the middle and upper middle class.

    If he copies Bush, I'll start working now for his loss in 2012.


    And how many dividends (none / 0) (#35)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:59:08 AM EST
    are being paid right now?

    If the answer is few, which it is, then 5% on dividend income wouldn't mean any more or less than 20% on dividends would it?

    What difference does the tax rate mean on income that isn't being earned. Gees.


    This is news? (none / 0) (#14)
    by AlladinsLamp on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:49:09 PM EST
    It Pelosi/Rangel/Dems who said that they Bush tax cuts would continue until sunseted so as to provide stability for planning.  

    It does hurt to see this for the wealthy (none / 0) (#15)
    by zyx on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:58:16 PM EST
    but it is the right thing to do.


    What hurts is that we're in such a hole and then the rain starts falling. In Oregon, we just got--last legislative term!--a Democratic majority in both branches of state government. Before, the state had a "kicker" rule, that the government had to send rebate checks if they took in a surplus over 2%. The Dem majority got a bill passed to keep the surplus of (at least) the bidness taxes. They got to keep a little bit for one cycle. A little bit.

    Now, we face yawning we're-so-frickin'-doomedom. Why can't governments save for bad times, like families do?

    Why states cann't save much (none / 0) (#20)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:29:50 PM EST
    in good times?  Because their constituents and the opposition party won't let them.  Their constituents demand they spend it (teachers' salaries, state employees' raises, get ALL kids on the state's healthcase policy, etc. etc.) in good times and the Rs demand they give it back to the taxpayers and only have a teeny, tiny 'rainy-day fund.'  It's the R mechanism to prevent growth in government.

    Even in normal cycles, states can't win in a vicious political environment...and that's what we've had since 1994.


    Yes, you're right (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by zyx on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:34:24 PM EST
    My question was rhetorical.

    And we just get screwed when the bad times come, over and over and over again. Especially in the state budgets, because the states can't "deficit spend".

    And now the states have to take care of a lot of welfare-type payments that the federal government used to fund.

    It's got state governments very anxious already.


    Yep. And that's why (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:09:50 AM EST
    the feds should send stimulus money to the states.  They all have infrastructure projects ready to go and are putting them on hold and cutting employees.

    It would be the most immediate impact.


    Thanks for edjumacating me. (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:07:38 PM EST

    You are really going to try (none / 0) (#32)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:45:40 AM EST
    to put the blame for the economy on Bush's tax cuts. Really? What kind of CPA are you?

    Sorry to put it like that but your argument is ridiculous. There is so much more that apparently you are not aware of but it is there like the sun everyday.

    Is there any subject (none / 0) (#41)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 02:56:41 AM EST
    on which you are NOT the expert?

    I've never claimed to be an expert (none / 0) (#50)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 09:51:24 AM EST
    One does not have to be an expert to be informed on something. And one does not have to be an expert to point out the obvious.

    You are just repeating yourself at length (none / 0) (#51)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:09:22 AM EST
    There are many reasons for a lack of job creation that have nothing to do with taxes. That is the point I made to you. If higher taxes would be the magic wand to create jobs then Obama would raise taxes wouldn't he?

    Even JFK agreed that higher taxes does not create jobs or boost the economy. I posted his quote here before. You can look it up if you want to.

    And Clinton created all those jobs? How about the Internet surge that he had nothing to do with? That would have happened with him or without him. Sorry but you are arguing a very narrow view of things here and ignoring the bigger picture.

    No one can say that higher taxes created jobs. How would that happen when the government has the money?

    When people in Ohio and Michigan were trying to decide who they wanted as President how many cited lower taxes as a reason they had no jobs? ZERO that is how many. They realized that other factors such as Free Trade had a whole lot more to do with their plants closing down and as a result their jobs drying up. But you don't even mention that. Seems to me that people who have lost jobs and have had no jobs created to replace their loss jobs have plenty of time to figure out the real reasons for their misfortunes. You on the other hand just want to punish people doing better than you by practicing class warfare with no credible argument that higher taxes going to government coffers create jobs in the private sector. It's silly.

    JFK was right. You are wrong.

    Disagree. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Radix on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:11:30 AM EST
    To much money in to few hands creates an inefficiency in the system. Depending on what the government spends the tax revenue, for example, infrastructure repair, then monies can be distributed more evenly through out the country.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#58)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:34:41 AM EST
    I'm not even going to attempt to respond to your simplistic ideas. I'll just say this - you have no sense of history of why there ever was a strong middle class. But here is a hint. It was largely because there was a lot of money in a few hands that made it possible to build the ideas and factories to put the middle class to work.

    The goal is to restrengthen the middle class, not to take down the people who make it possible for them to be strong.


    I hardly consider the (none / 0) (#60)
    by Radix on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:27:32 PM EST
    topic of efficient money distribution simple. Also, you'll note that the middle class didn't start forming until after the advent of unions and a much higher tax on the wealthy. Might I suggest a re-read of history?

    Ford, for example, (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    paid middle-class wages long before his plants were unionized.

    A few examples of such (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Radix on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 05:01:04 PM EST
    conduct hardly refute my assertion, now do they? Again, the middle class saw it's largest growth during heavy unionization and while taxes on the wealthy were at there highest levels, the 50's and 60's I believe.

    Well, yeah, it kinda does refute it. (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 05:04:35 PM EST
    Your assertion is that unions created the middle class. Mine is that the industrialists did. Chicken and egg.

    Well no it doesn't, unless your (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Radix on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:51:21 PM EST
    claim is the entire middle class worked for Ford.

    You are telling me (none / 0) (#53)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    0 zero jobs were created during Bush's presidency and 0 jobs were lost during Clinton's.

    What is everybody's problem here? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    Obama campaigned against the idea of making permanent the Bush tax cuts, which will sunset after 2010 if nothing is done. So the expedient, obvious thing for Obama to do is let that particular problem fix itself.

    Why would anyone want him to use his political capital getting labeled a tax-raiser, rather than (say) addressing health care, or some other major problem that we know WON'T go away automatically?

    Obama campaigned to repeal Bush tax cuts (none / 0) (#66)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 12:03:09 AM EST
    i.e. obama pledged that he would eliminate the tax cuts on people making more than $250k a year. He was going to use the ensuing tax revenue to pay for programs like his health care plan.

    If he waits for the tax cuts to expire in 2011, we will lose 2-3 years worth of tax revenue that can't ever be recouped. Besides, after the 2010 mid-term elections, the GOP may be in control of Congress and they won't allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Than we're left with squat.


    It's at most 2 years of tax revenue (none / 0) (#68)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:03:38 AM EST
    that would be lost by waiting for sunset, not 3 -- 2008 will be completely post facto by the time Obama and the new Congress are sworn in.

    By doing nothing, and simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, Obama radically adjusts the terms of the tax debate in favor of the Democrats. The "starting point" becomes Clinton's tax policies, and W's misguided interregnum becomes an irrelevant memory.

    Yeesh! You're already fretting, "What if we lose the 2010 mid-terms!" All I can tell you is, I don't think that's gonna happen -- not as long as we let Obama choose his battles wisely.