On Google News, I found 3,568 stories containing the phrase "Bush tax cuts," but only 35 containing the phrase "Obama tax cuts."
RECOMMENDED...
Where are the "Obama Tax Cuts?"
The lame duck session of Congress is shaping up to be dominated by
the issue of what to do with the "Bush tax cuts" set to expire at the
end of the year. Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts only for everyone making less than $250,000, but the Republicans are insisting that they extend the Bush tax cuts across the board. What seems to be completely missing from the discussion are any so-called "Obama tax cuts."
Nov 16, 2010
The lame duck session of Congress is shaping up to be dominated by
the issue of what to do with the "Bush tax cuts" set to expire at the
end of the year. Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts only for everyone making less than $250,000, but the Republicans are insisting that they extend the Bush tax cuts across the board. What seems to be completely missing from the discussion are any so-called "Obama tax cuts."
On Google News, I found 3,568 stories containing the phrase "Bush tax cuts," but only 35 containing the phrase "Obama tax cuts."
Since the campaign, President Obama has been planning to leave the
tax rate for people making less than $250,000 a year the same as it was
under George W. Bush. This actually requires Obama to actively draft and
sign an entirely new law preventing the mandated change in tax rates
from taking place. Obama clearly thought this was good politics, good
policy, or both. Yet, for some reason, the White House is, in effect,
letting Bush take all the credit for Obama's planned extension of these
tax rates by allowing the ongoing debate to refer to them as the "Bush
tax cuts."
Why didn't the White House draft up a new tax law, with a few minor
changes, that permanently extended the current tax rate for people
making less than $250,000, and label that the "Obama tax cut." By making
a few small modifications, they could even have slightly reduced some
tax rates for the middle class. This would allow the White House to
legitimately claim the "Obama tax cuts" are not just an extension of the
"Bush tax cuts," they are, in fact, better!
If the administration did that, we would be having a different debate
right now. Instead if it being about what parts of the Bush tax cuts we
should extend, it would a debate between Democrats, who wanted to put
in place the Obama tax cuts, and Republicans, holding the Obama tax cuts
hostage unless the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were also included.
If Obama is going to sign a big deficit-expanding tax law, he should
at least get the PR win of making sure the name "Obama" is directly
followed by the phrase "tax cuts" in a few thousand new news reports,
articles, and blog posts.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 FireDogLake
Jon Walker
Jon Walker is political writer who has written for FireDogLake, Vice, The Intercept, @TheProspect and The Week. He is an expert on health care policy and the politics of health care reform.
The lame duck session of Congress is shaping up to be dominated by
the issue of what to do with the "Bush tax cuts" set to expire at the
end of the year. Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts only for everyone making less than $250,000, but the Republicans are insisting that they extend the Bush tax cuts across the board. What seems to be completely missing from the discussion are any so-called "Obama tax cuts."
On Google News, I found 3,568 stories containing the phrase "Bush tax cuts," but only 35 containing the phrase "Obama tax cuts."
Since the campaign, President Obama has been planning to leave the
tax rate for people making less than $250,000 a year the same as it was
under George W. Bush. This actually requires Obama to actively draft and
sign an entirely new law preventing the mandated change in tax rates
from taking place. Obama clearly thought this was good politics, good
policy, or both. Yet, for some reason, the White House is, in effect,
letting Bush take all the credit for Obama's planned extension of these
tax rates by allowing the ongoing debate to refer to them as the "Bush
tax cuts."
Why didn't the White House draft up a new tax law, with a few minor
changes, that permanently extended the current tax rate for people
making less than $250,000, and label that the "Obama tax cut." By making
a few small modifications, they could even have slightly reduced some
tax rates for the middle class. This would allow the White House to
legitimately claim the "Obama tax cuts" are not just an extension of the
"Bush tax cuts," they are, in fact, better!
If the administration did that, we would be having a different debate
right now. Instead if it being about what parts of the Bush tax cuts we
should extend, it would a debate between Democrats, who wanted to put
in place the Obama tax cuts, and Republicans, holding the Obama tax cuts
hostage unless the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were also included.
If Obama is going to sign a big deficit-expanding tax law, he should
at least get the PR win of making sure the name "Obama" is directly
followed by the phrase "tax cuts" in a few thousand new news reports,
articles, and blog posts.
Jon Walker
Jon Walker is political writer who has written for FireDogLake, Vice, The Intercept, @TheProspect and The Week. He is an expert on health care policy and the politics of health care reform.
The lame duck session of Congress is shaping up to be dominated by
the issue of what to do with the "Bush tax cuts" set to expire at the
end of the year. Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts only for everyone making less than $250,000, but the Republicans are insisting that they extend the Bush tax cuts across the board. What seems to be completely missing from the discussion are any so-called "Obama tax cuts."
On Google News, I found 3,568 stories containing the phrase "Bush tax cuts," but only 35 containing the phrase "Obama tax cuts."
Since the campaign, President Obama has been planning to leave the
tax rate for people making less than $250,000 a year the same as it was
under George W. Bush. This actually requires Obama to actively draft and
sign an entirely new law preventing the mandated change in tax rates
from taking place. Obama clearly thought this was good politics, good
policy, or both. Yet, for some reason, the White House is, in effect,
letting Bush take all the credit for Obama's planned extension of these
tax rates by allowing the ongoing debate to refer to them as the "Bush
tax cuts."
Why didn't the White House draft up a new tax law, with a few minor
changes, that permanently extended the current tax rate for people
making less than $250,000, and label that the "Obama tax cut." By making
a few small modifications, they could even have slightly reduced some
tax rates for the middle class. This would allow the White House to
legitimately claim the "Obama tax cuts" are not just an extension of the
"Bush tax cuts," they are, in fact, better!
If the administration did that, we would be having a different debate
right now. Instead if it being about what parts of the Bush tax cuts we
should extend, it would a debate between Democrats, who wanted to put
in place the Obama tax cuts, and Republicans, holding the Obama tax cuts
hostage unless the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were also included.
If Obama is going to sign a big deficit-expanding tax law, he should
at least get the PR win of making sure the name "Obama" is directly
followed by the phrase "tax cuts" in a few thousand new news reports,
articles, and blog posts.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy