To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.

×

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."

On Google News, I found 3,568 stories containing the phrase "Bush tax cuts," but only 35 containing the phrase "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."

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.

© 2023 FireDogLake
george w. bush

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.

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.

george w. bush