This has been "walked back," as they say in Spin City. Though I don't doubt it will happen.
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html > > White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts > > WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's top adviser suggested to > The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration is > ready to accept an across-the-board, temporary continuation of > steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers. > > That appears to be the only way, said David Axelrod, that > middle-class taxpayers can keep their tax cuts, given the > legislative and political realities facing Obama in the aftermath > of last week's electoral defeat. > > "We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod said > during an unusually candid and reflective 90-minute interview in > his office, steps away from the Oval Office. "The world of what it > takes to get this done." > > "There are concerns," he added, that Congress will continue to > kick the can down the road in the future by passing temporary > extensions for the wealthy time and time again. "But I don't want > to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that > point." > > It has been widely assumed that the president would have to accept > an across-the-board deal of some kind, but Axelrod's remarks were > the first public confirmation of that fact -- and by a figure > regarded as closer to Obama than any other White House staffer. > > Also dealing "with the world as we find it," Axelrod declined > repeatedly to comment on any of the controversial debt-reduction > measures suggested by the chairs of the president's own commission > -- even those, such as raising the Social Security retirement age, > that go against Obama campaign pledges and strike at the heart of > Democratic constituencies. > > He said that the White House would wait until the commission made > its final recommendations on Dec. 1 before adding, "the > president's commitments haven't changed." > > By giving ground on taxes and remaining silent on budget > suggestions that others, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) > and AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka, quickly denounced, Axelrod showed > the subdued caution of an adviser to a humbled boss. > > But the top Obama aide also erected some barriers against > newly-emboldened Republicans and their Pentagon allies. > > Axelrod said that his boss would veto repeal of his cherished > health care law, though he would "work with people" who "have > constructive ideas about how to strengthen" it. The veto threat > was not unexpected, but it was the first time that a top > administration figure had issued such a threat on the record. And > in doing so, Axelrod predicted that Republicans would be making a > major misstep by challenging the White House's commitment on this > front. > > "I'm not going to prejudge what they are going to do," Axelrod > said of Republican opposition to the legislation. "But I will tell > you this -- we are firm in our commitment, we are willing to work > with people to improve this plan we are not going to stand for > those who want to undermine it and destroy it." > > "The notion of spending the next two years fighting over this, I > think, is a complete misreading of what the American people want," > he added. "They want us to focus on the economy. They don't want > us to fight the battles of the last two years. But we are not > going to stand by and go back to allowing people with preexisting > conditions to be discriminated against, go back to the situation > where people can be thrown off their insurance simply because they > become seriously ill or you can't get on your parents' insurance > after the age of 20. There are so many things that are just central." > > Meanwhile, on the war in Afghanistan -- an expensive and > increasingly unpopular conflict -- Axelrod pushed back hard > against the notion, floated in some recent stories quoting "senior > administration sources," that the deadline for beginning troop > withdrawals had been pushed back from July 2011 to some time in 2014. > > "If it is being sourced to senior administration officials, then > someone has bad administration sources," Axelrod said. "There is > no change in the president's position. There is no change in that > basic commitment." > > But there is just such a change on taxes. > > Although the president "took the position he felt was the right > position" -- favoring a continuation of the cuts only for families > earning up to $250,000 -- Axelrod portrayed this "optimal" stance > as unrealistic in the lame-duck Congress that begins next week. > > For one, time is not on the administration's side. All of the tax > cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, will expire at the end of this > year unless Congress acts. The Republicans in effect "built in tax > increases," Axelrod said. And separating out different categories > of tax cuts now -- extending some without extending others -- is > politically unrealistic and procedurally difficult, he added. > > "We don't want that tax increase to go forward for the middle > class," he said, which means the administration will have to > accept them all for some unspecified period of time. "But plainly, > what we can't do is permanently extend these high income taxes." > > In other words, the White House won't risk being blamed for > raising taxes on the middle class even though, arguably, it is the > GOP's refusal to separate the categories that has put Obama in > this bind. The only condition, at least initially, seems to be > that the tax cuts for the wealthy not be extended "permanently." > > A student of history and a onetime political reporter, Axelrod > expressed curiosity and even some optimism about the tea party, > suggesting that Obama could work with them on matters such as a > ban on spending earmarks and on winding down the war in Afghanistan. > > If so, Obama would turn the Clinton-era triangulation strategy on > its head, reaching out not to the moderates in the other party but > to the new breed of conservatives who could bring the ideological > arc of Congress full circle. > > Can the White House work with them? "It is a fascinating time in > our history," he said, "and I don't think anybody really knows. I > mean I have watched carefully some of these folks on television. I > don't think this is nearly as predictable as people think." > > President Obama, in fact, has called every new Republican > senator-elect and many of the incoming GOP House members -- "well > over 100 calls" in all, said Axelrod. > > That's how a shellacked president spends his plane time on a trip > to Asia. > > --- > > NY Times November 10, 2010 > Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts and Tax Increases > By JACKIE CALMES > > WASHINGTON — The chairmen of President Obama’s bipartisan > commission on reducing the national debt outlined a politically > provocative and economically ambitious package of spending cuts > and tax increases on Wednesday, igniting a debate that is likely > to grip the country for years. > > The plan calls for deep cuts in domestic and military spending, a > gradual 15-cents-a-gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax, > limiting or eliminating popular tax breaks in return for lower > rates, and benefit cuts and an increased retirement age for Social > Security. > > Those changes and others, none of which would take effect before > 2012 to avoid undermining the tepid economic recovery, would erase > nearly $4 trillion from projected deficits through 2020, the > proposal says, and stabilize the accumulated debt. > > “It’s time to lay it out on the table and let the American people > start to chew on it,” said Alan K. Simpson, the former Republican > Senate leader who is one of the co-chairmen, along with Erskine B. > Bowles, who was White House chief of staff under President Bill > Clinton. > > Their outline will be the basis for negotiation within the > commission, which has a Dec. 1 deadline for submitting a final > plan. It represents a challenge to both parties: to Mr. Obama and > the Democrats, to show in the wake of the midterm election that > they are serious about their pledges to address long-term > deficits, and to Republicans, who for the most part have ruled out > consideration of tax increases even as they have promised new > adherence to fiscal responsibility. > > Liberal groups immediately condemned the plan when news of it > broke, for its Social Security and Medicare changes and for the > scope of the spending cuts. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, in a > statement called it “simply unacceptable.” > > The furor on the left was not matched — yet — by a similar outcry > from the right to the draft’s proposed revenue increases, cuts to > the military or other options. > > The plan has many elements with the potential to draw intense > political fire. It lays out options for overhauling the tax code > that include limiting or eliminating the mortgage interest > deduction, the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. > It envisions cutting Pentagon weapons programs and paring back > almost all domestic programs. > > The plan would reduce cost-of-living increases for all federal > programs, including Social Security. It would reduce projected > Social Security benefits to most retirees in later decades, though > low-income people would get higher benefits. The retirement age > for full benefits would be slowly raised to 69 from 67 by 2075, > with a “hardship exemption” for people who physically cannot work > past 62. And higher levels of income would be subject to payroll > taxes. > > But the plan would not count Social Security savings toward the > overall deficit-reduction goal that Mr. Obama set for fiscal year > 2015, reflecting the chairmen’s sensitivity to liberal critics who > have complained that Social Security should be fixed only for its > own sake, not to help balance the nation’s books. > > Mr. Obama created the commission last February in the hope it > would provide political cover for bold action against deficits in > 2011. His stance now, in the wake of his party’s drubbing, will go > a long way toward telling whether he tacks to the political center > — by embracing such proposals — or shifts to the left and leaves > them on a shelf. > > For Republicans, the chairmen’s proposals and a similar report > coming next week from a private bipartisan group will challenge > their contention that the budget can be balanced by spending cuts > alone. That is a claim that many conservative economists and > budget analysts reject, given the scale of projected debt as the > baby boom generation retires and begins claiming costly federal > benefits, after a severe recession. > > Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson said their plan was “a starting point” > as members of the commission met behind closed doors to consider it. > > That was clear from the initial reactions of the members, nine of > them Democrats, seven Republicans. None embraced the package and > several made clear they would not support it without big changes. > > “I think every member of the commission would agree that this is > not the plan,” said Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of > Illinois, who is perhaps the panel’s most liberal member. > > The group had made no decisions before the midterm elections, to > avoid politicizing the painful options. Even so, the election > results — by emboldening victorious antitax conservatives and > having led to the defeat of many fiscally conservative > Congressional Democrats — are widely seen as having reduced the > already slim chance that a supermajority of the commission could > agree to a package of proposals by Dec. 1. > > Under Mr. Obama’s executive order creating the panel of 12 members > of Congress and six private citizens, 14 of the 18 commissioners > must agree in order to send any package to Congress for a vote in > December. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and > Ms. Pelosi, who will remain the speaker until January, have > promised in writing that the Senate would vote first and, if it > approves a plan, the House would vote. > > “I think it’s possible” that 14 members will agree, said Senator > Tom Coburn, a conservative Oklahoma Republican who worked closely > with the chairmen on proposed reductions from the military and in > so-called tax expenditures, the myriad tax breaks for individuals > and businesses that cost more than $1 trillion a year. “You don’t > know until you see what the final plan is.” > > In five hours of deliberations on Wednesday, the commission did > not discuss the plan’s particulars much but instead talked at > length about whether a lame-duck Congress would have time to write > specific legislation and then vote, members said in interviews. It > was unclear, they said, whether that was a sign other members > thought the commission actually could reach agreement, or whether > they were hiding behind concerns about legislative procedures to > avoid tough policy decisions. > > “At least people stayed in the room,” Andy Stern, the former > president of the Service Employees International Union, said in an > interview, recalling his concerns and others’ that Republicans > would walk out if taxes were on the table and Democrats if Social > Security and other spending programs were. > > Right now the biggest issue facing the lame-duck Congress is > whether to extend the Bush-era income tax cuts, which expire Dec. > 31, for all taxpayers, as Republicans want, or for income below > $250,000, as Mr. Obama and Democrats want. The Bowles-Simpson plan > includes one option that assumes only the lower-income rates are > extended and another that ends all Bush tax rates and replaces the > tax code with simpler, lower rates and many fewer tax breaks. > > Extending all the Bush tax cuts through 2020 would add more than > $4 trillion to the debt — coincidentally, about the same amount > that the chairmen’s painful options are designed to cut in the > same time frame. > > Their proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or > modify a number of popular tax breaks — including the > deductibility of mortgage interest payments — so that income tax > rates could be reduced across the board. Under one option, > individual income tax rates would decline to as low as 8 percent > for the lowest income bracket (it is now 10 percent) and to 23 > percent for the highest bracket (now 35 percent). The corporate > tax rate, now 35 percent, would be reduced to as low as 26 percent. > > But how low the rates are set would depend on how many tax breaks > are reduced or eliminated. Some of them, including the mortgage > interest deduction and the exemption from taxes for employees’ > health benefits, are political sacred cows. > > The 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax would rise by 15 > cents between 2013 and 2015 so that transportation spending no > longer requires money from the general treasury. > > The plan would cut $2 from spending for every $1 in new revenues. > Total spending would be about 22 percent of the nation’s gross > domestic product, and revenues would be held to 21 percent. > > Cuts in annual discretionary spending, domestic and military, > would be the largest in recent decades. Farm subsidies would be > reduced. To further reduce growth in the fast-growing entitlement > programs, the plan would expand on the hard-won Medicare cost > savings in Mr. Obama’s health care law. And it would limit > malpractice awards, long a Republican goal. > > David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
