As deficit commission meets, Obama doesn't rule out new taxes

[The Northerner]

Source: Washington Post

President Obama said on Tuesday that "everything has to be on the table" for a new commission examining the federal deficit, a position that raises the possibility that he could revisit the most expensive provisions of his new health-care law or backtrack on his pledge not to raise taxes for the middle class.

Speaking to reporters before the first meeting of the bipartisan commission, Obama warned that he would not answer questions about specific recommendations the panel might make.

"I'm not going to say what's in. I'm not going to say what's out. I want this commission to be free to do its work," he said.

In recent interviews, Obama and other administration officials have left the door open to tax increases, even for those earning less than $250,000 a year. The president has also explicitly agreed to consider changes to the hard-fought health-care law, said Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming who is serving as co-chair of the 18-member panel of lawmakers and presidential appointees.

"When you say the new bill is on the table, that is disturbing to some. But the new bill is on the table," Simpson said. "The president has been very open with us, or I wouldn't go this far."

Obama created the commission in February after more-routine proposals for reducing deficits -- including a three-year freeze on nondefense spending -- did little to improve fiscal forecasts.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042702275.html

[bluestateguy]

1. You know why I am ignoring this?

Because it;s the usual cast of characters that are dragged out of retirement whenever a "bipartisan commission" is created. They produce a report, which is then ignored and quickly forgotten.

[DJ13]

4. I hope this time they are still ignored

But I bet they'll recommend severe cuts (if not elimination) of programs that aid the poor, elderly, and the disabled, and the elites (with Obama doing their bidding) will fall all over themselves praising it and claiming its "the only way" to reduce deficits.

(Forget defense cuts, those same elites make money selling weapons.)

Oh they might throw in a tiny tax increase on top incomes, and some kind of "get tough" transaction tax on institutional trades on the NYSE, but the real goal is to find an excuse to gut much of the safety net so they can keep the tax rates on the top incomes at a level well below even Reagan faced when he took office.

Those poor people just cost too much money that would be better used sitting in a Swiss account.

[laconicsax]

5. You're forgetting something.

The recommendations will probably also include tax increases designed to get the poor to pay their "fair share" of taxes. :puke:

[DJ13]

7. You're right

Its even worse than I imagined!
:scared:

[Juche]

2. Good

It should all be on the table. However before the economic collapse the biggest the deficits ever really got were about 3% of GDP.

But I'm guessing we are in different times. More unemployed means less tax revenue and more public expenses (myself included. I went from a full time employee who paid taxes to unemployed and collecting UI).

But it shouldn't be 'that' hard. After WW2 the top income tax rate jumped to 91% to pay off war debt. And it worked.

Seeing how much more of GDP has gone to corporate profits and income for the top 5%, raising their taxes is easily the best bet. Corporate profits are nearly 2 trillion a year, and income for the top 5% is about 35% of GDP.


My big fear is we will get stupid GOP solutions. Somehow you can cut taxes and still balance the budget (I have no idea where they get this concept). We need tax hikes and spending cuts.

[Igel]

18. But you're confused.

You're talking top tax rate, not collections.

Our "taxes", by the tax rate currently in effect, should have been upwards of $10k. We had $6k deducted last year and got over $10k back.

In other words, there's a $17k difference between what the "rate-based" method of determining taxes would said we paid and what we actually paid: More than $10k owed, $6k put in as a down payment, of which $3k was kept for payment and $10k returned.

Please, can I complain that the marginal tax rate's too high? Please? Please?

In fact, with small differences here and there, usually when there are announced changes to things like capital gain deductions that distort investor behavior or relatively quickly imposed tax hikes that people can't quickly adjust for, the inflation-adjusted amount of money *collected* per capita per quintile changes not so much. 35%? 91%? Eh. Not much difference--in reality. Perhaps 3-4 percent of income. Not the 56% that simplistic use of 2nd-grade math skills would imply.

[Juche]

19. I didn't know I was confused

That is why I'm glad I have intelligent people to correct me. Either way, after WW2 the debt was over 120% of GDP, and we started paying it off during an economic boom that happened when our progressive tax rates were much higher than now.

[w4rma]

3. I haven't yet seen a single member of this commission that has done anything useful in the past.

Therefore, I think whatever this commission comes up with I'm going to oppose, not because of whose on it, but I'm fully expecting that they will come up with exactly the wrong conclusions.

[Kolesar]

6. We need more revenue until the bush wars are finished

then we can drop the tax rates. OK?

[harkadog]

11. They are no longer the Bush wars

[Kolesar]

14. They're over?

Yay!

[saigon68]

16. Yes its now Obama's Tar baby

[unabelladonna]

8. he's finished

if he raises taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000. hopefully, it's just a rumor.

[FailureToCommunicate]

9. Everything is on the table? Great: Restore the tax on upper income. Cut the Pentagon

budget and get corporations -now that they're 'people'- to pay SOME taxes.
Problem solved.
And Obama keeps his promise to the middle class.

[MindandSoul]

10. Well, I just hope he considers most "new taxes" for the top 2%!

[DLnyc]

12. Or OLD taxes.

Like the 89% top tax rate for the super-rich that we had under Roosevelt.

[MindandSoul]

13. I'd be perfectly okay with a top tax bracket around 50%

[Democat]

15. Regardless of financial reality, it could lead to a single term president.

Maybe better to wait until after 2012 to even think about mentioning a tax increase. Otherwise, a Republican may win and we'll be even more screwed.

[saigon68]

17. Well put

[amandabeech]

20. If he doesn't get some jobs going,

he's going to be a one-term president.

If people had jobs, and not military ones, they'd pay taxes and we wouldn't have such a problem.

To get jobs, you have to do something about the trade agreements, and we know that those were written in stone by God and given to Moses, played by Bob Rubin and Bill Clinton on alternate nights.