Orszag column blindsides White House

[babylonsister]

Orszag column blindsides White House
By Ian Swanson - 09/07/10 02:49 PM ET


The White House was blindsided Tuesday by former budget director Peter Orszag’s dramatic break with President Obama on tax policy.

Orszag, in a column in The New York Times, called for all of the Bush-era tax cuts to be extended for two years, including rates for the wealthiest taxpayers, which the administration wants to phase-out for deficit reduction.

The defection from someone who closely advised Obama on fiscal policy just six weeks ago left spokesman Robert Gibbs in an awkward spot at his daily press briefing. He made it clear the administration was surprised by Orszag, saying the White House did not see the column in advance and did not know Orszag’s opinion on the matter.

“I did not hear him making this argument,” said Gibbs, who acknowledged he hadn’t been present for every meeting with Orszag. “He may have been making this argument in some meetings.”

Obama wants to phase-out tax cuts on individuals making more than $200,000 and families making above $250,000, something Republicans argue would stifle economic growth. In his inaugural column for the Times, where he’s a contributing columnist, Orszag appeared to agree with the GOP.

more...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/117463-orszag-tax-blindside-takes-white-house-by-surprise

[impik]

1. Traitor

[vaberella]

2. Why would Orszag agree with the GOP?! WTF?! Man...n/t

[dkf]

4. Because he is worried decreased consumer consumption will be bad for jobs.

It is just temporary until we emerge from our recession.

[Me.]

5. Rich Girlfriends

[Ian David]

9. He just won the state lotto yesterday. n/t

[monmouth]

3. Perhaps that's why he's no longer at the WH...Just a guess...n/t

[dkf]

6. No doubt

[vaberella]

7. Not really. His position was always under a certain time limit.

I think they wanted to extend it actually.

[Ian David]

8. Cabinet of Rivals = Cabinet of Backstabbers. n/t

[ProSense]

10. More from Gibbs

In his press briefing this afternoon, Gibbs responded to Orszag's comments, emphasizing that while the White House is committed to extending tax cuts for middle and low-income Americans, it stands firm in its belief that maintaining similar breaks for the nation's highest earners is fiscally unsustainable.

"Our viewpoint on this is that we should and must pass legislation that extends the tax cuts for middle-class families," he said. "But we cannot afford, in this environment to -- in our budgetary and fiscal environment to extend the tax cuts for those that make more than $250,000 a year."

"I don't think the president believes that we are a $100,000 tax cut from a millionaire away from an economy that works for families that are making $40,000 a year," Gibbs said.

link

[babylonsister]

14. I'm very glad the admin is standing by this-thanks, Pro. nt

[Mass]

11. Actually, he says it would be better to get rid of the tax cuts for the wealthy,

but that it would not pass (which is apparently the case). But why bother reading an article when you can attack a democrat.

I dont agree with him on that, but at least, people could bother reading what he says. The GOP does not want to extend the tax cuts for two years, but for ever.

[babylonsister]

12. I didn't attack a Democrat; sounds like Gibbs WAS blindsided. nt

[Mass]

13. Here is the column, for those who are interested. And here is the excerpt that explains the Hill

article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07orszag.html

Ideally only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now. Getting a deal in Congress, though, may require keeping the high-income tax cuts, too. And that would still be worth it.

I know you were not attacking, but it seems the Hill was, by not reading his column, and then commenting. As did DUers. He may have wanted to read the column before commenting. What Orzag proposes (and that IMHO is more objectionable than the rest), is that ALL tax cuts are repelled after two years.

[Onlooker]

15. What Orszag means is ...

... Extend the Bush tax cuts for 2 years and then hope that the Republicans win so they can be extended even longer.

[seafan]

16. Neither Gibbs nor his boss has much reason to express surprise about Orszag, imho.

Orszag column blindsides White House

By Ian Swanson
09/07/10 02:49 PM ET

The White House was blindsided Tuesday by former budget director Peter Orszag’s dramatic break with President Obama on tax policy.

Orszag, in a column in The New York Times, called for all of the Bush-era tax cuts to be extended for two years, including rates for the wealthiest taxpayers, which the administration wants to phase-out for deficit reduction.

The defection from someone who closely advised Obama on fiscal policy just six weeks ago left spokesman Robert Gibbs in an awkward spot at his daily press briefing. He made it clear the administration was surprised by Orszag, saying the White House did not see the column in advance and did not know Orszag’s opinion on the matter.

.....

Orszag has been a wolf in sheep's clothing since early 2009, as the Fiscal Responsibility Summit got underway, when he was pushing the Diamond-Orszag plan to raise the retirement age and to reduce Social Security benefits for those 55 and under.


Extending Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of the wealthy is just par for the course for Orszag, obviously.


That Gibbs is now claiming surprise about Orszag's opinion on extending Bush's tax cuts lacks credibility.

[customerserviceguy]

17. We're just lucky that Orszag is on the outside

President Obama still has misogynist Summers and Turbo Tax Timmy on his economic team. Is it any wonder why the economy's still in the dumper?