When Barack Obama proposed once again to hike taxes on people earning at or above $250,000, he insisted that polls showed that the American people agreed with him. It was an odd defense, seeing as how his own party refused to push that proposal last year in the Senate, which it controls, but Obama has forced them back into a tough position on the tax hike. Outgoing Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) announced Thursday that he would oppose it, joining Joe Lieberman and putting Harry Reid in a tough spot:
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) said Thursday he’s opposed to President Barack Obama’s plan to extend the Bush-era tax cuts to household income under $250,000 for one year, joining Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) as two members of the 53-member Senate Democratic Caucus who plan to vote against the plan.
“That’s a no,” Webb told Reuters when asked if he’d vote for the plan.
Webb has called for taxes to be increased on dividends and capital gains instead, and his spokesman, Will Jenkins, told POLITICO: “Sen. Webb has consistently stated that he opposes raising taxes on ordinary earned income.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the White House now cannot risk any more defections if they want to show they have majority support in the Senate.
A new poll from Marist and McClatchy make the position of Reid and Obama even tougher. Contrary to Obama’s claim, a majority of registered voters want all of the current tax rates extended, even those of the highest earners:
A majority of Americans want the Bush tax cuts extended for everyone, despite a strong push by President Barack Obama to eliminate them on higher incomes, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.
The poll found 52 percent of registered voters saying they want all the tax cuts extended, including the tax cuts for incomes above $250,000, while 43 percent want the cuts extended just for incomes below that threshhold [sic].
The news gets worse for Obama in the demographics, even if McClatchy has a problem with reporting on the issue:
Young voters ages 18-29 favored tax cuts for everyone by a margin of 69-29, the largest margin of any age group.
Latinos favored tax cuts for all incomes by 62 percent to 36 percent. Whites supported tax cuts for every income by 50 percent to 44 percent. African-Americans split, 48 percent for limiting the tax cuts to incomes below $250,000 and 47 percent for extending them to all incomes.
And those making less than $50,000 supported tax cuts for all incomes by 53 percent to 41 percent.
It’s not a tax cut. The cut occurred nine years ago. These are the current tax rates. The question isn’t whether to cut taxes, it’s whether they should be raised, and on whom. Even worse, the pollster asked the question using the phrase “extending the tax cuts” — and still ended up with majorities across a wide range of demographics supporting an extension for all earners.
Nor are those the only demos in which it becomes clear that Obama’s holding the more extreme position and not his opponents. A majority of independents oppose raising taxes on high-end earners, 53/41. More than a third of Obama supporters (37%), and forty percent of Democrats overall, want the current rates to remain in place. A narrow plurality of women want them left in place, 49/44.
Yeah, two married union members, say a fireman and an RN, make over that a year.
That’s Obama’s sweet spot of supporters, ones who are NOT on the dole.
Ones who could actually contribute something to his campaign.
BTW, Obama’s fine print?
An individual making only $200,000/year is also liable for Obama’s tax hike, if it were to become law.
This is exactly why there is a stagnation in the economy regarding investment, hiring, and expansion.
The liberal/progressive threats on tax rates has been hanging over our heads since Obama became president, leading people to make decisions on their money/wealth based on possible negative consequences of when/if the tax rates are increased.
Give the people solid, concrete knowledge of how they will be affected, and what will happen to the tax rates, and the surety that stems from it will allow people to make the decisions they should be making, such as re-investing money back into their businesses, investing more into funds and stocks, and even making big purchases that they have been putting off during this time of being unsure what will happen to them.
The result from that, assuming a continuation of the current rates, will be markedly increased economic activity resulting in more jobs and higher revenue for the government.
This is all common sense knowledge about economic activity and shows one of two things, regarding liberal/progressives;
-One, either they don’t have this common sense, so cannot make the decisions necessary.
or
-Two, they realize this and are deliberately keeping the people “in the dark” about their financial futures, using the resulting economic atmosphere and class-warfare lies to maintain control.
@Nan G:
The kicker, Nan, is that in the immediate future, assuming Obama gets his wish regarding tax rates, is that lower revenues than projected, will result in liberal/progressives re-assessing their $250k/$200k figures resulting in calls to change those figures to lower figures, say, $175k/$150k. Eventually, even those who make well under the initial figures will become directly affected by them. And if they supported those initial figures then it will serve them right.
I had met this wonderful woman while I was serving in Iraq She is currently in the military. There is no way we can marry since our combined incomes will place us well over the $250K threshold. Oh well, maybe there will be a change in management soon!
They’re the current tax rates only until they expire.
Most provisions of the Bush Tax Cut legislation came with built-in expiration dates. That was the only way enough votes could be mustered to allow passage, even with a republican majority firmly in control of Congress. Apparently republicans hadn’t gone completely crazy at that point.
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 included a built-in sunset provision because the Senate Byrd Rule would have otherwise prevented passage of any bill that would likely increase federal deficits for a period of more than 10 years. Congress knew damn well that increased federal deficits would likely result from the cuts. If it were not for that, the Byrd Rule wouldn’t have posed a problem in the first place.