When President Obama outlined his $450 billion jobs plan in a speech before Congress last week, he promised it would all be “paid for,” and assured us he would present another plan outlining how he planned to do so. Well, here you have it:
The White House said Monday that President Obama wants to pay for his $447 billion jobs bill by raising taxes on the wealthy and businesses.
Jack Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), said the tax hikes would pay for Obama’s entire bill, which the administration is sending to Congress Monday evening.
So much for the “balanced approach” Obama was so fond of during the debt ceiling debate. The administration will cover the cost of the spending in its new jobs proposal solely by increasing taxes. Here’s a look at where they plan to get the money, via The Hill:
-
$400 billion by limiting itemized deductions, including the one for charitable giving, for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for couples).
-
$40 billion by eliminating tax breaks for oil-and-gas companies.
-
$18 billion by taxing “carried interest” income (common among hedge fund managers) as regular income as opposed to capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate.
-
$3 billion by adjusting the depreciation rate on corporate jets.
Sound familiar? Recall this line from Obama’s speech last week: “This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math.” Republicans chuckled when he said that. And now the administration has shown why their laughter was warranted.
All told, the White House claims its tax package will bring in $467 billion in new revenue, $20 billion more than the spending called for in the jobs plan. White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that the president will formally introduce his recommendations to the deficit reduction supercommittee next Monday, and challenge its members to “overachieve” by going beyond the $1.5 trillion target set by the Budget Control Act. “The president is asking Congress to make choices,” Carney said.
As Michael Barone quips: “Obama is like the guy in the bar who says, ‘I’ll stand drinks for everyone in the house,’ and then adds, ‘Those guys over there are going to pay for them.’”
Just as Carney and Lew were announcing the White House tax plan, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) was holding a press conference in his office on Capitol Hill. When asked about the White House proposal, Cantor said he hadn’t seen it yet, but as you might expect, was not thrilled at the suggestion. “I sure hope that the president is not suggesting that we pay for his proposals with a massive tax increase at the end of 2012 on job creators that we’re actually counting on to reduce unemployment,” he said.
David Chalian points out that President Obama floated a similar proposal back in 2009 during the health-care negotiations. The White House wanted to cover the cost of extending health coverage in part by raising $318 billion in new taxes by limiting deductions for wealthy earners. But the idea encountered “stiff resistance” in Congress even then, when Democrats enjoyed complete control. And yet the administration still pushing the same idea, only this time the price tag has jumped to $400 billion.
“It would be fair to say this tax increase on job creators is the kind of proposal both parties have opposed in the past,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio). “We remain eager to work together on ways to support job growth, but this proposal doesn’t appear to have been offered in that bipartisan spirit.”
For an administration that has repeatedly proven itself an unserious arbiter when it comes to the federal budget, this is par for the course. Even its spending proposals are mostly warmed-over retreads of policies previously rejected by both parties.
UPDATE: Regarding the disparity between the $400 billion (over a decade) the White House now claims it can raise by limiting deductions on wealthy earners and the $318 billion figure used in 2009, it turns out that both the Office of Management and Budget and the Joint Committee on Taxation have already weighed in on the issue this year. OMB estimated that limiting certain tax deductions would bring in just $321 billion in new revenue (over 10 years), while JCT put the figure at $293 billion. So where, exactly, does the White House get this extra $80-100 billion? As Obama himself said: “This is simple math.”
It is balanced.
He's taxing both rich people and businesses.
That's balanced, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually he's raising taxes only on millionaires and billionaires like himself and his good friend Warren.
Don't worry, be happy!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn sum, then: TAX and SPEND. How new. How refreshing and original.
Even taking it on its own terms, it's absurd. Billions in new tax credits for hiring and investing in equipment, then raise your taxes. Right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.
This is not even funny any more, folks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe it is actually "Spend then Tax". They spend the money right away and then spend the next 10-years taxing us for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, they're "paying" for it, at least in part, by taking money right from the pockets of charitable organizations.
That tells you all you need to know with respect to Barack Obama's position on Marxism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs there someone who hasn't been living under a rock since 2008 who doesn't know President Obama's answer to every problem is to raise taxes on the wealthy (as defined by President Obama, of course).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis guy only knows one song. It is officially sad. Our long national nightmare will soon be over.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn addition to being simply another the right hand giveth, left hand taketh, tax & spend approach - the elimination of itemized charitable deductions for incomes over $200/$250k will result in disaster for the non-profit community.
Charitable organizations are on life support right now, Obama's plan will pull their plug!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMany of those organizations are religious...they can pray to Jesus for their money. God always provides.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo much for the claim that liberals are compassionate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe claim that they are intelligent was dispensed with years ago.
What I find funny is that we have so many trolls around here because the discussion is as open as NRO can possibly make it. Try trolling on a dem forum for an example of democratic tolerance and inclusion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd for what cannot be gotten from nonprofits and charities anymore, one must now go to....... the government.
Now it makes sense, eh?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike I said last week:
"So where does the money come from? New job-killing taxes that Obama will trot out next week with his payment plan. Revealing his stimulus bill this way gives Obama the benefit of a prime-time address before Congress advocating tax cuts, but without having to tell the American people to their face that he plans to raise their taxes."
Dishonest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWaaahh waaahh wah! Stop whining.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a quality post. A++ would read again. Definitely elevates the conversation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMust be one of Obama's speechwriters ...or staff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI give it a 32 because you can't dance to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGet a clue Mr. President - Oil and gas companies don't "pay" taxes, their customers do through higher prices. How will $5/gal gas stimulate the economy? Also, charities are among the few things in this country that still generally work efficiently. Why do you want to strangle them through these tax policies?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNope, that's a common refrain but untrue. Oil companies don't set the price of oil, they can't raise it...thus they aren't responsible for high prices and if taxed more, they can't just "raise prices" on oil. There's a world price.
Longer term it might cause them to allocate less capital to it but since they are bit players compared to OPEC...it likely won't affect the price.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight, oil companies don't set the price of oil, but they do set the price of gasoline
Gasoline is a value-added commodity. And, the process that adds value to that commodity is taxed. Like all taxes in any consumer commodity, they're passed onto the consumer.
So, to recap: There is a global oil market, and that oil market largely establishes the price of crude oil (although it wouldn't be correct to call it a free market because we have OPEC). The oil producers refine that crude and any and all taxes on that recovery and refining process, are passed onto consumers by way of retail pricing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse