Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

GOP: Tax increase ain’t gonna happen

By ANDREW TAYLOR
September 14, 2010

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McDonnell (AP)

President Barack Obama‘s plan to raise taxes on wealthier people while preserving cuts for everyone else appears increasingly likely to founder before Election Day.

Senate GOP leaders declared on Monday that Republicans are, to a person, opposed to legislation that would extend only middle-class tax relief — which Obama has repeatedly promised to deliver — if Democrats follow through on plans to let tax rates rise for the wealthiest Americans. The GOP senators forcefully made their case one day after House Republican leader John Boehner suggested he might vote for Obama’s plan if that ends up the only option.

Both Republicans and Democrats are using the looming expiration of Bush-era tax cuts as a defining battle in elections to determine control of Congress.

It would take numerous Democratic defectors to pass the Republicans’ version — extending all the Bush tax cuts — or the issue could be left for a postelection congressional session if Republicans block the measure with a filibuster. Obama last week declined to say whether he would veto a bill that preserved the tax breaks for the wealthy.

On Sunday, Boehner said he would support renewing tax cuts for the middle class but not the wealthy if that was his only choice. Though Boehner was clear that he supports extending the full range of tax cuts, the White House jumped on his remarks as a possible change of heart.

But Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the GOP whip, said Monday his party won’t give ground.

“Just before the recess we had a meeting and we discussed this, and every Republican was absolutely supportive of the idea that there shouldn’t be any increases in taxes,” Kyl said.

Renewing the tax cuts for everyone would cost the government almost $4 trillion over the next decade, according to congressional analysts, who also assume that Congress won’t allow the alternative minimum tax to hit millions of middle class taxpayers with eye-popping tax hikes.

With polls showing broad public anger over spiraling federal deficits, Obama wants to exclude individuals earning over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000 — who account for $700 billion of that $4 trillion total. They represent about 3 percent of taxpayers, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

“Only in Washington could someone propose a tax hike as an antidote to a recession,” GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said.

McConnell has said a bill extending the tax cuts for only low- and middle-income earners cannot pass the Senate, but he declined to reiterate that threat on Monday. Republicans control 41 seats, the minimum needed for a successful bill-killing filibuster, though McConnell spokesman Don Stewart declined to say whether all 41 Republicans would support a filibuster.

To amplify his point, McConnell on Monday introduced a bill to extend to Bush tax cuts indefinitely for all income ranges.

Some Democrats, like Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, are siding with Republicans against raising taxes on anyone during a fragile economic recovery.

“I don’t think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who aligns with Democrats, said Monday. “The more money we leave in private hands, the quicker our economic recovery will be. And that means I will do everything I can to make sure Congress extends the so-called Bush tax cuts for another year.”

But Lieberman said he would not vote to hold up extension of the middle-class cuts to win leverage to extend those for wealthier people as well.

At issue is a year-end deadline to renew a variety of tax cuts enacted in 2001 — when the federal government was running a surplus. They include lower rates, a $1,000 per-child tax credit, relief for married couples, and lower taxes on investments and large estates.

On Sunday, House GOP leader John Boehner said he would support renewing tax cuts for the middle class but not the wealthy if that was his only choice. Though Boehner was clear that he supports extending the full range of tax cuts, the White House jumped on his remarks as a possible change of heart.

Boehner has proposed a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, which would push the question into the 2012 presidential election. Obama has declined to say that he’d veto such a plan.

Democrats are worried that November elections could hand the GOP control of the House and perhaps the Senate. The White House and its Democratic allies hope to use the tax-cut fight to cast themselves as defenders of the middle class and Republicans as a party eager to revive the days of a still-unpopular former president, George W. Bush.

“We’re going to take the next 50-some days to convince the public that’s exactly what the Republicans would do — back to the Bush policies,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on NBC’s “Today” show.

“We could get (tax cuts) done this week, but we’re still in this wrestling match with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell about the last 2 to 3 percent” of upper-income taxpayers, Obama said Monday during a backyard town hall in a Northern Virginia suburb.

Gibbs said the middle class should not be used as a political football by Republicans maneuvering to give tax cuts to wealthy taxpayers, who he said don’t need the reductions. Republicans say paring taxes for the wealthy would encourage them and the businesses they operate to create jobs.

Republicans, for their part, say that it’s not just the rich who would be hit by Obama’s tax hike on upper-income people. Many small businesses — that earn about half of all small business income — would also face the tax hike.

“No American should face a tax increase in January … not one,” said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, the No. 3 House Republican. “We will not compromise our economy to accommodate the class warfare rhetoric of this administration.”

___

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press

Enhanced by Zemanta

5 Responses to GOP: Tax increase ain’t gonna happen

  1. Guardhouse lawyer

    September 14, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Bi-partisan? Yeah. The Republicans idea of bi-partisan is my way or no way.

  2. minimalist

    September 14, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    Much like the ramrod of Obamacare.

  3. Guardhouse lawyer

    September 14, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    Exactly. Had the Repubs shown any willingness to participate in the political legislative process the bill may have been a bit more to their liking. But when all you can do is say no you get no part of the action.

  4. dvl666

    September 14, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    WTF As I recall Obama gave in to every GOP rant to try and get support and all they said was NO. We have Insurance Industry run Health Care. Government Health Care would be Medicare for all. As in the ‘mosque’ dispute Obama and the dumocrats have let the far right frame every question.
    Interesting how “fans” who want to extend the Bush cuts for millionaries booed the NFL millionaires who want even a big slice of the pie.
    Do Paris Hilton, Mel Gibson et.all need a tax break?
    The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy did not “trickle down” to create more jobs. His job crteation never got us back to those created by Bush I and Clinton who raised taxes.
    As the poor folks fight over the crumbs the millionaires laugh all the way to the bank.

  5. Almandine

    September 15, 2010 at 8:03 am

    It’s always a little more complicated than what can be seen outwardly. Even now.

    Unemployment was 4.0 % when Clinton left office… there weren’t many unemployed citizens to find jobs for. That, of course, was the biggest reason to push illegal immigration… the remaining “jobs Americans wouldn’t do” (unskilled labor) had to be filled. Ain’t so, now.

    Then came 9/11 and the recession. Bush tax cuts had little to do with it… so says Mark Zandi of Moodys: “The principal reason is that the labor force has grown much more slowly during the president’s [Bush] term than under the presidencies of Clinton and Reagan and that has nothing to do with anything but demographics.”