Obama first to put tax increases on budget table

[I Drink Water]

WASHINGTON – Higher taxes have been missing from the fierce budget battle that nearly shut down the federal government. But President Barack Obama is about to put them on the table — at least a modest version that he had pushed before and then rested on the shelf.

Most economists and budget analysts say a comprehensive mix of spending cuts and tax increases is essential to any viable deficit-reduction plan. Yet few players in the negotiations have gone there.

It comes in the scramble to heed what is widely viewed as a loud clamor from voters to slam the brakes on runaway government spending. There has been no corresponding public demand for raising taxes. That's not surprising, but the top-bracket U.S. tax rate now is the lowest it's been in decades, and it's far lower than those in many other industrialized countries, especially in western Europe.

The president is expected to bring back his recommendation, first made in the 2008 campaign, to end Bush-era tax cuts for households earning over $250,000 a year. He temporarily set it aside when he signed onto a late 2010 agreement with Republicans to extend all Bush tax cuts for two years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110412/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown_taxes

[originalpckelly]

1. By the time this is over with there will be tax credits for the rich.

Well, if past history is any indicator of future events.

And maybe we'll be lucky enough that this is close enough to the election that it won't be like that, and he'll have to do the left thing.

[villager]

9. Well, we don't want anyone on the right to be mad at us, or think we're not "bipartisan"

n/t

[ZombieHorde]

2. Fingers crossed. nt

[gratuitous]

3. When I see it, I'll believe it

Sorry to be skeptical or cynical, but when I see President Obama fight for repeal of the Bush tax cuts with the same fierce advocacy he's shown for so many other things, then I'll believe it. Until then, I will call this nonsense. Ain't gonna happen. There will be the very best reasons, of course, but the Bush-era tax cuts are now as permanent as the Hyde Amendment, which outlaws using federal funds for abortion. The Hyde Amendment has to be re-authorized every two years, and like clockwork the members of Congress vote again to prohibit federal funds for a legal medical procedure. In the same way, the Bush tax cuts will come up every two years, and to avoid the scourge of having the wealthy help pay for the society that enriches them, they'll be re-authorized again and again.

[Wilms]

4. It sure looks like service cuts and tax hike for the lower and middle classes.

Roughly two-thirds of that would come through program cuts and one-third through increased taxes. Although overall tax rates would decline, dozens of popular tax breaks would be scaled back or eliminated, including the child tax credit, mortgage interest deduction and deduction claimed by employers who provide health insurance.

The audacity... :eyes:

[badtoworse]

5. I favor a return to the Clinton era tax rates for everyone - nt

[Autumn]

6. We don't get the child tax credit, but the

mortgage interest deduction loss would suck.

[leftstreet]

7. Rolling back child tax credit, & mortgage interest deduction will really soak the rich!

not

[The Northerner]

8. K&R

[damntexdem]

10. I hope he makes them the centerpiece.

And even better would be to leave spending cuts off the table.

Although cuts to military spending might fit in a convenient corner. ;-)

[no limit]

11. "at least a modest version that he had pushed before and then rested on the shelf"

Is that in reference to Bush tax cuts? Because he didn't rest those on the shelf, he threw them out the window by passing an extension which would end up costing us 800 billion dollars. All while cutting heating assistance for the poor.

[Recursion]

12. OFFS (nt)

[NCarolinawoman]

13. Exactly. If he had truly rested them on the shelf, they would have expired. n/t

[xchrom]

14. You have to take what the cuts mean against the tax hikes.

Proportionally I expect those with the least to suffer more.

Pragmatists will tell us they have to suffer -- without ever trying
To get from the rich, the corporations, or DoD what they should.