The Jobs Act – Brought to You by Taxes [New]
I’m not entirely sure what this says about either myself or the president, but I was shocked to hear that his proposal for paying for the American Jobs Act out of existing spending will come entirely from cuts in “tax giveaways.” That is to say, he wants to raise taxes on the plutocrats and their various pseudo-monopolies.
White House budget director Jack Lew outlined Obama’s proposals for paying for the plan, targeting the rich and corporations as the president has in the past to no avail.
The biggest item would raise $400 billion by limiting deductions and exemptions on individuals who earn more than $200,000 per year and families who earn more than $250,000.
He also proposed raising $18 billion by treating the earnings of investment fund managers as ordinary income rather than taxing it at lower capital gains rates.
He would eliminate many oil and gas industry tax breaks to raise $40 billion and change corporate jet depreciation rules to bring in another $3 billion.
According to Lew, The Hill notes:
[T]he total measures proposed by the administration would bring in $467 billion, $20 billion more than the cost of the bill.
Previously the leftist consensus seemed to be (and I would say I agreed) that he would look to cut spending from areas that were a sure thing with Republicans, like the American welfare state. This would have offset any good that his plan did by an equal amount of evil distributed elsewhere. Instead, it turns out he’s targeting tax loopholes, an unjust tax code, and corporate welfare. Whatever the reason for this shift, I’m pleasantly surprised. The Anarcho-Militarist Party, the president’s primary opposition, will not be.
What Do You Think?
3 Responses to 'The Jobs Act – Brought to You by Taxes'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
John [New]
Monday, 12 Sep, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Yes, it’s good to see this. Credit where credit it due, but…
I’m feeling like I’ve been burned so much by Obama, that a metaphor comes to mind of an animal circling a too-good-to-be-true haunch of fresh meat in the middle of the forest. If I go for it maybe a pit of spikes is going to open up underneath me or a bear trap is going to slam closed on my foot…
I’ll put away my crayons now, but the point is that my capacity to identify with Obama – to believe my values, ideas or notions of justice are being moved onto the stage for any reason other than to somehow throw it back at me or screw me over in the middle of the Kabuki dance, is shot.
Tim [New]
Tuesday, 13 Sep, 2011 at 7:25 am
Yes and I wonder if this isn’t Kabuki: doing what is right to get elected knowing that your legislation will never pass, you’ll get re-elected, and then go back to your Republican policy ways.
Emocrat [New]
Tuesday, 13 Sep, 2011 at 9:16 am
I have to agree with John and Tim. This is almost certainly part of a bait and switch operation of the likes we’ve seen too many times before to believe this time. Also, what are the chances this gets through congress? Slim to none… and the WH knows it, so they know they can say anything they want and it won’t become reality.
Eliminate oil and gas subsidies? Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, back in 2008. As far as the deductions go, this is a part of Obama’s plan to actually lower the top marginal rates in exchange for some loss of deductions and so on. Reuters didn’t bother to mention that what Obama supports is a much flatter tax table. Chances are that bit was simply left out of the piece.
As for the fund managers, since those folks are some of Obama’s bestest golf buddies, I can’t seriously entertain that idea as serious. If nothing else, he has been perfectly consistent in defending their craven interests.
So all in all, this just looks like election cycle misdirection. Just enough “progressives” will buy this to split up the dissenters, as they’ve repeatedly shown works like a charm.
So I hate to burst your bubble, but I seriously doubt this is anything other than a headfake.