GOP Budget Proposal: Massive Tax Cut For Wealthy

House Republican leaders called a press conference Thursday to unveil their "alternative budget." While it was thin on specifics, it does include one major policy proposal: a huge tax cut for the wealthy.

Under the Republican plan, the top marginal tax rate would be slashed from 35 to 25 percent, facilitating a dramatic transfer of wealth up the economic scale. Anyone making more than a $100,000 would pay the top rate; those under would pay 10 percent.

"Two nights ago, the president said, 'We haven't seen a budget yet out of Republicans.' Well, it's just not true, because here it is, Mr. President," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), waving a blue document in the air.

"Today we're introducing a detailed road-to-recovery plan," he told the reporters. Other than the tax proposal, however, the plan was absent any details. Instead, it hammered the Democratic budget as too expensive.

Reporters -- mainstream, liberal and conservative -- greeted the Republican document with a collective scoff.

"Are you going to have any further details on this today?" the first asked.

"On what?" asked Boehner.

"There's no detail in here," noted the reporter.

Answered Boehner: "This is a blueprint for where we're going. Are you asking about some other document?"

A second reporter followed up: "What about some numbers? What about the out-year deficit? What about balancing the budget? How are you going to do it?"

"We'll have the alternative budget details next week," promised Boehner. Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had wisely departed the room after offering his opening remarks. ("Today's Republican road-to-recovery is the latest in a series of GOP initiatives, solutions and plans," he had offered.)

A third reporter asked Boehner about the Republican goal for deficit reduction, noting President Obama aimed to cut it in half in five years. "What's your goal?"

"To do better," said Boehner.

"How? How much?"

"You'll see next week."

"Wait. Why not today? Because he asked you to present a budget."

"Now, hold on," said Boehner. "The president came to Capitol Hill and laid out his blueprint for his budget during the State of the Union. He didn't offer his details until days later."

"In general, where do you see cuts coming?" the Huffington Post asked.

"We'll wait and see next week," he said.

Another reporter reminded Boehner that he has "criticized Democrats for throwing together a stimulus quickly and nobody knew what they were voting on. Are you saying that your budget will be unveiled on the same day that the House is expected to vote on it?"

"No, I expect it'll be out next week," he said, though the House is expected to vote on the budget next week. "But understand that a budget really is a one-page document. It's just a bunch of numbers."

Though not today, of course.

As Boehner left, a reporter attempted to pin him down on whether the party would oppose all bailouts in the future.

"Mmm," he said, pausing at the door. "We'll see."

Comments

[samthewill]

02:56 PM on 04/10/2009

many of these EVIL wealthy people you talk about are being taxed out of business. many of my wealthy friends at www.affluence.org are saying they are going to stop putting time and energy into building businesses (ie creating value, innovation, competition, JOBS) and are going to sit on gold. is this really what we want the rich to do? nothing? no.

[research]

07:11 PM on 04/12/2009

pure BS.

[BW1980]

04:12 PM on 04/06/2009

What a shocker. Times are tough and the Republicans want tax cuts for the wealthy and more military spending. So here's the message: You run a big company and get rich by paying employees dirt wages then we have your back. Here's our plan: freeze spending on education so that the only decent education will be at private schools that only wealthy people can afford to send their kids. We'll keep the middle class and poor in a state of perpetual stupidity. But hold on, it gets better, because we have a fool proof way of ensuring that the dumbing down of America doesn't put us behind the rest of the world: We'll build up our military so that they can invade other countries and steal their money/natural resources and put puppet dictators in powers. That way the wealthier Americans business interest will be furthered while at the same ensuring that the gap between wealthy and poor increases.

Brilliant. And these people call themselves patriots....what a JOKE.

[Charlie M]

02:18 PM on 04/01/2009

The Republican continue to do their thing eh ? I believe the Republican agenda is to oppose any and all of President Obama's attempts to bring our country back . They cannot believe it is the working people that make this country what it is and that keep it running. Their trickle down philosophy ,that doesn't trickle down , is a lost cause , only they just don't know any other way .

[diablo182369]

01:06 AM on 04/02/2009

This country has never been socialist... so technically Obama can't bring this country back.... He can only attempt to bring it to the failed left.

[pennyless]

12:17 AM on 04/05/2009

The republicans broke the capitalist system by allowing greed to thrive. The failure already occured under the repulican watch (if you can call it a watch)... so techincally Obama is trying to fix what was given to him from the failed right. As to your attempt to instill fear by using the "socialist" word - your boy McCain already tried it in his campaign. It didn't work for him and it's not working for you.

[winoiknow]

10:53 PM on 03/30/2009

Read This:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts264.html

[diablo182369]

01:07 AM on 04/02/2009

Yes

[jwmd]

09:41 PM on 03/30/2009

The Republican "alternative" budget proposed by Boehner increases the deficit by $300 Billion a year over the President's budget: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/housegopplan20090327.pdf

When spending gets cuts to the point where we have a surplus again - then let's talk about tax cuts. Until then, just cutting taxes is nothing more than trying to buy votes.

[winoiknow]

11:05 PM on 03/30/2009

If tax cuts are to buy Republican votes, then what is the purpose of higher spending to Democratic causes (e.g. refundable tax credits, education, unions, etc.)? That's right... buying votes. This would seem to be the "business of government" these days and yet both parties rail against each other for essentially the same thing (just one to the other's displeasure).

Reagan cut taxes so severely in an effort to starve government spending. This starvation forced government to prioritize (and eventually forced him to raise taxes again as he had lowered them too much for where government was at that time). Perhaps this is what the Republicans are thinking again this time... or perhaps they are truly just buying votes.

Still, if there is only one truth, it's that lower government burden = greater personal freedom and prosperity. I would posit that neither party really believes in greater personal freedom - just shades of gray leaning toward one political pole or the other.

It is a sad day indeed when we as a people are so distracted by the tertiary ideological issues that separate us that we collectively fail to see that government, under Republican AND Democratic control, continue to erode our freedoms.

[guruglenn]

10:33 AM on 03/30/2009

Years ago when I was in school I used to hand in assignments with lots of generalities and very little details and I most often got them back with a "D" on them. I am thinking that the people we have appointed to govern us can come up with a detailed plan of how they intend on getting us out of the mess we have got ourselves into.

This isn't grade school anymore.

Glenn Smith Author of Lotus Petal, A Parable to Help You to Overcome The Fear of Death
http://lotuspetalbook.com

[Diane Reid]

09:09 AM on 03/30/2009

LOL LOL Now that is funny, true but funny. Do they have any dignity??????

[justsomeguywhocameby]

10:34 PM on 03/29/2009

Boehner sez

paraphrasing "You will get the details next week on April Fools' Day"

[Shieldmaiden]

05:51 PM on 03/27/2009

I wish Gore had gotten to be president. Sigh.

[dianhow]

07:49 PM on 03/27/2009

GORE did win-but Bush stole it.

[bannorhill]

10:50 PM on 03/27/2009

Bush won Florida by EVERY offical vote count.

[liberalsareretarded]

05:19 PM on 03/27/2009

Regarding the tax cut proposal, I'm just totally shocked at how many of you out there, including the author, can't do basic math. Here are the affects of the proposal at various income levels (based on 08 rates):

Taxable Income | Current Tax | Proposed Tax | Decrease Net | Decrease Percentage
$50,000.00 | $8,843.75 | $5,000.00 | $3,843.75 | 43.5%
$100,000.00 | $21,978.25 | $10,000.00 | $11,978.25 | 54.5%
$250,000.00 | $68,250.75 | $47,500.00 | $20,750.75 | 30.4%
$1,000,000.00 | $328,596.75 | $235,000.00 | $93,596.75 | 28.5%

Clearly, taxes are cut more at the lower end, meaning that the tax burden is shifted upwards, not down as the author claims.

Whether or not you agree with a policy of tax cuts is one thing, but to claim that "dramatic transfer of wealth up the economic scale" is plain ignorance.

[dianhow]

07:34 PM on 03/27/2009

Reagan Bush / GOP policy gave the top 2- 3 % HUGE TAX BREAKS FOR 25 + YEARS. REAGAN lowered the top tax rate from 80 % down to about 32 %. Thasyt wasn't enough. So
W decided his ' buddies ' needed even more breaks,even while fighting 2 wars- he gave huge breaks to big oil, big pharma, & Corporations-even the Co's who sent jobs overseas.
McCain's advisor- Sen Phil Gramm used his power to push the Enron Loophole - that caused Enron workers to lose their 401 K savings.and allowed his wife to make 900 K off that deal
AS A LOBBYIST. Thats Crooked. That's the kind of thing that has been going on with the GOP- while they have screwed average workers every which way. They try to bust unions-but are glad to hire illegals, so they can pay low wages and no benefits. The high earners will pay somewhat more in tax under Obama--because they can afford more. and have enough left after taxes to support their families and live well. While those making 40-50 K - after living expenses- have little left. Its that greedy way of thinking that got us into this huge mess. The wealthy did just fine under Clinton-everyone did for the most part.

[dianhow]

07:48 PM on 03/27/2009

Meant to add.. BUsh admin went to court to PREVENT regulaltion on Wall St.. He also would NOT allow socail security to negotiate prices of RX drugs- gee I wonder who that helped ?
BIG PHARMA That has been his MO the whole time.

[marenz]

03:43 PM on 03/27/2009

I think I found the pdf of the GOP alternative budget, but I think the comment system will comb the link out. Here goes nothing:

http://www.ridiculopathy.com/misc/GOP_Alternative_budget.pdf

[research]

03:05 PM on 03/27/2009

Cause of Correlation:

We dropped the top income tax rate to 25%

before the great depression and before this crash.

Could it be that top income taxes below about 30% CAUSE bubbles and crashes?

Mechanization multiplies, "leverages" money.

See my profile for detailed links and argument for this cause and effect.

[dianhow]

07:39 PM on 03/27/2009

Reagan lowered taxes for the top earners drastically. The W did it again- while in 2 wars. Now the GOP is again saying the wealthy need yet another huge tax break. Thats all they know how to do.
The robber barons of the 21 st century ! Massive Greed selfish behavior-deregulation - the whats in it for me mindset- has been the legacy of the GOP - since Reagan's time till Nov 2008 ! OMG GO OBama

[winoiknow]

12:42 PM on 03/27/2009

Most of the comments here show a shocking mob mentality - progressive team players who follow their master's lead like lemmings - and very little knowledge of history. Hence, we appear to be doomed to repeat it.

The author here is intentionally mis-leading with emotive intent. The proposed tax cuts benefit all, and as some have pointed out, the lower- to middle-tier taxpayers more so than the higher income. The author is leading you down a pre-defined thought path and nearly everyone here has taken the bait. Are most of you not capable of critical thought?

As for repeating history - without crawling up the gnat's a$$, look at the historical economic results of two diverging tax/spend policies. JFK broadly cuts taxes and we enter a (short) period of growth. LBJ enacts the Great Society followed by Nixon's "invervention" price and wage controls (little changed by Ford) followed by Carter's abismal failure. The stock market and national wealth were net down from 1966 - 1982. Reagan drastically lowers taxes and shrinks government (followed more/less by HW Bush, Clinton and GW Bush) and we see 30 years of near constant prospertiy.

When will folks realize this is less about party and more about government in general treading over your personal and economic liberties.

[Pyrrhus]

01:09 PM on 03/27/2009

Interesting.

And I suppose the Great Depression was caused by overtaxation and government regulation instead of a stock market crash due to overspeculation and the inability/unwillingness of the government to step in and stop things before they worsened.

Or in 1987 when people were jumping from windows. I suppose they were just desperate for their vacation rather than despairing when the stock market crashed. "Near constant prosperity" indeed.

Or in 2001, or in 2008. Yep lots of government regulation caused those failures as well. I guess you think the problem with AIG and Bear Stearns etc. was that they were OVER regulated?

And in terms of government, I would rather have the feds trample upon me than some corporation, because every once in a while the people themselves can change things (2008). However, with no government ability to force corporations to change things the people are left only with a slightly more violent alternative.

[Schaef]

01:54 PM on 03/27/2009

Don't forget 1993. Or 1980. Gee, it almost sounds like this stuff goes in seven year cycles regardless of other factors. Weird.

And no, government is not the only foil against a corporation.

[winoiknow]

02:27 PM on 03/28/2009

Actually, a large contributor to the Great Depression was Hoover raising taxes. Then, after a brief respite, the economy got worse as government stepped in and made it worse.

If you would rather have the Feds trample upon you than private enterprise, you have a complete lack of understanding of your core freedoms. If a private enterprise steps on you, you can buy from or work for someone else. If the Fed steps on you, you have no choice. You can change things every day... except government. Wake up!

[dianhow]

07:45 PM on 03/27/2009

You missed the part about Reagan / Bush deregulation of Banks & Wall ST that allowed massive greed and unethical behavior. Banks / Wall st were selling junk securites- and calling them TROPLE AAA.. that should have been illegal-but no- deregulation made it OK. That my friend is the legacy of Reagan / Bush / Bush policies- for the last 25 years the wealthy have grown 20 + times while middle class have not done nearly as well- and in Bush's 8 years- we' ve lost income real dollars. THose are the facts Check it out..

[winoiknow]

01:22 PM on 03/28/2009

Dianhow -

Do you live under a rock? While Bush and others tried, and should have tried harder, to regulate Fannie/Freddie (who were buying up 95% of all junk mortgages on the beheast of a Democrat-passed Community Reinvestment Act), Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other prominent Democrats were totally rejecting such regulation. As late as 2006, Barney Frank said on live camera that he wanted to "roll the dice" with Frannie/Freddie.

Are you not aware that ACORN activists were picketing banks that they felt did not write "enough" mortgages to low-income and other risky borrowers? Are you not aware that the Democrats (in league with many Republicans) tacitly endorced the low o or inadequate underwriting of such mortgages that were then bundled into securities.

And if government regulation is the answer, why has it uncovered so few true frauds before the priveate market figured it out (Madoff, Enron, Worldcom, etc.)?

You really should try and use your brain for a change. I am in no way saying Bush or the Republicans don't have blood on their hands... they do... but its a total failure of government in general.

Government sticks its dead hand into the market to try and achieve political results and this is what results.

[winoiknow]

02:12 PM on 03/28/2009

Oh yeah... and it was Clinton who repealed the Glass-Steegal Act which effectively de-regulated Wall Street. Perhaps you should examine your facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

[lagumbo]

12:28 PM on 03/27/2009

Let's all just get on our knees and thank GOD that these Republican fools were not in office when this
economic crisis started 2 months ago. We would be up a creek right now without a paddle. The republicans don't have the brains to come up with a budget. But I guess when it NO for everything the president wants to accomplish, you don't need a brain. How pathetic the republican party has gotten.

[Eris23Skidoo]

03:08 PM on 03/27/2009

The crisis actually started in the Summer of 2007 according to Ben Bernanke.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20090218a.htm

Bush was in charge of the financial machinery at the time. Imagine if Al Gore was in his second term. Maybe we wouldn't be in this position. No war to run up the deficit with, less deregulation, the SEC being instructed to actually do their job, etc.

We are up the creek and we had no paddle. Good thing we still have elections because at the very least we now have a paddle.

[Tomas04]

11:54 AM on 03/27/2009

What a great strategy. Lure your opponents in with stupidity and then you got them right where you want them. Limbaugh, Joe the Plumber- you must be much smarter than you look and appear.