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.

Story continues below

advertisement

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

[instarx]

The horrible thing about this is not so much that they paraded a phony document as a budget, or that they expected people to believe it - it is that the Republicans simply have NO IDEAS. They can only re-use bullet points from their heyday: tax cuts, less regulation, etc. They are apparently unable to recognize that the meteor hit and its a new environment out there. Dinosaurs all.

The republican party has truly become the party of the brain dead.

[Horus45]

"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,"

It WAS TRUE when the President said it, and is still true considering the content of their Bill!

[jackbond]

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this. I know these people are stupid, real stupid, but even I would have given them credit for knowing the definition of "yet." In the words of Senator Grassley,

“The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they’d follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things — resign, or go commit suicide.”

[Dolmance]

Instead of tax breaks, why not just give ALL rich people bonuses?

[UnknownSoldier]

LOL

[Joshua Schaeffer]

What have you personally done to deserve your hand in the pocket of a successful businessman? Because this taxation doesn't just affect the crooks.

So let's hear it. What have you personally done to deserve that?

[Tomas04]

Let's see. We built the roads they drive on, we collected the garbage he threw out, we protected his property from thieves. But I get your point. These people did it all on their own wand deserve everything while everyone else should get the short end of the stick.

[babaann]

Successful businessmen and women are suffering from economic problems, too. From what I can see, their pockets are near empty due to slowdowns because no one can buy their product.

I've been asking them, how much money do you think you are going to make this year, to pay taxes on..

[iknowdou]

I am an American citizen, and if you are, then pay your taxes.

Do you know why our country doesn't look like parts of Africa or Afghanistan? Because we pay taxes. As a result, we have an obscenely luxurious lifestyle, in comparison, but it's not free and just because you're a 'successful businessman' doesn't mean you're entitled to take it for granted. Be a little more grateful for the running water, the roads, the sewage system.

Why is it so hard for some American citizens to stop whining about taxes? And no one has their hand in rich people's pockets. There are a lot more important things in life than being selfish and greedy.

[Blanca DeBree]

Well tax cuts are the best way to grow the economy, shrink the deficit, and balance the budget.

It's called faith-based economics.

[byrdlegs]

I agree...ta­xcuts worked so well for BUSH, thats why he lost over 6 million jobs under his watch.
That is why our ECONOMY is in such good shape.
And the GOPERS cant understand why they cant win any elections

[Clashel]

Where in the article does it talk about "Wealth"?

Answer:Nowhere.

Wealth and income are not the same thing folks!

[Lillopa]

1% but they are billions billionaires--wiped out all other small average business out--

[AvangionQ]

Tax cuts for the wealthy have already created massively disproportionate wealth inequality between the top 1% and the rest of the populace, and yet we are in the worst economic recession since the last Great Depression ... the malfeasance of Republican economics has long since been disproven, yet they won't give up on their woefully harmful beliefs -- this being one of the largest reasons that they're plummeting in popularity amongst the electorate ...

[Eris23Skidoo]

Its their most cherished belief because it is their most lucrative belief. If they didn't pretend to believe in low taxes for corporations and rich people, who would pay for their election campaigns?

[Cye]

Just imagine if the Republicans were still in office when the global financial crisis hit. Is this the best they can do?

[BobsNotWorking]

They were in office when it hit. We're just exceptionally lucky that it was so close to an election. Otherwise, we'd already be in a very deep depression.

[ChangeNow]

The headline and first two paragraphs for this are a bit misleading, no? According to the text, the people who make less than 100K will get a cut of about 24%, versus 10% for those making more. Seems like a massive tax cut for the middle class to me.

[montecarlo408]

There's a difference between a tax cut and a marginal tax rate.

[itsjustanillusion]

Please read people! Its says anyone making over 100K will pay the top marginal rate which, under their plan, would be 25%. Anyone making less than 100k will pay 10%. Dang!

[Tomas04]

And then where is the revenue going to come from to fund the government?

[JudgeCrater]

Haven't you heard? Financially supporting your country is unpatriotic. It's the new R mantra.

[flamingind]

The thing they don't like to talk about is that these flat or one-step tax cuts usually involve gutting the tax credit / deduction system. So, no more mortgage credit, no more student loan credit, etc. At least Steve Forbes is smart enough to suggest that people under $100K would pay NO taxes. If you eliminate most tax credits and still make people under $100K pay 10% tax, it would actually be a tax INCREASE for most of the middle class. I'd like to see what the Republican plan does for real middle class people (and not just families, politicians often sugar-coat bad plans for singles by showing how great it is for families).

It's funny though to hear the talking heads describe how a 4% increase in the top rate will bankrupt the economy. As if our country was bankrupt for the entire 20th century.

[rjhuntington]

hahahahahaha, tax cuts for the wealthy are now the ONLY place Republicans have to attempt to hide their insatiable greed, calling it some kind of "stimulus" when it's nothing other than institutionalized greed. The GOP (Greedy Old Poopyheads) have NOTHING to offer. They are morally, ethically and politically BANKRUPT. Good riddance. Congressional Democrats and Independents should simply IGNORE Republicans.

Tax cuts for the wealthy depress the economy. Every dollar in top-bracket tax cuts returns about 37 cents in economic activity, a huge loss. What money manager or financial planner would recommend such an investment? No one with a brain would do so, but Republicans tout exactly that as economic stimulus. Pure greed is what it really is. Palpable personal greed institutionalized into the Republican party platform..

Putting spendable money into the hands of consumers stimulates the economy. Every dollar in food stamps and unemployments benefits returns over $1.70 in economic activity, a great return on investment.

[See Moody's economy.com for actual numerical data]

[Joshua Schaeffer]

The insatiable greed comes from the Democrats who, rather than vote to give less of their money to the federal government like the Republicans, instead vote to confiscate wealth from *other* citizens via the federal government. Redistribution is what caused the Civil War, not slavery.

Putting spendable money directly into the hands of consumers has done ZERO to stimulate the economy. Obviously you weren't paying attention when Bush handed out $600 to every individual and it didn't accomplish squat.

The more the Democrats try to control control control, the more they will just hobble hobble hobble. Then they'll use the resulting failures as an alibi to gain even more control, resulting in a self-enforcing death spiral.

[Tomas04]

Define redistribution. Your idea is that nobody should pay taxes? Poor people should pay the taxes? What? We have huge deficits because of trickle on economics. The middle class has suffered for it. But somehow in your delusion, you find solace in the republican proposal that is not really there.

[JudgeCrater]

So the current tax code is the bloody Ten Commandments? Perfection etched in stone? Why wasn't the tax code in, say, 2000 afforded the supreme protection of bleating, sheep-like cries of "wealth redistribution, wealth redistribution, wealth redistribution!"

[iknowdou]

No one wants your money. Why don't you just keep it?

But don't complain when no one monitors our border and terrorists are free to come and go. And no more flying or driving for you, those airports ain't free. You'll have to walk, and not on the sidewalk. And if we are attacked, too bad, no one will come to your country's aid. The military that are fighting abroad right now won't have any benefits when they get back, they'll just die of their wounds on the street and then their bodies will decompose there too because there wont be any federal graves.

If you want to talk about Democrats being greedy and if you are so self absorbed that you think paying taxes is akin to being pick pocketed, then be a tax cheat with the rest of them. And when you are in your corporate run hospital on your corporate sponsored deathbed, who do you think will be wondering if your life will be cost effective to save? The Democrats will be the ones trying to save your life, no matter what the cost, while the Republicans wondering if giving you a deathbed is a good business decision. You'll be on your death bed, right? So you'll no longer be a potential client

[Eris23Skidoo]

Bush's $600 tax "handout" as you call it was mostly spent on paying down bills and credit cards. One of the big problems in our economy is that we spend way too much on credit. This is true for the govt as well as the consumer. Your example is purely anecdotal. It was a good policy but it wasn't the right time for it. The best way to achieve growth is to find an imbalance and correct it. This is why the economy jumped when JFK lowered the top rate, because the top rate was too high. The same goes for when Reagan lowered the top rate. The problem now is not that the top rate is too high. The imbalance is in the wealthy paying the least as a proportion of their income and the poor paying the most as a proportion of their income. As rjhuntington stated, why would we distribute to the wealthy when doing so will lower growth by 63% when we can distribute to the poorest of the poor and grow our economy by 70%? The devil is in the details, not some cheap shot bad example. One example doesn't prove squat. Ask any scientist, in order for an experiment to be meaningful it must be reproducible.

[Eris23Skidoo]

And for the record, redistribution was the *excuse* that southern politicians used to get their neighbors to secede; but the root cause was that they didn't want their "property" being confiscated by big daddy gub'mint. This is why there are still people in the south who are angry that they don't have slaves (now they're poor because nobody will do their work for them and they are too lazy to do it themselves). The KKK was definitely not formed for reasons of distribution, it was formed to keep the black man down and to keep the white race "pure". Don't go rewriting history. There is no left-over legacy of confederate-flag waving weirdos who lust for the days before redistribution. There might be some who are angry with the north (still) over trade policy but distribution wasn't even an issue at the time.

[SecretSister]

Let the Republicans take as long as they want to present their alternative budget proposal; meanwhile, the democrats and independents will be amending and passing their budget.

In other words, their budget is a day late and a dollar short.

[byrdlegs]

I agree, the Republicans will probably have another 40 yrs to submit their budget and any other proposals they may have. This is going to be another 40 yr hiatus as in 1954-1994, when the country was at its best without any Republican interference. Life is GOOD

[drweh2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU

[ricehq]

If you experience a Boehner lasting more than 4 hours, please consult a physician.

[CaliTLC]

LOL

[Deontée Gordon]

Awesome. LOL... just awesome.

[Tomas04]

Classic- I will have to steal that from you.

[Schaef]

Another flawed homonym that attempts to be clever but just sounds ignorant. I'll put that on the list next to "Faux News".

[unite4change]

The emperors have no clothes.

[Dystopic]

They are not emperors, they are court jesters.

The Jesters have no clothes.

[amiri1]

Did we just get through having citizentry outrage over AIG fat cats trying to slide their bonuses through the side door? We always knew the party of "just us" were self-prese­rvationist­s but his it too in your face and obvious. Talk about transparency.

[Trittydi]

Re-Thuglics do GREED like nobody's business.

Egregious, rapacious GREED.

One of the Seven Deadly Sins.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
*