More

Millionaire Tax: White House Talking Points Go After Republicans

Obama And Boehner

First Posted: 09/18/11 05:13 PM ET Updated: 11/18/11 05:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- In certain corners of the progressive political universe, there has been ongoing frustration with the Obama White House for attacking the institution of Congress as a whole rather than its Republican parts.

The angst surfaced briefly, and most recently, during the introduction of the administration's jobs bill, when President Barack Obama stood before Congress demanding action without pinpointing the party most likely to hold it up. Since then, however, the president has drawn sharper lines when castigating the legislative branch, noting specifically that many of the job creation ideas he's adopted once had Republican support. In the White House's talking points on its latest legislative proposal -- a new tax on income over $1 million -- there's another sharp elbow thrown the GOP's way.

"Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans believe the burden of deficit reduction should only come from spending cuts to critical programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and refuse to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share to get our fiscal house in order and reduce the deficit," the bullet point reads.

Such a charge against congressional Republicans is effective only to the extent that Democrats themselves support adding a new tax on income over $1 million, which the White House has called the Buffett Rule after billionaire investor Warren Buffett. It seems quite likely that in the days, if not hours, after the president calls for the new tax -- as part of a broader deficit reduction plan he will introduce Monday night -- the usual conservative Democrats will air their skepticism of the idea. (The tax failed to make it through Congress in the past, after all.)

Still, the talking points, which were passed along by a Democratic source, provide a window onto the (traditional) partisan fault lines that will grind away in the months ahead -- and suggest that the White House may veer away from running solely against a do-nothing legislative branch.

Talking Points: The Buffett Rule
  • On Monday, the President will lay out a balanced approach to further reduce our nation's deficit and get our fiscal house in order, based on the values of shared responsibility and shared sacrifice.
  • The government must live within its means in order to make the critical investments we need to immediately get folks back to work and put our economy on a stronger footing for the future.
  • A balanced approach includes many of the proposals the President has previously discussed -- closing tax loopholes for oil companies and hedge fund managers and asking the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share. A balanced approach also includes difficult spending cuts and making adjustments to strengthen programs like Medicare and Medicaid for future generations.
  • That is why the President is calling on the Congress to undertake comprehensive tax reform to simplify the system, make it more fair and efficient, and lay a stronger foundation for economic growth. On Monday, the President will lay out principles for tax reform.
  • One of the key principles is the “Buffett Rule” -- No house­hold making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families pay. The Buffett Rule applies to the top 0.3% of the wealthiest Americans.
  • As Warren Buffett has said, it's not fair for the super-rich to "pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter."
  • And Warren Buffett is not alone among the very wealthy in paying only a small share of income in taxes.
  • 22,000 millionaires -- making more than $1 million annually -- paid less than 15 percent of their income in taxes in 2009.
  • And the top 400 richest Americans, all making over $110 million per year and making an average of $271 million per year, paid only 18 percent of their income in income taxes in 2008. In fact, since the mid-1990s, the share of income paid by the wealthiest 400 Americans has fallen by nearly 40 percent, from 29.9% in 1995, even as their average incomes roughly quadrupled.
  • Too many middle class Americans pay more than this -- especially when payroll taxes are taken into account.
  • The fact is, it's not fair to reduce the deficit by shifting the burden on the middle class, older Americans, or those who can least afford it.
  • Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans believe the burden of deficit reduction should only come from spending cuts to critical programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and refuse to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share to get our fiscal house in order and reduce the deficit.
  • To grow our economy and create jobs now, we need a balanced approach to deficit reduction.


FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- In certain corners of the progressive political universe, there has been ongoing frustration with the Obama White House for attacking the institution of Congress as a whole rather than i...
WASHINGTON -- In certain corners of the progressive political universe, there has been ongoing frustration with the Obama White House for attacking the institution of Congress as a whole rather than i...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10,183
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (125 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
FunkSands 10:39 PM on 09/18/2011
Did you know that the total size of the federal civilian employment rolls has stayed about the same over the last 40 years? It reached its biggest size under the first Bush presidency. But I thought the size of government was out of control? It seems weird that as our economy has tripled in size and our population has doubled in size, that our government has stayed the same size. But we can't have the size  Read More...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
Lawless markets lead ill-gotten gains.
01:51 PM on 09/22/2011
"And the top 400 richest Americans, all making over $110 million per year and making an average of $271 million per year, paid only 18 percent of their income in income taxes in 2008."

400 times $271 millions equals $108,400,000,000 or $108.4 billions. This is equal to the median wage in 2010 ($16.27::BLS) times annual hours (2080) times about 3.2 million workers. So, what they earned equals some 3.2 million PLUS workers who might earn the median wage.

That said, half of all American workers actually earned below to well below this median. In fact, 63.5 million Americans earned less than this median wage.

How fun!
03:36 AM on 09/22/2011
The economy can all be fixed by putting an emphasis on job creation and entrepreneurship. Tax cuts need to be given to small businesses that are hiring, and a stronger investment towards clean energy and other visionary fields needs to be pushed. Our country is where it is today because of advances that have been made technology-wise. By establishing a tax increase on the rich, we can finally divert money towards public education and the aforementioned investing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Frank Stanek
10:30 PM on 09/21/2011
You will not see a rebound in this economy until Obama is replaced. Businesses are scared to death of him, tax increases, regulations that increase and change daily and his fanatical hatred of the successful. 47% of Americans paid NO federal income tax, so now having a balanced approach means someone else needs to pay for their American existence? Remember JFK, "ask not what your country can do for you but what can you do for your country"? Chairman Obama just wants the more affluent "to do". That seem's balanced?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:48 PM on 09/22/2011
No, the businesses you describe are simply looking for a way to assign blame for right wing economic ideology to "uncertainty" and this president.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Frank Stanek
02:30 PM on 09/22/2011
The businesses that don't associate the uncertainty with Obama, have their businessess over seas.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
Lawless markets lead ill-gotten gains.
02:00 PM on 09/22/2011
For sure, there are businesses that are afraid that their lawlessness might be curbed or that they just might---a remote might under this President---actually have to face the Criminal Justice system.

Small businesses, however, generally like markets regulated away from fraudsters and criminals.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Frank Stanek
02:32 PM on 09/22/2011
Another one that blames the big, bad, horrible businesses for taking the bread from the poor childrens mouths. Get over it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ScaningTheWaves
05:14 PM on 09/20/2011
WASHINGTON -- In certain corners of the progressive political universe, there has been ongoing frustration with the Obama White House for attacking the institution of Congress as a whole rather than its Republican parts.

Yup, 1st paragraph says alot.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
Lawless markets lead ill-gotten gains.
02:03 PM on 09/22/2011
ER, Scaning...is English your second language?
photo
intellectualTradition
corruptisima re publica plurimae leges
03:43 PM on 09/20/2011
for liberals and progressives the root of all evil is the lack of money. other peoples money
photo
Terry DR
Increased drilling doesnt lower prices.
04:28 PM on 09/21/2011
Funny you say that.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/04/11/welfare-states/
Nice try.
photo
intellectualTradition
corruptisima re publica plurimae leges
05:34 PM on 09/21/2011
no trying about it. this whole site as well as the left's whole agenda is based on seperating everyone else from their money to be done with as the left thinks best
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peanutsintexas
it's hard work being poor
11:20 PM on 09/21/2011
I've always been curious about this because it's such a huge talking point for the left. Do you have other sites to direct me that you might know of that are significant. The real reason I am curious is because I heard that part of the money that goes back to the states is social security and medicare which is counted as federal money. If that is true, why would the gov't consider them giving me back my own money as money they are paying out to that state. It's like any other retirement fund. They are just giving me back what I loaned to them throughout my career.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:49 PM on 09/22/2011
There is an inverse relationship between intellectual traditions and economic rankism.
08:27 AM on 09/20/2011
The GOP should allow Obama to cut oil & gas exploration expense deductions and eliminate the accelerated depreciation on corporate jets. It will cost jobs and create higher consumer prices in the oil & gas industry and eliminate the union jobs in aircraft manufacturing that the accelerated depreciation (which is not a subsidy or tax cut, only a delayed payment) was implemented to create.

They should also let him tax capital gains as ordinary income, eliminate the so-called Bush tax cuts, and increase taxes on job creators. That will halt investment and ensure the GOP takes over the government in 2013, hopefully in time to reverse the damage.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peanutsintexas
it's hard work being poor
01:57 AM on 09/21/2011
I think the same way. Give him what he wants but the rest of America would blame the repubs for not standing firm.
03:18 AM on 10/09/2011
Funny... the liberals blame Obama for not standing firm already.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joseph LeCompte
The USA isnt broke.It was robbed.
04:30 AM on 09/20/2011
The rich creating jobs is a fairy tale like the stork delivering babies and Santa Claus.demand creates jobs the rich don't create demand.the bush/obama tax cuts have had 10 years to create jobs.it failed.
08:25 AM on 09/20/2011
That sounds like an eight year old talking.

The rich do create demand. They directly demand capital equipment, tools for production, buildings, transportation, golf courses, mansions, yachts, planes, other luxury items, and vast services. Their businesses invent and produce products that consumers demand, so they are creating demand for their products.

Those businesses also hire people (adults call that job creation).
12:25 PM on 09/20/2011
so.....................where are they
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:51 PM on 09/22/2011
The presumption that gross indulgence by the rich is needed so the rest of the people can service it is anti-human.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GlamMom
No I just hate apostrophes.
02:39 PM on 09/20/2011
When was the last time you heard of a poor person creating a job?
12:46 AM on 09/20/2011
By the simple act of hiring people, "the rich" are in a position to help this country far better than the government is by taxing them. To oppose the Administration's "tax the rich" class warfare approach is not to defend the rich. It is to say that we prefer the rich to create job opportunities to employ people - people who will get off of the unemployment rolls and become taxpayers. By doing that we do better financially twice. Once by reducing our unemployment compensation payouts, and the second time by having taxes paid by the peopl who those dastardly "rich" hire to work for them. Keep taxing them, and keep on coming up with wonderous ways to make future economic conditions unforeseeable and then wonder why they decide not to open new businesses.
08:30 AM on 09/20/2011
Well said. We will always have class warfare as long as we have an income tax and leftist politicians who want to tax the rich - which Marx well understood.
12:26 PM on 09/20/2011
how du mb, where are the jobs?
02:02 PM on 09/20/2011
the tax breaks for the wealthy were approved by the Bush Admnistration eleven years ago and the economy has steadily gone downhill, the jobless rates have gone uphill and the deficit has gone uphill. So how long does it take for people to figure out they don't work at 'creating jobs'? Aren't you embarrassed at throwing up such a lame argument?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peanutsintexas
it's hard work being poor
02:03 AM on 09/21/2011
Look at the unemployment rate for the day/ month that Bush came into office. Look at climb steadily to 6.3% by June of 03. Look at it drop thereafter and stay in the 4% and 5% range.

Don't you wish you could have those numbers back nowadays? But hey, who said Bush couldn't create jobs?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wayne the pain
11:17 PM on 09/19/2011
Why didn't he propose to raise the capital gains tax? That is where the rich make most of their money! Once again ole Obama is trying to appear more liberal and progressive than he is!
08:32 AM on 09/20/2011
Because we want capital investments to create jobs. If you discourage the investment of risk capital in the US, it will flow elsewhere. If he really wanted to create jobs, rather than tearing down the system, he would have called for the elimination of capital gains taxes to attract global investors back to the US.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
Lawless markets lead ill-gotten gains.
02:24 PM on 09/22/2011
The rich are creating many overseas jobs, and President Obama does not want to add to the world's unemployment rate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Frank Larkin
Don't take it personal you're not that special
09:33 PM on 09/19/2011
Now the slick wording has changed to be. "I will accept no plan the puts the burden of reducing the deficit SOLELY on average Americans" So before it was on the rich, now it is everyone, but not solely on you and I.
Come on people when are you going to realize that your government does not represent you, they represent themselves.
Unless you vote them out of office and vote in someone who will pledge to cut spending by 20% we are doomed. Yes I said cut spending by 20%. Doesn't have to be all at once or across the board. Some programs and services can be elliminated, and some not significantly reduced, but 20% should be the goal.
09:30 PM on 09/19/2011
Progressive politics with their tax and spend policies have failed.
photo
sindurrella
now where did I put my bootstraps?
06:48 PM on 09/19/2011
Republicans view the President's plan as class warfare. I regard the Republican's plan as class externimation! Bye Bye middle class - welcome to abject poverty - it's gonna be great!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
paulthamec
Proud to have served this great nation ..
10:11 PM on 09/19/2011
Welcome to civil war.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GlamMom
No I just hate apostrophes.
02:42 PM on 09/20/2011
Just remember which side has the g*ns.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idisVA
06:31 PM on 09/19/2011
The Tea Partier who is going to challenge Speaker Boehner just referred to him as a "socialist" on Fox of all places.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Frank Larkin
Don't take it personal you're not that special
09:35 PM on 09/19/2011
darn it I missed it. but you know what if the name fits than someone needs to lose a few pounds. Because they be a big socialist
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idisVA
06:29 PM on 09/19/2011
If President Obama is a weak candidate and thus easily beatable, why are Republicans advancing the idea for him to voluntarily step down and get, a stronger candidate in the eyes of the same Republicans, like Hilary,run instead. It makes little sense and says a lot about the weakness of the Republican field.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Frank Larkin
Don't take it personal you're not that special
09:37 PM on 09/19/2011
Go barry go barry go. you are the big O
08:39 AM on 09/20/2011
The last thing the GOP needs is Clinton to run, because she would win. Obama will be beaten like a red-headed stepchild.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WD Simmons
06:11 PM on 09/19/2011
It occurrs to me that the one of the biggest political travesties in our country had to be the appointment of George W. Bush as president by the SCOTUS. It was a recipe for disaster. Then while the GOP hail Ronald Reagan and every moment it was Bill Clinton who presided over a happier nation. It is amazing how the GOP doesn't discuss Bush other than to say stop blaming him. We'll stop when they start....because all the BS started with him.
photo
Ma Lucille
there is a crack ~ that's how the Light gets in
07:38 PM on 09/19/2011
Fanned & Faved!
12:30 AM on 09/20/2011
Well there's a constructive point. Let's go back and have another pissing match with eacho ther about Bush v. Gore, shall we? That will settle a hell of a lot. WD, your tendency to relitigate the past is a great deal of what's wrong with our politics today. Instead of dealing with today, you're head is stuffed full of your past losses. Get over it. That's history. This is today. Are you really thinking that people can be put back to work if we all accept your notion that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision? (Not to mention the numerous studies done after the decision indicating that Gore would have lost anyhow?)
02:20 PM on 09/20/2011
Closing your eyes, crossing your fingers, and waiting for a certain quantity of water (time) to run under the bridge is NOT the way to right a glaring wrong whose consequences we still live with!