Teeing Up the Middle Class

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574328552267381152.html


Few of President Obama’s 2008 campaign pledges were more definitive than his vow that anyone making less than $250,000 a year “will not see their taxes increase by a single dime” if he was elected. And he was right, very strictly speaking: It’s going to be many, many, many billions of dimes.

Asked about raising taxes on the middle class on Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” White House economist Larry Summers wouldn’t repeat Mr. Obama’s pre-election promise. “It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what,” Mr. Summers said—except, apparently, when his boss is running for office. Meanwhile, on ABC’s “This Week,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also slid around Mr. Obama’s vow and said, “We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically. And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”

These aren’t even nondenial denials. The Obama advisers are laying the groundwork for taxing the middle class while claiming the deficit made them do it.

The liberal establishment is even further along in finally admitting that Mr. Obama wasn’t, er, telling the truth. A piece in the New York Times over the weekend declared in a headline that “the Rich Can’t Pay for Everything, Analysts Say.” And it quoted Leonard Burman, a veteran of the Clinton Treasury who now runs the Brookings Tax Policy Center, as saying that “This idea that everything new that government provides ought to be paid for by the top 5%, that’s a basically unstable way of governing.” They’re right, but where were they during the campaign?

In an editorial on February 26, “The 2% Illusion,” we wrote that the feds could take 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning more than $500,000 and still have raised only $1.3 trillion even in the boom year of 2006. The rich are fewer and less rich now, while the Obama budget is nearly $4 trillion.

Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won’t raise enough money. So they’re proposing an income tax surcharge on “the wealthy,” but that won’t raise enough either. Democrats have no choice but to soak the middle class because only they have enough money to finance the liberal dream of yoking the middle class to cradle-to-grave government entitlements.

Democrats have already taxed the middle class by raising cigarette taxes to pay for the children’s health-care expansion. They’re also teeing up average earners with their cap-and-tax energy bill. Mr. Obama had hoped that cap-and-tax would raise some $646 billion over a decade, but Democrats in the House had to give most of that away in bribes to business to pass their bill. To finance ObamaCare, they’re also proposing another 10-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax on firms and individuals that don’t purchase health insurance. But this won’t raise enough money either.

So waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama’s tax reform commission issues its report later this year.

The undeniable reality is that you can’t run a European-style welfare-entitlement state without European-style levels of taxation on the middle class (and eventually without low European-style growth and high jobless rates). It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.

from politifact.com

"We confirmed the quote that many readers sent us. On Sept. 12, 2008, while on the campaign trail in Dover, N.H., Obama said, "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

We didn't have a promise like this in our database. We had separate promises that Obama would make the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes permanent and that he would raise capital gains taxes only on higher incomes. We decided to add this new, more broadly stated promise to our database.

On April 1, cigarette taxes went up. Certainly many people who smoke make less than $250,000. Should we rate this Promise Broken?

This launched an interesting debate here at PolitiFact. Was the final part of Obama's statement "not any of your taxes" intended as a sweeping declaration against any tax, or was he speaking only in the context of income-based taxes? We noted that his statement began with the phrase "Under my plan ..."

We looked to our coverage during the campaign for greater clarity.

Obama has long been on record supporting the cigarette tax increase. During the campaign, Obama often said he supported legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. At the time, that legislation was in Congress, and even then it included higher cigarette taxes. By saying he supported the SCHIP legislation, Obama was supporting the increased cigarette taxes to pay for it.

SCHIP was among the first pieces of legislation to come to Obama's desk, and he signed it Feb. 4, 2009. We rated it as a Promise Kept .

Another part of our deliberation was that when Obama was on the campaign trail saying that " no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," his examples were all federal income or payroll taxes. Cigarette taxes are a federal excise tax, which is a tax on goods. (Other federal excise taxes are levied on things like alcohol, gasoline and firearms.) These are not taxes that affect people based on income level, but rather based on whether they purchase certain goods. So while some families who make less than $250,000 a year will be affected by cigarette taxes, the taxes are based on their decision to buy cigarettes, not based on their income. "

I am too tired to go searching for anything right now.

I suppose the Wall Street Journal is an unreliable source and misquoted him.

HAS to be since he can't possibly be having a " Read My Lips " moment in his sainted presidency.

Not at all, there was no misquote in your article, I just added the REST of the quote to put it in perspective as well as another perception of how well he kept to his word... I imagine its open to many interpretations and that is fine, I just figured that since he REFERRED to an income bracket that he was referring to income related taxes as well,, not taxes on goods or services,,,


there is no definitive right or wrong, just posting a different perspective.

always remember...it's OUR money...not the governments...and...if they spend beyond there menas...then THEY should cut back...not ASK for more from the American prople...what is so hard about that...IT'S OUR FUGGIN' MONEY !...they work for us...damn !...and...double damn !!!

I agree, it is definitely our money. We pay taxes and then we vote on those things we wish to spend or not spend that money on. If we vote to use more money than we have or if we vote in politicians (representing our supposed interests) who spend more of those taxes , than we speak at the polls.

There are emergencies, I believe, in which most of the public isnt educated(formally) enough about economics and budgeting to have the final say in.

I think things like the banks collapsing and how to fund wars sometimes require the 'popular' vote to be overlooked, and sometimes thankfully so. I happened to think too much was spent on the 'war' on terror and the 'war' on drugs,,but I would rather they did something than nothing(even if what they did went overboard).

here's the MobFathers take ...and...it's a point that I wish the press would throw in Obama's face...everytime he mentions that he inherited this mess...and a few others from yesterdays show...

"Joe Biden was in the Senate for over 30 years, and he was a free-spending liberal. And Biden dares go on Larry King last night and say he 'inherited' all this? He helped create it!"

"The only way this country is going to be restored to the country you think it is and it always has been, is to get rid of Democrats in power."

"A bunch of people just said to me, 'You've been doing this for 20 years, it must be like clockwork now.' I said, 'No, no, no. It is harder than ever to do this because every 20 minutes Obama launches another assault on this country.' Three of them laughed, and one of them frowned. So I said to myself, 'Home run.'"

nice soundbytes,, but what of Bidens ACTUAL voting record regarding 'pointless spending'? If I spoil my kid a bit until he is ten and then his dad buys him a gun,,am I responsible for his decision because I was free spending in the past?,,,flawed logic

Have republicans done no harm and democrats done no good to the point that removing all democrats would have any affect other than make this a very one sided political arena?

and there is no point in even touching the statement about OBama assaulting anyone, let alone every twenty minutes,,,nice sensational way to make some news though,,,

that is the philosophical difference between Democrats and Republicans

Democrats believe that the solution IS government taking over and running things to maintain order and efficiency (theoretically)

Republicans believe that government IS the problem and needs to be limited to allow the free market to balance out


the modern democrats and republicans kinda betray those philosophies in that they are really only out to use taxpayer money to advance their own personal agenda (and of course make themselves rich off taxpayer money)

Well...here's a little " perspective " since the site you used chose the wrong quote. Funny how they didn't have the President's first address to Congress on Feb 24th, 2009 in their " database.

OBAMA: Let me be absolutely clear, because I know you'll end up hearing some of the same claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people. If your family earns less than $250,000 a year -- a quarter million dollars a year -- you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.

CONGRESS: (applause)

OBAMA: I repeat: Not one single dime.

The video of the speech is available on YouTube.

Perhaps you should write an email to politicalfact.com and tell them that they should do a bit more digging before deciding to correct someone.

I have stated that I was not correcting you because I dont see a right or wrong answer here so much as different perspectives. As I stated before, being that the president mentioned an INCOME range I took his statement to be about taxes on INCOME. As service and goods taxes apply to anyone who uses services and goods, regardless of income, I never assumed he was talking about these things,,neither did politifact apparently.