Campaigning on the notion of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, was one of the President’s essential proponents of his success on Election Day. Romney, who crashed, burned, and stopped by Costco, attempted to convince us the “job-creators” couldn’t handle a tax –rate increase, and that limiting and capping deductions was the best route for us to take.
Well we chose, but apparently, that is easily ignorable within the Republican caucus in Washington. For a brief second, we seemed close to a deal, and then the headlines started to shift back to words like “impasse” or “halted.”
Obama ran on the notion of raising taxes on those making higher $250,000, and he won. Yet, Speaker Boehner and his minions find implausible to enact such an egregious deal. So, Obama countered again raising the threshold to $400,000. I had long thought the $250,000 limit would eventually become higher. He goes low, they go high.
As we inch closer and closer to the cliff, a deal seems further and further apart.
Obama, to liberal’s dismay; actually make some concessions with social security that would ultimately change cost of living adjustments. It’s a double-edged sword that ultimately has two ramifications one positive, and one negative.
By changing the cost of living adjustment, the program becomes more sustainable and Social Security can now meet its obligations for a longer period of time without taxes being raise; however, the negative aspect is the obvious: Seniors carry the burden
Social security was established in the 1930s to aid the elderly who were often living in poverty. Shrinking benefits, even via a cost of living adjustment, ultimately has the potential to lower their standards of living
102 Democrats have even signed a letter that they would be opposed to any deal that meddling with cost of living adjustments that would hurt seniors.
“Reducing cost of living adjustments is a Social Security benefit cut,” said Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.)
Concessions needed to be made, that’s the art of negotiation – but I’m not sure this was the right move. I am more supportive of gradually increasing the age in which an individual becomes eligible for Medicare. I think this is a logical move. Medicare was enacted in 1965, and the life expectancy of someone born in 1965 was roughly 66 years for men and 73 for women. Now, in 2012, life expectancy of the average American is approximately 79. I’m not saying the problem is people are living longer. Well, actually that kind of is the problem. The program wasn’t designed to be sustainable to care for an individual decades at a time. I rather see this concession made over changing Social Security.
Boehner, the master of compromise, offered his “Plan B,” to the White House. The Obama administration and Democrats gave the look when a child brings you a crappy piece of macaroni art. Trying to establish himself as the Alpha Male, Boehner responded with a 50 second speech, literally 50 second speech and ended with “Obama will be responsible for the largest tax hike in history.”
Hmm. I’m thinking the majority of the Americans would disagree. Considering every single poll signifies they trust Obama more than Boehner and the GOP
The Plan B, and I’ll refrain from any morning after pill jokes, is a terrible plan. It will pass the House, and will not pass the Senate. Even if it does by some slim change pass the Senate, the President will veto it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even went as far as to call it a “non-starter,” and basically summed it up to Boehner wasting everyone’s time.
I’ll look past the fact that Obama raised the threshold to $400,000, but Boehner is attempting to raise it to $1 million with his Plan B. They try to dress it up to appeal to the middle class, and almost do a complete flip on the party platform they campaigned on for the past year that “job-creators” couldn’t handle a tax-rate increase. However, even with this, the middle class gets hit hard with a reduction in the Earned Income Tax Credit, breaks for college tuition, and the Child Tax Credit.
Low-income owners would see a tax hike as well, despite what Boehner’s propaganda may say. One in five Americans who earn less than $20,000 would see a tax increase of $1,070.
Average Tax Change Under Plan B
|Annual Cash Income Level||Avg Federal Tax Change|
|$10,000 to $20,000||$262|
|$20,000 to $30,000||$219|
|$30,000 to $40,000||$158|
|$40,000 to $50,000||$145|
|$50,000 to $75,000||$68|
|$75,000 to $100,000||$73|
|$100,000 to $200,000||$120|
|$200,000 to $500,000||-$301|
|$500,000 to $1 million||-$164|
|More than $1 million||$72,360|
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY0 said, “Only House Republicans could write a proposal with a million-dollar income threshold and still find a way to raise taxes on the middle class.”
Speaker Boehner will kick and scream and blame Democrats and Obama for every negative ramification of this fiscal debacle, but let’s be real here, the American people spoke a little more than a Month and half ago and decided which path we wanted to take, and the only obstacle is the road block to progress by the ineptness of Speaker Boehner. I’m sure sooner rather than later, we will see him cry.