20 Courthouse Sq. Ste 216
Rockville, MD 20850
20 Courthouse Square
Suite 216
Rockville, MD 20850
Get Directions
Phone: 301.838.9110
Fax: 301.838.9113
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Political and economic analysts widely believed that President Obama and Republican leaders would reach a compromise on the Bush-era tax cuts. Many felt a deal would be struck early in December. Yet few forecasted how agreeable the President would be.
Under the bipartisan plan, the EGTRRA and JGTRRA tax cuts would be extended through 2012 for all taxpayers. At a White House press conference Tuesday, the President simply categorized it as “a good deal for the American people.”1,2
In the eyes of some Democrats, it is just a sellout. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) termed the deal “unconscionable.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) offered more or less the same view: “Republicans have held the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3%, do not create jobs and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit.” Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) referred to the compromise as “the President’s Gettysburg.” (At least he didn’t mention Waterloo.) Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called the deal “an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people” and said he would attempt a filibuster.3,4
Tuesday, President Obama noted that he would fight to repealthese tax breaks in 2012, emphasizing that the preservation of the cuts will be temporary.2 (Of course, the EGTRRA cuts were considered “temporary” nine years ago.)
The fine points of this bipartisan accord haven’t been hammered out yet, but here is what we know about it so far. Under the agreement,
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service figures that maintaining the Bush-era tax cuts through 2012 would cost America $314.9 billion.1,2
President Obama allowed the EGTRRA and JGTRRA cuts to live on for the wealthy in exchange for some of what he wanted - an extension of unemployment insurance and a payroll tax reduction.
The accord is less acceptable to Democrats than the recent House bill introduced by Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) and the Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2010 introduced by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), which was defeated on December 5. Some Congressional Democrats are regarding the agreement the way a child regards spinach: not very palatable, but somewhat acceptable. Others are ready to fight it tooth and nail.
At last week’s meeting of the White House deficit commission, Honeywell CEO David Cote made a striking remark on the process of compromise: “We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
Here in December, Congress might want to abide by his advice – especially after President Obama’s remark that “a long political fight that carried over into next year might have been good politics, but it would be a bad deal for the economy and it would be a bad deal for the American people.”2
Citations
1 – online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703296604576005430598327972.html [12/7/10]
2 – bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/obama-says-tax-compromise-will-spare-middle-class-americans-rate-increase.html [12/7/10]
3 – seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2013616523_mcdermott.html [12/7/10]
4 – content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/12/obama-democrats-tax-cuts-reaction-/1 [12/7/10]
5 - www.montoyaregistry.com/Financial-Market.aspx?financial-market=the-balancing-act-weathering-the-burden-of-sudden-wealth&category=22[12/7/10]