Obama tax cuts and the Economist Mom

Big Bureaucracy ^ | April 16th, 2010 | Ellie Velinska

[Big Bureaucracy]

Some economists are pulling their hair over Obama’s proclamation that he will keep the Bush tax cuts for the people making less than $250 000. What’s up!

Remember how every liberal talking head told you that the Bush tax cuts are for the rich and how the Bush tax cuts got us into unsustainable deficits. Forget about it!

Turns out the Obama decision to keep the evil Bush tax cuts for the folks making less than quarter a million dollars a year means keeping the tax-cuts for the 95% of the households that currently receive them. I guess the Bush tax-cuts were for the middle class after all.

CRFB estimates that extending all the Bush tax-breaks will cost $3.2 trillion over 10 years. However extending it for those making under $250k would cost $2.4 trillion for the same period. Oh-oh! Obama said the Bush tax-cuts are for the rich. Not so. Effectively Obama will keep most of the Bush Tax Cuts (if he does not flip-flop on the promise after the elections). The President is just renaming the Bush tax cuts into Obama tax cuts.

President’s announcement threw the “progressive” economists into a whirlpool of unbelief. Every one of them is spilling data how taxing the rich is not enough to fix the gap between the government spending and the incoming money from taxes. I mean every one. Even the Economist Mom wrote an open letter to Obama...

[silverleaf]

I know you made an unfortunate campaign promise on tax policy that you feel bound to–to not raise taxes on any households with income under $250,000. But isn’t it more important to keep your greater (at least implicit) promise to the American people on keeping our economy strong, putting us on a better path (”changing” course), and leaving the nation in decent shape for our kids? You can’t keep both promises, and to me as an economist and as a mom–and I hope to you as our leader and a dad–it’s obvious which one you should abandon. Happy Tax Day! Respectfully, EconomistMom

OK, I bite.
Is "Economist Mom" really
a)Ellie Light
b)Mitch Daniels
c) One of Nan Pelosi's staffers

[Big Bureaucracy]

Her name is Diane Lim Rogers.
“It was during my year on the staff of the Council of Economic Advisers, working on the last Clinton “Economic Report of the President,” that I got turned on to the issue of fiscal responsibility. At the time I was already a mom of four kids, which sharpened my interest in the issue...”
http://economistmom.com/about-economistmom/

[silverleaf]

Wow, 3 degrees in economics (!) and still thinks the
“Bush tax cuts” were a mistake and more taxation will move our country forward

and she worked for Reagan? She must have been the inspiration for his quote about how he was going to dress up for Halloween:

“I’m going to slap some egg on my face and come as an economist”- RR

[Big Bureaucracy]

Even scarier: as an economist mom :)

[Maceman]

CRFB estimates that extending all the Bush tax-breaks will cost $3.2 trillion over 10 years.

I see. Tax cuts "cost" the government. So every dollar you earn that the government doesn't take is actually a cost the government.

That crystallizes, in a nutshell, the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives see government as a cost that the people must bear. But liberals see people as a cost that the government must bear.

[Maceman]

“actually a cost TO the government.” Sorry for the typo in the last post.

[Big Bureaucracy]

CRFB leans liberal - it is true - the numbers they published though prove that the Bush tax cuts were aimed not at the rich, but at the middle class - something liberals do not like to admit often. It is against their spin and talking points about Bush watching out for the evil rich.

[nd2bfree]

The lefty logic is that by not raising taxes it is a tax cut! This makes my head hurt.