Obama Mounts Two-Front Attack On Romney
Obama Emphasizes Deficit Credentials, Broadens Fight Over Bush Tax Cuts
By Jon Ward | HuffPost | 08/01/2012 10:10 pm
WASHINGTON - "To cut the deficit, we need everyone to pay their fair share." Obama is now playing deficit hawk as well as populist. And it looks like an attempt to turn the fight over the Bush tax cuts from a one-front war into a two-front conflict.
The one-front war is Obama arguing that the rich should pay more because that is only fair, and Romney arguing that they should not because any tax increase in a stagnant economy will impair economic growth. To an electorate that wants results more than anything, Obama's fairness argument puts him at a disadvantage, even though it has undoubtedly paid off with blue-collar voters in industrial swing states.
A two-front battle is Obama maintaining the fairness argument while trying to undercut Romney's advantage among voters for whom fiscal responsibility is a top priority. The deficit ranks behind the economy/jobs and health care in recent polls when voters are asked what issues are most important to them.
Obama has been arguing for some time that Romney's tax plan will add $5 trillion to the deficit. But he got some ammunition Wednesday from the Tax Policy Center, when Urban Institute-Brookings Institution joint venture issued a report saying that Romney's plan to cut rates for all tax brackets, lower the corporate rate, and keep taxes on investments low, without adding to the deficit, would require taxes to go up for middle- and low-income earners.
"It's either a middle-class tax increase or it increases the deficit," an Obama policy adviser, who was not authorized to talk to the press on the record, told The Huffington Post.
And there you have it. Obama's brief is that Romney is either going to screw the working-class or that he'll be a fiscal profligate. And it doesn't hurt if voters hear both messages.
"Obviously the tax cuts are the dessert, and they are eager to have the fight about that," the Obama adviser said of the Romney campaign. "And the point of today's report is there's no easy way to get there."
The economic growth that might result from tax cuts is hard to predict. And so this debate over how Romney would avoid blowing up the deficit, if it continues, will move toward how much Romney would cut from domestic spending. That plays into Obama's hands as well.
"We are going to continue to try and illustrate the depth of the cuts that would need to be made in the domestic spending programs if we're going to meet the targets that he has laid out," the Obama adviser said.”
My first question is: Where has the economic growth occurred in the decades where tax cuts to the wealthy resulted in jobs for the American people?
2nd question: It remains a mystery to me how tax increases are passed without fanfare to cover a deficit from overspending when there is a republican president, but the howling, whining and screaming when a Democratic president says one is needed?? Taxation on the middle class continues without people much thinking about it while republican Congressmen keep saying that “a tax hike is off the table”...well, the Democrats should put it back on the table.
At the base of the problem also is the dislike of the wealthy to have to give up their Bush Tax Cuts which has been such a formidable cash cow for the wealthy over the last decade, continuing into the Obama Administration due to the republicans holding our troops’ paychecks, the annual debt ceiling, firemen, EMT’s all hostage if the Bush Tax Cuts were not renewed.
That republicans reducing their already unsteady congressional stature by obstruction, do-nothing actions to appease the wealthy’s greed for taxpayers’ funds is unacceptable, and they will find out how unacceptable it really is in November when those up for re-election are kicked out of office, and a Democratic White House, Senate, and House will finally get to work in an adult manner to see financial equity between the wealthy and the middle class return with a vengeance.
The financial distance between the top 10%ers and the middle class has risen to astronomical proportaions since the Bush Dynasty, as he passed the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 after gaining office, and there has never been such a huge gain in profits for the wealthy, and a downward spiral into poverty as in the middle-class and the working poor during the Bush Regime. Now we must start the long arduous road back to solvency for the middle class that we had during the Clinton Administration.