« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Senate passes Obama’s fiscal cliff tax increases in dead of night

In a move all too reminiscent of the passage of the ever unpopular ObamaCare, last night the Senate voted 89 to 8 to approve the so-called “American Taxpayer Relief Act” (H.R. 8, as amended). The deal was negotiated by Vice President Joseph Biden and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

You can read the 157 page bill here. It is very unlikely that any Senator actually read the 157 page bill before they voted on it. It’s like former Speaker Pelosi said of the Democrats’ ObamaCare bill, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill increases tax revenue by $620 billion while reducing spending by only $15 billion. That’s right a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending the ratios were 3:1 and 2:1 respectively.  We should remember that while those tax increases happened, the promised spending cuts did not.

That history makes me question the wisdom of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s effort to “prevent very real financial pain” by agreeing to tax increases in exchange for another spending cuts to be named later:

“As I said, this shouldn’t be the model for how to do things around here. But I think we can say we’ve done some good for the country. We’ve taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it’s time to get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending. That’s a debate the American people want. It’s the debate we’ll have next. And it’s a debate Republicans are ready for.”

The bill raises income tax rates for those taxpayers with incomes more than $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. These higher income taxpayers will also pay higher rates on investment income, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent. Add the 3.8 percent ObamaCare surcharge on investment income — another tax that takes effect in January, and the top rate on investment income would rise to 23.8 percent for those high-income households.

The bill also raises taxes on couples earning more than $250,000 a year and single people earning more than $200,000 by limiting personal exemptions and itemized deductions.

Estates taxes will also be increased, with the top rate raised to 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates.

The bill also delays the automatic $1.2 trillion draconian sequester spending cuts for sixty days. The sequester cuts, evenly split between defense and certain domestic discretionary spending, were scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. The $24 billion cost of the sequester delay is allegedly made up with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues from rules changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

Worse, the bill actually increases the deficit by including:

  • A permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax.
  • A five-year extension of tax credits for college tuition and the working poor, which were enacted as part of Obama’s failed 2009 stimulus.
  • A one-year extension for unemployment benefits, affecting two million people.
  • The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.

The eight Senators who voted against this tax increase included five Republicans and three Democrats:

  • Bennett D-CO
  • Carper D-DE
  • Grassley R-IA
  • Harkin D-IA
  • Lee R-UT
  • Paul R-KY
  • Rubio R-FL
  • Shelby R-AL.

That leaves a lot of Senators who violated their pledge not to raise taxes.

Now the question is, will the House also approve the American Taxpayer Relief Act?

 

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    Well, I’m pretty sure few people in the House GOP will dare to let taxes leap up across the board at this point, when they have the alternative of limiting them to those earning $400K and more, even without serious spending cuts. Voting “present” would be a natural option for many, since “principles” would pull both ways, but it will be hazardous, and I’d prefer either a reluctant “yea”, on the principle of keeping taxes as low for as many people as possible, or a vigorous “nay” raging against the ridiculous ratio and the lack of real progress on deficit reduction, expressing understanding for Senate Republicans’ goal of keeping taxes low while hammering the Democrats for being unwilling and unable to face up to the real issue of overspending, obstructing any reforms.

    The Democrats are the obstructionists here, they’re the typical D.C. corrupt and dishonest liberal insiders here. They are the ones fighting for the status quo of big government, holding everyone else hostage. In fact, targeting small business owners is probably just a cover for that. We have to make that clear, whether we vote for the deal or not. Republicans just compromised on taxes and spending- Democrats barely budged on taxes, and not at all on spending.

    Happy New Year.

  • gscandlen

    Good God, could this be any worse? I have never been impressed by Obama’s abilities until now. He clearly knows how to roll over Republicans like they don’t even matter. And they don’t.

    Boehner should have said from the start “We aren’t raising tax rates. Period. End of the story. Never happen. We’ll help you find new revenue through tax reform but no tax rates.” Clarity of demands is essential in any negotiation. Either that or just enact Simpson/Bowles.

  • northfloridawriter

    Obama can roll over so many Republicans because he knows they aren’t
    conservative and they have no spine. What a disgrace. And you know what’s an even bigger disgrace? We, the people, keep reelecting these clowns. So I guess that makes us a disgrace, too.
    On a brighter not, I am pleased to see that my young Senator, Marco Rubio, had the courage of his convictions and voted no. The eight no votes are statesmen; the others are just a bunch of hypocritical politicians. Primary ‘em all in 2014. Tea Party, we’ve got our work cut out for us. NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER STOP FIGHTING, NEVER SURRENDER TO TYRANNY.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Stocks, naturally, will rally for a while, but I’m not even sure the revenue gains will appear after a while. We’ll have to wait and see to judge its impact on the economy, which should slow down growth further and kill off the green shoots of recovery that the liberals claim to see, with stagnation for the next couple or so of years. I’m not certain it will be that bad, but it definitely won’t be good.

  • commonsenseobserver

    We can be pretty sure that Bennett, Carper, and Harkin are not statesmen. And of course Rubio has plenty of room to grandstand. I’m sorry, but he just came off as totally phony here (“I just can’t vote for this bill” or something, I think, he’ll try and say- Does anyone really believe that? From Marco Rubio?)

    The only ones we can really trust here are Lee and Paul, while many of those with solid records, like Toomey and Johnson, also voted yes, and should get the benefit of the doubt due to the circumstances (bigger tax hikes, that is).

    This isn’t a terribly good litmus test, but it does help us to find a few people who take us for idiots, like Chuck Grassley, who can’t be believably voting against the bill because it doesn’t make real progress on reining in overspending.

    Of course, it’s also a good way to weed out the most politically incompetent. Like Toomey and Johnson, for instance. They took a way a lot of cover from House Republicans who intend to vote against it on the basis of its timidity in tackling the debt.

  • OhioHistorian

    I will give you 5 of the 8 as heroes. The other 3 (Democrats) probably voted no because they wanted more. What about DeMint/Scott? Notice that Lindsey Grahamnesty was not in the dissenters either, nor was that great Senator McCain.

  • socialistpig

    The GOP must die.

  • bgmacaw

    So, here in Georgia, we not only need to primary Chambliss in 2014, but
    Johnny Isakson in 2016 as well.

  • commonsenseobserver

    No, sir, it is dead now, and it must be resurrected.

  • sjccoach

    Once again the RINOs cave. The sooner the Republican party dies the better off the courntry will be. There is no need to worry. Boehner and the RINOs in the house will sign off on this travesty. Oh I forgot they will fight harder next time. The Republican party is a bad joke.

  • MoeLane

    I hope that four comments along these lines was enough to get you to your Special Time there, Sparky: because you ain’t getting a fifth.

  • Samsara

    Toomey is my Senator.

    He is Mr. Club for Growth. He ran the group till 2009 and then took millions from the group to get elected. The Club for Growth lobbied hard against Plan B, and convinced House members to shoot it down. The plan Boehner was negotiating was MUCH better than what has now passed the Senate, but the CFG pulled the rug out from under the Speaker.

    And now Toomey votes for this plan that raises taxes on more people and has NO SPENDING CUTS. He wouldn’t even cast a meaningless no vote to give a fig leaf of cover to House Republicans who will vote against the bill.

  • fredflintlock

    Now it’s time to get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending.

    Yeah…and we’re finally gonna get that border fence you’ve been promising since forever too, Mitch.

    Our astute readers from Kentucky should already know that McConnell has plans to extend his reign beyond 2014. Hopefully he doesn’t scare off all primary challengers before the contest even gets started.

    Maybe we could get a few good suggestions on possibles from our friends in the Bluegrass State.

    And who saw this coming? Hey, some folks thought a Paul/Ventura ticket would be a cool idea. Well, somebody did anyway.

  • edintexas

    I can’t recollect a single instance, since Reagan was giving speeches, when Republicans could “make clear” to the voters any position effectively.

  • edintexas

    Well that is why they extended unemployment payments for another year. I’m not sure when they will make unemployment payments permanent – but it seems as if we’re heading that way.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Well, we could always try? ;)

  • cheesycon

    we should have just taken the deal in 2009.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/john-boehner-debt-ceiling_n_893952.html

    “Obama offered to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike of roughly $100 billion per year over 10 years. Meanwhile, government spending would be cut by roughly three times that amount”

    that would have been a 1:3 ratio instead of 41:1

  • cheesycon

    dude wait a minnit. tyranny? the only tyranny here is democracy. it isn’t like Obama did a coup. WE put him there, even those of us who voted against him but voted for other people who are now being rolled.

    it is obvious that “conservative in the primary, republican in the general” makes a stupid assumption, that primaries will favor conservatives. We need to start anew rule, conservative in the primary AND conservative in the general. You know what? we will lose a lot for a while. But that’s the only way to actually get conservatives in.

    let’s face it. we are a minority movement, even in the House! So the only solution is patience. This won’t be done fixing in 2014.

    (and to recruit conservatives to run instead of these “electable” moderates and mavericks and whatnot)

  • ss396

    “Now it’s time to get serious about reducing Washington’s
    out-of-control spending. That’s a debate the American
    people want. It’s the debate we’ll have next. And it’s a
    debate Republicans are ready for.”

    I’ve been hearing that same inconsequential spiel for over 30 years now. Is there any particular reason that I should believe it this time? Did you suddenly grow a spine last night, or something?