How Obama’s Tax Deal Is a Compromise of Details, Not Principles

December 16, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (2)

Nearly 10 years ago, President George W. Bush signed into legislation sweeping tax cuts for all federal income tax brackets, including various tax credits and estate tax exemptions. Many Americans saw an immediate tax savings, and now those tax cuts are set to expire on December 31, 2010—unless Congress votes to extend them. In most cases this would lead to a great debate between Republicans and Democrats, but instead the parties are negotiating a deal that extends the Bush tax cuts and satisfies everyone.

With an economy going nowhere and a high unemployment rate showing no signs of dropping, President Obama sees the need to naturally stimulate the economy. His previous economic stimulus tactics haven't worked, so he understands that he needs to extend the Bush tax cuts to organically put money back in the pockets of Americans. Last week, Obama and Vice President Biden came up with a plan that they thought would satisfy both Republicans and Democrats. However, House and Senate Democrats were originally furious over the compromise.

[In Pictures: 12 Money Mistakes Almost Everyone Makes]

Here are a few highlights from the deal:

  • All income tax cuts will be extended for two years, including the tax cuts for those making over $250,000 per year.
  • Estate tax exemptions of up to $10 million dollars will be extended.
  • Unemployment benefits will be extended for an additional year.
  • A tax holiday from social security tax will be implemented for a year.
  • A two-year extension of refundable tax credits from the 2009 stimulus package for college students and middle class workers.

Understanding the ideologies of Republicans and Democrats is a key factor in grasping why the Democrats were so outraged by this proposed tax cut deal.

Many Democrats, including President Obama, stated on the election trail that Republicans cared only about saving money for the wealthiest Americans and were out of touch with the needs and struggles of middle-class American workers. They pointed to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 as evidence of this, calling them a "tax cut for the rich." But this isn't necessarily true, as the tax cuts significantly decreased income taxes for all income tax brackets.

On the other hand, Republicans were not happy with the Democrats' original tax-cut proposal, which was to extend only a portion of the Bush tax cuts, effectively increasing the taxes of those making over $250,000 and not extending the federal estate tax exemption. The ideology behind their disdain over this issue is that the economy will not be sufficiently stimulated if only a portion of Americans receive a tax cut.

[Visit the U.S. News My Money blog money advice from around the web.]

President Obama did the right thing, and the compromise he came up with is likely the closest plan anyone will come up with that satisfies both Republicans and Democrats. The fact is we need this tax cut extension to go through. And leaving out the wealthiest Americans from a tax break is a mistake in a battered economy. This is especially true because many of those wealthy Americans are the ones who own businesses and employ the middle class. They're the ones who invest in other companies through various types of investments. They're also the ones who spend money on a lavish lifestyle, which fuels the economy and helps create new jobs.

Obama is showing great leadership by coming up with a deal that is fair and has the potential to help stimulate the economy without printing new money. House and the Senate Democrats need to realize that President Obama is not compromising on principles in this instance, but rather details. In the Obama tax plan, the president promised that he would never raise taxes of those making less than $250,000. However, he never promised that he wouldn't lower taxes for those making over $250,000. So his tax-cut deal does not compromise the principles he ran on to win the presidential election. Instead it is merely a compromise in the details of the tax-cut plan.

Erik Folgate is a top contributor for the Money Crashers personal finance blog, where he discusses various money topics like banking, getting out of debt, smart spending, and improving overall "financial fitness."

Tags:
estate taxes,
tax returns,
income tax,
personal finance,
Republican Party,
Obama administration,
Democratic Party,
Barack Obama,
federal taxes

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Good point, Steve. I actually think that cutting taxes will reduce the deficit more than raising taxes would. If you raise taxes in an effort to raise more money to reduce the deficit, you're limiting the amount of extra money the government could bring in to the amount that you raise taxes.

If you cut taxes, then the potential for an increase in governmental revenue is unlimited, because if cutting taxes effectively stimulates the economy, then more people will go back to work, and more people will spend money in the open marketplace which will heavily increase income and sales taxes.

Erik Folgate of FL 9:16AM December 17, 2010

The big losers will be future generations of Americans. As shown here, the deficit for the first 2 months of fiscal 2011 is already larger than the GDP of all but the top 30 nations in the world:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2010/12/united-states-deficit-is-us-too-big-to.html

How do those that "lead" us think that this situation is sustainable?

Steve Thompson of ME 2:47PM December 16, 2010

My Money

advertisement

rounded corners

Slideshows »
10 ‘Digital Utilities’ You Need Every Day

Latest Video

advertisement