More House Dems bailing on WH refusal to extend all Bush-era tax cuts

posted at 2:32 pm on September 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

If Democrats plan to paint the GOP as extreme this year on a national level by tying them to the Bush tax cuts for higher-income earners, they have a problem.  Their own House members have begun to split from the party message and the White House on this issue, as Greg Sargent reports for the Washington Post.  In fact, Rep. Jim Himes directly contradicted Barack Obama’s allegation that the GOP was looking out for the rich in demanding an extension for all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts by scoffing at the notion that a $250,000 income makes one “rich”:

* Rep Jim Himes of Conneticut says he supports a termporary extension, because earning $250,000 annually “does not make you really rich.”

* Rep Bobby Bright of Alabama came out against ending the tax cuts, because “a vast majority of my constituents … don’t believe in tax increases on anybody at this point in time.”

* Rep Ron Klein of Florida wants a one year extension of the tax cuts, including those for the rich, because “right now, our top economic priority has to be job creation.”

* Rep Gerry Connolly of Virginia says the tax cuts should remain because the recovery remains “fragile.”

* Rep Gary Peters of Michigan wants the cuts to continue lest we “jeopardize economic recovery.”

* Rep Harry Mitchell of Arizona says he “strongly” opposes letting the tax cuts lapse because “we need to encourage investment, not discourage it.”

So which is more extreme — the President who considers anyone making $250K so rich that the government needs to confiscate more of those earnings, or the Democrats who agree with the GOP that such a policy would hurt investment and the economy?  If one counts this by a measure of bipartisanship, then it appears that the White House is holding the “extreme” position on tax hikes.

Sargent writes that national polls show support for raising taxes on the higher income earners.  Is he right?  Neither of the national polls released this week directly address the question, which seems rather odd in retrospect, since it’s about the only major issue that this Congress will have to decide this year.  The WaPo/ABC poll did ask voters which party they trusted more on taxes, and Republicans got a 45/40 lead among registered voters, a reversal of the position from six months ago, when Democrats led 41/37.

Rasmussen almost always includes this question in its state-level polling, but that’s a little different than what Sargent noted.  However, California is usually not considered a representation of conservative America, and its results are instructive.  Among likely voters in California three weeks ago, Rasmussen found a majority that supported extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and a plurality of 46% that wanted all of them extended; 41% wanted the extensions limited to middle-class earners.  If there is a national consensus to exclude the upper end from extensions, that consensus has oddly excluded California’s more liberal electorate.  Given that, expect to see even more defections from the White House message of tax hikes and more government spending.

Update: Greg e-mails me to point to the late-August CBS poll that shows 56% supporting an end to the higher-bracket tax cuts.  That’s a significant number, but it’s also worth pointing out that CBS was sampling adults, not registered or likely voters — and that their weighting had some, er, significant problems.

Update II: Greg also points to the CNN poll that did survey registered voters.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

For a guy with ears as big as his, he sure is friggin’ tone deaf!

singlemalt_18 on September 9, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Isn’t the $1000 per child tax credit also expiring when these tax cuts expire? (It’s supposedly going back to $500 per child.) That’s going to hit people earning far less than $250,000 hard. Is anyone talking about that?

CurtZHP on September 9, 2010 at 2:36 PM

I know I am going out on a limb here, but doesn’t Congress write the laws? If they wanted a tax cut couldn’t they write a law that cut taxes? If he vetos it, couldn’t they just override?

Lily on September 9, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Obama’s first name should be ‘Richard’.

jake-the-goose on September 9, 2010 at 2:37 PM

If you’re living – as BarryO seems to be – in the era when this nation was racist (1960s & 1970s) someone making $250,000 a year is rich. But todaayyy…not so much.

AubieJon on September 9, 2010 at 2:39 PM

CurtZHP@2:36,
Not only the child tax credit but the marriage penalty is being brought back. I can not for the life of me understand how 250t is rich! Any business, that is still in business, should make at least this amount.
L

letget on September 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Sargent writes that national polls show support for raising taxes on the higher income earners.

OK, question, what amount is considered as “the higher income earners”? Is it still the $250,000 plus? If so, what is the point at which someone sees the tax cuts? I’m lost and confused…

sicoit on September 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Is anyone talking about that?

CurtZHP on September 9, 2010 at 2:36 PM

No and the fact that you can actually pay less as a single then you can as a married couple? Oh that is just freaking awesome!/////

And lets not talk about other little tax credits like housing and such that won’t be on it either.

Obama’s RECOVERY TERM is soooooo on track. *Rolls eyes*

upinak on September 9, 2010 at 2:41 PM

WH insistent on its idiological position of fomenting class warfar, in a scorched-earth policy that can destroy the economic well-being of everyone: rich, middle-class, and poor alike.

The only word that comes to mind is obduracy, holding on to your position even when you know it’s wrong. It’s beyond stubborn, and indicates a pathology.

MassVictim on September 9, 2010 at 2:41 PM

OK, question, what amount is considered as “the higher income earners”? Is it still the $250,000 plus? If so, what is the point at which someone sees the tax cuts? I’m lost and confused…

sicoit on September 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM

ummm actually .. no matter what your bracket is, you will probably be paying 6-8% more in taxes.

Happy yet?

upinak on September 9, 2010 at 2:42 PM

$250,000 is a false construct. It’s a relic from Al Gore’s 2000 campaign.

lorien1973 on September 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM

I know I am going out on a limb here, but doesn’t Congress write the laws? If they wanted a tax cut couldn’t they write a law that cut taxes? If he vetos it, couldn’t they just override?

Lily on September 9, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Exactly right. But mustering 2/3 of Congress for the override is a tall order.

MassVictim on September 9, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Rep Jim Himes of Connecticut says he supports a termporary extension, because earning $250,000 annually “does not make you really rich.”

Yeah, no sh-t, Sherlock! 250 grand won’t go very far in many parts of the country. Once you’ve paid federal, state, and local income taxes, property taxes, homeowners fees, vehicle registration fees, car notes, car insurance, health care premiums, energy bills, phone bills, cable bills, and sales tax, you can then finally worry about putting food on the table, sending the kids to college, taking a vacation or two, and God forbid even save a few pennies for a rainy day.

Doughboy on September 9, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Obama keeps trying to open the door on the last water tight compartment on the Titanic. The Dems keep trying to stop him.

Why is that?

portlandon on September 9, 2010 at 2:44 PM

upinak on September 9, 2010 at 2:42 PM

That’s exactly what I thought and the reason for my question. So, in essence, we are still screwed….mmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmm

sicoit on September 9, 2010 at 2:45 PM

what amount is considered as “the higher income earners”?

sicoit on September 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM

That fix should answer it for you.

MassVictim on September 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Obama keeps trying to open the door on the last water tight compartment on the Titanic. The Dems keep trying to stop him.

Why is that?

portlandon on September 9, 2010 at 2:44 PM

ICE BURGPIVOTING AHEAD!

upinak on September 9, 2010 at 2:47 PM

When 84% of people in Cali are in favor of extending the tax cuts in one form or another and a plurality want to extend them to all income brackets, that shows this issue to be a major loser for Obama and Pelosi.

teke184 on September 9, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Worst.POTUS.ever.

Oink on September 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Drudge reports that Obama couldn’t fill a recreation center at Cuyahoga Community College. Had to recruit 35 butts in chairs.

BobMbx on September 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM

We’re these congressmen against letting the Bush tax cuts expire before they read the Anybody But Obama writing on the wall? If not, this might merely be part of the Dem strategy this election cycle where threatened Dems posture as fiscal hawks by opposing Barry and Nancy.

Not impress.

Christien on September 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Shouldn’t the NBC headline be” President Obama visited congressional district to show his support for candidate X?”
I don’t know about the others , but BRIGHT would say the sky is brown if he thought it would help him get votes ………

ELMO Q on September 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM

I’m beginning to wonder if when we’re told that they want to raise taxes only on higher income earners, what they’re really saying is “hired income earners.”

MassVictim on September 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM

what amount is considered as “the higher income earners”?

sicoit on September 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM
That fix should answer it for you.

MassVictim on September 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM

True dat!!!

sicoit on September 9, 2010 at 2:49 PM

what they’re really saying is “hired income earners.”

MassVictim on September 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM

They would probably call you racist and assume you were talking of illegals.

upinak on September 9, 2010 at 2:50 PM

BobMbx on September 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM

I read the article and it actually said 75 seats! One girl was called from the library in the basement to come in and sit….morons

sicoit on September 9, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Drudge reports that Obama couldn’t fill a recreation center at Cuyahoga Community College. Had to recruit 35 butts in chairs.

BobMbx on September 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM

That’s over-exposure at play there. There was a time about two years back when they had people paying premiums for tickets to those kinds of events just for a chance to glimpse at the Obamessiah.

teke184 on September 9, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Drudge reports that Obama couldn’t fill a recreation center at Cuyahoga Community College. Had to recruit 35 butts in chairs.

BobMbx on September 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM

LMFAO! They couldn’t find 35 our of work SCIU people?

upinak on September 9, 2010 at 2:52 PM

I love how you’re “not rich/not a criminal against the people” if you make $249,000 dollars per year, but if you make $250,000, you’re now suddenly “rich” and a criminal against the people.

Democrat ‘economics.’ Catch the fevah!

Good Lt on September 9, 2010 at 2:52 PM

* Rep Gerry Connolly of Virginia says the tax cuts should remain because the recovery remains “fragile.”

Its your reelection that’s “fragile” Connolly. RCP has VA-11 as a toss up. I hope they toss you out, Mr. “Is there enoug spending to be cut?” IDIOT.

Firefly_76 on September 9, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Will we find Obama in the corner on Nov 3rd, sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth?

right2bright on September 9, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Rep Ron Klein of Florida wants a one year extension of the tax cuts, including those for the rich, because “right now, our top economic priority has to be job creation.”

Um, shouldn’t that be a permanent priority?

rbj on September 9, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Will we find Obama in the corner on Nov 3rd, sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth?

right2bright on September 9, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Now that’s a mental image I shall keep for awhile….yeah!

sicoit on September 9, 2010 at 2:58 PM

It’s actually $250k for a married couple. $200k for a single person.
And no, by the time you take out Property Tax, FICA, State Income Tax, Medicare, SS, and GASP, some money for your 401K… you are definitely NOT RICH.

KMC1 on September 9, 2010 at 3:02 PM

LETS SOAK DA RICH…..C’OM ON

AMERICANS ARE AN ENVIOUS… JEALOUS…. BUNCH

IF I CAN’T MAKE THAT KIND O MONEY WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE????????

SOAK’EM

SOAK’EM

THEY DIDN’T EARN IT …THEY JUST GOT LUCKY….

%$#@’EM

ROFLMAO

donabernathy on September 9, 2010 at 3:03 PM

True-earning $250,000/yr does NOT make you rich.
What is ‘rich’?
To some it may be making $30,000/yr.
If you own your own business, $250,000/yr may be nothing bcs you often stick your wages right back into the business.

When we sell calves, we get a huge check in the fall.
Doesn’t mean we’re rich.
We own a lot of assets.
But have no cash.
I consider myself poor bcs we’re living in an early 70′s double-wide & can’t afford to even make it habitable.
But I’ve had people call me rich bcs we’ve got lots of land & cows.
This demonization of rich people’s getting OLD.
Who doesn’t want to be rich?
And how many poor people hire someone?
We can’t afford a hired man. If we could, we’d be rich, I guess.
Dear God BO is a train wreck & all the other wealth distributionists along with him.
If you got rich legally or even by inheriting or winning it, GOOD FOR YOU!
No one deserves a bigger slice of your profts just bcs you have more than someone else.
But through philanthropy, we see who is ‘good’ & who is ‘bad’.
Why not let people keep their $$ & invest it to create more wealth for everyone?
I know I’m speaking common sense here & there are those who cannot understand this method of thinking.

Badger40 on September 9, 2010 at 3:07 PM

I love how you’re “not rich/not a criminal against the people” if you make $249,000 dollars per year, but if you make $250,000, you’re now suddenly “rich” and a criminal against the people.

Democrat ‘economics.’ Catch the fevah!

Good Lt on September 9, 2010 at 2:52 PM

It gets better. The class warfare is being drummed up by elected officials in which case most of them are millionaires!! Oh, but that’s filthy rich, not rich rich. My bad.

30 pcs of silver on September 9, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Well, of course we should raise taxes on the rich. There’s only 1% of them, and there’s 99% of us working class guys who like getting free stuff that the rich people paid for with their tax hikes!

Nethicus on September 9, 2010 at 3:08 PM

I am probably in the minority here but I would propose a tax increase for the lower brackets and a cut for the upper brackets. Eventually evening things out somewhere between 18-23% across the board.

Koa on September 9, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Obama has declared war on small business, so small business is on the sidelines waiting for this to end. Hence the lack of new employment. Businesses are hoarding cash anticipating the higher tax rates.

phillypolitics on September 9, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Rush had a GREAT point (as he often does).

The President says that he wants to keep all the “Bush Tax Cuts” for those making 250k or less.

Rush’s point, “I thought the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ were ONLY FOR the RICH?”

So the President is stating that the Democrats and the Media have been lying about the Bush Tax Cuts for years.

barnone on September 9, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Nobama is greying awfully fast. Poor thing.

joejm65 on September 9, 2010 at 3:09 PM

All this makes my head spin – child tax credit, marriage penalty, single tax, you are in this income bracket that income bracket – this would ALL go away with a Fair Tax – across the board the same for all.

AusTex girl on September 9, 2010 at 3:11 PM

I know I am going out on a limb here, but doesn’t Congress write the laws? If they wanted a tax cut couldn’t they write a law that cut taxes? If he vetos it, couldn’t they just override?

Lily on September 9, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Same thing came to my mind.

jdflorida on September 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM

I am probably in the minority here but I would propose a tax increase for the lower brackets and a cut for the upper brackets. Eventually evening things out somewhere between 18-23% across the board.

Koa on September 9, 2010 at 3:08 PM

I tend to agree with you in that I would like to see income above a certain level exempt from taxes. That would give you a goal to aim for. Additionally, I believe it is morally wrong for anyone to not have skin in the game, therefore everybody should pay some tax, no matter how poor. Ideally, there would be no income tax, but a consumption tax, so your tax level would be dependent upon your own choices.

Vashta.Nerada on September 9, 2010 at 3:14 PM

WH insistent on its idiological position of fomenting class warfar, in a scorched-earth policy that can destroy the economic well-being of everyone: rich, middle-class, and poor alike.

Not exactly true. The Bush path brought about a massive structural deficit nearing $1 tril and doubled the nation’s federal debt. During the 1990′s taxes were higher, yes, but the budget was balanced. The current tax rates can’t be sustained much longer if you want to get serious about reducing the deficit.

bayam on September 9, 2010 at 3:15 PM

$250,000 8 years ago is, what, about $400k now? Yet we’ll apply the rates still to $250k income?

I supposed this President of any, is dumb enough to bring back Jimmy Carter style bracket creep.

$250,000 is literally, 2 typical federal government employees. Oh, only if married. Typical Government Employee to remain OK, if single. Nice way to re-introduce the marraige penalty, Captain Dumb@$$.

MNHawk on September 9, 2010 at 3:16 PM

hey, don’t all those reps understand that He W0n….I mean, they just can’t all listen to Rush Limbaugh and expect to get anything done around here….and if all those that made this mess wouldn’t just stand around pointin’ fingers, n’ such, and grab a mop, and help him clean up this mess……or something.

ted c on September 9, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Obama is suddenly looking more like Nixon than Kennedy.

BobMbx on September 9, 2010 at 3:16 PM

WONDER WHY THEY DON’T PASS A LAW THAT NO ONE CAN MAKE MORE MONEY THAN BARRY…..

HE’S THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON IN THE WORLD AND NO ONE IS WORTH MORE THAN HIM

LETS LIMIT ALL INCOME TO 399,999.OO

ROFLMAO

donabernathy on September 9, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Not exactly true. The Bush path brought about a massive structural deficit nearing $1 tril and doubled the nation’s federal debt. During the 1990′s taxes were higher, yes, but the budget was balanced. The current tax rates can’t be sustained much longer if you want to get serious about reducing the deficit.

bayam on September 9, 2010 at 3:15 PM

OK, I’ll play. What would rates have to be, top to bottom, in order to satisfy every whim of today’s leftist trash, that think $4 trillion per year of spending per year is sustainable.

MNHawk on September 9, 2010 at 3:19 PM

At a glance I thought the headline read “Whorehouse Dems…”

Probably a lot more accurate.

pain train on September 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM

I am probably in the minority here but I would propose a tax increase for the lower brackets and a cut for the upper brackets. Eventually evening things out somewhere between 18-23% across the board.

Koa on September 9, 2010 at 3:08 PM

News flash: 50% of Americans don’t pay income tax. How, exactly, will they receive a tax cut, or a tax increase?

I’d settle for 100% of Americans paying taxes…sorta like 100% of Americans paying for healthcare. (I heard that was a law or something)

BobMbx on September 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM

There is a reason that PBHO chose $250,000 as the cut off: He makes $249,999 as President.

Bishop on September 9, 2010 at 3:22 PM

At a glance I thought the headline read “Whorehouse Dems…”

Probably a lot more accurate.

pain train on September 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM

heh.

conversely

“Morehouse Dems pulling out of WhiteHouse”….film at eleven…

ted c on September 9, 2010 at 3:23 PM

The current tax rates can’t be sustained much longer if you want to get serious about reducing the deficit.
bayam on September 9, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Or we could stop…spending.

Did I say that?

Bishop on September 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Not exactly true. The Bush path brought about a massive structural deficit nearing $1 tril and doubled the nation’s federal debt. During the 1990′s taxes were higher, yes, but the budget was balanced. The current tax rates can’t be sustained much longer if you want to get serious about reducing the deficit.

bayam on September 9, 2010 at 3:15 PM

No, what you have written is nothing but lies. The last Bush budget had a $400 billion deficit – we now match that dollar figure every few weeks.

And Clinton never balanced the budget. Our national debt increased every year he was in office. He pulled the excess funding from social security to mask the deficits.

Vashta.Nerada on September 9, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Not exactly true. The Bush path brought about a massive structural deficit nearing $1 tril and doubled the nation’s federal debt. During the 1990′s taxes were higher, yes, but the budget was balanced. The current tax rates can’t be sustained much longer if you want to get serious about reducing the deficit.

bayam on September 9, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Once again I hear the beautiful mantra: “We don’t have a budget problem. No siree. The problem is taxes are too low.”

BULLSH…

WitchDoctor on September 9, 2010 at 3:28 PM

The current tax rates can’t be sustained much longer if you want to get serious about reducing the deficit.

bayam on September 9, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Stupid. Cut taxes even more, and drastically cut government spending. There will be a flood of revenue coming in to reduce the deficit.

Liberal logic is simply illogical.

darwin on September 9, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Or we could stop…spending.

Did I say that?

Bishop on September 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM

“Spending” is equivalent to “settled law”. Can’t be undone.

BobMbx on September 9, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Or we could stop…spending.

Did I say that?

Bishop on September 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM

quit it you racist. /

ted c on September 9, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Kill the IRS and institute a flat tax. You more you make the more you pay. Simple, easy, fair.

darwin on September 9, 2010 at 3:30 PM

but trickle down works ok for unemployment checks, right Nancy?

golfmann on September 9, 2010 at 3:31 PM

This is a nice rundown of the pain coming:

http://www.atr.org/days-thebr-largest-tax-hikes-history-

journeyintothewhirlwind on September 9, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Try that again.

http://www.atr.org/days-thebr-largest-tax-hikes-history-a5370

journeyintothewhirlwind on September 9, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Let ‘em raise the taxes! And when the economy falls flat, Barry can do a prime-time Oval Office speech about how great things are going. He’ll still have his 20% approval rating from the Obamabots.

GarandFan on September 9, 2010 at 3:34 PM

“I know I am going out on a limb here, but doesn’t Congress write the laws? If they wanted a tax cut couldn’t they write a law that cut taxes? If he vetos it, couldn’t they just override?

Lily on September 9, 2010 at 2:37 PM”

Yes, Lily, they could.

dogsoldier on September 9, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Dems abandon class warfare, just ahead of elections. And they do it on principle. Desperation.

paul1149 on September 9, 2010 at 3:40 PM

“The current tax rates can’t be sustained much longer if you want to get serious about reducing the deficit.
bayam on September 9, 2010 at 3:15 PM”

Didn’t Boenher suggest a spending rollback to 2008 levels? That would help. I prefer 1964 levels, but 2008 will do for a start.

dogsoldier on September 9, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Said it before, a lot of people are going to find out that they’re dirty, rotten, filthy, awful rich come their first paycheck after 1/1/2011.

HOPEY CHANGEY !!!

BowHuntingTexas on September 9, 2010 at 3:43 PM

News flash: 50% of Americans don’t pay income tax. How, exactly, will they receive a tax cut, or a tax increase?

I’d settle for 100% of Americans paying taxes…sorta like 100% of Americans paying for healthcare. (I heard that was a law or something)

BobMbx on September 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Maybe I wasnt clear when I mentioned “increase”, raising a zero rate to something above would constitute and increase. And by that I am talking about make a dollar? Pay your 18-23% on it. So I think when you said 100% of Americans paying taxes we are in aggreement.

Koa on September 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Dawg Obama just don’t get it…

d1carter on September 9, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Death and Taxes both include pain

I would like to buy an infomercial on the much maligned “Bush Tax Cuts” and could take a piece out of Rove’s book that would give the lefty’s pause. First question: What did the rich get away with?

I would also like to show the conservative (Repub) influence on the “great economy” Bubba left behind and where he was going before reality (and the voters) intervened.

I understand DeLay has a few things to say and would like to hear him plugged into or on TEMS (I don’t mean transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation).

IlikedAUH2O on September 9, 2010 at 4:08 PM

If they raise my taxes I’m Calling G.R.E.A.T. and wallah Allah no more pay-ee!

Geithner, Rangel Economic Advisor on Taxes!

See how easy that is? Gotta have a Hillarity EASY button like me!

dhunter on September 9, 2010 at 4:12 PM

They had better keep the DEATH tax the way it is this year. Most of that money that our fathers and grandfathers worked for has had taxes paid upon it multiple times. If dad grew up during the previous GREAT Depression and worked, saved and never borrowed a dime to buy things for fun or comfort than they had better exempt more than one million. The crooks have no right to steal it now. After years of toil sans the modern luxuries and living responsibly it is criminal to steal this money and give it to a bunch of quart drinkin, dope smokin, professional baby makers, too lazy to get a job and to dam dumb to create one. Not right to bail out the fat cat corrupt unions and their lavish health and retirement plans either.

dhunter on September 9, 2010 at 4:19 PM

The issue is that proprietorships, partnerships, and LLCs are all shown on personal tax returns. The IRS doesn’t recognize an LLC – which has become very popular.

So – the company brings home$260,000. Hire some more people… Buy some equipment… Bigger facility… or pay the government another 18% and wonder how they are going to get you next with Obamacare?

maninthemiddle on September 9, 2010 at 4:36 PM

maninthemiddle on September 9, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Or your LLC was a farm, wife died and now the land you paid 200,000 for, worked and toiled on all your life, is worth 2 million and Obama wants 55% of everything over a million in death taxes?

dhunter on September 9, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Drudge reports that Obama couldn’t fill a recreation center at Cuyahoga Community College. Had to recruit 35 butts in chairs.

BobMbx on September 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM

At this rate his next rally will have to be at the local Dew Drop Inn, or the American Legion Hall. And the band will perform It’s All Over But the Cryin’, in the key of F.

ziggyville on September 9, 2010 at 4:58 PM

It needs to be repeated, that most small business are Subchapter S, and reported on the owners’ personal income tax. Which means that a lot of small business owners are above the $250K “rich” threshold.

And they’ve known that this tax hike was coming for some time, which is part of the reason they aren’t hiring.

LarryD on September 9, 2010 at 5:07 PM

It appears to me that the rats are fleeing a sinking ship. Folks need to check these congresscritters voting records and then make up their minds as to whether or not send these people to the retirement home.

To paraphrase Obama’s preacher, “Their chickens have come home to roost.”

simkeith on September 9, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Thanks to their feckless leader, Congressional Democrats have another wedge issue to deal with in the upcoming 6 – 7 weeks.

molonlabe28 on September 9, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I can’t quote the numbers, but a whole lotta’ “S” corporations file as individuals. That means a moderately successful small business, on paper looks like one of Barry Zero’s “rich” people, thereby forcing Mr/Ms small business to pay through the nose.

Barry doesn’t want you to be too successful. He wants you to stay beholden to him.

Mr. Grump on September 9, 2010 at 5:31 PM

I have a friend who has a small business.

In 2007 he had nine employees.

Now he has one. And he ain’t hiring either.

Way to go Bambi!

Dhuka on September 10, 2010 at 1:00 AM

41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes — and they’re not alone

Over the years a lot of suspicion has built up across the country about Washington and its population of opportunistic transients coming to see themselves as a special kind of person, somehow above average working Americans who don’t work down in that former swamp.
Well, finally, an end to all those undocumented doubts. Thanks to some diligent digging by the Washington Post, those suspicions can at last be put to rest.
They’re correct. Accurate. Dead-on. Laser-guided. On target. Bingo-bango. As clear as it’s always seemed to those Americans who don’t feel special entitlements and do meet their government obligations.
We now know that federal employees across the nation owe fully $1 billion in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.

Ending those “Bush taxcuts” will mean “no pain” in the White House

J_Crater on September 10, 2010 at 8:04 AM

Someone should post a Rush-like composite of all the 2002-3 snippets of the Left (and the lapdog media) claiming that the Bush tax cuts would only benefit the rich and were therefore clearly unfair.

Then when they expire we can encourage the people to hold the Left accountable for their lies. Esp. when the 10M small businesses effected have to make cuts to pay the taxes. Call it another million plus lay-offs.

aritai on September 10, 2010 at 4:13 PM