The Politico's Jayson Blair

by: David Sirota

Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:52


I woke up this morning, and checked some "news" sites like I usually do. I put "news" sites in quotes because I visited the Politico* - a gossip rag whose ace "reporter" Jonathan Martin told me this:

In the wide-ranging [Meet the Press] appearance, Obama once again gave strong indications that he's backing off his stance on two key campaign pledges - whether to repeal President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and his call for bringing U.S. combat troops home from Iraq in 16 months.

I was pretty stunned at this, so I went to the tape and watched President-elect Obama on Meet the Press. And what do you know, he didn't "give strong indications that he's backing off" his income tax or Iraq pledges. He did nothing of the kind.

David Sirota :: The Politico's Jayson Blair
On taxes, Obama said, "My economic team right now is examining -- do we repeal that through legislation [or] do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?" In other words, he didn't say he was considering not repealing the tax cuts, he said he was considering how to repeal them - whether to support repealing them now, or whether to support them being automatically repealed by statute in two years. But the support for repeal is a foregone conclusion.

Likewise, on Iraq, Obama reiterated that it his top priority to withdraw troops from Iraq "as quickly as we can." Sure, he didn't explicitly say the phrase "16 months" - but in way is a pledge to withdraw troops "as quickly as we can" a "strong indication" that he will withdraw troops in more time than 16 months? If anything, Obama's actually suggesting he may bring troops home sooner (I don't think he will, but my point is that if you can draw any conclusion from his statement, it is that, and not that he's "backing off" his 16 month timeline).

Look, Obama has clearly backed off his campaign promise for a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies. I also think that his transition team has offered conflicting signals on whether the new administration's timing for its push to repeal Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Those are concrete, verifiable, undebatable facts, and he deserves to be asked about them. I also think it's fair to criticize Obama for not moving to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy right now.

However, Jonathan Martin claiming in a straight news story that Obama's Meet the Press interview "gave strong indications that he's backing off" his overall promise to support the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and withdraw troops from Iraq in 16 months is an outrageous lie - a made up fiction by a self-servingly conceited reporter looking to get his story on the front page of Drudge. Believe me, if Obama had done that, I'd be among the first to flag it (and if Obama in the future does, in fact, back off those promises, we should all call him out on it).

But that's not what he did on Meet the Press. The only thing that happened this morning is that an arrogant "reporter" manufactured a story. Remember, it was only a few years ago that people like Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass became national embarrassments for that kind of behavior - now it seems that's what passes for the norm in "political journalism."

* I'm not linking to the story because the entire reason the Politico made up this outrageous lie is to get people to link to the story and build up traffic which it then uses to attract ad revenue. If you want to see the story go to the Politico.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Politico's Jayson Blair | 51 comments
No, David, not quite (4.00 / 4)
In other words, he didn't say he was considering not repealing the tax cuts, only that he was considering how to repeal them.

He said he might not repeal them at all, but let them lapse. That is, letting them lapse is different from repealing them.

Martin overstates the degree to which Obama is backing off his pledges; you understate it.

Moreover, it's not a small difference, the difference between repealing and letting them lapss--it's billions and billions of dollars.

Semantics (4.00 / 3)
That's absurd semantics - really. "Letting them lapse" vs. "repeal" - shit, it could be "letting them be repealed." It's a word game.

Criticize Obama for delaying the repeal - I'm with you. Pretend he's not for repealing them? A lie.

[ Parent ]
It is sort of semantics (4.00 / 3)
And I think the story is a little off.  But, those are the same distinctions that Obama himself uses, and it does makes a difference, to the tune of about 40 billion dollars per year.

Asked Monday when those hikes might go into effect, Obama said, "Whether that's done through repeal, or whether that's done because the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, is something that my economic team will be providing me a recommendation on."

If repealed early, Obama's tax increase on the rich would have generated significant revenue, but not enough to compensate for the cost of his tax cuts. An analysis by the Tax Policy Center, based on January 2008 income projections, estimated that the increases would result in about $43 billion in revenue in 2009 and $45 billion in 2010. Those numbers would be smaller now, as the economy has lowered expected incomes.

I don't know Jonathan Martin from a hole in the wall.  But, you are accusing him of a very serious thing, and are comparing him to Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass?  Come on, they aren't even a little bit the same.

[ Parent ]
or basically (0.00 / 0)
What Martin should have done is give more context as to what Obama was really doing, which is delaying plans for a couple of years.  

But not providing context v. fabrications are pretty different things.

[ Parent ]
But that's the thing (4.00 / 2)
I totally agree with you - criticize Obama for not moving to repeal them faster. I'm with you on that - I even say it in the diary. I think they should be repealed ASAP.

But to try to say a disagreement on the timing of a repeal means Obama is backing off his overall support for repealing the tax cuts is beyond a stretch - it's a made up lie.

[ Parent ]
No, David (4.00 / 2)
because Martin was using the word correctly.

To say that Obama might be backing off his plan for repeal tells us nothing about whether he still might let them lapse, because they mean 2 different things.

[ Parent ]
Again, that was NOT Obama's plan (4.00 / 1)
Obama's plan was always the sunset plan.  He made it plain and many progressive bloggers decided to back someone else based on Obama's insistence that he sunset, not rescind, Bush's tax cuts.

[ Parent ]
incorrect (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
No. (0.00 / 0)
You are incorrect.

Go to 2:40 for taxes. Sept-7 interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

OCT article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27...

McCain wants to retain all of the tax cuts that Bush won from Congress in 2001 and later years, reductions that applied at every level of income. For individuals, he also wants to raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000, and has pledged to phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax, which falls on upper middle-class families.
Obama favors retaining Bush-era cuts except on taxpayers making more than about $250,000, whose taxes would revert to higher levels in effect a few years.

[ Parent ]
those pesky facts (4.00 / 1)
Again, can you just read his actual fiscal plan, not a media interpretation or your interpretation?  It is clear and explicit.  He said he was going to repeal the tax cuts.  Then the economy tanked even more, and for better or worse, he and his advisers have been saying they will let them expire instead.  I will now go back to banging my head against a wall.  

[ Parent ]
still (0.00 / 0)
Agreed, more context (as that AP article I linked has.)  But, he isn't lying or fabricating anything.

Obama did indicate exactly what Martin said- he will let them expire, not repeal them.  That might be semantics, but those are word choices of Obama.  So it seems you are responding to a reporter who is parroting Obama, by calling him a liar.


[ Parent ]
correction (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, first sentence of sec graph should have read Obama did indicate exactly what Martin said- he will not repeal them.

Again, Martin should have made it all more clear, because most people do not understand that the cuts expire anyway.  But, that is a context, or maybe laziness problem, not a lying one.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps more (0.00 / 0)
context would be nice--when isn't it?

But it's as if you're assuming that everyone will be as confused about meaning of "repeal" as Sirota is. Maybe they will be, but I'm not sure we can hold the ignorance of people against Martin.

[ Parent ]
Ok, good point. But wait a minute... (0.00 / 0)
what EXACTLY did Obama promise during the campaign? Did he specifically talk about "repealing" the Bush tax cuts, or did he use other words, like "get rid of them"? Sry, my memory isn't that good for such details. Do you remember?
[ Parent ]
repeal (4.00 / 2)
From his campaign proposal:

Repeal Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy

Obama is committed to repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

And if you search Obama Repeal Bush Tax Cuts, you see article after article saying the same thing- including with supporting quotes from Axelrod or Obama.

Again, at worst, this was a little lazy or didn't provide enough context.  But, come on- he was not lying.
 

[ Parent ]
He said both (4.00 / 3)
Early on he was clearly in the let-them-expire camp, which I complained about a lot. This is from his health care plan.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf...

The additional revenue  needed to fund the up-front investments in technology and to help people who cannot afford health insurance is more than covered by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do.

And from an early speech in Iowa in 2006:

To help pay for all this, we will ask all but the smallest businesses who don't make a meaningful contribution today to the health care coverage of their employees to do so by supporting this new plan. And we'll also allow the temporary Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire.

But later on, pressed on his left by Edwards, he became an advocate of "rolling back" the tax cuts, which has the same meaning as repeal. This is from the New York Times in May of 2007:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05...

Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat seeking his party's presidential nomination, said in a television interview broadcast Sunday that he supported "rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people who don't need it." He did not endorse a broader plan to raise taxes on the affluent that has been proposed by John Edwards, one of Mr. Obama's rivals for the nomination.

So it wouldn't be really a reversal, he'd just be picking the worse of the two positions he ran on.


[ Parent ]
He used "letting Bush's tax cuts expire" all through the primaries (0.00 / 0)
and during the GE.  There are many examples of these quotes.  You appear to be creating a changing timeline from 2006 to 2007, which is not the actual case here.  
[ Parent ]
?? (0.00 / 0)
I just gave you an example of him saying "rolling back."

There are others.

Believe me, I listened and watched carefully. Early on he usually said expire; later on he usually said roll back. Big difference.

[ Parent ]
Look, he used "letting them expire" in the most public of all venues, (0.00 / 0)
the primary debates and general election debates.  I paid very close attention to this issue as well, as I made his insistence of sunsetting the tax cuts one of the biggest reasons to go with someone else who would indeed rescind immediately (the other major reason for me was his non-universal health care proposal.)
[ Parent ]
Devilrays (4.00 / 1)
why not actually look at his plan?
[ Parent ]
You're just making shit up (0.00 / 0)
This is from the January 31, 2008 debate:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...

Obama talking about his health care plan:

We can conservatively save...

(APPLAUSE)

... $100 billion to $150 billion a year under my plan. That pays for part of it.

Part of it is paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent.

You could argue--perhaps--that "rolling back" doesn't equal "expire," in which case he's leaving it ambiguous. I presume that he wanted people to think he'd merely let them expire, he'd have said so. At the very least he wanted people to think he was for repeal.

[ Parent ]
repeal repeal repeal repeal (4.00 / 1)
I don't even get why this is a debate.  It is right in his fiscal plan!

Obama is committed to repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

[ Parent ]
Thanks, Dan (0.00 / 0)
I should've just said "What Dan said" from the get.

To answer you question, this is a a debate because there are people who will go to absurd lengths to defend Obama. Or to criticize O's critics.

[ Parent ]
Well, whatever. Revisionist historians at their finest (0.00 / 0)
The many threads that had been created during the primaries and thereafter discussing Obama's failure to push for immediate rescinding of Bush's tax cuts, instead keeping it at mere sunsetting, be damned.  It was thoroughly discussed on kos, mydd, here.  Now it was never, or "changed" by mid-2007.  Amazing stuff, really.    
[ Parent ]
Try the veal! (4.00 / 2)
This is high comedy.  He changed his position, or clarified, or whatever he did during the primary.  But he made it official, he put it in his fiscal policy proposal that still sits on his website.  

And then, he and his advisers announced a change, due to the econ situation, and now it wont be a repeal, but an expiration.

Whatever side you sit on about what is the right decision to make here, that is reality.  To deny it is surreal.

[ Parent ]
No, the comedy is on your side (4.00 / 1)
Nothing has changed from Obama's stance, which was clarified pubically many times:

http://apnews.myway.com/articl...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Sep 7, 2:53 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM), I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."

The "comedy" here is that you are attempting to create the narrative that this is something earth shatteringly new, as if Obama was not quoted many times well before the election that an economic recession would make it virtually a non-issue to look at Bush's tax cuts before its scheduled sunsetting.  

[ Parent ]
Oops, it should have read "publically", of course (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
More specifically: (4.00 / 1)
October:

"Obama favors retaining Bush-era cuts except on taxpayers making more than about $250,000, whose taxes would revert to higher levels in effect a few years ago."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27...

November:
"Neil Cavuto...was interviewing some "democrat strategist" who suggested that Obama would probably allow the Bush Tax cuts to expire 'naturally' in 2010 instead of reversing them as promised during the campaign.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/k...

You can't argue over some delicious fudge..

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
The numbers... (4.00 / 1)
Are not that big really. Combined you're talking about $90 billion in extra revenue, which isn't even 10% of the likely deficit next year. Which isn't to say that $90b isn't a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things it's not the sort of revenue increase that's really worth instigating a political fight that puts Democrats, at least in the media narrative, on the side of raising taxes at a time when there's a lot of really vital pieces of the agenda (increased aid to states, food stamps, and other progressive stimulus measure, healthcare, carbon pricing, etc.) that are going to take a lot of political effort to pass. Windfall profits tax on oil companies is a similar measure, now that I'm paying $1.70 for gas again.

I mean, I support those measures to be sure, but in the present circumstances the short-term benefit is ust outweighed by the potential cost of taking up the legislative battle, especially the income tax policies, which will revert soon without direct action.

As far as The Politico goes, it's best understood as a conflict narrative. Political journalists don't report anymore, because reporting doesn't draw attention. Instead, they try to make things more interesting by being story tellers. And, of course, every good story needs a conflict, so where none really exists the media will either exaggerate or fabricate because, as you say, that's how they make the $.  

[ Parent ]
90 billion not lot of money? (4.00 / 1)
I guess the bailout numbers are starting to warp people's sense of scale.

I mean, that money would pay for his health care plan for a year. Not bad.

Moreover, we'd have the spectacle of Obama who ostensibly ran against conservative economic philosophy buying into supply side economics.

[ Parent ]
The Federal Government... (4.00 / 2)
...has an annual budget of roughly $3 trillion (and that's before we account for any new stimulus spending). $45 billion is roughly 1.5% of that. And that's also assuming the projected figures are accurate, which is 50-50 at best. So no, in the context of the federal budget, the increased revenue that would likely come from repealing the tax cuts immediately isn't particularly noteworthy, and certainly not the sort of thing you'd want to create a legislative fight over when you have alot of other big ticket items on the agenda to push. It's not "supply side economics," it's just prioritizing politics.  
[ Parent ]
i disagree (0.00 / 0)
prioritizing politics AND dealing with the debt that's now 70% of GDP and likely to rise with the combo disaster going on involves finding revenue sources.  If it's not $90 billion from the very rich (compounded yearly), it's going to be social security benefit cuts or fiscal collapse or something much worse.  So i suggest that at some point we start fighting the idea that rich people are entitled to whatever tax cuts they have received in the past, no questions asked, and are entitled to be forever immune from any suggestion that they might be asked to pay more given that they are allowed a far higher standard of living than 99.99999% of humanity.
[ Parent ]
??? (4.00 / 2)
Wasn't it you going off the other day about the importance of respecting the meaning of words.

Indeed, you relied on an incorrect definition to criticize Martin:

In other words, he didn't say he was considering not repealing the tax cuts, only that he was considering how to repeal them.

As Martin points out (stong indication? maybe not), Obama did in fact say he might not repeal the tax cuts, because to repeal them is to, well, repeal them--to actively undo them.

On this point, Matin is correct, and you're not.

[ Parent ]
It's a fiction (4.00 / 2)
It is a fiction to say that based on the Meet the Press interview, Barack Obama gave "strong indications" that he is going to back off his overall support for repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. It's a fabrication.

It is accurate to say that Barack Obama gave strong indications that he is considering delaying his push to repeal the tax cuts. It is accurate to say Barack Obama suggested he might not support a repeal until the tax cuts come up for reauthorization in two years. All of that is accurate - and everyone has the right to criticize him on that. But to say that his interview gave strong indications that he is going to back off his overall support for repealing the tax cuts is a lie.

[ Parent ]
Okay, this is my last attempt (4.00 / 4)
cause clearly you're not getting it.

I agree that "strong indications" smells like bullshit, fair enough.

But also bullshit is what you say:

It is accurate to say that Barack Obama gave strong indications that he is considering delaying his push to repeal the tax cuts
.

If you want to let them expire and do not renew them, that is not "delaying a push to repeal the tax cuts."

That is to not repeal them.

To repeal, by definition, is to undo them before they lapse.  

[ Parent ]
Yup (4.00 / 2)
repeal =/= lapse.  At all.  To repeal is to undo a law before it expires, which Obama campaigned specifically on doing, at the risk of being called a "tax hiker" and "tax raiser" and "raising taxes in a time of recession", all things McCain and other Republicans DID say about him.

Letting it lapse is just waiting out the law until it expires in 2011, instead of legislatively undoing it (repealing it) beforehand.

There is an $88 billion difference between the two.  And these two items were specifically debated throughout the primary and general campaign.

[ Parent ]
That is wrong. Obama specifically called for "letting Bush's tax cuts expire" (4.00 / 1)
during his debates with McCain and in interviews and speeches throughout the GE.  His insistence on merely letting the tax cuts expire instead of rescinding them was one of my main reasons to back someone else in the primaries.   So, when he on a few occasions talked about "rolling back" tax cuts it appeared to me a somewhat lazy description of his often stated plan and reiterated plan to let the tax cuts expire/sunset when they are up for renewal.    
[ Parent ]
Wrong. Revisionism at its finest (0.00 / 0)
repeal is to undo a law before it expires, which Obama campaigned specifically on doing, at the risk of being called a "tax hiker" and "tax raiser" and "raising taxes in a time of recession", all things McCain and other Republicans DID say about him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27...

And quaote for ABC from above (Link is broken Devilrays)


Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM), I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."


[ Parent ]
but this is DC we are talking about (4.00 / 2)
Where all kinds of legislation has expiration dates, but gets renewed as a rite of passage. I think there has been AMT legislation every year to ensure that middle class folks aren't hit by lower rates. If Congress did nothing and allowed the AMT to reset to hit lower income folks, I don't think people would say "Congress didn't raise my taxes". They'd say the opposite, and be right.

You also can't say a pocket veto isn't a veto because the President didn't actually veto it. It's the same outcome, just a difference in semantics.

Inaction equals action, just as Bush's failure to renew the Assault Weapons Ban amounted to a repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban.

This really is semantics, because the natural order in DC is to keep low tax rates low. Allowing them to expire or repealing them are only different in what year they occur, both carry political risks, both are against the normal interests of corporate Washington.

[ Parent ]
I suggest David is correct, says the Constitution.. (0.00 / 0)
The story below is from November.  
Obama's possible "delay"  was already our there.  That's all he personally can do, and so can speak to that for a certainty.  
To repeal, is a decision for Congress to make, a highly uncertain outcome Obama sould not attempt to predict now.

The two meanings then, are worlds apart.

"President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday.
David Axelrod, the Obama campaign strategist who was chosen to be a senior White House adviser, was asked if the tax cuts could be allowed to expire on schedule after tax year 2010 rather than being rolled back by legislation earlier. "Those considerations will be made," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

http://thedailyblogster.blogsp...

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
That is simply not true (0.00 / 0)
Obama campaigned on the explicit pledge to "let the Bush tax cuts sunset."  I preferred a more immediate solution, as it was offered by both Edwards and Clinton, who both pledged to RESCIND Bush's tax cuts shortly after taking office.  Alas, sunsetting Bush's tax cuts was Obama's campaign promise, pure and simple.  He never indicated during the campaign once out of the primaries that he was thinking about rescinding Bush's tax cuts sooner.   That he is even considering rescinding Bush's tax cuts sooner than their known sunset dates is a new wrinkle, a change from his 'sunset' campaign promises.

[ Parent ]
Incorrect (4.00 / 1)
Repeal is right in his proposal.  (See comment above.)
[ Parent ]
he took both positions (4.00 / 1)
see above.
[ Parent ]
Even IF you are going with that narrative, which overall simply (0.00 / 0)
is not supported by the frigging facts, you must remember the many discussions started by Edwards and Hillary supporters on the blogs that Obama's language of "sunsetting" and "let expire" was undesireable, as it ran counter to Edwards' and Hillary's promises.  Now we are changing the entire narrative that was discussed throughout the entire primary season and beyond?

Besides, it was clear before the election that Obama saw the recession as a game changer on the thoughts, so where exactly is THIS different than what he stated two months before the election?

http://apnews.myway.com/articl...

Obama: Recession could delay rescinding tax cuts

Sep 7, 2:53 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM), I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."

You may critique Obama for the actual fact that he does not see it necessary to rescind Bush's tax cuts immediately, but your attempt to paint is as something new, a "breaking" of am explicit campaign promise, is incorrect, as the overall Obama rhetoric during the primaries and beyond showed, and then the insistent narrative WELL BEFORE THE ELECTION that an economic recession would further make an early move on Bush's tax cuts highly unlikely, as shown in the above example (an interview with "This Week" on ABC on Sept. 7.)  

Here the Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

[ Parent ]
Broken link (0.00 / 0)
Can you fix it? I wanna bookmark it along the other ones I posted where obama says in an event ofa  recession he would just let them expire (posted the MNBC and you tube links above)
[ Parent ]
The AP link died last night, but plenty of papers picked it up (0.00 / 0)
Here is a link to the Chicago Sun Times article:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/p...

[ Parent ]
Sirota is right (4.00 / 1)
I keep seeing these news stories pop up about how Obama isn't going to follow through on his pledge to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich. And then a reporter actually asks Obama about this (as happened today on MTP, and as happened in the Barbra Walters interview if I'm not mistaken) and Obama makes it pretty clear that those tax cuts for the rich are going away.

Now, I'm right with David in saying that they should be repealed pronto. First, we need that additional revenue. Second, if you are going to raise taxes then do it in your first year. The Congress won't want to let taxes go up in 2010, and Obama isn't going to want to do it when 2012 starts to loom.  

Just do it now and get it over with. If Larry Summers or Geithner or the Villagers put up a fit, tell them to shove it.

Obviously there are some in Congress who think they will be criticized less if they allow the tax cuts to expire vs. "voting to raise taxes", but Republicans will criticize them no matter what they do. Anyway, Obama will have to do something about the estate tax, which I believe goes to ZERO in 2010 before returning to 2001 levels the year after. You can't let that tax rate hit zero, I'm sorry.

Hey David (0.00 / 0)
Did you try ya know emailing Martin? He actually does respond to emails and if you had some beef with him maybe you could have cleared it up before writing this highly accusatory post.  Calling someone Jayson Blair is deeply offensive and what he writes in his article is nothing different from what other reporters have been saying regarding this issue for some time.

Obama has been giving strong inclinations that he will not be moving to repeal the tax cuts but rather just let them expire. Has he given weak inclinations?

I think you are getting into dangerous territory here.

This speaks to the uncertainties in ALL of us. (4.00 / 1)
Don't you think Martin should have taken more care with his words??

It's better to vent in either direction by keyboard -anyday.

The fu**ing elections are OVER, we're ALL stuck together in a sh**hole for who knows how long, we're too Democratic to shoot ourselves in the head, it's too fu**ing cold outside to march in the streets and even if we wanted to WE CAN'T,  because we have no fu**ing money left for gas - TO go anywhere!



Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
Look at the video, Obama left the door wide open for expiration (0.00 / 0)
TWO MONTHS before the election. watch from 2:35 if you want to skip to the tax arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

He explicitly leaves open the door to let bush tax cuts expire if the rescission turns for the worse. this shouldn't be news and Jonathon is defiantly misleading and lying when it comes to that issue (since obama was never strong on repealing the tax cuts in a strong rescission but favored letting em expire, esp at the end tail of the GE).m on Iraq media likes to hype intentions, just like they did in july when obama said he would be listening to the commanders as well as to his timetable. I see there is recently a STRONG desire in the media and blogs to try to front the idea that obama is going back on his promises even before he makes any policy positions as president ( possibly because they LIKE the status que in some palces and want the impression and pressure to insure things stay as they are). I am going to bet a lot of people are going to be wrong about obama and his tactics, just like they were in the primaries and GE.

Also OCT article about the same thing
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27...


McCain wants to retain all of the tax cuts that Bush won from Congress in 2001 and later years, reductions that applied at every level of income. For individuals, he also wants to raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000, and has pledged to phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax, which falls on upper middle-class families.

Obama favors retaining Bush-era cuts except on taxpayers making more than about $250,000, whose taxes would revert to higher levels in effect a few years.


Capital Gains taxes (0.00 / 0)
are off the table.  So are business taxes.  He's following exactlyb what McCain recommended.

McCain was dead right about taxes.  Obama was full of beans.

McCain was also right about the bail-out problem.  Either we put a bottom to the housing problem, or we're sunk.

The Politico's Jayson Blair | 51 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox