Congressional Democrats side-step the most odious consequence of the Obama/McConnell tax “cut” plan, allowing statements like this one to go unchallenged:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) added that the vote “represents a clear shift in the debate over America’s path to economic recovery,” as “Democrats joined our effort to ensure taxes aren’t going up on anyone and that Americans are keeping their money so they, not the government are more equipped to help bring our economy back.”
Sure, there’s lots wrong with the deal, on the estate tax and the broken promise to end the wealthiest Americans’ socially useless Bush tax cut, but no one talks about the worst part of it: taxes will go up for about a third of American workers.
The lowest-paid third.
The tax deal reached between President Obama and congressional Republicans could mean a higher tax bill for roughly one in three workers as a result of the Social Security tax cut Republicans pushed as a replacement for the current Making Work Pay tax credit.
The Making Work Pay credit gives workers up to $400, paid out at 8 percent of income, meaning that anybody making at least $5,000 gets the full amount — and gets as much as anybody else. Its replacement knocks two percentage points off the payroll tax cut, meaning a worker would need to make $20,000 to get a $400 break. Of the nation’s roughly 150 million workers, around 50 million make less than $20,000 and will see at least some increase as a result.
Of course, those aren’t the only taxpayers being lied to about their magically unharmed paychecks come January First:
Additionally, roughly a quarter of 20 million state and local workers pay no payroll tax, because they have a separate pension system. Some of those workers with children will benefit from the extension of other tax credits, but overall will have less money in their pocket.
It’s baffling to me: these two natural constituencies of the Democratic Party — especially the working poor, but also state and local employees — will see higher taxes two weeks from now.
But no one’s talking about that. Everyone allows Barack Obama, and now Mitch McConnell, to talk about this marvelous deal as if it’s true that no one’s taxes will go up, when that simply is not true. Most wage-earners hang on to our last pay stub of the year, for taxpaying purposes and to be sure oour W-2 is done correctly.
People are going to be able to compare our last 2010 pay stub with our first 2011 paycheck.
And one-third of American workers (the lowest-paid third, but still!) will see right away that President Obama lied to us. So did the GOPs with whom he made this deal.
Why aren’t Democratic Congresspersons making a bigger deal about this? Why aren’t Democrats fixing this part of the deal to make what President Obama says is true?



50 Comments

You can’t lie to people about their paychecks. People will see right away that Obama lied. Does it matter that Obama lied to the poorest taxpayers? Is that why Congressional Democrats don’t care to make an issue of it?
Teddy,
I am one of those bottom third and I blistered both my Dem. Rep. Bruce Braley’s office and Tom”I used to be a liberal but it’s such hard work” Harkin’s office as well.
Quotes that explain Obama!
“If Obama was President in the 60′s, “Blacks would now be able to sit in middle of bus”
Obama punt’s on first downs.
Obama strikes out on one pitch.
Obama only solves the Wheel of Fortune puzzle if all the letters are turned.
Obama took 6 months to choose a dog. (wait that one was true)
How can we even consider not primaring his corporate-stooged-weak ass?
Thanks for highlighting this TP.
Scandalous this isn’t being reported in
big letter in the msm. But I’m not surprised.
What a nightmare.
Because they’re clueless brain dead ciphers?
whoops, that should be big letterS.
Alas, I think you’ve got it.
Teddy, you are correct. Those getting Make Work Pay subsidies will see a benefit they received before reduced.
That should be made clear.
Also, state and local workers will see no benefit from the SS tax cut. On the other hand, they will be waiving to the rest of us as they shuffle off to a nice retirement while the rest of us get SS.
My mom works for the Post Office, or worked, I should say. She is somewhere about 90% of last salary. I don’t think she would have minded missing out on any SS tax cut if it meant she wouldn’t have to get SS, but could get her postal retirement benefits.
You might say this is “no tax cuts for the (retirement benefit) rich.”
Matt Taibbi comments:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bernie-sanders-puts-barack-obama-to-shame-20101215
When I called David Wu’s office the nice lady who answered the phone didn’t know what I was talking about. It’s as if there’s this paycut headed at all of us in this deal, and no one who’s voting on it (Wu might vote NO) is aware of the flaw in the deal.
I dunno, Teddy. When Reagan, with huge fanfare, enacted his first big “tax cut,” my wages decreased. I protested this vehemently to Congress, etc, but everyone stuck their fingers in their ears and went: lalalalalalalalalala can’t heeeeeeeaaaaar you!
Plus when I *showed* my rightwing family the difference in my “before” & “after” paychecks, they put their hands over their eyes and went: lalalalalalalalalala can’t seeeeeeeeeeeeee that!
I don’t recall almost anyone saying anything about Reagan’s “tax cut,” which benefited the wealthiest and was detrimental to those of us at the lower rungs of the ladder. Of course, the Internet didn’t exist then for popular use.
But I wouldn’t count on the proles to actually stand up and say anything, esp Dittoheads, but even trad Dems. Just saying…
It is as if it’s not happening. I put an email out to my co-contributors to find out if it somehow went away, because no one in Legacy Media or the Democratic Party is talking about it.
But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. And it will not be very pretty when it does.
No, I disagree. Because they’re *bought off* imo. I don’t believe that they’re “clueless,” and (no offense) to say that is just to give them “cover” for their criminal behavior.
I realize that many people are not sympathetic to the state and local employees, but it seems to me that the lowest-paid third of American taxpayers are (or used to be, I guess) the natural constituency of the Democratic party. I would expect SOMEONE to speak up for them.
It’s all one party these days. The Liars Party.
Why aren’t there some Members of the Press challenging this horseshit?
Jane, has Lawrence O’Donnell called?
Seems that’s not gonna happen anymore… these jerks only speak up for the supremely wealthy. They could give a sh*t about the middle class, much less the working class or poor.
Is Digby writing about this?
How about all those folks — particularly those who have the ability to get articles published under their own names — over at HuffPost?
I’d think Arianna, with all her Third World America bs, would like to write about this.
It just takes WORK, which as we know, most “journalists” are up for doing. But we ought to be able to spoonfeed the lazy bastards the facts on this.
Don’t we have a diary somewhere — like we did with the Health Care Fiasco — that cites each of their “claims” and links to the facts that disprove it? If not, we should.
I thought it was the Scumbags & Criminals Party. I stand corrected.
I won’t try to elaborate at this time, but I do wish to say thanks to you for bringing it up, Teddy. It mattered a great deal to me.
Ted once again I was infront of this issue.
Teddy, have you e-mailed this to Tom Engelhardt?
Link?
They are in bed together. Isn’t the big White House/Press dinner coming up? It wouldn’t do to criticize and get un-invited. I’ll never forget the time that David Gregory straight up told Glenn Greenwald that access was what it was all about. Access and getting invited to the functions.
Kelly! Smooch! ♡
You may be right.
But this is fifty million taxpayers affected!
And we do have the internet now.
I’m just surprised to see the pols let this happen with no warning. That seems very unwise, in such a volatile time, with images of Greece and London on anyone’s screen who cares to see them.
Smoochback!
Oddly, Ed Schultz today was the good Ed. Totally calling Obama out on being a wimp, totally for the Dems in Congress putting a stop to the great rich giveaway and back to putting the 99ers out in front of everybody. Either he naturally tends to the sycophantic and his audience snaps him back to reality or there are two Ed Schultzs.
Jane to be fair won’t get called and if he wants to get called well fuck me any Laker can blow his doors off the MSM are weak.
Hmmm…I disagree. Jane has slammed LoDo down several times recently and keeps being called back. I agree about the part of the msm being weak though but Jane can smack them down every bit as eloquently as Glennzilla.
Well scumbags and criminals aren’t really known for their sincerity.
google me and Nanci prolsi and spineless and yes s before you were ever used that term on the Lake stones, spine were my terms I created ways for the LAKE and every lizard to frame then selves.
Why the lord of the smoking mirror asks
Ask Ted if I have ever thought Nancy was on the side of the Angels. MY record on that is very clean.
So you mean you were first to call Pelosi spineless, not anything about the tax issue.
Pelosi is not addressed in this diary, nor does the word “Pelosi” appear in this diary.
Margaret 2 Eds who heares different voices well you know I a logic fiend and I can’t track every voice I hear I’m good but not that good \.s
They didn’t notice when their taxes were cut.
At some point it would be nice to see billboards or something going up along commuter routes asking: “How do you like your paycheck now” after the alleged tax cuts.
Americans know intrinsically that this Trickle Down tax scheme engineered by Bush Republicans in 2001, did NOT create shared prosperity. It is a categorical failure that blew up the Clinton surplus.
That is why opposition to it’s continuation is so high, and why Obama is stupid to not be seizing the high ground which Bernie Sanders so clearly did Friday.
Tell Pelosi to stop them at > http://bit.ly/hd3p5x
People don’t notice this shit. No one noticed when their taxes go down, so why would they notice when they go up? On top of that, people most likely to be impacted are least likely to vote.
Any cuts in federal tax levels inevitably leads to “trickle down” tax increases at the state and local levels, meaning that any tax cuts that the middle-class sees over the next ten years will be eaten up by reciprocal increases in tax rates locally and statewide.
Why else do you think that so many state treasuries started being stressed to the breaking point after the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 went into effect, with many states today carrying huge debts and on the brink of bankruptcy from sea to shining sea?
The Republicans’ goal is to shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle-class/poor and shift it from the federal government to state and local governments, where an income tax is practically non-existent, with regressive taxes, fees and property taxes making up the bulk of state and local government revenue flowing into their treasuries.
This sounds like the Republican recipe for a banana republic, for a national disaster, for the demise of our democracy.
Did Matt Taibbi ever get this right. From the referenced article: “Sanders blew all of that off and just looked at the deal’s moral implications. Which are these: this tax deal, frankly and unequivocally, is the result of a relatively small group of already-filthy rich people successfully lobbying an even smaller group of morally spineless politicians to shift an ever-bigger share of society’s burdens to the lower and (what’s left of the) middle classes.”
It was written about at HuffPo. But the one article was overwhelmed with a plethora of pro-Obama articles by everyone you can imagine supporting the compromise.
In one of those I commented about this and people said I was someone with my hair on fire or making things up. I had to provide those HuffPosters with a link to the article on HuffPo. Then they shut up and ignored me. Oh well.
Plus, lately Arianna’s new system is letting the Obamabots delete any comment that is too critical of Obama from the Left. Meanwhile the crazy right wing Tea Party posts are left alone.
Maybe Arianna has changed her mind again about where she stands politically.
I have another major concern about this horrible tax cut.
A lot of folk on the Left who should know better are now selling the Republican meme that deficits are the problem as they oppose this thing. They are going from opposing this give away to the uber wealthy that blows a bigger hole in the deficit to opposing the deficit, even during a recession.
I had to turn Norman Goldman off this afternoon as he was going off on a litany of waste in the government as if he was Grover Nordquist.
So the Republicans are getting what they want, more transfer of wealth to the upper crust and those who should oppose this are jettisoning everything Keynes taught us for a simplistic buy in of deficit hawkishness.
It is amazing that LoDo DOES keep having Jane back on his show.
And on his most recent one with her, he actually seemed civilized. Wonder what caused that.
Somehow Republicans — and now Democrats — can’t seem to “do the math” on deficits.
Deficits occur because you have
** too much spending; and
** too little income [tax receipts]
However, in looking at the “spending” side of the equation, the Repubs [and now Obama + Dems] never look at the BIG items on the spending side, namely defense/wars. It’s as if a family [hate to use that metaphor, but forgive me] who goes out to dinner EVERY NIGHT at an expensive restaurant suddenly decides to “cut back,” and tells little Suzie “no Butterfinger for you!!”
Similarly, when tax receipts are insufficient — when you’ve been financing your wars and foreign adventures on credit — the Republicans [and now Obama and the Dems] never “get responsible” and say “we’ve gotta get more revenue to pay for this. We need to raise taxes.” They immediately shift the focus to “the economy,” and engage in trickle down ["tax cuts are good"] arguments.
Are tax cuts for millionaires going to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan?
Are cuts in Head Start and social security going to pay for them?
Please, could we get a coherent argument that incorporates the disparate elements, instead of these trite “the scary, scary deficit” memes?
How does the “new” system work? I don’t spend a lot of time over there, so don’t know the ins & outs. I just know that my comments almost ALWAYS go to moderation before getting put up.
But I have noticed that I get attacked less for my anti-Obama remarks.
“people most likely to be impacted are least likely to vote”
Eh? We’re talking about 1/3rd of the nations workers. Even if a below average percentage vote, it’s still a heck of a lot of people. And yes, people will notice if they can no longer pay the bills.
I’m considering it plenty; can’t wait for the challenge! And I will vote third party before I vote Obama again.
That first quote was the best. Woulda made me laugh, if it wasn’t so sadly true. Or not. I wonder if Blacks would in fact have their own trailer behind each bus so they could sit in front without angering any, you know, Republicans – if Obama had been in charge.
One thing for sure, he’d be telling Martin to STFU about it.
They have a badge system. If you mark as offensive a comment and the paid moderators agree and pull the comment you get a point. Earn enough points and you become a super moderator and you get to pull comments any time you wish.