Taxing rich to be theme of Obama’s re-election campaign
AP WASHINGTON AIMING tax increases at millionaires and companies that ship jobs abroad may help frame the fairness theme of President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, but it’s a plan that stands virtually no chance of passing Congress. Republicans have enough votes in the GOP-run House, and almost certainly in the Democratic-controlled Senate, to kill Obama’s proposals.
They say his ideas would discourage investment and job creation and further hurt an already ailing economy. “He’s got to know that none of those things he proposed really have much of a chance of going through both houses of Congress,” said Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. “I don’t think he’s intending on passing any laws this year,” said House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.
“He’s in a campaign. That was his re-election speech.” After last year’s hyper-partisanship bogged down routine business like financing the government and paying its debts, few expect much to move through Congress before November’s election anyway — especially not tax hikes that Republicans solidly reject. “Even if there is little prospect of getting Republicans to agree with these proposals, they’re important reference points for the public in identifying Obama as someone who’s on their side,” said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin.
Obama offered his plans, with scant detail, in Tuesday’s State of the Union address. He used the word “fair” seven times to describe tax increases aimed at groups the Occupy movement has branded as the “one percent” of Americans who are doing extremely well while the rest of society struggles. The president proposed ending tax breaks for US companies moving jobs or profits to foreign countries and creating a minimum tax on their overseas profits. He also suggested new tax breaks for businesses that move jobs back to the US, for domestic manufacturing and for companies that invest in towns that have suffered major job losses.
Getting most attention was his plan to tax incomes above $1 million annually at a rate of at least 30 percent. That’s a sharp and convenient contrast with the 15 percent tax rate enjoyed by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination, who earned about $21 million each of the past two years. The proposals quickly became fodder for the GOP presidential contenders. Romney said the next day on CNBC’s “Kudlow Report” that Obama’s plan was “designed to come at me if I’m the nominee,” and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said during last Thursday’s presidential debate, “His proposal on taxes would make the economy worse.” Democrats immediately made clear that there will be Senate votes this year on the subject. New York Senator Charles Schumer, part of the Senate Democratic leadership, said he was relishing a push on “some kind of Romney rule, I mean Buffett rule.” Obama has embraced a Buffett rule, named for billionaire Warren Buffett, who has cited the inequity of laws that let him pay a lowe