Following is the text of an e-mail I just received. I think these tactics are reprehensible. They appeal to self interest only, they pit Americans against one another, they don’t tell the complete story and ignore the consequences of not getting budgets and deficit reduction right. The President is supposed to be the leader for all Americans, not the catalysts for division.
The truth is that any chance to get the US fiscal situation fixed will mean all Americans will pay more either through more taxes or lower benefits of all kinds or both. As we keep sopping up all the promises of free stuff and less personal responsibility, we dig a deeper and deeper hole.
Friend —
I hope you had a lovely holiday and all is well. I’m writing with a quick update on the “fiscal cliff” and how you can get involved.
Right now, President Obama is asking you to think about what $2,000 a year means to you and your family — because Congress needs to hear it.
The Senate has passed a bill that stops taxes from going up for 98 percent of American families, and asks those who can afford it to pay a little more. If the House follows suit, President Obama is ready to sign it as soon as it hits his desk.
If they fail to do so, a typical middle-class family of four will see their taxes go up by $2,000 in just a few short weeks.
President Obama is asking Congress to do the right thing and act before the New Year, but he needs our help. We’ve got a good track record here: When we make our voices heard and urge Congress to take action — whether it’s about health care, student loans, Wall Street reform, or “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — they listen.
Watch this new video about the President’s tax plan, and take a moment to share your story: What does $2,000 a year mean to you and your family?
For more than 19 months, President Obama campaigned on the idea that if we’re going to be successful, every American has to do their part and pay their fair share.
A centerpiece of his platform, and the campaign you built, was that income taxes should not go up on the middle class — that the responsible way to pay down the deficit, while investing in education, job training, research, and science, is to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more.
None of this is a surprise to anyone in Washington. They heard the same arguments we did — they paid attention to the campaign, and then they saw a clear majority of voters deliver a verdict on November 6th.
If and when the House passes this bill, 98 percent of American families and 97 percent of small businesses will not see a tax increase.
Your story matters and Congress needs to hear it.
Think about what $2,000 a year can do for you, or your family, or someone you know, and submit it here:
http://my.barackobama.com/Share-Your-2k-Story
Thanks for speaking out. More soon,
Stephanie
Stephanie Cutter
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America
P.S. — We’ve got to make our voices heard in this debate. Share what $2,000 means to you, and then ask your friends and family to do the same.
PAID FOR BY OBAMA VICTORY FUND 2012, A JOINT FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE AUTHORIZED BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, AND THE FLORIDA, IOWA, PENNSYLVANIA AND VIRGINIA STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
I guess that some people think that the very rich have been ripping off the middle class. I sense bitterness and guess what. Raising taxes is going to cause more layoffs and a higher unemployment rate, but Liberals do not care.,
LikeLike
The reason that the amount of $250,000 was decided on is the fact that the highest paid Government official in Congress makes only $223,000. I believe also that we have a President that is not capable of negotiating face-to-face with anyone. We are going to be at an impasse until 2016.
LikeLike
Middle income and lower income Americans will spend their $2,000 tax reductions and stimulate our economy because they have no choice – tax increases on the most wealthy will return some funds to our country from their tax-exempt foreign bank accounts and that’s a good thing, too – what is it that you do not understand? – and please remember: HELLO! OBAMA WON THE ELECTION!
LikeLike
The middle class already has the $2,000 and increasing the tax rate and raising unearned income rates in addition has nothing to do with foreign banks.
LikeLike
Over the cliff and the $2,000 tax break is gone for the middle class – increasing taxes on the very rich who have benefited the most from the sacrifices of our working class people and our military people may cause them to write checks on their foreign bank accounts to pay their tax bills – duh! – this isn’t a day school blog
LikeLike
So you think a couple earning a total of $250,000 has a foreign bank account and has lived off the sacrifices of the working class? Exactly what sacrifices are we talking about? How has the top 2% taken away from the middle class?
LikeLike
The top 2% sent the sons and daughters of the middle class to die in unwinnable wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, outsourced middle class jobs overseas, replaced promised retirement pensions with high-risk 401k’s etc. etc. suggested reading: “Who Stole the American Dream” by Hedrick Smith
LikeLike
I guess you just can’t trust the Gates, Buffett’s, Pelosi’s, Soros’s, Kerry’s, Woods, Beckum’s and Clinton’s of the world.
LikeLike
You’re looking at the wrong group of people. Check the net worth of the members of Congress and reconsider your views. Review the military record of the Romney family since they immigrated here from their poligamy retreat in Mexico. Tell me the family names of all of those who reap huge profits from producing weapons of war. Tell me the family names of all of those big oil executives becoming wealthy due to Middle East strife and still enjoying huge federal subsidies. Justify the $1.2MM in bonuses paid to executives of bankrupt Hostess after 18,000 people lost their jobs. “White male landowners” (a.k.a. the rich) no longer rule this nation. The Republican-defined “underclass”, “urban voters”, and “self deporters” have spoken in this election. They were reinforced by single women (not “unmarried women”) and young people. That’s America today. The Republicans still don’t get it and I don’t think that you do either.
LikeLike
So, Jerry, are you interested in actually fixing the debt problem or are you interested in an agenda of jealousy? Because raising taxes on the “wealthy” does nothing to get this country back on a long term sustainable fiscal path. Bringing the tax rates back to the Clinton era for the top 2% will raise about $70 billion per year. Sounds like a lot until you realize that the deficit is $900 billion per year and we owe somewhere in the neighborhood of $16 trillion. This isn’t about class warfare or whether or not the wealthy should be punished for whatever sins you think they have committed (really, the entirety of those making over $250,000 have cheated the military, hidden assets in foreign bank accounts and plundered the middle class?). Will the wealthy need to pay more? Yes. However, it is disingenuous for the Democrats suggest that is all we need to do. It’s about finding a realistic, thoughtful solution to resolving our debt and deficits while not materially squeezing off a nascent economic recovery. That means a tax overhaul, an entitlements overhaul and a complete change in the way government thinks about spending money. I’m not sure where your anger towards people with wealth stems from but spewing hatred sure isn’t part of a true solution… Good luck with that anger problem and hopefully you get to be one of those 2% someday.
LikeLike
Well, Rob, I guess you would also say that Warren Buffett is “jealous” and “angry”?:
Writing in the New York Times in favor of higher taxes on the “wealthy,” Warren Buffett says:
The group’s (Forbes 400 most wealthy) average income in 2009 was $202 million — which works out to a “wage” of $97,000 per hour, based on a 40-hour workweek. (I’m assuming they’re paid during lunch hours.) Yet more than a quarter of these ultrawealthy paid less than 15 percent of their take in combined federal income and payroll taxes. Half of this crew paid less than 20 percent. And — brace yourself — a few actually paid nothing.
This outrage points to the necessity for more than a simple revision in upper-end tax rates, though that’s the place to start. I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.
Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.
Thanks for your good wishes, but it seems that good wishes from you wrongly assume that I too want to be a part of this disingenuous group. No thank you!
LikeLike
Jerry, I’m not necessarily saying I completely disagree with Buffett. What I am asking is what is the plan to address the rest of the deficit? So, the “Buffett Rule” will reduce about 6-8% of the deficit, how do you propose to address the other 92%? Ironically, I don’t think the wealthy really mind paying more in taxes as long as it’s part of a comprehensive plan combined with real spending cuts to get the country back on a fiscally sustainable path. As Dick alludes to in several articles, the dirty little secret is that everyone is going to have to sacrifice in order to address the debt, whether that’s paying more in taxes or giving up services. So, what’s the plan to address the other $830 billion/year?
LikeLike
I’m not clever enough to propose a comprehensive solution to that calamity, but Bill Clinton did it once and I’m sure that he and the Obama administration could do it again, if the Far Right obstructionist Republicans in the House would get out of the way and give our country a chance to recover from the damage that their predecessors did during the Bush years.
LikeLike
You are mistaken about the root cause of the problems. The real cause was the policy pushing home ownership for people who could not afford it. This was pushed by liberals such as Barney Frank, helped by government agencies lowering their standards and exacerbated by lenders taking advantage of the situation. As is too often the case we try to solve a perceived problem by lowering our standards rather that focusing on raising the ability for people to meet established standards.
Plus keep in mind that Democrats had full control of Congress during the last two years of the Bush administration and the first two of Obama when they could have fixed anything they wanted. Instead they spent much of their energy on health care, an important issue but at the time secondary to the economy and jobs.
Dick
Richard D Quinn Editor Quinnscommentary.com
LikeLike
I guess you are insinuating that many lending institutions made extremely unwise loans which threatened their financial viability because Congressional Democrats asked them to do it? I’m having trouble with that one.
It’s certainly arguable to say that Obama’s highest first priorities should have been to reduce the deficit and to balance the budget, but he was busy ending the war in Iraq, turning around the U.S. auto industry, recapitalizing many banks, toppling Gaddafi, increasing veterans’ support and tightening sanctions on Iran (to enumerate just a few). And, healthcare reform was certainly not an immediate crisis, but presidents seem to have the habit of setting their own priorities. Now that a depression did not follow Obama’s inherited recession, can we get some agreement to encourage the obstructionist House Republicans to get out of the way or work with the Democrats to solve the “big picture” issues which are looming dead ahead?
LikeLike