Skip to main content


EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503

                                                                                                                                                                        December 19, 2012
                                                                                                                                                                        (House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.J. Res. 66 – Middle Class Tax Cut Act
(Rep. Boehner, R-OH)


The Administration strongly opposes House passage of the Middle Class Tax Cut Act (the Congressional Republican "Plan B" legislation), which would continue large tax cuts for the very wealthiest individuals while raising taxes on 25 million students and working families by an average of $1,000 each.  In addition, the House amendment would immediately cut off unemployment assistance to two million Americans struggling to find a job, end critical tax incentives for the Nation's businesses such as the Research and Experimentation tax credit, and cut reimbursements for doctors treating Medicare patients.  The deficit reduction is minimal and accomplished solely through tax increases, with no spending cuts.  This approach does not meet the test of balance.

The House amendment would extend all of the high-income tax cuts on the first $1 million of annual income.  The legislation would continue large tax cuts for the very wealthiest individuals – on average, these individuals would see a tax break of $50,000.  Under the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, 25 million working families – including tens of millions of parents of children and millions of college students, all of whom earn less than $250,000 a year – would see their taxes increase next year by an average of $1,000 each.  Additionally, two million Americans trying to find jobs would lose their emergency unemployment benefits in January.  The House amendment would fail to continue critical tax incentives for business and would heighten uncertainty for families and businesses by leaving in place the threat of default on the national debt.  The deep and indiscriminate spending cuts under sequestration would be allowed to take effect in January, undermining national security and devastating key national priorities like research and education.  In addition, reimbursements for doctors seeing Medicare patients would be cut by nearly one-third.

The Administration believes this moment presents an opportunity to reach a significant, balanced deal that is good for American families, the economy, and the Nation's future.  In contrast to the minimal and unbalanced deficit reduction envisioned by the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, the President has offered a balanced, reasonable proposal that achieves significant deficit reduction and reflects real compromise on revenue increases and spending cuts.  The parameters of a deal are clear, and the Administration is willing to continue to work with Republicans to reach a bipartisan solution that averts the fiscal cliff, protects the middle class, helps the economy, and puts the Nation on a fiscally sustainable path.

The Administration will not accept a deal that asks too little of the very wealthiest to increase revenue and instead shifts the burden to the middle class and seniors.  Instead of working together to find a balanced approach that can pass both Houses of the Congress, the House amendment will not protect middle class families and does  little to address the Nation's fiscal challenges as it includes no spending cuts.  The Administration believes that it can work together with the Congress to resolve remaining differences and not miss this opportunity to avert the fiscal cliff.

If the President were presented with the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 66, he would veto this legislation.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sure he would! (0+ / 0-)

    We've all seen this show before. And, for some reason it always ends the same way.

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    by reflectionsv37 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:34:05 PM PST

  •  You have the upper hand Mr. President. (0+ / 0-)

    Do not cave in!

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:35:50 PM PST

  •  It will never get to the President's desk, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, phonegery

    so no need to threaten a veto. The Senate will kill it all on its own. Plan B is appropriately named, of course, and like the "morning after" pill it is designed to deal with an uncomfortable fact of life. Boehner is, I hope, proving to his caucus that the bill can expect no viable existence outside of the Tea Party whose irresponsibility lead to this unfortunate legislative conception. See what happens when you ditch Planned Parenthood?

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:38:09 PM PST

    •  Maybe Boehner is sibconsciously praying for Cantor (0+ / 0-)

      to stage a palace coup for the Speakership. Eric does have a lean and hungry look.

      "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

      by TofG on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:58:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "A balanced approach" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phonegery

    Why wasn't there a balanced benefit during the Bush years? The rich got considerably richer, but the poor and middle class got squeezed but good. If we had all gotten more prosperous, then a "balanced" approach might make sense.

    News flash for our elected, newly-elected, and newly re-elected government officials: The wealthy just threw themselves one motherfucker of a party, pocketing considerable sums that should have gone into the Treasury, money that could have gone to everyone's benefit. Now that all the kewl kidz have decided to fill that hole in - if only a little bit - the folks in the best position to provide the fill are the folks who sucked up all that wealth.

    Screwing around with Social Security benefits, even talking about screwing around with Social Security benefits, is a game that's so cruel I question the humanity of anyone who needs it explained to him or her. Compounding the cruelty is the declamations about how unfair it is to the Holy Job Creators to subject them to "uncertainty" about their tax rate come January 1.

    Yes, the horror of overrich jerks paying an extra four cents on the dollar in taxes is so extreme that we must avoid even speaking of it. But telling someone wholly dependent on their Social Security check that they'll have to make do with less next year is just grand bargaining.

    I really need to expand my vocabulary to express just how contemptible I find this whole dumbshow, from the pronouncements of public officials to the puling of the pundits to the "now, now, just wait minute, nothing's been decided yet" faction of the Nitwit Brigade.

  •  I Don't believe that at all... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cigan

    Best I remember it was also said by same person that social security changes were "off the table".....that sure seems to be working out very well

    •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

      I will believe it if it gets to his desk and he actually does veto it.  His answers about these negotiations with Boehner at the news conference today about new gun controls were not very reassuring and I found them to use a politician term:  disingenuous.

  •  snore (0+ / 0-)

    so what about cuts to social security?  We are suppose to hyped up over opposing this shit.  Give me a break!

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:17:09 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site