Bush Tax Cuts

How much have the Bush tax cuts cost us since they were implemented in 2001? And now Congress is toying with the idea of slashing Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and the Defense Budget all so that the super rich can continue not paying their fair share.

Check it:

And yes, that starting number is a trillion. Over a trillion dollars. And republicans want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent? No. HELL NO.

Look, Peter Kinder tweeted something dumb.

As you can see in the chart pasted here from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, our unfinanced wars are a major cause of our current deficits. And unless Kinder and his pal Fred Barnes want to talk about the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as "spending," it's doubly hard to see how "the cause is spending at levels never before seen in peacetime."

Check out Kit Bond's argument in this Missourinet story about ending the Bush tax cuts for household income above $250,000 a year. 

President Obama is asking Congress to let tax cuts put in place by the Bush administration expire, but only for those making $200,000 dollars or more or couples earning $250,000 or more.

Bond says the cuts need to stay in place across the board...

Bond says four democrats and one independent voted against the measure on the Senate floor. The White House says 3 percent of Americans would be impacted...Bond says it’s closer to 25 percent.

Reasonable people disagree about the wisdom of allowing the tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest families.  Is now the right time?  How long should they be extended before addressing the deficits they are causing and will cause?  But the idea that 25% of Americans make $200k on a year (or $250k as a family) is crazy. 

Sadly, Missourinet doesn't provide any information to listeners or readers to help sort through the huge discrepancy between the White House and Bond talking points. In fact, it's entirely possible (likely, even) that the Missourinet story misrepresents a carefully crafted GOP talking point about the number of people who are "impacted" by a potential tax increase on the very wealthy.  The White House is talking about the people actually impacted.  And Bond may be talking about people once- or twice-removed from the wealthy taxpayers who would actually see their tax rates return to previous levels.   Or maybe Kit Bond is really off the rails here....

CNNMoney took a look at this dispute last week:

How many small business owners would President Obama's plan affect?

Obama wants to raise income tax rates on individuals making more than $200,000 and joint filers making $250,000 and up. That would affect 3% of all taxpayers who report business profits (known as "net positive business income") on their individual tax returns, according to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax gurus on Capitol Hill.

All told, we're talking about approximately 750,000 individuals.

How much small business income does that small minority generate?

Next year, an estimated 50% of all business income reported on individual returns will be generated by that small minority of taxpayers who file at the top two rates, the JCT estimates.

That comes out to nearly $500 billion. (The Bush tax cuts: What you need to know.)

A new ad from the Roy Blunt for Senate campaign claims that Robin Carnahan supports "the largest income tax increase in history."

This is obviously false.  Not only does it misstate Carnahan's position on the Bush tax cuts, it completely mischaracterizes Barack Obama's proposal for extending the tax cuts.  Indeed, Politifact.com looked at this same claim when Sarah Palin made it a few weeks ago, and rated it "Pants on Fire!"

[Letting all the tax cuts expire isn't the plan the Democrats are proposing..

Palin said, "Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history." She was asked about tax cuts for the top 2 percent. Either Palin is confused about the revenue numbers involved with extending the tax cuts, or she's willfully distorting the Democratic plans. We'll let you be the judge of that. Regardless, Wallace was very specific about asking her about tax increases for the top 2 percent. And that does not represent the largest tax increase in history. The unlikely outcome that she seems to be talking about -- that all of the Bush tax cuts will be repealed -- wouldn't be the largest tax increase in history either. Palin read the number on her hand correctly, but that's about all she got right. So we rate her statement Pants on Fire.

Republicans are still saying that Democrats want to enact "the largest tax increase in American history."  Politifact looked at this claim and rated it "Pants on Fire."