Eliminating Bush Tax Cuts Would Barely Cover October Deficit

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


You’re going to hear a whole lot of noise about how we need to pass tax hikes on the rich and end the Bush middle class tax cuts.

Fine, let’s see what that gets us. The Obama tax hikes would add 42 billion dollars in revenue. Ending the Bush middle class tax cuts would bring in 179 billion dollars.

Meanwhile the deficit for October alone is 120 billion. We would have to find three times as many rich people for the Obama tax hikes to even cover a monthly deficit. And ending the Bush middle class tax cuts, would cover one month’s deficit. And next month we’re back in the hole.

While Obama and his greedy cronies bay about more revenue, there’s no way for him to tax his way out of his spending disaster. There just isn’t enough money to cover annual trillion dollar deficits.

  • Mary Sue

    how much do you bet it actually ends up costing money in the long run to let the cuts expire?

  • Mike in VA

    The Wall Street Journal reports that Madame Barack Defarge's neo-Jacobin class warfare tax distraction will raise $82 billion per year in revenue from the eeeeeeevil rich who "aren't paying as much as they should". That won't even cover 1/3 of the annual cost of ObamaCare, much less put a dent in the trillion dollar deficits Obama is running.

    Here's an idea on how to put an end to this problem: Don't raise the debt ceiling. Let Obama and the Democrats do what millions of households and businesses do on a daily basis – live within your means, operate on budget.

    The American people have to stop accepting the excuses that Obama & Co. keep making for failing to do what ordinary Americans do day in and day out.

  • guest

    Shouldn't it read 'bray' not 'bay'?

    • Mary Sue

      in this context either works. But since donkeys bray…would be a touch more appropriate, yes.

  • PeteG2

    I say take Mr. Boehner at his word. Cut tax rates and eliminate deductions – all of them.

    Cut the federal income tax rate to 20% for everyone and eliminate all deductions. Except: the part of income households need to get by is taxed at a lower rate of 3%: 1) for every household, that income less than realistic living wage (eg 30,000 for a family of 3; 2) medical expenses >6% of income; 3) contributions to modest retirement accounts. This creates a justifiable progressive income tax.

    Then replace the now largely-evaded capital gains & estate taxes with a 2% annual net-worth tax excluding the first ~$700,000 (again the price of assets we need to lead a decent life: the price of a home & retirement accounts).

    Then states and towns replace their regressive sales and property taxes with a surcharge on the Federal Income and Net-worth Tax.

    That’s the Fair Share Taxes Reform (google it), a plan developed by 2 years of on-line suggestions & critiques by hundreds of Americans. http://fairsharetaxes.org
    It would cut the total taxes paid by the working poor & middle class by thousands each year, eliminate the favored tax treatment of wealthy investors, have the ultra-wealthy (like Mr. Romney) pay their fair share, reduce the wealth concentration that leads to recessions & plutocracy, increase gov’t revenue to where it was under Clinton (% of GDP).

    Oh, and with 2 for 1 spending cuts, create surpluses that would pay off our national debt in 25 years. The economy would grow sustainably to the benefit of poor and rich alike. See details, spreadsheets, and much more at http://fairsharetaxes.org

  • pbob

    Just legalize marijuana at a federal level and tax the h**l out of it like booze. End of deficit and puts farmers back above water with a lucrative cash crop. Might cause all the "haters" and doomsdayers to mellow out. We would need to get Twinkies back in production fast though.