Commander in Chief Reports on Libya and Iraq, Republicans and Two Democrats Vote Against Helping States Keep Teachers

Excerpts from Weekly Address:

This week, I was proud to announce that—as promised—the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of this year.

In Libya, the death of Moammar Qadhafi showed that our role in protecting the Libyan people, and helping them break free from a tyrant, was the right thing to do.

In Iraq, we’ve succeeded in our strategy to end the war. Last year, I announced the end of our combat mission in Iraq. We’ve already removed more than 100,000 troops, and Iraqi forces have taken full responsibility for the security of their own country. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, the Iraqi people have the chance to forge their own future. And now the rest of our troops will be home for the holidays.

In Libya, our brave pilots and crews helped prevent a massacre, save countless lives, and give the Libyan people the chance to prevail. Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives. Soon, our NATO mission will come to a successful end even as we continue to support the Libyan people, and people across the Arab world, who seek a democratic future.

These successes are part of a larger story. After a decade of war, we’re turning the page and moving forward, with strength and confidence. The drawdown in Iraq allowed us to refocus on Afghanistan and achieve major victories against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. As we remove the last of our troops from Iraq, we’re beginning to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

To put this in perspective, when I took office, roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in these wars. By the end of this year that number will be cut in half, and an increasing number of our troops will continue to come home.

At Home:

On 10/20/2011, the Senate split 50-50 on a vote to debate the portion of Obama's Jobs Act to help the cash-strapped states hire teachers and first responders. The Republicans would have filibustered any vote short of 60 to debate the bill.

All 47 Republicans plus Democratic senators Ben Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Pryor (Arkansas), and Independent Joseph Lieberman (Delaware) decided that an additional 0.5% tax on earned income over $1 million was too great a price for helping the states stabilize their unemployment rates by keeping teachers, firefighters and policemen on the job.

Barack Obama's Balanced Approach: Fair Share or Class Warfare?

On 09/19/2011, Barack Obama made some remarks on how the select committee should approach deficit reduction.

"If we’re going to make spending cuts -- many of which we wouldn’t make if we weren’t facing such large budget deficits -- then it's only right that we ask everyone to pay their fair share."

Obama's definition of fairness: "Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires."

Newt Gingrich was the only GOP presidential candidate to refer to Obama's "class warfare" during the 09/22/2011 debate but Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Lindsey Graham were all characterizing Obama's "fair share" as "class warfare" by then.

In an 08/15/2011 New York Times op-ed piece by the Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, "Stop Coddling the Super Rich," Warren Buffett argued that because he received much of his compensation as "carried interest," taxed at 15 percent, his overall tax rate of 17.4 percent was significantly lower than that of his employees, who averaged 36 percent.

An independent voter who isn't issued Republican or Democratic talking points for characterizing Obama's view as "class warfare" or "fair share" has to evaluate some facts, so here goes.

Chris Wallace interviewed White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe on Fox News Sunday 09/25/11.

Wallace used the following figures to question whether top earners were paying their fair share.


Fair Share?
Top 1% = 38% of Federal Income Taxes
Top 10% = 70% of Federal Income Taxes
The Tax Foundation Oct. 2010

Non-Payers
46% = No Federal Income Taxes
The Tax Policy Center July 2011

Looking at these numbers, it seems that the wealthy may be paying a higher percentage of their income to the federal government. Note that the first set of numbers, stating what the wealthiest pay, and the second set, what 46% of households don't pay, come from two different organizations. The second study would appear to be excluding FICA taxes, which Buffett argues disproportionately hit those who derive all their income from salary. Are those numbers also excluded from the first study?

Is seeking to adjust the tax code for high earners class warfare?

On the 08/16/2011 PBS Newshour story Land of the Free, Home of the Poor Paul Solmon reports some different numbers.

Distribution of Financial and Housing Wealth in the United States
Top 20%: 84%
2nd 20%: 11%
3rd 20%: 4%
4th 20%: 0.2%
Lowest 20%: 0.1%
Study by Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard

Here we get a story that deals more with "class" and class mobility. Because it deals with quintiles instead of deciles, the numbers don't directly stack up but the underlying numbers don't appear to be necessarily inconsistent.

When it comes to the fair share or class warfare of the Buffett rule, Jon Huntsman advocates cutting the 15% taxation on capital gains and dividends to zero. Mitt Romney supports cutting tax on capital gains, dividends, and interest to zero for those who earn less than $200,000. That makes him more of a "class warrior."

Rick Santorum would cut corporate taxes for manufacturers to zero. Massachusetts Democratic senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren would beg to differ with that approach.



"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did. Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

President Obama's American Jobs Act: How the Money is Spent

On Thursday, President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to introduce his “American Jobs Act.”

Rather than giving a speech stressing core principles, the plan is concrete and actionable and Obama urged its passage.



The $447 billion program breaks down like this:

Fact Sheet and Overview (scroll to bottom for larger print of table)

President Obama asked Congress to come up with additional spending cuts over the next ten years to cover the cost of the program and promised a more ambitious deficit plan to cover the cost of the jobs bill and stabilize debt in the long run on September 19.

Obama’s Economic Growth Agenda: Payroll Tax Cut, Unemployment Insurance Extension, and an Infrastructure Bank

President Barack Obama laid out three ideas for growing the economy during his August 8 address on the Standard & Poor’s credit downgrade and its impact on the markets.





“We should extend the payroll tax cut as soon as possible, so that workers have more money in their paychecks next year and businesses have more customers next year.

“We should continue to make sure that if you’re one of the millions of Americans who’s out there looking for a job, you can get the unemployment insurance that your tax dollars contributed to. That will also put money in people’s pockets and more customers in stores.”

The last time Obama got Congress to agree on these ideas, it was tied to an extension of the Bush era tax cuts on top-bracket earners.

“We should also help companies that want to repair our roads and bridges and airports, so that thousands of construction workers who’ve been without a job for the last few years can get a paycheck again. That will also help to spur economic growth.”

Obama doesn’t specifically mention an “infrastructure bank” here by name but describes the concept. Such a bank would extend targeted loans and limited loan guarantees to projects that would repay them through future revenue streams. Examples, as explained in this “New York Times” op-ed, would include toll roads and power plants.

Obama to Congressional Leaders: "Explain to Me How It is We're Going to Avoid Default"

On Friday afternoon, after the stock market closed, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and President Barack Obama issued dueling press conferences to explain that Boehner had decided to discontinue debt ceiling negotiations with the president and instead pursue a solution in Congress.



Boehner claimed that Obama had asked for $400b in revenue over ten years by increasing taxes, in addition to $800b that would be achieved through tax reform. Obama claimed that the deal had been structured to avoid raising taxes because so many Republicans had signed an anti-tax pledge (see I Pledge Allegiance to Grover Norquist). It was unclear from Obama’s press conference whether or not the deal breaking $400b would, indeed, require something other than closing loopholes but it was something that his fellow Democrats had demanded after seeing the ratio of cuts to revenues Obama and Boehner had negotiated.

Coincidentally, earlier Friday morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) held a vote to kill the “Cut, Cap and Balance” bill, passed by the House, without allowing debate.

Harry Reid said, “I think this piece of legislation is about as weak and senseless as anything that has ever come on this senate floor… perhaps some of the worst legislation in the history of this country.”

The vote was killed (51-46) along party lines with two Democrats, John Kerry and Kirsten Gillibrand, and one Republican, John McCain, not voting.

By its refusal to consider this legislation, the senate Democrats joined Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul in voting against raising the debt ceiling. Boehner did not cite the way the House’s legislation was handled as a reason for his leaving the debt ceiling talks but mentioned "partisan sniping" in answering a question.

In terms of deficit reduction, the House Republican’s line in the sand has been “no tax increases.” The Democratic line in the sand has been “no entitlement cuts without shared sacrifice.”

Later in the press conference, Obama expressed some thoughts on additional future uses of revenue. “If you’re a progressive, you should want to get our fiscal house in order because once we do it, it allows us to then have a serious conversation about the investments we need to make: like infrastructure, like rebuilding our roads and bridges, airports, like investing more in college, education, like making sure we’re focused on the kinds of research and technology that’s going to help us win the future.”

With these two press conferences, Boehner and company are faced with a new deadline. They have to come up with something to sooth the stock market by Monday morning.