Obama: Mortgaging the Living to Save the Wealth of the Dead by William Greider

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/26-0

At the start of his second term, events pushed President Obama to choose between the living and the dead. He chose dead millionaires over elderly people living on Social Security. The wealthy were given a most generous reduction in the estate taxes to be collected when they die. Social Security beneficiaries were told to live with smaller benefit checks. Instead of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, Obama went the other way.

I asked Robert McIntyre, the celebrated reformer at Citizens for Tax Justice, what he makes of this odd presidential twist. “The Obama administration has mixed feelings about old people,” McIntyre dryly observed. “Old people on Social Security deserve smaller benefits. Old people who own estates worth tens of millions deserve smaller tax bills for their children.”

How could this have happened with a Democratic president in the White House? In early January, under pressure to make a “fiscal cliff” deal with Republicans, the president signed a new estate tax law that delivered a gorgeous windfall for those with accumulated wealth—or, rather, for their children or others who inherit the family fortunes. All rich people are now entitled to an estate-tax exemption of $5 million. That is seven times larger than the exemption that existed in the last years of the Clinton administration ($670,000) and more than double George W. Bush’s ($2 million).

Furthermore, because this new estate-tax exemption is indexed to protect against inflation, the exemption will keep growing bigger year after year. For 2012, the exemption rose by $120,000 and another $130,000 for 2013. That’s an annual inflation-driven increase of about 2.5 percent, though Social Security recipients received an increase of only 1.7 percent at the same time.

[forestpath]

1. K&R. This is just obscene.

[donnasgirl]

14. It's called

The golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules and the person and people who we elected have turned their back on us peons.

[Downwinder]

2. To be expected of someone running with the Pritzkers.

[madrchsod]

7. did`t know anyone else noticed the pritzker connection...

is it any wonder why card check was never mentioned as soon as he became president. anti-union penny.

[michigandem58]

3. Replace "Obama" with "GOP" and it's right on

As written, it's deliberately misleading.

[mopinko]

10. +1,000,000

thank you.

[rhett o rick]

18. I agree. We all should recognize that Pres Obama isnt in charge but the GOP is.

The buck doesnt stop with the president. He is helpless against the GOP.

[michigandem58]

21. Weasel words

Obama is in charge? He's the leader of the country, but he isn't a dictator. Implying he somehow favors things simply because they were part of a compromise is disingenuous, at best.

[rhett o rick]

22. Wait, you cant have it both ways. Either Pres Obama is in charge and getting what he wants

or he is being manipulated by the so-called hapless GOP. You say he is the leader of the country. I say he cant even lead his own party.

[Skittles]

25. I would say you are both correct

[michigandem58]

30. And you aren't this obtuse

It's obvious you're smart enough to understand a little nuance. Being the leader of the country doesn't mean you get everything you want. Those are called dictatorships. This is a democracy, and every President we've had compromised at some point. You understand that, so stop.

[rhett o rick]

31. How was what was discussed in the OP a compromise? How is giving the rich more money and taking

it away from the poor a compromise? He is "compromising" us to death. Every compromise the 99% gets less and less. At some point we need to draw the line and tell the 1%, NO MORE.

And I think you are smart enough to recognize that he is a long way from being a dictator.

[BethanyQuartz]

4. Private Money in Politics

This is what happens when private money determines who gets elected. All choices are illusion, the rich can and will ensure that government only promotes their interests. Short term interests, at that. They aren't even concerned with what will happen to their children and grandchildren in a world where resources are stripped and spoiled and wasted and the vast majority of humanity gets fed up with living in poverty and really learns how to fight back.

[byeya]

6. It wasn't too long ago that there was public financing of presidential elections if the

candidate[s] so chose. The two-headed $$$ party stopped even this try at clean government.

[BethanyQuartz]

9. It shouldn't be a choice

Private money has no place in politics. This country was founded on the rich ruling while the poor were pacified with a pretense of democracy. It's past time to change that.

[byeya]

12. Agree 100% with you on that!

[BrotherIvan]

20. I know I'm gonna get jumped on for this

But McGramps tried to get Obama to take public financing for 2008 and he reneged on that promise. Many will scream it's because Grumpy couldn't fundraise and so he wanted Obama to handicap himself. But a larger argument is that the prevailing wisdom was any D was going to win, so why not go a long way to clean up the system?

[BeyondGeography]

5. The only bogus point here is the $400 billion figure

Maybe a dictator could have have gotten the exemption down from $2 million to $670K; that was never going to happen. But raising it to $5 million is a true financial and political blunder. By lowering the number of people hit by the tax to under 4,000, it will be easier for them to organize and wipe out the tax altogether.

[ProSense]

8. This is bogus

How could this have happened with a Democratic president in the White House? In early January, under pressure to make a “fiscal cliff” deal with Republicans, the president signed a new estate tax law that delivered a gorgeous windfall for those with accumulated wealth—or, rather, for their children or others who inherit the family fortunes. All rich people are now entitled to an estate-tax exemption of $5 million. That is seven times larger than the exemption that existed in the last years of the Clinton administration ($670,000) and more than double George W. Bush’s ($2 million).

Furthermore, because this new estate-tax exemption is indexed to protect against inflation, the exemption will keep growing bigger year after year. For 2012, the exemption rose by $120,000 and another $130,000 for 2013. That’s an annual inflation-driven increase of about 2.5 percent, though Social Security recipients received an increase of only 1.7 percent at the same time.

The problem with the estate tax is actually with some Democrats in the Senate. The President has proposed reducing the exemption in every budget or deficit proposal.

Update: I should mention that on one issue, the estate tax, the problem is apparently with the Senate; there are, unfortunately, some heartland Dem Senators who are extremely solicitous of the handful of super-wealthy families in their states, so that Obama’s people don’t think they can get a majority for higher taxes here. It’s bizarre: states like New Jersey have far more large estates, not just total but per capita, than states like Montana, but it’s the Senators from the latter that are eager to preserve the inherited privileges of the few.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/conceder-in-chief-2/

WTF: Senate votes to "repeal or reduce the estate tax"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022554062

He is still trying to reduce the exemption and tax everything above that a 45 percent.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043

[JDPriestly]

27. Obama needs to learn to spell one word: VETO. It's only four letters.

Surely he can manage it.

[denverbill]

11. Does the indexing of the estate tax use chained-CPI?

[L0oniX]

13. This ^^^^^^^^^^^

Is there a Democrat in the White House?

[Progressive dog]

15. Taxes would go to CCPI under the President's budget nt

[woo me with science]

16. K&R

[kentuck]

17. Mustn't criticize...

Biting my tongue...

[Skittles]

24. oh dear

I........lost it but I put my rose-colored glasses on so I can see what you see, kentuck

[woo me with science]

19. kick

[Bonobo]

23. If you did not have 90,000 posts, I have no doubt

that some here would accuse you of being an "operative" a "regressive cynic" or a mere "Obama basher".

Some also would say you are not a Progressive because you are not being "incremental" enough.

Me? I salute you and your determination to hold onto your sense of what is right and not be pulled along by the flow like so many other self-fulfilling prophets.

[JDPriestly]

26. Obama = sold out!

Betrayer.

[hfojvt]

28. I don't see how that is possible

Why, Obama himself said that

1. The fiscal cliff deal was a VICTORY for the "middle class"

and that

2. the fiscal cliff deal RAISES the estate tax

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/01/fact-sheet-tax-agreement-victory-middle-class-families-and-economy

Obama could not possible have lied to us, could he? Certainly he would not call it an increase if the estate tax was automatically going to go up to 55% with a $1 million exemption and negotiate a lower rate and call than an increase? Would he lie to us? I mean, certainly Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell would have called him out on a lie like that? What about Big Ed Schultz? I remember something about how he attacked Obama for the fiscal cliff deal, or something http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022107974#post23

[Rstrstx]

29. Technically it may be right

I believe there was no estate tax for a year or two so anything would theoretically be an increase. And you know $5,000,000 just doesn't go as far as it used to

[hfojvt]

32. of course it is technically accurate

the best lies always are.

And I hear you about five million. Why I went shopping the other day and barely got two bags of groceries with my five million dollars.

[Yo_Mama]

33. I'm glad someone's noticing

Our current policies, and this goes both for Democrats and Republicans, are rather elitist. `

I don't know what we're going to have to do to change this, but if we don't, we will pay a high societal price.