Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Obama's tax cut deal. Transcript



Office of the Press Secretary


For Immediate Release December 6, 2010



Room 430

Eisenhower Executive Office Building

6:32 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Sorry to keep you waiting.

For the past few weeks there's been a lot of talk around Washington about taxes and there's been a lot of political positioning between the two parties. But around kitchen tables, Americans are asking just one question: Are we going to allow their taxes to go up on January 1st, or will we meet our responsibilities to resolve our differences and do what's necessary to speed up the recovery and get people back to work?

Now, there's no doubt that the differences between the parties are real and they are profound. Ever since I started running for this office I've said that we should only extend the tax cuts for the middle class. These are the Americans who've taken the biggest hit not only from this recession but from nearly a decade of costs that have gone up while their paychecks have not. It would be a grave injustice to let taxes increase for these Americans right now. And it would deal a serious blow to our economic recovery.

Now, Republicans have a different view. They believe that we should also make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. I completely disagree with this. A permanent extension of these tax cuts would cost us $700 billion at a time when we need to start focusing on bringing down our deficit. And economists from all across the political spectrum agree that giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does very little to actually grow our economy.

This is where the debate has stood for the last couple of weeks. And what is abundantly clear to everyone in this town is that Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of the cost or impact on the deficit.

We saw that in two different votes in the Senate that were taken this weekend. And without a willingness to give on both sides, there's no reason to believe that this stalemate won't continue well into next year. This would be a chilling prospect for the American people whose taxes are currently scheduled to go up on January 1st because of arrangements that were made back in 2001 and 2003 under the Bush tax cuts.

I am not willing to let that happen. I know there's some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle, even if we can't reach a compromise. But I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession.

I'm not willing to see 2 million Americans who stand to lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month be put in a situation where they might lose their home or their car or suffer some additional economic catastrophe.

So, sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do. The American people didn't send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories. They would much rather have the comfort of knowing that when they open their first paycheck on January of 2011, it won't be smaller than it was before, all because Washington decided they preferred to have a fight and failed to act.

Make no mistake: Allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family. And that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.

At the same time, I'm not about to add $700 billion to our deficit by allowing a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And I won't allow any extension of these tax cuts for the wealthy, even a temporary one, without also extending unemployment insurance for Americans who've lost their jobs or additional tax cuts for working families and small businesses -- because if Republicans truly believe we shouldn't raise taxes on anyone while our economy is still recovering from the recession, then surely we shouldn't cut taxes for wealthy people while letting them rise on parents and students and small businesses.

As a result, we have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement. For the next two years, every American family will keep their tax cuts -- not just the Bush tax cuts, but those that have been put in place over the last couple of years that are helping parents and students and other folks manage their bills.

In exchange for a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, we will be able to protect key tax cuts for working families -- the Earned Income Tax Credit that helps families climb out of poverty; the Child Tax Credit that makes sure families don't see their taxes jump up to $1,000 for every child; and the American Opportunity Tax Credit that ensures over 8 million students and their families don't suddenly see the cost of college shooting up.

These are the tax cuts for some of the folks who've been hit hardest by this recession, and it would be simply unacceptable if their taxes went up while everybody else's stayed the same.

Now, under this agreement, unemployment insurance will also be extended for another 13 months, which will be welcome relief for 2 million Americans who are facing the prospect of having this lifeline yanked away from them right in the middle of the holiday season.

This agreement would also mean a 2 percent employee payroll tax cut for workers next year -- a tax cut that economists across the political spectrum agree is one of the most powerful things we can do to create jobs and boost economic growth.

And we will prevent -- we will provide incentives for businesses to invest and create jobs by allowing them to completely write off their investments next year. This is something identified back in September as a way to help American businesses create jobs. And thanks to this compromise, it's finally going to get done.

In exchange, the Republicans have asked for more generous treatment of the estate tax than I think is wise or warranted. But we have insisted that that will be temporary.

I have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don't like. In fact, there are things in here that I don't like -- namely the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest estates. But these tax cuts will expire in two years. And I'm confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as I engage in a conversation with the American people about the hard choices we're going to have to make to secure our future and our children's future and our grandchildren's future, it will become apparent that we cannot afford to extend those tax cuts any longer.

As for now, I believe this bipartisan plan is the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for jobs. It's the right thing to do for the middle class. It is the right thing to do for business. And it's the right thing to do for our economy. It offers us an opportunity that we need to seize.

It's not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery. It will stop middle-class taxes from going up. It will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.

Building on that momentum is what I'm focused on. It's what members of Congress should be focused on. And I'm looking forward to working with members of both parties in the coming days to see to it that we get this done before everyone leaves town for the holiday season. We cannot allow this moment to pass.

And let me just end with this. There's been a lot of debate in Washington about how this would ultimately get resolved. I just want everybody to remember over the course of the coming days, both Democrats and Republicans, that these are not abstract fights for the families that are impacted. Two million people will lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month if we don't get this resolved. Millions more of Americans will see their taxes go up at a time when they can least afford it. And my singular focus over the next year is going to be on how do we continue the momentum of the recovery, how do we make sure that we grow this economy and we create more jobs.

We cannot play politics at a time when the American people are looking for us to solve problems. And so I look forward to engaging the House and the Senate, members of both parties, as well as the media, in this debate. But I am confident that this needs to get done, and I'm confident ultimately Congress is going to do the right thing.

Thank you very much, everybody.

END 6:41 P.M. EST


if they actually worked towards bipartisan resolution it must be important to the republicanĀ­s. i hope obama vetos the bill. probably not gonna happen but it would reinstall some faith in election promises.

I voted for Obama due to his promise to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire. No nation has ever gone to war--or to two wars--and reduced taxes. Obama has shown himself to not keep his word. He has shown himself to be Bushie Squared. Why does Obama think he needs to give two years of tax breaks to the most wealthy for one year of unemployment insurance? If he really cared, it would be lighter on the former and heavier on the latter. Why has Obama acted as though he didn't have a D House and a D Senate? It seems it was mostly about the money and who made the largest campaign contributions. 'Bipartisanship' is a ruse. (Think banks.) The D House and D Senate didn't mattered.

This is still repeatable--Obama seems to (or fakes it) have battered wife syndrome--he keeps going back for more abuse--always hoping they'll love him better. It's beyond disappointment or pity. No matter who runs in 2012--I would never vote for someone who has a history of not keeping his or her word. I'd like to, but it's impossible.

There is no R or D anymore. It is only about wealth or non-wealth. The R and D thing keeps citizens passionate and off keel--on purpose. Don't let the wealthy divide and conquer the non-wealthy. Why do non-wealthy American Rs continue to vote against their own financial interests? The non-wealthy Rs rent a tuxedo hoping to be one of the gang or buddies. So sad. Whatever is promised, whatever the hope or dream--they will never be admitted into The Club--only used. They may get a pat on the back and not much more. That's sometimes enough for a puppy. Non-wealthy Rs are a lot like Obama--like the battered wife. Yet, they, unlike Obama, get no better financial or political circumstances for it.

When I see and hear Boehner say 'this is what the American people want', I think the only Americans he is referring to are 'Friends of Boehner' contributors. I am an American, yet Boehner does not speak for me--ever.

Did Bush 'compromise' when he put the tax cuts in for the most wealthy? No. Was Bush 'playing politics' whe he gave the most wealthy the tax breaks? We've had ten years of Bush tax breaks for the most wealthy. China loves the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because it gave them more of America on a silver platter. Also, less help from the federal government is forcing states and cities to sell important holdings to the highest bidders while we continue to build up other nations. Hope Obama enjoys his tax break. He'll continue to gain by his own signaiture. The Ameriacan situation as a whole, and our kids' future will suffer. ***Bernie Sanders is looking very good.***

The Rs fake it when they say they want a fiscally responsible government. They allow lack, or loss in gov't coffers, by pushing for tax cuts for the wealthy and by appearing to bribe for their continued tax cuts by allowing the ongoing outflow of unemployment insurance. They want us to believe two negatives make a right fiscal domestic policy. Politicians need to let citizens run their homes like that, then have nothing left to pay their IRS bill.

Red means deficit--'in the red.' Red states seem to elect people who want to keep the nation 'in the red.' Or, they elect the foils for all the wealthy or bought lawmakers--R and D alike. Red alert. Wealthy Ds may wince--but their winces seem to have quick winks associated. Let's see how all our wealthy Ds--or Ds with particular donors-- vote on this illogical gift to themselves.

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets


Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Lynn Sweet published on December 6, 2010 8:20 PM.

Kirk to join Durbin to continue Illinois coffee tradition was the previous entry in this blog.

President Obama official schedule and guidance, Dec. 7, 2010. is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.