Obama's $1.5 Trillion Election Ploy

Check the editorial at IBD.

Obama's hoping to make the Republicans look obstructionist. And Professor Caroline Heldman's down with that. Indeed, she's even sold on the (voodoo) economics of it all, saying she's convinced the administration's jobs act will --- wait for it! --- actually create 1.9 million jobs.

Right.

Obama Calls for $1.5 Trillion in New Taxes

On the "wealthy," of course.

At Washington Post, "Obama sharpens contrast with GOP, issues forceful call for new tax revenue."

President Obama made a defiant call on Monday for $1.5 trillion in new taxes as part of a plan to find $3.2 trillion in budget savings over the next decade, issuing his most detailed proposal yet to tame the soaring federal debt.

Abandoning earlier compromises, Obama adopted a posture that cedes far less ground in cutting the nation’s social safety net and demands much more in terms of new levies on millionaires, other wealthy Americans and some industries.

The proposal drew an angry response from key Republicans, underscoring the considerable opposition to his plan on Capitol Hill as a special bipartisan committee on deficit reduction ramps up its work in coming weeks.

Also at Chicago Sun-Times, "Tax the rich, Obama says; class warfare, says GOP."

Progressives are all energized about how Obama is supposedly throwing the "class warfare" attack back in the GOP's face. But all day I've been reading post after post from progressives just mercilessly demonizing the so-called corporate rich. Think Progress is seriously on the warpath, for example, "While Lobbying For Huge Tax Giveaways, Corporations Hoard Record Amounts of Cash Instead of Hiring," and "Multi-Millionaire Rep. Says He Can’t Afford a Tax Hike Because He Only Has $400K a Year After Feeding Family."

These are Marxist attacks, in essence. High earners or the wealthy don't deserve to keep their money. Repeatedly we hear Democrats speaking in terms of "shared sacrifice" and "fairness," but such appeals, nice sounding at first, are cancelled out by vicious attacks on those who aren't poor or unemployed. It's ridiculous. Indeed, it's un-American.

RELATED: "Anti-American Graffiti: Marxist Scribblings Sighted in Suburban Orange County."

The Buffett Tax

At Wall Street Journal, "The Buffett Alternative Tax."

And a great Gerry Willis interview with House Speaker John Boehner:

Speaker John Boehner Speech at the Economic Club of Washington

At New York Times, "Boehner, in Washington Speech, Reaffirms No-Tax-Increase Position."

Wall Street Journal Not Thrilled With Romney's Jobs Plan

See, "Mitt Romney's 59 Economic Flavors." After the praise, some criticism:

On taxes, Mr. Romney would immediately cut the top corporate income-tax rate to 25% from 35%. His advisers say there's already a bipartisan consensus that the U.S. rate hurts American companies, and they're right. Even Mr. Obama agrees.

But on other taxes, Mr. Romney shrinks from a fight. He says he favors tax reform with lower individual tax rates but only "in the long run." His advisers say that means in the first two years of his Presidency, but then why not sketch out more details?

The answer may lie in his proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax—but only for those who earn less than $200,000 a year. This eviscerates most of the tax cut's economic impact and also suggests that he's afraid of Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric. He even picked Mr. Obama's trademark income threshold for the capital gains cut-off.

If Mr. Romney thinks this will let him dodge a class warfare debate, he's fooling himself. Democrats will hit him anyway for opposing Mr. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on higher incomes, dividends and capital gains in 2013. Perhaps Mr. Romney feels that his wealth and background make him especially vulnerable to the class charge, but if he won't openly make the economic case for lower tax rates he'll never get Congress to go along.

On spending, Mr. Romney joins the GOP's "cut, cap and balance" parade, setting a cap on spending over time at 20% of GDP. What Mr. Romney doesn't do is provide even a general map for how to get there, beyond cutting spending on nonsecurity domestic programs by 5% upon taking office.

That does sound a bit timid.

RTWT.